Quote Originally Posted by Brother12 View Post
I would take the offense over defense 4/5 times which makes me think it is more powerful in general. Thoughts?
My thought is "let's see if that math checks out."

Let's run three options. Your weapon damage is W (including everything) and:
1) Your target d20 roll is a 6

You hit 75% of the time, making your average damage per swing 0.75W
Take the new fighting style, you hit 80%, and do 0.80W per swing.

When comparing to +1 damage, just as a baseline comparison, you instead get 0.75(W+!). This requires W to be 16 for +1 to hit to be more overall effective than +1 to damage

2) Your target d20 roll is an 11

Offensive is better than +1 to damage if W is 11 or higher.

3) Your target d20 roll is a 16

Offensive is better than +1 to damage if W is 6 or higher.

Granted, "+1 to damage" isn't an option either, but it's a place to start. If you compare Offensive (all-purpose) to Dueling, Dueling doubles those W values and is the better option...IF you use one-handed weapons, of course. Just like Archery is better than Offensive for ranged weapons.

So far, no surprises, no alarm bells, and no peanut butter. It seems pretty obvious: the harder your target is to hit, the better deal +1 to hit is over +1 damage. Duh.

Think about what it takes for W to be 11. That's a 2d6 weapon in the hands of an 18Str fighter. While not unreachable, that's a moderately hefty bar to clear at 1st level.

Now let's look at the high end. An Ancient Black Dragon has an AC of 22. A 20th level fighter using a +2 weapon and belt of stone giant strength -- which I don't think is overpowered at all for a 20th level character -- and no other +hit bonuses needs to only roll an 8. It could potentially be even lower. But, assuming that weapon is a 1d8, the average damage is 12.5 and already near the 14-point crossover. Pretty much any change to the PC and it could tip either way.

At first glance, resistance doesn't seem to change that. 50% off seems to apply evenly.

Offensive would be stronger in situations where PCs find heavily-armored foes often, but from the MM I've read, that really doesn't seem to be a common problem, and less and less so as you advance. I'll be honest, I can't think of a reason this would be a mandatory, or stupid, move. Which, in turn, means go for it.