Main-Gauche Fighting Style

[thoroughlyS]

I have seen a lot of fixes for two-weapon fighting on the 5E board, and every so-often a poster will mention that you can't natively use two-weapon fighting with a rapier and dagger combo. "That's the most historically prevalent style!", they'll claim. But in doing so, they miss why it was so prevalent. When a duelist used that combination, they weren't attacking with the dagger like you would in 5E—they were using it for parrying. To better capture that strategy I came up with a new Fighting Style, available to fighters and swords bards.

Main-Gauche
While you are wielding a one-handed melee weapon and a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus to AC. Additionally, if a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to give advantage on the next attack roll against that creature before the end of your next turn.

[Damon_Tor]

I like it well enough, but I'll note it would stack with the AC from the dual wielder feat for +2 to AC without a shield.

[nickl_2000]

I like it well enough, but I'll note it would stack with the AC from the dual wielder feat for +2 to AC without a shield.

I don't see that as that bad really. The defensive fighting style stacks with the dual wielder feat to give +2 AC without a shield already.

I feel it's a little bit more powerful than defensive, but it still should be fine in play.

[thoroughlyS]

The main drawback versus the Defense Fighting Style is that this locks you into one-handed melee weapons, meaning no Crossbow Expert/Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. You can still use Polearm Master, but I think that's a problem with the feat allowing the bonus attack one-handed.

[nickl_2000]

The main drawback versus the Defensive Fighting Style is that it locks you into one-handed melee weapons, meaning no Crossbow Expert/Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter. You can still use Polearm Master, but I think that's a problem with the feat allowing the bonus attack one-handed.

I think you are confusing fighting styles. Defensive is this

"Defense
While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC."

There is nothing there that locks you into a one handed melee weapon. Seems like you are thinking of dueling instead.

[thoroughlyS]

I'm saying the main drawback of the Main-Gauche Fighting Style versus the Defense Fighting Style is that the Main-Gauche Fighting Style locks you into one-handed weapons. That is why it gives more bonuses than the Defense Fighting Style.

[nickl_2000]

I'm saying the main drawback of the Main-Gauche Fighting Style versus the Defense Fighting Style is that the Main-Gauche Fighting Style locks you into one-handed weapons. That is why it gives more bonuses than the Defense Fighting Style.

My apologies, I misread. I agree that this should give more than the defense fighting style. Being limited to a weapon and dagger and not having a free hand for grappling, object interaction, or spell casting nerf it somewhat.

[Martin Greywolf]

But in doing so, they miss why it was so prevalent. When a duelist used that combination, they weren't attacking with the dagger like you would in 5E—they were using it for parrying.

Were they?

https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/9/9b/La_Scherma_%28Alfieri%29_32.jpg/800px-La_Scherma_%28Alfieri%29_32.jpg

https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Giganti_40.png/800px-Giganti_40.png

https://wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/8/82/Capo_Ferro_41.png/800px-Capo_Ferro_41.png

I'm no physician, but that doesn't seem much like parrying to me.

So, let's get to why off hand dagger was used, and to do that, we must look at context and competition.

For context, rapiers were for the most part civilian duelling weapons, not military ones - especially rapiers in treatises. You are wearing them in your daily life, no armor is involved and you need to carry them around while you're about your business. THe most important consequence of this is that you don't really need to worry about ranged weapons all that much, maybe someone will throw something (throws can be parried with swords), but it's not likely you will see something like a crossbow in your average renaissance street rapier brawl.

For competition, large shields are very inconvenient to carry. Smaller shields, like targe, are still a bit bulky, and there is no reason to pick them over the buckler, since there are no ranged weapons to worry about. Bucklers are the real competition to off hand daggers - small, easy to carry, good for defense.

So the real question is, why would you pick a main gauche over a buckler? Well, because it's a dagger, it can stab a guy. And there's the irony, the attribute you say wasn't used is the main reason why it was used in the first place.

First off, you need a dagger no matter whether you have a buckler or not, it's practical and at this point also a mark of being a martially minded sort of gentleman, so by picking off hand dagger, you are saving weight twofold - dagger is slightly lighter than a buckler and you'd need a dagger anyway. In all situations where you wouldn't use your rapier in lieu of the dagger (you put rapier away, cramped room brawl), you can use main gauche.

The reason why we don't see off hand daggers earlier is that they are absolutely terrible at blocking cuts - you can do it, but it's not fun and it's a pretty nerve-wracking thing to have to do. But those civilian rapiers are not that good at cutting anyway and are mostly used in thrusts, so that weakness of the dagger isn't a problem once they are the predominant weapon around.

Once you start to use dagger and rapier together, there are two general ways of using them in the initial stages of the fight:

- continue to use rapier as if you had no dagger, the dagger is last line of defence if rapier fails

- use dagger to parry to make single-tempo counters less technically demanding

The second kind of using it is probably what + to AC people have in mind, but it's the riskier approach, since you wait for the incoming thrust and loose range. Intercepting the thrust is easier when you have the length of your arm plus rapier to do it in, rather than just dagger.

Regardless of those, if you have a dagger, you are in a position where you can, upon binding your enemy's sword, continue to bind with the rapier and close in and stab with the dagger, something you couldn't really do with any other off hand tool - well, other than a second rapier, but that's its own topic. This threat of being able to close and attack where your opponent is unable to is a pretty potent one, and will force your opponent to get a dagger of his own to deter any overly enthusiastic closings on your part.

Problem is, these are all things that DnD doesn't really model in its fighting rules, reach only starts to matter if you get to spears.

So, to keep the main gauche in the spirit of its use...

If you are using a one handed melee weapon and a dagger, you gain +1 to AC against piercing melee weapons. If your opponent's melee attack misses, you can use your reaction to damage him with your off hand dagger as if you landed an attack. (optionall, forbid this attack from criting) (optional, you only get AC against piercing melee weapons that are not reach weapons)

That's probably the best you can do without going into too many specifics.

[thoroughlyS]

But in doing so, they miss why it was so prevalent. When a duelist used that combination, they weren't attacking with the dagger like you would in 5E—they were using it for parrying.
Were they?

...

Once you start to use dagger and rapier together, there are two general ways of using them in the initial stages of the fight:

- continue to use rapier as if you had no dagger, the dagger is last line of defence if rapier fails

- use dagger to parry to make single-tempo counters less technically demanding
According to this reliable source I have, it was one of the two general ways people used the dagger, yes.


If you are using a one handed melee weapon and a dagger, you gain +1 to AC against piercing melee weapons. If your opponent's melee attack misses, you can use your reaction to damage him with your off hand dagger as if you landed an attack. (optionall, forbid this attack from criting) (optional, you only get AC against piercing melee weapons that are not reach weapons)
I had considered doing something similar to this at first (although I allowed the AC bonus against all options. This is D&D, after all—realism isn't exactly the goal of the design.) I opted for the advantage route, to keep play at the table streamlined.

[Damon_Tor]

WRegardless of those, if you have a dagger, you are in a position where you can, upon binding your enemy's sword, continue to bind with the rapier and close in and stab with the dagger, something you couldn't really do with any other off hand tool - well, other than a second rapier, but that's its own topic. This threat of being able to close and attack where your opponent is unable to is a pretty potent one, and will force your opponent to get a dagger of his own to deter any overly enthusiastic closings on your part.

This is important in understanding why an offhand dagger was used instead of, say, another offhand rapier. In real life a weapon like a rapier is much less effective when someone gets INSIDE your reach, which is why you need a dagger for when someone gets in close. D&D 5e doesn't model that: instead you simply can't enter an enemy's space at all barring a major size difference.

If we wanted to make daggers more useful and model their historical function, we would give them reach of <5, give most weapons disadvantage when attacking inside their reach, and allow creatures to enter an enemy's space regardless of the size (though perhaps this should trigger an AoO). This way a dagger would allow you to enter an enemy's space and attack them from up close while they have to either attack you with disadvantage with their more typical weapon, back away (triggering an AoO from you, as they are leaving the reach of your dagger) or draw a dagger of their own.

[Zhorn]

I've been thinking about Main-Gauche style combat recently, and since the recent TWF thread and my response (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?628106-Another-quot-let-s-fix-Two-Weapon-Fighting-quot-thread/page2&p=24962372#post24962372), I'm thinking I might incorporate a "Close-Quarters Combatant" feat for this; allowing for a Bonus Action dagger attack, and
a retaliation dagger attack as a Reaction when attacked in melee range (triggered as someone moves into your space when attacking, as thematically described above in this thread).
This is specifically built around the idea of already moving TWF off the Bonus Action as described in that linked thread.

[GeoffWatson]

I wouldn't give daggers much advantage over other weapons at <5'. Even two-handed-sword fighters learnt techniques to use that close. I guess a pikeman would be in trouble though.

[Zombimode]

If we wanted to make daggers more useful and model their historical function, we would give them reach of <5, give most weapons disadvantage when attacking inside their reach, and allow creatures to enter an enemy's space regardless of the size (though perhaps this should trigger an AoO). This way a dagger would allow you to enter an enemy's space and attack them from up close while they have to either attack you with disadvantage with their more typical weapon, back away (triggering an AoO from you, as they are leaving the reach of your dagger) or draw a dagger of their own.

How would bite attack from most creatures and other natural weapon from small to medium creatures work under this model?

[Damon_Tor]

I wouldn't give daggers much advantage over other weapons at <5'. Even two-handed-sword fighters learnt techniques to use that close. I guess a pikeman would be in trouble though.

Well it's disadvantage, it's not like the weapon becomes unusable. And you can always make an unarmed attack instead (see below).


How would bite attack from most creatures and other natural weapon from small to medium creatures work under this model?

For the vast majority of them, giving them the same range (and thus superior utility in close-quarters) as a dagger makes the most sense. And so just as daggers would have a purpose under this system, so too would natural weapons. Unarmed strikes should behave this way too, though monks would probably be able to use them at either range.

EDIT: this applies to humanoids, and things like giants with a humanoid body plan (which would mean getting inside the reach of a giant would be a viable tactic, which makes perfect sense). Other types of creatures would have to be looked at on a case by case basis taking their anatomy into consideration. For most of them I would exempt them from any changes.

[Segev]

I'm pretty sure the reason Dual Wielder gives you +1 to AC is for this thread's precise reason.

I also never quite got why main gauche wielders didn't just strap on a buckler or other more purpose-built defensive item to make it easier to parry. I assume there was a reason, though.

[Zhorn]

I also never quite got why main gauche wielders didn't just strap on a buckler or other more purpose-built defensive item to make it easier to parry. I assume there was a reason, though.
The ability to put weapons away? Just an assumption, but when looking at the general gearing of those style of combatants compared to more heavily armed opponents, rapier+dagger seems more of the option for people wanting to be ready for combat, but not in the sense of expecting to to be in combat at any given second. As such a buckler or small shield strapped to their forearm would just be in the way most of the time.

[SandyAndy]

One of my biggest issues with D&D combat is that my expert swordsman apparently can't use his sword to defend himself. I really think that having expertise with a weapon should give you some kind of AC bonus, but the way things work now would make the PCs pretty much invincible.

[SandyAndy]

I also never quite got why main gauche wielders didn't just strap on a buckler or other more purpose-built defensive item to make it easier to parry. I assume there was a reason, though.


The ability to put weapons away? Just an assumption, but when looking at the general gearing of those style of combatants compared to more heavily armed opponents, rapier+dagger seems more of the option for people wanting to be ready for combat, but not in the sense of expecting to to be in combat at any given second. As such a buckler or small shield strapped to their forearm would just be in the way most of the time.

Highland warriors in the 1400's-1700's would actually use a broadsword and shield with a dirk in their shield hand. Pretty much exactly what you're thinking about.

[Segev]

One of my biggest issues with D&D combat is that my expert swordsman apparently can't use his sword to defend himself. I really think that having expertise with a weapon should give you some kind of AC bonus, but the way things work now would make the PCs pretty much invincible.

There are subclasses that have variations on the concept of parrying as a reaction, usually involving rolling a die as a reaction and reducing incoming damage by that amount. I think there's a Battle Master maneuver for it, and the Samurai gets it.

[rel]

One of my biggest issues with D&D combat is that my expert swordsman apparently can't use his sword to defend himself. I really think that having expertise with a weapon should give you some kind of AC bonus, but the way things work now would make the PCs pretty much invincible.

Under a dodge / parry model, armour shouldn't make you harder to hit, it should make you harder to damage.

So your AC probably ends up based on your proficiency bonus, the weapon you're wielding, what you're doing and, to a much lesser extent, your dex.
Meanwhile your armour reduces the damage you take in some way but doesn't actually change your AC.

Now all that is fine, it's definitely more realistic but there are a few issues:

1) D&D has always used armour as AC so it might not feel like D&D anymore
2) the new system will be more complicated
3) It's a *lot* of work

[GeoffWatson]

I also never quite got why main gauche wielders didn't just strap on a buckler or other more purpose-built defensive item to make it easier to parry. I assume there was a reason, though.

You could carry a rapier and dagger while doing general civilian stuff, so you can "defend yourself", but carrying a shield would be pretty bulky and look suspicious.

[thoroughlyS]

I have modified the Fighting Style to basically allow you to take the Help action as a reaction.