Recently I've been trying to work on homebrew fighting styles for the fighter (and fighter-like classes), but I'm trying to figure out the relative power level for the existing ones.
Comparing the fighting styles to feats, its a weird translation, because some fighting styles outclass certain feats, while other fighting styles get greatly overshadowed by feats. For example: The dueling fighting style, in terms of averages gives the same statistical benefit to one attack that the Dual wielder feat does for two attacks. Also, the savage attacker feat is better than Great Weapon Fighting.
So, any advice for the following or how I should balance future fighting styles?
Proactive: You can take an additional bonus action on your turn, but you cannot use reactions until the start of your next turn
Reactive: You can use a bonus action to gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn.
Defensive Stance: When you take the dodge action, any damage you take is reduced by your proficiency bonus.
Offensive Stance: If you take the dodge action while wielding a non-heavy weapon if a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to make one melee weapon attack against that creature.
Deflect: While you are equipped with a shield, if a hostile creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to grant advantage to the next weapon attack against that creature.
Proactive: I would say that trading a reaction for extra BA could lead to a lot of OP interactions, especially when multi-classing rogue. Also, you are allowing an extra off hand attack. Thumbs down
Reactive: Trading a BA for a reaction has fewer abusive interactions, and could see a Battlemasters and Tempest clerics blowing through their powers. Not too bad. Thumbs up
Defensive Stance: I like this one for balance on an ability that would be used in limited situational. Thumbs up
Offensive Stance: This already exists as the Battlemaster maneuver Riposte and is one of the most powerful maneuvers as well. Thumbs down
Deflect: This sounds like a great use of a reaction and is a boon for the sword and board fighters. Thumbs up
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
Proactive: I would say that trading a reaction for extra BA could lead to a lot of OP interactions, especially when multi-classing rogue. Also, you are allowing an extra off hand attack. Thumbs down
Reactive: Trading a BA for a reaction has fewer abusive interactions, and could see a Battlemasters and Tempest clerics blowing through their powers. Not too bad. Thumbs up
Defensive Stance: I like this one for balance on an ability that would be used in limited situational. Thumbs up
Offensive Stance: This already exists as the Battlemaster maneuver Riposte and is one of the most powerful maneuvers as well. Thumbs down
Deflect: This sounds like a great use of a reaction and is a boon for the sword and board fighters. Thumbs up
You've got it! I'd rather say that Offensive Stance is redundant as there is a fighting style that gives you any maneuver.
You could also look to make other options more viable, like the Shove action, grappling, and dash.
+1 to theHumanChris's answers, though I would probably also remove Reactive. Even without as many blatant power issues, it presents some awkward mechanical issues.
Defensive Stance feels the most like an actual fighting style: Simple, focused, thematic. I would specify damage from attacks though, as reducing poison damage from something you ingested or something similar makes zero sense.
Also, as a good rule of thumb, Feats are stronger than Fighting Styles.
Proactive: You can take an additional bonus action on your turn, but you cannot use reactions until the start of your next turn
Generally speaking, a bonus action is much stronger than a reaction and has many, many more uses. This has some very risky implications when considering multiclassing or taking this as a feat. A monk comes to mind. A monk could make 6 attacks in a round with an extra bonus action. You might want to limit this in some way. Like that added bonus action can only be used to make an attack with a weapon in your off hand when two weapon fighting, or something like that. Even that might be too strong.
Reactive: You can use a bonus action to gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn.
This isn't bad. The Fighter's reaction is typically used to make Attacks of Opportunity. There are some interactions that would make this problematic. The Berserker could make 2 attacks when attacked. Someone with Sentinel could make 2 attacks when an ally is attacked. I'm also not sure how this would interact with the Shield. The wording of the spell makes me think you could use two reactions and 2 spell slots to gain +10 AC. You might want to limit this to one reaction per turn (still two until the start of your next turn). So if you're fighting two enemies, you can only have 1 reaction on each of their turns.
Defensive Stance: When you take the dodge action, any damage you take is reduced by your proficiency bonus.
This seems pretty strong to me but I don't think it's wildly imbalanced. I also can't think of any problematic interactions. I agree that it should be limited to the sources of damage. I'd include spell attacks or spells that require a dexterity saving throw. That might make it too complicated though.
Offensive Stance: If you take the dodge action while wielding a non-heavy weapon if a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to make one melee weapon attack against that creature.
This is basically a free riposte (battlemaster maneuver) any time you take the dodge action. It does take your action though. The monk might take this which might be problematic. Consider wording like, "When you use your action to take the dodge action while wielding a non-heavy weapon, if a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack then you can use your reaction to make one melee weapon attack against that creature." That way it removes bonus action dodge of the monk that could be problematic. Combining this with Reactive would be problematic.
Deflect: While you are equipped with a shield, if a hostile creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to grant advantage to the next weapon attack against that creature.
This is alright. You might want to add wording "next weapon attack before the start of its next turn." More of a flavor thing. A creature misses you than a minute later you get advantage on an attack seems a little silly. Also, with the super high ACs possible, especially with the Eldritch Knight and the Shield spell, this would be popping up a lot. I'm not sure if that makes it too strong. My first thought is that it's good though.
I'd like to second the notion that feats should be considered stronger than fighting styles for the purposes of creating homebrew fighting styles.
Reactive: You can use a bonus action to gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn.
This isn't bad. The Fighter's reaction is typically used to make Attacks of Opportunity. There are some interactions that would make this problematic. The Berserker could make 2 attacks when attacked. Someone with Sentinel could make 2 attacks when an ally is attacked. I'm also not sure how this would interact with the Shield. The wording of the spell makes me think you could use two reactions and 2 spell slots to gain +10 AC. You might want to limit this to one reaction per turn (still two until the start of your next turn). So if you're fighting two enemies, you can only have 1 reaction on each of their turns.
Reminder: "The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap." (link)
I think it's pretty okay, Sentinel costs as feat, and this would also cost a feat (Fighter Initiate), so that might make it balanced. Berserkers might benefit a bit too much from this though, so keep that in mind.
Recently I've been trying to work on homebrew fighting styles for the fighter (and fighter-like classes), but I'm trying to figure out the relative power level for the existing ones.
Comparing the fighting styles to feats, its a weird translation, because some fighting styles outclass certain feats, while other fighting styles get greatly overshadowed by feats. For example: The dueling fighting style, in terms of averages gives the same statistical benefit to one attack that the Dual wielder feat does for two attacks. Also, the savage attacker feat is better than Great Weapon Fighting.
So, any advice for the following or how I should balance future fighting styles?
Proactive: You can take an additional bonus action on your turn, but you cannot use reactions until the start of your next turn
Reactive: You can use a bonus action to gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn.
Defensive Stance: When you take the dodge action, any damage you take is reduced by your proficiency bonus.
Offensive Stance: If you take the dodge action while wielding a non-heavy weapon if a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to make one melee weapon attack against that creature.
Deflect: While you are equipped with a shield, if a hostile creature misses you with a melee weapon attack, you can use your reaction to grant advantage to the next weapon attack against that creature.
Proactive: I would say that trading a reaction for extra BA could lead to a lot of OP interactions, especially when multi-classing rogue. Also, you are allowing an extra off hand attack. Thumbs down
Reactive: Trading a BA for a reaction has fewer abusive interactions, and could see a Battlemasters and Tempest clerics blowing through their powers. Not too bad. Thumbs up
Defensive Stance: I like this one for balance on an ability that would be used in limited situational. Thumbs up
Offensive Stance: This already exists as the Battlemaster maneuver Riposte and is one of the most powerful maneuvers as well. Thumbs down
Deflect: This sounds like a great use of a reaction and is a boon for the sword and board fighters. Thumbs up
IMHO, Earthdawn is still the best fantasy realm, Shadowrun is the best Sci-Fi realm, and Dark Sun is the best D&D realm.
You've got it! I'd rather say that Offensive Stance is redundant as there is a fighting style that gives you any maneuver.
You could also look to make other options more viable, like the Shove action, grappling, and dash.
+1 to theHumanChris's answers, though I would probably also remove Reactive. Even without as many blatant power issues, it presents some awkward mechanical issues.
Defensive Stance feels the most like an actual fighting style: Simple, focused, thematic. I would specify damage from attacks though, as reducing poison damage from something you ingested or something similar makes zero sense.
Also, as a good rule of thumb, Feats are stronger than Fighting Styles.
Generally speaking, a bonus action is much stronger than a reaction and has many, many more uses. This has some very risky implications when considering multiclassing or taking this as a feat. A monk comes to mind. A monk could make 6 attacks in a round with an extra bonus action. You might want to limit this in some way. Like that added bonus action can only be used to make an attack with a weapon in your off hand when two weapon fighting, or something like that. Even that might be too strong.
This isn't bad. The Fighter's reaction is typically used to make Attacks of Opportunity. There are some interactions that would make this problematic. The Berserker could make 2 attacks when attacked. Someone with Sentinel could make 2 attacks when an ally is attacked. I'm also not sure how this would interact with the Shield. The wording of the spell makes me think you could use two reactions and 2 spell slots to gain +10 AC. You might want to limit this to one reaction per turn (still two until the start of your next turn). So if you're fighting two enemies, you can only have 1 reaction on each of their turns.
This seems pretty strong to me but I don't think it's wildly imbalanced. I also can't think of any problematic interactions. I agree that it should be limited to the sources of damage. I'd include spell attacks or spells that require a dexterity saving throw. That might make it too complicated though.
This is basically a free riposte (battlemaster maneuver) any time you take the dodge action. It does take your action though. The monk might take this which might be problematic. Consider wording like, "When you use your action to take the dodge action while wielding a non-heavy weapon, if a creature misses you with a melee weapon attack then you can use your reaction to make one melee weapon attack against that creature." That way it removes bonus action dodge of the monk that could be problematic. Combining this with Reactive would be problematic.
This is alright. You might want to add wording "next weapon attack before the start of its next turn." More of a flavor thing. A creature misses you than a minute later you get advantage on an attack seems a little silly. Also, with the super high ACs possible, especially with the Eldritch Knight and the Shield spell, this would be popping up a lot. I'm not sure if that makes it too strong. My first thought is that it's good though.
I'd like to second the notion that feats should be considered stronger than fighting styles for the purposes of creating homebrew fighting styles.
Here is my suggestion for Reactive:
While in this stance you gain an additional reaction that can only be used for Attacks of Opportunity.
Reminder: "The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap." (link)
I think it's pretty okay, Sentinel costs as feat, and this would also cost a feat (Fighter Initiate), so that might make it balanced. Berserkers might benefit a bit too much from this though, so keep that in mind.
Edit: added link, fixed spelling of Sentinel.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.