Results 1 to 28 of 28
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Fighting style Design Exercise

    The lead designer has just handed out the assignments for this week, and your job is to create a shared mechanic for the Fighter, Ranger, and Paladin.

    You are to create a small non-scaling class feature, granted at level 1 or 2. This feature is meant to incentivize certain playstyles and be tied to the PCs chosen loadout. This is done to make sure the classes in question aren't overly proficient in every weapon and playstyle and is instead given a bonus for sticking to his way of fighting. You don't have a lot of design space for this since this will not be the only class feature granted at this level, so try to make it feel impactful without increasing the power of the class too much.

    Now, in this experiment, you decide how much or how little of 5e has been designed, but FEATS, MULTICLASSING and of course, the fighting styles themselves are still on the drawing board. How would you design this mechanic?

    After thinking about it all day, and coming up with a few iterations, I've finally decided on this:

    Weapon Mastery
    At 1st level, choose one of the following weapon properties: Finesse, Heavy, Light, Ranged, Reach, Special, Thrown, Two-Handed, Versatile, Improvised or ‘None’. When wielding a weapon with your chosen property, you gain a bonus to attack and damage rolls equal to half your proficiency bonus.
    I wanted to be extremely clean and simple, both to read and to remember. This excludes some more colorful utility options, but in my scenario the feats haven't been made, so I trust the feats will provide the niche utility bonus a character would want. I originally thought of each style having a "whenever you use the attack action you...." but also decided that action economy improvements was something I want to tie to feats rather than half a class feature.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Your suggestion actually seems quite good, given your stated goals. The only thing it's missing is an equivalent for those wanting to focus on defense. Maybe choose one of AC, Attack or Damage rolls (when using a weapon as you describe), then grant a second (or even all three) at later levels?
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Kane0 View Post
    Your suggestion actually seems quite good, given your stated goals. The only thing it's missing is an equivalent for those wanting to focus on defense. Maybe choose one of AC, Attack or Damage rolls (when using a weapon as you describe), then grant a second (or even all three) at later levels?
    I'll present this as on option in my houserule doc, but after Frozen explained fighting styles to me I think they are pretty dope as they are written (although I'm still bummed TWFS doesn't synergize with action surge). I will however add the appropriate flavor text to each style, which I feel is missing from the PHB.

    In 4e the rule of thumb was that +1 attack was the equivalent of +2 damage, is this still true with bounded accuracy? If so, granting either 1 attack or 1 damage seems kinda moot.
    For my houserules I have a player choose either a fighting style, Armor Mastery or Weapon Mastery. Weapon mastery works as posted, and Armor Mastery grants half prof bonus to AC, which works fine at my table, since plate is pretty hard to come by.

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Would Armor Mastery work like Unarmored Defense?

    So that in games with Plate being more available, the PC doesn't get 18 +2 shield +1 Defense style +3 Armor Mastery = AC 23 without magic, at 8th level. (4th for V-Human, assuming they found Plate and dropped about 75% of their Treasure on buying it)

    If works like UD:
    10 + Dex (5) + 3 AM +2 shield +1 DS = 20 max.

    Which is below the Fighter with Plate, shield and Defense style.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    In 4e the rule of thumb was that +1 attack was the equivalent of +2 damage, is this still true with bounded accuracy? If so, granting either 1 attack or 1 damage seems kinda moot.
    You'd have to get a spreadsheet junkie to run the numbers but i'd wager it isn't static. If you asked me to eyeball it i'd say +1 to hit is worth about 1d4 damage in tier 1, 1d6 in tier 2, 1d8 in tier 3 and 1d10 in tier 4. Which comes close to prof bonus actually, and you know i'm not entirely sure that's a coincidence.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    Would Armor Mastery work like Unarmored Defense?
    It could, how would you design it?

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    This is an interesting exercise, and I'd be interested in looking at this further, but I would like to say that your fighting style idea, in addition to removing any distinctions between bonuses, kinda runs into the issue of some properties being a lot more comprehensive than others, assuming all else about 5e remains the same. The Two-handed property encompasses great weapons, most polearms, bows, and crossbows. Heavy covers all of the above but the non-heavy ranged weapons. The Finesse property covers rapiers, whips throwing darts, and most light weapons, which seems like a good range of stuff that all fits thematically. Thrown weapons have fairly small differences overall, versatile even fewer. You would definitely want to revamp the weapons table to account for this, otherwise Two-Handed or Finesse are pretty clearly superior options, with far more "styles" than any other specialization. You also get some thematic weirdness like all archers being adept at using mauls.

    One style that I feel is missing from the RAW list is an offensive universal style. Defense is very close, but 5e could do with something like a +1 to all weapon attack rolls, not stacking with any other fighting style.

    I might also revise the Protection style. Maybe using a reaction to reduce an attack roll made within 5 ft. of you by your proficiency bonus? That way it can scale and protect the user, while having the disadvantage of not working on targets outside that distance?

    EDIT: Y'know, I just kinda realized, the revised protection style kinda breaks the "no-scaling" requirement, but yours also scales off proficiency. Seems like a bit of an unnecessary requirement anyway.
    Last edited by AdAstra; 2019-06-18 at 04:49 AM.
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer

    And here's a rat for the road ~(,,_`;;'>

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Agreed, this does work on paper until you start looking at the weapons table. My next step would be to talk to my lead designer about hiring a some forum members to continue designing the system ;)

    I also thought about the defensive style, and then remember that Marking is already an optional rule. I would also go on to suggest an improved action economy to be the main theme of combat feats, such as granting additional reactions (intercepting attacks, phalanx protection, etc.) and bonus action (like shield master does). Because of my naivety, I'd probably also be very stuck on the "fighters get feats" mechanic, and suggest feats were separated into groups. One of the groups would be the aforementioned "combat feats" which all give improved action economy and a stat boost, and then create a fighter class feature which allows him to gain a combat feat of his choice, but not gain the associated ASIs.

    Why do you feel like protection would work better with a scaling penalty, rather than disadvantage? I do think it's kinda cool that you'd have it protect the user though.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Correction:
    10 + Dex (5) +1 AM +2 shield = max AC 18, AC 19 at 9th level, AC 20 at 13th, and AC 21 at 17th.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    It could, how would you design it?
    Humm. Maybe change the name.

    Evasive Defence.
    "When not wearing Armor, the Character gains half their Proficiency to Armor Class, which allows both Dexterity and shield bonuses to be added.

    Cannot be combined with the Defense Style, or the Unarmored Defense class features."

    Humm, maybe allow Full Proficiency in games with magical armor?

    17+ level Evasive Defence.
    10 + Dex (5) + 6 ED +3/2 Shield +1 Ring of Protection = 27.

    17+ level Fighter/Paladin

    18 +3 Plate +3/2 shield + 1 Defense style +1 Ring of Protection = 28

    Thoughts?
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    Agreed, this does work on paper until you start looking at the weapons table. My next step would be to talk to my lead designer about hiring a some forum members to continue designing the system ;)

    I also thought about the defensive style, and then remember that Marking is already an optional rule. I would also go on to suggest an improved action economy to be the main theme of combat feats, such as granting additional reactions (intercepting attacks, phalanx protection, etc.) and bonus action (like shield master does). Because of my naivety, I'd probably also be very stuck on the "fighters get feats" mechanic, and suggest feats were separated into groups. One of the groups would be the aforementioned "combat feats" which all give improved action economy and a stat boost, and then create a fighter class feature which allows him to gain a combat feat of his choice, but not gain the associated ASIs.

    Why do you feel like protection would work better with a scaling penalty, rather than disadvantage? I do think it's kinda cool that you'd have it protect the user though.
    If you keep homebrewing parts of a game system until every one has been replaced, have you created a new game? (I certainly would be interested in the results of Ship-of-Theseus-ing an existing game system vs. making a new one whole cloth with the same goals. I have a feeling there would be a significant difference)

    At first I thought you were talking about giving out more reactions and bonus actions and thought that was, while neat, not really very wise for making a balanced and easily-played game. Then I realized you were talking about giving people more uses for bonus actions and reactions, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Creates more options in combat, and makes bonus action abilities more about increasing options rather than a straight power boost like they usually are. In fact, why stop at actions? I wanna see more abilities that key off of Movement! Things like using half your movement to steady yourself against knockdowns and forced movement, or half your movement to attempt to drive your opponent back (probably nothing directly damaging though, to encourage using your movement to actually move).

    More types of feats would be great. You might have separate types for RP, Combat, or other things so you don't have to pit one against the other. Everyone gets their cool new combat mechanic and their cool new exploration skill or societal connection or whatever.

    As for the revised protection style, not really sure, honestly. I guess I just based it on your other fighting styles and Defensive Duelist. However, looking at it again, it does act independently of advantage/disadvantage, takes place after the roll without using reroll mechanics which tend to be a little weird when combined with Ad/Dis, and I do feel that defensive abilities should scale a little more, especially when they only apply to a single attack, as this does. For example, just giving disadvantage would make the ability pointless against a ranged attacker you're in melee with, since they'd already have disadvantage against anyone anyway.
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer

    And here's a rat for the road ~(,,_`;;'>

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    Thoughts?
    Evasive Defense
    When not wearing armor, your AC is 10 + your Dexterity Modifier + your Proficiency Bonus.

    Then Dave in the race design team hears your idea and decides to create the Darkwood Core Warforged just so he can call your feature "inferior" to your supervisor.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    If you keep homebrewing parts of a game system until every one has been replaced, have you created a new game?
    If you do enough exercises, do you eventually get good at game design?

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    At first I thought you were talking about giving out more reactions and bonus actions and thought that was, while neat, not really very wise for making a balanced and easily-played game. Then I realized you were talking about giving people more uses for bonus actions and reactions, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Creates more options in combat, and makes bonus action abilities more about increasing options rather than a straight power boost like they usually are.
    I'm a big fan of a (relatively) narrow power margin, but instead give out more options, incentives, consistency and other bundles. You'll never see me design a feature that grants a flat bonus, but very likely to see me create a feature that keys of a resource you already use for something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    In fact, why stop at actions? I wanna see more abilities that key off of Movement! Things like using half your movement to steady yourself against knockdowns and forced movement, or half your movement to attempt to drive your opponent back (probably nothing directly damaging though, to encourage using your movement to actually move).
    That's actually pretty cool! Didn't we have this in 3.5?


    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    More types of feats would be great. You might have separate types for RP, Combat, or other things so you don't have to pit one against the other. Everyone gets their cool new combat mechanic and their cool new exploration skill or societal connection or whatever.
    I thought just giving types so you could refer to them later, I never thought of granting multiple skills at the same time from different groups. That's actually kind of cool, to make lower powered feats, and then say "instead of an ASI, you can gain two feats of your choice, but only one from each category."

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    Evasive Defense
    If you do enough exercises, do you eventually get good at game design?

    That's actually pretty cool! Didn't we have this in 3.5?

    I thought just giving types so you could refer to them later, I never thought of granting multiple skills at the same time from different groups. That's actually kind of cool, to make lower powered feats, and then say "instead of an ASI, you can gain two feats of your choice, but only one from each category."

    Note: quote cut down for length
    Well presumably it's like most activities: practice practice practice. Probably works a lot better to deeply examine your work to get a better idea of what's good and what's bad and what's ideal for your purposes, but that's why you're here, so you seem to be on the right track!

    Pretty sure 3e/3.5 had Move Actions, which were used for things like Full Attacks and reloading crossbows and such. The problem was that a lot of the things to do were combat rather than movement-focused, meaning that whenever possible it was a better use of your movement to not move. In fact, that's probably why 5e decided on things like only getting one opportunity attack and fewer lockdown abilities. A problem that I know Pathfinder has (and might still have in 2e, despite explicit attempts to remedy it), is that combat heavily encourages remaining in place whenever possible, which as one might expect is rather boring. Thus movement should generally be used for abilities that are related to moving, so that they increase your use of mobility, rather than discourage it.

    Glad for the feedback, and yeah, you got the gist. You might even have different types of feats available at specific levels for different classes. So like over the course of 20 levels, fighters might get 5 combat feats, 3 mobility feats, and 2 RP feats, while rogues might get 2 combat, 4 mobility, and 3 RP feats, and wizards might get 4 magic and 3 RP... all sorts of possibilities
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer

    And here's a rat for the road ~(,,_`;;'>

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by AdAstra View Post
    Glad for the feedback, and yeah, you got the gist. You might even have different types of feats available at specific levels for different classes. So like over the course of 20 levels, fighters might get 5 combat feats, 3 mobility feats, and 2 RP feats, while rogues might get 2 combat, 4 mobility, and 3 RP feats, and wizards might get 4 magic and 3 RP... all sorts of possibilities
    :O

    That's. so. cool!

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kane0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Waterdeep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    PFv2 conceptually has the same split in its feat types. Can't tell you how well it ended up though, I stopped paying attention to the playtest.
    Roll for it
    5e Houserules and Homebrew
    Extended Signature
    Awesome avatar by Ceika.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    May 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Though, at this point, my thing may be too many numbers. Looking at you idea of just "only one from each category" I think it's probably the better solution, more elegant, more 5e-esque. I'd prefer to let people choose their own priority for what types of feats they want, so long as they're not encouraged to just load up on pure-combat or whatever. Maybe instead of just an ASI, you also get two feats of different categories. Certain feats might be locked by level (not by other feats though. feat taxes and chains feel pretty bad) and sometimes by stats, race, maybe class. Perhaps you could also allow the player to exchange their ASI for another feat, which isn't restricted by category, but that's probably thinking too far ahead
    The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer

    And here's a rat for the road ~(,,_`;;'>

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    The extra feats is interesting, but would need Playtesting to catch balance problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    Evasive Defense
    When not wearing armor, your AC is 10 + your Dexterity Modifier + your Proficiency Bonus.

    Then Dave in the race design team hears your idea and decides to create the Darkwood Core Warforged just so he can call your feature "inferior" to your supervisor.
    When informed of this, I shrug and reply:
    "Not sure how that Warforged is 'superior', without seeing the designed difference between "Regular" and "Darkwood Core" Warforged.

    But, since even built in, armor would not be usable with this Style. It's still armor but counted as being Proficient, regardless of Class. With very little real mechanical difference between worn or built-in.
    I suppose the GM might say the built-in armor cannot be upgraded to either Mithril or Adamantine without being replaced, and might be more difficult - meaning expensive - to enchant.

    Which means that the Warforged has either Evasive Defense or Armor.

    Tortles might not be able to take Evasive Defense, and have to take Defense Style, since their shell counts as Armor, and isn't "removable", like a Warforge's built-in armor."

    I'd ponder a moment and say: "As for Multiclassing shinagines, seems that both Armored and Unarmored equal out about the same, though only in depth Playtesting would really show details."

    I'd then smile and say: "But, I'm only paid to think of stuff for options. It's someone else's job to decide what goes into the books." 🤣
    And go back to work.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    I'd also consider the stance-approach.

    Starting at 1st level, you gain a fighting stance. On your turn, you can enter a stance as a bonus action. Your stance lasts for 1 minute. It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then. You can also end your stance on your turn as a bonus action.
    Then it's just a matter of choosing the mechanics. But since it costs a bonus action, we have created some additional design space for ourselves. Ending a stance as a bonus action feels weird, but 5e doesn't have "no actions" or "free actions", so my hands are tied. Stances are more likely to be "and" features, rather than simple mechanical bonuses, maybe even grant unique bonus actions.

    Attack "AND" do one extra thing
    Attack "AND" do one extra thing as a bonus action

    or even

    Attack "AND" gain a small bonus "AND" you can use your bonus action to do a thing thematically connected to the small bonus.

    Although at that point, all of our work just transferred to the Subclass division and used to create Maneuvers.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    I'd also consider the stance-approach.



    Then it's just a matter of choosing the mechanics. But since it costs a bonus action, we have created some additional design space for ourselves. Ending a stance as a bonus action feels weird, but 5e doesn't have "no actions" or "free actions", so my hands are tied. Stances are more likely to be "and" features, rather than simple mechanical bonuses, maybe even grant unique bonus actions.

    Attack "AND" do one extra thing
    Attack "AND" do one extra thing as a bonus action
    A very short list might be allowed.

    or even

    Attack "AND" gain a small bonus "AND" you can use your bonus action to do a thing thematically connected to the small bonus.

    Although at that point, all of our work just transferred to the Subclass division and used to create Maneuvers.
    Right, because then you're either adding to the Battlemaster or your converting The Maneuvers from the 3x Tome of Battle into 5e. Which has been attempted…..
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Exercises are fun, since you can just pump out class features without having to give them too much thought. They just have to have potential ^^

    Fighting Style

    Choose one of Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma. You gain a bonus to damage rolls equal to your chosen ability modifier, as well as a feature corresponding with your chosen ability.

    Constitution: Once per short rest, when you would have disadvantage on an attack roll, you... don't... have disadvantage.. on that roll.. anymore?
    Dexterity: Once per short rest, you do not provoke opportunity attacks until the end of your turn.
    Intelligence: Once per short rest, you can choose to gain advantage on a weapon attack roll.
    Wisdom: Once per short rest, when a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack, you can choose to give it disadvantage on the attack roll.
    Charisma: Once per short rest, you can gain temporary hit points equal to your charisma modifier.
    These can be balanced in such a way that weaker stats (intelligence) can have a greater bonus, which is a pretty cool side effect. Although for 5e it would be formatted something like this.

    Fighting Style
    Starting at 1st level, you gain a fighting style of your choice.

    Diligent Student: Years of training of studying to be a master of your weapons grants you an edge over your opponent. You gain a bonus to weapon damage rolls equal to your Intelligence Ability Modifier. In addition, when you take the attack action on your turn, you can choose to gain advantage on your next weapon attack roll. You regain the use of this feature at the end of a short rest.
    etc.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    @Bjarkmundur
    Putting those in Quotes makes it where I can't access them, on my phone. ☹️

    I would have switched Constitution (to tHP) and Charisma (to no Disadvantage, maybe for 1 minute with Concentration?) benefits, for the first Quoted box.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    @Bjarkmundur
    Putting those in Quotes makes it where I can't access them, on my phone. ☹️

    I would have switched Constitution (to tHP) and Charisma (to no Disadvantage, maybe for 1 minute with Concentration?) benefits, for the first Quoted box.
    Sorry
    Haha
    about
    you
    the quotes,
    can't
    It just looks
    read
    so much
    this
    nicer ^^

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    Sorry about the quotes, It just looks so much nicer ^^
    Would spoilers still be ok, for ya?
    Put in title, and have info hidden inside.

    LoL!!
    I can see you just fine! 😎
    I just can't repeat ya!
    Also, after having read Action Surge
    "Make one extra attack action, and a possible Bonus Action"
    But upon research, I found:
    Extra Attack: you attack twice whenever you make the Attack Action on your turn. 11th = 3 Attacks, 20th = 4 Attacks.
    Means (to me) that if the PC is using TWF while using Action Surge, they get another attack with the second weapon as a BA.

    So
    20th level Fighter: Attack, 3 Extra Attacks, BA TWF attack, Action Surge 3 extra attacks, plus another BA TWF attack.
    Max 9 Attacks twice per short rest!!

    Dual Wielder feat give double Longswords for 1d8+ Str mod damage each.

    Remember that the PC can always attack with two Light weapons, the PC just don't get the Ability mod (unless negative) to damage with the second attack, without the TWF style.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Alright, so reading through the entire post has left me a little befuddled on some points, but I have some things to contribute.

    First let me submit a fighting style.
    Shield Cover
    If you are wielding a shield, get +2 to Dex saves vs spells or
    other effects imposed on you by others.
    Alternate Shield Cover
    If you are wielding a shield, get +1 to AC and Dex saves vs
    effects or attacks in front of you.
    (maybe a 90 degree cone for the purpose of calculation)

    I think that the Ability based fighting styles as they stand are more powerful than they should be. In addition to giving a useful though small bonus, they also add damage that could easily equal 3 or be even higher then that. Compare to the dualing fighting style. The dualing fighting style gives +2 to damage when wielding one single-handed weapon. So while nice abilities, these outpower the other fighting styles.

    On the subject of additional options for the action economy, I conveniently came up with an idea a few hours before setting eyes on this post. This gives all players and probably most monsters the option to use their bonus action to focus. Such a focus will last until the beginning of their next turn unless they immediately use their bonus action to continue to focus. Maybe to maintain the focus you need to roll a concentration check every time you take damage.
    Focus Melee: +1 to hit, damage, AC, ability checks and saving throws. (Requires you to be wielding a melee weapon).
    Focus Aim: +2 to hit and damage, +10 ft. to ranged attacks/effects. (Requires you to be wielding a ranged weapon).
    Spellcasting versions: Replace +# damage, to +# to your DCs. (they require you to be wielding only your spellcasting focus)
    Focus Ability: +2 to ability checks and saving throws, +1 to AC. (Requires that you have not attack anything in the last 6 seconds).
    Focus Concentration: +2 to concentration saving throws, may concentrate on two spells at once. (Requires that you have not been attacked within the last 6 seconds).
    If you fail your concentration check for being you lose both spells. In addition, if you have it so that you must make concentration checks to keep your focus, you would still have to make an additional check or lose the second spell if your first check succeeded.

    I just thought I bring up the focus thing that I'd thought out this afternoon since it seemed to fit with some of what was being said. I do realize it is quite powerful and doesn't really fit into the game. It was for experimental homebrew purposes. (Though I suppose that is what this is, just king of different).

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxidion View Post

    First let me submit a fighting style.
    Shield Cover
    If you are wielding a shield, get +2 to Dex saves vs spells or other effects imposed on you by others.

    Alternate Shield Cover
    If you are wielding a shield, get +1 to AC and Dex saves vs effects or attacks in front of you.
    (maybe a 90 degree cone for the purpose of calculation)
    The first one might be just a touch potent, especially combined with the Shield Master Feat.

    The alternative might be better.

    As for Focus, I can see this being very good for converting Psionics into 5e.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Making the Psychic Warrior a Fighter Subclass. And give it those combat options as something combining Eldritch Knight and Battlemaster.
    * Playtesting needed.

    I'm not really sure about Soulknife.
    Personally, I prefere Monk

    Psion and Wilder are the trickiest.
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    The first one might be just a touch potent, especially combined with the Shield Master Feat.

    The alternative might be better.

    As for Focus, I can see this being very good for converting Psionics into 5e.
    Yeah, the first option can be a bit much when combined with shield master. Making it also dependent on an angle would probably balance it a little more.

    As for the focus thing, I was thinking more just like a normal person focusing their attention on the one thing, hence the use of the bonus action. It was intended more for a campaign with very changed rules all over the place, and anyone, even monsters, would have access to it at any time.

    If you see the focus options as good for something else, go for it. I don't mind what you do with it.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Iceland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    Now, in this experiment, you decide how much or how little of 5e has been designed, but FEATS, MULTICLASSING....
    I don't think shield master is an issue

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlackDragon

    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    @Maxidion:
    I'll be honest, most times I don't keep track of Angles - even when not doing TotM and using Minis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bjarkmundur View Post
    I don't think shield master is an issue
    Well, I was looking at the +2 bonus to a Dex Save as being half Advantage for getting conditional Evasion (all or nothing, so not as good as Rogue/Monk) as being a possible problem.

    Especially when Multiclassing.

    But, I'd have to Playtest to see the effects, sooo….
    My Knowledge, Understanding, and Opinion on things can be changed

    Without a Playtest Group - I'm Forever Stuck in the White Room.

    I am learning valuable things, here. So thanks, everyone!

    Quote Originally Posted by karellink View Post
    2019-05-19 2:04 pm
    as a great dragon you must have the correct wisdom for these kind of shenanigans.
    Mark Hall said
    *It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.

    × This must be supported by all sides to remain effective.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2019

    Default Re: Fighting style Design Exercise

    Quote Originally Posted by Great Dragon View Post
    @Maxidion:
    I'll be honest, most times I don't keep track of Angles - even when not doing TotM and using Minis.



    Well, I was looking at the +2 bonus to a Dex Save as being half Advantage for getting conditional Evasion (all or nothing, so not as good as Rogue/Monk) as being a possible problem.

    Especially when Multiclassing.

    But, I'd have to Playtest to see the effects, sooo….
    Well then, you could just say if the attack or effect is coming from in front of you.

    I suppose that could be too powerful with shield master, but you do have to use your reaction for the shield master to cancel all damage. Monks lose most of their of their benefits when wielding a shield as well. If a rogue(or monk) wears a shield, they will have disadvantage on their Dex save. Though your point about multiclassing is taken. Someone could easily start out as a level 1 fighter, then go full rogue after that. If you like the alternate fighting style better, that's what I put it there for.

    Another option, you take -2 from non-magical piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage come from in front of you.
    Additional Alternate: Attacks against you that just equal your AC, but are no higher, deal half damage (maybe once again from in front of you). (I actually like to use this as normal rule in some of my games, not a fighting style).
    I'm not sure weather these would be armor or shield based fighting styles.
    Last edited by Maxidion; 2019-07-06 at 11:28 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •