Class-Specific Fighting Styles

[SLOTHRPG95]

Would it unbalance anything if you allowed Paladins and Rangers the same access to fighting styles that Fighters have? As far as I can figure, Paladins not getting Archery or TWF and Rangers not getting GWF or Protection is more about enforcing thematic elements of the class than it is about balance. I'm not adverse to that in theory, but it bothers me that in 5e, Minsc (from Baldur's Gate/BGII) couldn't get the most out of his iconic two-handed sword, nor could Miko Miyazaki w/ two swords. So if thematically, there's no problem w/ GWF-ing Rangers or TWF-ing Paladins, then is there any balance concern? Is there some hidden problem down the line w/ Improved Divine Smite for Paladins using TWF?

[Unoriginal]

1) As you said, it's a thematic restriction, not a mechanical one. I don't think it would change much mechanically.

2) Neither Minsc nor Miko are characters build with optimization in mind, not even in their respective edition of origin. I don't see the issue with them not being able to "get the most" out of their weapon choices, in 5e (Miko in particular, as a Monk mulitclass dual-wielding).

3) I think the Tasha's will have a feat that let you select (at least) a Fighting Style.

[SLOTHRPG95]

1) As you said, it's a thematic restriction, not a mechanical one. I don't think it would change much mechanically.

2) Neither Minsc nor Miko are characters build with optimization in mind, not even in their respective edition of origin. I don't see the issue with them not being able to "get the most" out of their weapon choices, in 5e (Miko in particular, as a Monk mulitclass dual-wielding).

3) I think the Tasha's will have a feat that let you select (at least) a Fighting Style.

1) That's what I thought, but good to confirm.

2) Optimization? No. But both Minsc and Miko are specialized in fighting styles in ways unavailable to them in 5e. In the case of the former it's specifically w/ two-handed swords (b/c of how 2e mechanics treat weapons/weapon groups), and in Miko's case she's spent at least two feats on TWF-ing. Similarly, a Ranger in 5e w/ the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style wouldn't be optimized, but would be specialized in using two-handed melee weapons.

3) Putting aside that not all tables play w/ feats or w/ open access to all books, that'd require you to spend an ASI to get what you otherwise would get for free from your class at 2nd level.

[Aussiehams]

Mechanically I don't see that it would be an issue.
It would be a slight nerf to the fighter though, as it's taking away from their shtick of being the master of fighting.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Mechanically I don't see that it would be an issue.
It would be a slight nerf to the fighter though, as it's taking away from their shtick of being the master of fighting.

True, although I guess the Champion's toes would be the ones most thoroughly stepped on. Otherwise, any fighting style a given Fighter can have is available to Paladins or Rangers (and sometimes both). Only the Champion can eventually pick two and (in principle) pick an otherwise unavailable combination, like Archery + GWF.

[Eldariel]

Mechanically I don't see that it would be an issue.
It would be a slight nerf to the fighter though, as it's taking away from their shtick of being the master of fighting.

Though not much of an issue since one level dip of Fighter gives you any Fighting Style anyways.

[Klorox]

1) That's what I thought, but good to confirm.

2) Optimization? No. But both Minsc and Miko are specialized in fighting styles in ways unavailable to them in 5e. In the case of the former it's specifically w/ two-handed swords (b/c of how 2e mechanics treat weapons/weapon groups), and in Miko's case she's spent at least two feats on TWF-ing. Similarly, a Ranger in 5e w/ the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style wouldn't be optimized, but would be specialized in using two-handed melee weapons.

3) Putting aside that not all tables play w/ feats or w/ open access to all books, that'd require you to spend an ASI to get what you otherwise would get for free from your class at 2nd level.

Minsc, in 5e, would probably best fit as a barbarian anyway.

He's not a ranger, he only thinks he is. :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

Minsc, in 5e, would probably best fit as a barbarian anyway.

He's not a ranger, he only thinks he is. :smalltongue:

Nope, he's a Ranger. One of the introductory books even use him as the example for Rangers.

Guess we'll have to wait for him to show up in Baldur's Gate III to have an approximation of his build, though.

[diplomancer]

2 weapon fighting is very good for Paladins, probably better than for the other, more thematic, classes.
I don't know how to calculate HOW good it is, though, or how it compares with PAM, for instance. (Specially considering opportunity cost, magic item availability, etc.)

[Composer99]

1) That's what I thought, but good to confirm.

2) Optimization? No. But both Minsc and Miko are specialized in fighting styles in ways unavailable to them in 5e. In the case of the former it's specifically w/ two-handed swords (b/c of how 2e mechanics treat weapons/weapon groups), and in Miko's case she's spent at least two feats on TWF-ing. Similarly, a Ranger in 5e w/ the Great Weapon Fighting fighting style wouldn't be optimized, but would be specialized in using two-handed melee weapons.

3) Putting aside that not all tables play w/ feats or w/ open access to all books, that'd require you to spend an ASI to get what you otherwise would get for free from your class at 2nd level.

I don't think it breaks anything for paladins or rangers to get those fighting styles. The TWF fighting style doesn't make TWF any more attractive for paladins than it already is, and, as far as I am aware, rangers who really want to optimise for melee damage are best served going down the GWM and/or PAM feat route anyway, with or without the GWM fighting style.

[Klorox]

Nope, he's a Ranger. One of the introductory books even use him as the example for Rangers.

Guess we'll have to wait for him to show up in Baldur's Gate III to have an approximation of his build, though.

He's a ranger. A ranger that rages and never casts spells.

He even describes himself as a Rasheman berserker.

[Tanngrisnr]

He's a ranger. A ranger that rages and never casts spells.

He even describes himself as a Rasheman berserker.

I once asked Jim Zub, the guy currently writing Minsc for the D&D comic book, what were Minsc's spells and the answer is that Minsc only have "non-flashy spells" and that most, if not all the time, he doesn't even realize he's casting a spell, it is just stuff that happens.

I'm not sure how much of the D&D comics is considered canon, but the series based on Storm King's Thunder has character sheets for the cast, Minsc included, obviously.

All that said, I do believe that Minsc is better described as a (totem) barbarian.

[Unoriginal]

He's a ranger. A ranger that rages and never casts spells.

You're also describing a certain halfling in a certain comic about ordering sticks. Or perhaps about a stick giving an order.


Regardless:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91ajDjkOqCL.jpg




He even describes himself as a Rasheman berserker.

Well it's the name of his place in his culture, it doesn't mean he's necessarily a Berserker Barbarian or even a Barbarian.

That being said, I believe he'll probably be a Ranger/Barbarian multiclass. But he's still a Ranger too, and a legendary one at that.

[Klorox]

You're also describing a certain halfling in a certain comic about ordering sticks. Or perhaps about a stick giving an order.


Regardless:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91ajDjkOqCL.jpg




Well it's the name of his place in his culture, it doesn't mean he's necessarily a Berserker Barbarian or even a Barbarian.

That being said, I believe he'll probably be a Ranger/Barbarian multiclass. But he's still a Ranger too.

While I will just have to agree to disagree with this ruling, that. is. awesome.

Where did you find it?

[Unoriginal]

While I will just have to agree to disagree with this ruling, that. is. awesome.

Where did you find it?

The Warriors & Weapons: a Young Adventurer's Guide (https://www.amazon.fr/Warriors-Weapons-Young-Adventurers-Guide/dp/1984856421)book. Good series of books IMO. And I agree this page is awesome.

[cutlery]

The thing about Minsc is that he's crazy. So...

I'd actually think a STRanger in 5e who spent a feat on GWF but also dips barbarian for "reasons" would probably capture him well.

[SLOTHRPG95]

2 weapon fighting is very good for Paladins, probably better than for the other, more thematic, classes.
I don't know how to calculate HOW good it is, though, or how it compares with PAM, for instance. (Specially considering opportunity cost, magic item availability, etc.)

Compared to PAM, you're saving an ASI on a class that wants as high STR/CHA/CON ASAP, but losing out on occasional reaction attacks. Also, you're either losing two points of AC or reach (plus a couple points of damage per swing). Not sure what the final verdict would be, but anything that compares even semi-favorably to PAM on a Paladin is already pretty strong.


The thing about Minsc is that he's crazy. So...

I'd actually think a STRanger in 5e who spent a feat on GWF but also dips barbarian for "reasons" would probably capture him well.

Clearly, Boo is a Beastmaster Ranger, and Minsc is his animal companion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Clearly, Boo is a Beastmaster Ranger, and Minsc is his animal companion. Shirley, you geste? (Or was that Beau?)

[Witty Username]

Unbalance no, so feel free to go for it. I have spent some thought on Ranger with two-handed weapon, and concluded that the defensive style is probably better than two-weapon style anyway.
There are a bunch of weird thematic rules that I think would be better if removed.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Unbalance no, so feel free to go for it. I have spent some thought on Ranger with two-handed weapon, and concluded that the defensive style is probably better than two-weapon style anyway.
There are a bunch of weird thematic rules that I think would be better if removed.

I was less concerned about balance from the Ranger w/ GWF side, although they do potentially get a few abilities that grant them extra attacks per round, which makes increasing base damage more attractive. Just, not enough to make it more attractive than Dueling w/ Sword & Board, if that's your thing. Also, the STRanger is already pretty MAD if single-classed, wanting 14 Dex for AC in medium armor, 14+ Con as a dedicated frontliner, and decent Wis for skills and spells, on top of (obviously) as high a Strength as possible for actually attacking.


Shirley, you geste? (Or was that Beau?)

Don't call me Shirley.

[Amechra]

There are a bunch of weird thematic rules that I think would be better if removed.

Not to single you out, but this kind of stance vis-a-vis a class-based system is baffling to me. "Weird thematic rules" is basically the reason for classes existing in the first place - they're bundles of perks and drawbacks that let the designers create clearly-signposted archetypes. If you're playing a class-based game, you're implicitly accepting that you can't make characters that don't fit into those "buckets", with a little wiggle-room from multiclassing/feats/etc.

"Druids can't wear metal armor due to their vows" (which I'm going to guess is one of those "weird thematic rules"?) is really no weirder than, say, the fact that Druids get Call Lightning while Wizards get Lightning Bolt.

[D.U.P.A.]

The game mechanics tries to steer you going Str (and Cha) with Paladins and Dex (and Wis) with Rangers. Multiclass requirements are just the start.

Ranged weapons and two-weapon fighting is attributed to dexterity, I know that you can equally well twf with strength, but in case both are viable you generally rather choose dexterity as being superior stat. Hence Paladins do not get Archery and Two-weapon fighting.

Big two handed weapons is definitely strength based, while wielding shield to protect others can effective by both stats, is still used more with strength builds, because of additional weight, inability to switch quickly to weapon and fighting described in above paragraph and in case your shield is not equipped you can still benefit of versatile weapons. Hence Rangers do not Great weapon fighting and Protection.

Of course you can play a Paladin on Dex and Ranger on Str, this is a beauty of 5e. You may not be fully optimized them, but far from being ineffective.

Only thing bothers me, why Barbarian have no Fighting styles, considering they are a proper martial class too? Maybe the rage is too powerful?

[Aussiehams]

I think Barbarians not getting FS is another thematic choice.
The idea is that you are an untrained, rage fueled savage, not a formally trained skillful fighter. I disagree with this, but it seems to be the intent. A fighter level fixes this though, to represent some formal combat training.