Duelling Style and Shield

[LibraryOgre]

"DUELING
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon"

Does this allow for shield use? To my reading, a shield is not a weapon, so it's fine. My mind also thinks of both holmgang and swashbuckling style.

[RogueJK]

Yes, a shield is fine.

[KorvinStarmast]

"DUELING
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon"

Does this allow for shield use? To my reading, a shield is not a weapon, so it's fine. My mind also thinks of both holmgang and swashbuckling style. Yes. And that got addressed in the SA compendium
Is the Dueling fighting style intended to support a shield?
Yes. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, a spellcasting focus, or a free hand.

[LibraryOgre]

Awesome. I was lamenting the options for sword-and-board, but this helps a lot.

[Dame_Mechanus]

I had always read that as "and no other weapon or shield" in my mind, thinking of it as the equivalent of a swashbuckling style, but I'm happy to see that neither fits with rules as written or as intended. It seems a little odd to me conceptually, but hey, the rules are what they are and there's no reason to make things worse for people with shields.

[Martin Greywolf]

My mind also thinks of both holmgang and swashbuckling style.

Rules being addressed already, this is a dangerous road to go down on, because if we do...

https://i.stack.imgur.com/YTpnvl.png

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOFNFdNejLK3B7Tohq7t909kzHZ1Cu kjX6w&usqp=CAU
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tota-images/mair-longshield--764d9ac642b17141.jpg

https://daily.jstor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/trial_by_combat_2_1050x700.jpg
https://www.woodenswords.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/sickle.mair.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/eYVGnbxyrJI/maxresdefault.jpg

And those are only the ones that were frequent enough to warrant detailed manuals. Other one-off highlights include pollaxe with actual corrosive damage in 1400 AD, rapier and lantern, rifles in baloons and an actual honest-to-god boat oar.

My point is, that fighting style is very poorly named. It's RAI to give a boost to people who use weapons that aren't two handed who don't want to dual wield, so go with that logic rather than any historical precedents. If duelling is defined as fighting another person on even ground in somewhat regulated fashion potentially to the death or severe injury, then the most common duelling style throughout the middle ages by a massive margin is jousting. If we include fighting for sport as well, then the most popular by far is wrestling.

[KorvinStarmast]

If duelling is defined as fighting another person on even ground in somewhat regulated fashion potentially to the death or severe injury, then the most common duelling style throughout the middle ages by a massive margin is jousting. If we include fighting for sport as well, then the most popular by far is wrestling. Fair points, however, what would you call it if you were given the power to rename it?

[Greywander]

Fair points, however, what would you call it if you were given the power to rename it?
Sidearm Fighting?

Polearms were considered primary weapons, akin to modern rifles, while swords and such were backup weapons, like handguns. (Coincidentally, handguns have developed a similar mythos of heroism around them as swords did.) Most weapons that Dueling would apply to would be considered sidearms.

[Christew]

Fair points, however, what would you call it if you were given the power to rename it?
Using the naming conventions of the other styles:
- One-Weapon Fighting as opposed to Two-Weapon Fighting, or
- Moderate Weapon Fighting as opposed to Great Weapon Fighting

But those introduce their own possible points of confusion and are rather lacking in the poetry department.

[Saelethil]

Using the naming conventions of the other styles:
- One-Weapon Fighting as opposed to Two-Weapon Fighting, or
- Moderate Weapon Fighting as opposed to Great Weapon Fighting


These are pretty close to my first thoughts but then I saw:

Sidearm Fighting?

Polearms were considered primary weapons, akin to modern rifles, while swords and such were backup weapons, like handguns. (Coincidentally, handguns have developed a similar mythos of heroism around them as swords did.) Most weapons that Dueling would apply to would be considered sidearms.
which I think works really well.

[Sigreid]

I had always read that as "and no other weapon or shield" in my mind, thinking of it as the equivalent of a swashbuckling style, but I'm happy to see that neither fits with rules as written or as intended. It seems a little odd to me conceptually, but hey, the rules are what they are and there's no reason to make things worse for people with shields.

There are several historical dueling styles that use shields of various sizes. From ones that cover the fist to good sized ones.

[AdAstra]

Sidearm Fighting?

Polearms were considered primary weapons, akin to modern rifles, while swords and such were backup weapons, like handguns. (Coincidentally, handguns have developed a similar mythos of heroism around them as swords did.) Most weapons that Dueling would apply to would be considered sidearms.

One-handed spears would probably not pass muster as sidearms, though, and they're one of the more common choices after swords now that Polearm Master applies to them. Lances can also get the benefit of Dueling on horseback, and they're definitely not sidearms.

The existing name's not ideal, but close enough that there aren't many alternatives that aren't equally deceptive. One-handed fighting perhaps, but that's boring as hell.

I just appreciate that javelins being used for dueling (or similar sorts of combat) as they have been in history is supported.

[Doug Lampert]

Swashbuckling is NAMED for the shield used with the style.

Bucklers.

A swashbuckler is a guy who swaggers and carries a buckler. If you think of dueling as swashbuckling, and this means you think of it as no-shield, then you need to rethink.

[Tanarii]

Questions aside about if it was actually intended to work with a shield or whomever wrote the SAC just read the text and agreed with the best reading, they clearly didn't think about the two things:
1) there are now 2 S&B fighting styles
2) it makes S&B significantly superior to TWF, 2H and Protection fighting styles

If it was really intended to work with a shield from the get go, either it needed a debuff or those fighting styles needed a buff.

[LibraryOgre]

Questions aside about if it was actually intended to work with a shield or whomever wrote the SAC just read the text and agreed with the best reading, they clearly didn't think about the two things:
1) there are now 2 S&B fighting styles
2) it makes S&B significantly superior to TWF, 2H and Protection fighting styles

If it was really intended to work with a shield from the get go, either it needed a debuff or those fighting styles needed a buff.

Eh, sword and board should be better. TWF gets too much love, IMO, because it's "cooler".

[Sigreid]

Eh, sword and board should be better. TWF gets too much love, IMO, because it's "cooler"

TWF is a better deal for martials that only ever get 1 or 2 attacks than a pure fighter IMO. As your number of attacks goes up, the value of that one additional attack as a percentage of your offensive power goes down quickly.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Eh, sword and board should be better. TWF gets too much love, IMO, because it's "cooler"

sir that is my emotional support fighting style and not letting me dual-wield things at will is a violation of some part of my identity or another

Joking aside, it's never bothered me to think that maybe another fighting style might be mathematically superior to mine in a given edition of D&D. If I feel like my fighting style produces good results, feels cool, and is comprehensible, that's what matters. I'm not trying to build an optimal character but one I enjoy playing.

So sword-and-board players can have another fighting style.

As a treat.

Edit to add: I should note that when I say "optimal," I mean "within the context of the game as a mathematical construct." I might (and by "might" I mean "am definitely") be trying to build the best possible dual-wielding Bard I can make, but I'm not worried if I'd be able to deal more damage per turn playing as a Druid, for example.

[LibraryOgre]

Eh, sword and board should be better. TWF gets too much love, IMO, because it's "cooler".

Actually, let's expand on that. I am ONLY going to address "Dueling", Great Weapon, and Two-weapon; that S&B has two available styles doesn't matter as much, since most people only get 1 without multiclassing (other option is being a Champion).

Dueling adds a flat +2 to damage, with a contingent +2 to AC (must have and use a shield)
Great Weapon allows the reroll of 1s and 2s. That's a not bad buff, and could be worth 0-11 extra damage on a d12 (roll a 1, then reroll a 12), and 0-10 extra damage on 2d6 (roll two 1s, then 2 sixes). That's a LOT of bonus damage.
Two-weapon fighting is worth up to 1-5 extra damage, depending on your attributes.

So, when appropriately geared, Dueling always works. Great Weapon contingently works, for a lot bigger bonus. Two weapon works if you have an attribute above 11, and equals the damage bonus from Dueling if you have a 14 or higher in your attack attribute. So, while both GW and TWF have potentially higher damage bonuses, D allows you to also pick up a +2 to AC for using a shield.

I don't think it needs a debuff. It's not strictly better, it's not strictly worse. It has a different advantage, which is dependent on getting a certain set of gear (i.e. you must have a shield to get that advantage, as opposed to GWF, which you can manage with something as simple as a quarterstaff, and TWF, which you can swing with two clubs)

[meandean]

Two-weapon fighting has gotten worse as time goes on. New material adds new options, and it'd be silly if they were all actions, so some of them are bonus actions. If you can choose from all splat, there are a lot more ways now to use your bonus action than there were in the Player's Handbook.

[Xihirli]

Actually, let's expand on that. I am ONLY going to address "Dueling", Great Weapon, and Two-weapon; that S&B has two available styles doesn't matter as much, since most people only get 1 without multiclassing (other option is being a Champion).

Dueling adds a flat +2 to damage, with a contingent +2 to AC (must have and use a shield)
Great Weapon allows the reroll of 1s and 2s. That's a not bad buff, and could be worth 0-11 extra damage on a d12 (roll a 1, then reroll a 12), and 0-10 extra damage on 2d6 (roll two 1s, then 2 sixes). That's a LOT of bonus damage.
Two-weapon fighting is worth up to 1-5 extra damage, depending on your attributes.

So, when appropriately geared, Dueling always works. Great Weapon contingently works, for a lot bigger bonus. Two weapon works if you have an attribute above 11, and equals the damage bonus from Dueling if you have a 14 or higher in your attack attribute. So, while both GW and TWF have potentially higher damage bonuses, D allows you to also pick up a +2 to AC for using a shield.

I don't think it needs a debuff. It's not strictly better, it's not strictly worse. It has a different advantage, which is dependent on getting a certain set of gear (i.e. you must have a shield to get that advantage, as opposed to GWF, which you can manage with something as simple as a quarterstaff, and TWF, which you can swing with two clubs)

Great Weapon Fighting the fighting style is not the problem when talking about the dearth between mechanical support for two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons.

[LibraryOgre]

Great Weapon Fighting the fighting style is not the problem when talking about the dearth between mechanical support for two-handed weapons and one-handed weapons.

However, it very much is when talking about "If [Dueling] was really intended to work with a shield from the get go, either it needed a debuff or [Great Weapon Fighting and [Two-Weapon Fighting] needed a buff", which is what I was responding to.

[Eldariel]

However, it very much is when talking about "If [Dueling] was really intended to work with a shield from the get go, either it needed a debuff or [Great Weapon Fighting and [Two-Weapon Fighting] needed a buff", which is what I was responding to.

Mathematically it's quite weak though. Best case scenario is like Greatsword, where it raises your average damage from 7 to 8,333... So at best it's 1,3333... bonus damage, which is a full third less than what Dueling adds. Dueling and Two-Weapon Fighting are about in line (but Two-Weapon Fighting is plagued by the bonus action cost and no scaling with Extra Attack), Archery is a bit better with Sharpshooter, and Defense is decent for anyone (indeed, Great Weapon users should generally pick Defense).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Questions aside about if it was actually intended to work with a shield or whomever wrote the SAC just read the text and agreed with the best reading, they clearly didn't think about the two things:
1) there are now 2 S&B fighting styles
2) it makes S&B significantly superior to TWF, 2H and Protection fighting styles

If it was really intended to work with a shield from the get go, either it needed a debuff or those fighting styles needed a buff.

That... doesn't really make a lot of sense. It's not "Superior" to the other options, it's the offensive option.

Essentially if you want to use a Weapon and Shield you have three options:

Offensive: Dualing, get +2 to Damage.
Defensive: Defensive, get +1 to AC
Protective: Protector, Use reaction to force disadvantage on an attack against a nearby target.

Honestly, it's a wash. One gives some enhanced damage, but not too much. One makes you significantly harder to hit (+1 in Bounded accuracy is a significant boost), one isn't constantly active, but basically lets you give a +5 to an Ally's AC once per round.

Now take into account that Dueling isn't even a specific S&B style, but one that works with a variety of choices. Similar to how Defensive works with everything.

[Tanarii]

Actually, let's expand on that. I am ONLY going to address "Dueling", Great Weapon, and Two-weapon; that S&B has two available styles doesn't matter as much, since most people only get 1 without multiclassing (other option is being a Champion).

Dueling adds a flat +2 to damage, with a contingent +2 to AC (must have and use a shield)
Great Weapon allows the reroll of 1s and 2s. That's a not bad buff, and could be worth 0-11 extra damage on a d12 (roll a 1, then reroll a 12), and 0-10 extra damage on 2d6 (roll two 1s, then 2 sixes). That's a LOT of bonus damage.
Two-weapon fighting is worth up to 1-5 extra damage, depending on your attributes.
GWF is worth less than +1, and requires giving up 2 AC
TWF is to one attack, not 2-4 attacks, and requires giving up 2AC.
Protection isn't comparable, but is widely regarded as needing a buff to be on par with even GWF or TWF, let alone dueling.

So yes. They do need a buff. Or dueling needs a debuff.

[Doug Lampert]

GWF is worth less than +1, and requires giving up 2 AC
TWF is to one attack, not 2-4 attacks, and requires giving up 2AC.
Protection isn't comparable, but is widely regarded as needing a buff to be on par with even GWF or TWF, let alone dueling.

So yes. They do need a buff. Or dueling needs a debuff.

GWF gives you ~8.333 damage compared to ~6.5 damage for dueling. GWF, you are giving up AC to do more damage, and that's what it does.

TWF gives you an extra attack, which could easily be a sneak attack for circa 40 damage if you are a rogue or someone with a sane reason to want to two weapon fight. At levels 1-4 even for a fighter it does 3.5 extra damage to 2 extra damage for the dueling.

Sword and board is the lowest damage, highest AC style, and this is true even with dueling working with Sword and Board, something that has worked since day one of release of 5th edition and has been discussed on this board for years.

[stoutstien]

GWF gives you ~8.333 damage compared to ~6.5 damage for dueling. GWF, you are giving up AC to do more damage, and that's what it does.

TWF gives you an extra attack, which could easily be a sneak attack for circa 40 damage if you are a rogue or someone with a sane reason to want to two weapon fight. At levels 1-4 even for a fighter it does 3.5 extra damage to 2 extra damage for the dueling.

Sword and board is the lowest damage, highest AC style, and this is true even with dueling working with Sword and Board, something that has worked since day one of release of 5th edition and has been discussed on this board for years.

The simple formula for GWF is (n-1)/n where n is the size of the die. So while you do get .83333 with a d6, or 1.666 with 2d6, that is the best case for it and even that give you more damage than the flat 2 from duelist. Something like a Great axe it's only .91666 which is less than half.
Total damage is mostly irrelevant here because we are comparing equal opportunity costs.

[Eldariel]

GWF gives you ~8.333 damage compared to ~6.5 damage for dueling. GWF, you are giving up AC to do more damage, and that's what it does.

TWF gives you an extra attack, which could easily be a sneak attack for circa 40 damage if you are a rogue or someone with a sane reason to want to two weapon fight. At levels 1-4 even for a fighter it does 3.5 extra damage to 2 extra damage for the dueling.

Sword and board is the lowest damage, highest AC style, and this is true even with dueling working with Sword and Board, something that has worked since day one of release of 5th edition and has been discussed on this board for years.

The thing is, if you go great weapon style, picking Great Weapon Fighting just isn't worth it. Pick Superior Technique, Defense, Interception, Blind-Fighting, or something useful. GWF just isn't worth the Fighting Style: you do more with Greatsword than with Dueling Longsword without fighting style just the same, and the increase from Great Weapon Fighting is pretty pathetic. And if you really wanna make use of heavy weapons, you're going Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master anyways, which makes Great Weapon Fighting even worse since Glaives and Halberds and such are even worse with Great Weapon Fighting. Even best case scenario for GWF is bad and the best heavy weapons are even worse.

Simple fix would be just saying "Roll under half on your weapon damage die, reroll it". That's slightly less imbalanced and doesn't screw big die weapons like Greataxes and Halberds over that hard. Greatswords would still get a bit more (Greatsword gets flat +2) but Greataxes would at least get +1,5 and Halberds/Glaives +1,25. Autorerolling all the rolls until you get a bigger roll would be the other option. That would basically turn a Greataxe into 1d6+6 for 9,5 for +3 weapon (and Greatsword into 2x1d3+3 = 9 for +2, and Halberd into 1d5+5 = 7,5 for +2). Also imbalanced but in a slightly different way and obviously favouring 1d12 weapons.

[AdAstra]

GWF is worth less than +1, and requires giving up 2 AC
TWF is to one attack, not 2-4 attacks, and requires giving up 2AC.
Protection isn't comparable, but is widely regarded as needing a buff to be on par with even GWF or TWF, let alone dueling.

So yes. They do need a buff. Or dueling needs a debuff.

Given Archery is right there, I'd be inclined towards buffing everything else. Setting aside the reasons why it seems to end up more powerful than it probably should be (A lot of GMs not bothering with cover, including cover from other creatures, and a really good feat that benefits greatly from accuracy bonuses), it generally seems to be regarded as one of the better fighting styles while not obviously being an excessive bonus, so it feels like a good measuring stick.

[Eldariel]

Archery is ridiculous due to the combination with Sharpshooter. But the issue is more in the Sharpshooter-end. It does two things that turbocharge Archery: it completely removes cover instead of just giving bonuses against cover meaning you're just working at plain +2 to hit. And even there, without the -5/+10, the +2 from Archery isn't actually overpowered in this edition since ACs are typically fairly low and the higher the to hit number, the more valuable the bonuses. But with the -5/+10, it suddenly becomes incredible against anything: basically +4 damage or twice the value provided by Dueling.

Which is why Archery, in addition to all the other bonuses it has (being actually able to operate at range and fairly significant range at that, mostly, and shooting through any arrowslits or whatever with perfect accuracy because Sharpshooter is well designed), has the highest DPR of all fighting styles including Heavy Weapon Fighting in 5e - because of one poorly designed feat (and okay, another one in Crossbow Expert - so two poorly designed feats; Great Weapon Master is actually well-designed and even Polearm Master is almost excusable by comparison).

EDIT: Actually, the best fix is just "you may reroll any one weapon damage die" (either keep higher or keep latter, it doesn't really matter; keep higher is about +2 damage for what it matters tho). "Keep higher" could actually be written as just "Roll an extra weapon damage die [or all dice], discard the lowest" so Greatsword becomes 3d6b2 [or 4d6b2], Halberd becomes 2d10b1 and Greataxe becomes 2d12b1. Polearm Master becomes 2d4b1 which is pretty irrelevant but that's probably okay since eff that feat.

[Black Jester]

Player: Hey, I want to play something like a wandering Ronin or Samurai, but these fighting styles options all kinda suck for my character. Can I come up with one of my own?
Dungeon Master: In theory, yes. What do you have in mind?
Player: I don't know... when I can get a +2 bonus to attack with all ranged weapons, can I get something like "Swordmaster" that grants me the same bonus when fighting with a sword?
Dungeon Master: That seems quite powerful, but I'll allow it, as long as your character doesn't wield a shield or heavy armour. Is that okay for you?
Player: Yeah, that sounds fitting for the image I have in mind, a shield doesn't fit the samurai aesthetic anyway. Can I trade it my familiarity with shields to gain proficiency with calligraphy tools? I know it is a bit tacky, but I think it would fit the theme well.
Dungeon Master: Well, when your superior calligraphy skills will break the game, I will be very cross with you. So don't abuse that awesome power...

- roughly transcribed from a dialogue I had a year or so ago.

The fighting styles aren't perfect. If you - or anyone at your table - feels needlessly restricted or unhappy with them, you should change them. It is not worth it to grief over.

And yes, the ronin Swordmaster eventually grabbed a greatsword and used a lot of power attacks, partially boosted by his increased accuracy. Didn't break the game. The calligraphy skill later on had some fun impact, allowing her to woo a princess looking for a suitable match with a beautiful poem, and granted the group some access to a court intrigue they would have missed otherwise, but "fighter is good at hitting things" will hardly ever break any game where magic is as easily available and convenient to use as in D&D 5e.

[DomesticHausCat]

Some would argue that a shield is a weapon. During a 1E Pathfinder game my dm had this viewpoint. In 1E Pathfinder shields were considered both weapons and armor. Historically I'm inclined to agree with the dm. Just because it's used for defense doesn't mean it isn't a tool of war.

However within the rules of 5E shields are definitely not a weapon because they are in the armor section of the equipment.

[Doug Lampert]

The simple formula for GWF is (n-1)/n where n is the size of the die. So while you do get .83333 with a d6, or 1.666 with 2d6, that is the best case for it and even that give you more damage than the flat 2 from duelist. Something like a Great axe it's only .91666 which is less than half.
Total damage is mostly irrelevant here because we are comparing equal opportunity costs.

The opportunity cost is that you are building for one weapon type, wielding that weapon type, and using the style for that weapon type.

I see no reason at all to exclude the weapon type from considerations of the effects of sword and board with dueling vs. great weapon style with a greatsword.

[Eldariel]

The opportunity cost is that you are building for one weapon type, wielding that weapon type, and using the style for that weapon type.

I see no reason at all to exclude the weapon type from considerations of the effects of sword and board with dueling vs. great weapon style with a greatsword.

The reason is that it's fully possible to wield those weapons efficiently without a fighting style. Like a Barbarian has +2 to damage regardless of the weapon they're using as long as they're Raging. Hexblade has HB's Curse and Bladesinger has Bladetrips. Plenty of classes add to the base damage and don't get Fighting Style meaning you don't only have to compare Fighting Styles to other Fighting Styles but also classes that get flat bonuses not linked to Fighting Styles. So the comparison between e.g. Barbarian wielding Greatsword and Fighter with Great Weapon Style wielding it is absolutely relevant: because Great Weapon Style is so bad, the Fighter is probably inclined to just pick a different option since otherwise they're just a bad Barbarian. With another fighting style, they might at least offer something the Barb can't do but if they go Great Weapon Style, they might as well have gone Barbarian.

[stoutstien]

The opportunity cost is that you are building for one weapon type, wielding that weapon type, and using the style for that weapon type.

I see no reason at all to exclude the weapon type from considerations of the effects of sword and board with dueling vs. great weapon style with a greatsword.

that's actually an additional point against GWF again because duelist works with three primary archetypes with one hand weapon /shield, one hand/empty, and thrown weapons. If the one only thing GWF has going for it is a higher damage especially when it only in the context of mean. A static +2 is just bigger everywhere but with the mean that it obliterates the reroll of a limited die value with no guarantee of getting better.

[Christew]

I know we are ignoring feat interaction, but the answer to this line of reasoning is pretty clearly feat interaction, right?

[Pixel_Kitsune]

that's actually an additional point against GWF again because duelist works with three primary archetypes with one hand weapon /shield, one hand/empty, and thrown weapons. If the one only thing GWF has going for it is a higher damage especially when it only in the context of mean. A static +2 is just bigger everywhere but with the mean that it obliterates the reroll of a limited die value with no guarantee of getting better.

It might only be the mean vs the max, but it can still be impactful and becomes more impactful the smaller the dice used.

One interaction I found insane was the Valenar Double Scimitar. Rolling 2d4 or 1d4 for damage means that you have a tremendous chance of rolling close to max damage all the time. Which is more reliable and useful than being able to occasionally roll higher.

[stoutstien]

It might only be the mean vs the max, but it can still be impactful and becomes more impactful the smaller the dice used.

One interaction I found insane was the Valenar Double Scimitar. Rolling 2d4 or 1d4 for damage means that you have a tremendous chance of rolling close to max damage all the time. Which is more reliable and useful than being able to occasionally roll higher.

The DB actually falls behind the greatsword every time you make 3+ attacks in an action unless your attack modifier is maxed then it's 4+ attacks. You might get a lot of rerolls with d4s but they are still d4s. It feels better whoch is probably a better design overall but it definitely doesn't save GWF.

Note that duelist also has a higher minimum damage even with the rerolls. Actually my biggest complaint with the fighting style is it just doesn't add enough to the playing experience to make it worth the rerolls even with the math aside.

Rabbit hole tangent - the dual scimitar is almost always superior to dual wielding with the same amount of investments with the added bonus of eliminating problems with item interactions if you need a free hand temporary to cast spells or whatnot. Due to this it actually falls in the same category as other big two-handed weapons where you're fighting style investment is almost always going to have a higher return if you go for something other than great weapon.

[OvisCaedo]

Dueling working with a shield seems fine to me; I think it's just that some of the other fighting styles are very lacking. GWF style is not very good, though despite that, actually fighting with heavy weapons is fine. TWF style is... actually solid enough, I think, for tier 1 and 2 play. Not really bad in tier 3, either. The bigger issue is just all of the potential flaws and trip-ups dual wielding has baseline.

Protection fighting style is just kind of bad! There's a lot of ways it could be buffed to fulfill its fantasy better, but instead of that Wizards made Interception fighting style to largely obsolete it with a more reliable version of the "protect allies" fantasy.