| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1miburo99May 09, 2015 12:36:53 | An iconic fighting style for martial/casting hybrids is wielding a sword in one hand, casting a spell with the other. However, this fighting style is intrinsically disadvantaged compared to using the dueling fighting style with a shield and War Caster feat (don't technically even neeed warcaster for paladins). So, how to help people who want to use the one-handed weapon and casting style without being too disadvantaged? In the spirit of the latest Unearthed Arcana, try the fighting style below:
Sword and Sorcery: You are adept at striking foes with one hand and casting spells with the other. When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or shields, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and you no longer suffer disadvantage on ranged attack rolls for spells when you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature.
I came up with this for my Swordmage homebrew class, but I think it would be really useful for other martial classes as well--particularly Eldritch Knight. At first glance it doesn't seem overpowered to me; while casters could use for cantrips in melee range, they'd still have less AC than a shield wielding character.
Any thoughts?
Edit: Edited the language of the ability to clarify the no longer suffering disadvantage part |
| #2Xeviat-DMMay 09, 2015 12:57:02 | So, you're basically trying to make a lesser Warcaster feat as a fighting style. I can get down with that. So lets look at what all of the fighting styles that require the use of two hands do for you. Lets assume a Str or Dex of 16.
Archery gives you an attack of +7 for 1d8+3 damage. Dueling with a Shield gives +2 AC and an attack of +5 for 1d8+5 damage (9.5 average). Great Weapon gives you an attack of +5 for 2d6*+3 damage (11.33 average) Two-Weapon Fighting gives you an attack of +3 for 1d6+3 damage and a bonus action attack for +3 for 1d6+3 damage (6.5 average each).
Now, a great weapon Eldritch Knight could arguably switch their grip on their two-handed weapon to cast a spell, but that might prevent them from making opportunity attacks (depending on DM ruling).
Using a shield gives +2 AC and +2 damage over a one-hander with an empty off-hand.
Using the off-hand to generate a magical sheild for AC sounds cool, but it might be more comparable to Archery or Two-Weapon Fighting. If cantrips didn't scale, I'd almost suggest a bonus action cantrip attack, so they could attack with a one-handed weapon and fire off a cantrip at the same time, making them really feel like they're blending sword and sorcery. Or I'd want the attack bonus of the archer, as an Arcane Archer would have no issue casting spells with their arrow hand when they weren't shooting arrows (as they have no need for opportunity attacks).
Just some thoughts really. Hope my input helps. I don't think your suggestion is overpowered; I think it might be underpowered, and you might be able to pick something that feels more like Sword and Sorcery. |
| #3daspianMay 09, 2015 14:44:11 | i'd say it's cool, just get rid of the +1 AC part, i feel like adding the +1 AC pretty much makes Fighting Style: Defense obsolete, what's the point of "Defense" if you can get just "Sword'n'Sorcery" which not only comes with a +1 AC bonus but also the intended effect as well.
I'd say try the following:
Sword andSorcery: You are adept at striking foes with one hand and casting spells with the other. When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or shields, you do not suffer disadvantage on ranged attack rolls for casting spells within 5 feet of target creatures. In addition, you gain a +1 bonus to Attack and Damage rolls with your spells (and cantrips)
basically a split of Archery (Attack Rolls) and Dueling (Damage Rolls)... the only reason i suggest this over the AC bonus is not because it was unbalanced, but simply because it would makes choosing the defense fighting style still a viable alternative, and not just replaced with the sword and sorcery feat, you wanna create more options, not replace old ones and make'em obsolete ;)
a better idea might be (and for fairness/balancing) to choose either attack or damage and only get +1 to that, instead of both, i only did both as a quick response, but now that i think about it, it might be better to choose one and add +1 for it.
all in all, i think this is a splendid idea. |
| #4KentusMay 09, 2015 15:09:27 | I would rephrase the spell part.
"When you cast a cantrip, which requires a ranged spell attack, you can use it as a melee spell attack with a range of touch instead." This would be better imo, since first, there won't be disadvantage in the first place and second, since it's point blank, I would rather consider to allow melee synergies, but not ranged ones (monster abilities, feats, etc.).
I would stick to your AC-bonus, since defense style still works with shield and two-handed weapons and it's less problematic in balancing than +attack/damage. |
| #5pupoochiMay 10, 2015 14:16:11 | I like Daspain version: Sword andSorcery: You are adept at striking foes with one hand and casting spells with the other. When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons or shields, you do not suffer disadvantage on ranged attack rolls for casting spells within 5 feet of target creatures. In addition, you gain a +1 bonus to Attack and Damage rolls with your spells (and cantrips)
BUT i would say choose +1 attack, or +1 dam, not both (otherwise = a +1 weapon) |
| #6OnionDruidMay 10, 2015 16:28:44 | The problem with a lit of magical + martial classes is that they went away from what made the sword mage so awesome in 4e. In 5e classes such as the Eldritch Knight is (magic + martial) where what we need is (magicmartial). They need to be combined to really show the hybrid nature... The arcane trickster is a good example as they blend mage hand with their martial abilities. |
| #7Danny_MontannyMay 11, 2015 6:55:27 | The target of the ranged spell need not be the enemy within 5 feet of you to grant you disadvantage, or is the intent that you'd still suffer disadvantage if you didn't target said enemy?
This would restrict it enough to throw in something else to the style, but needs to be worded a little more clearly. Something like, "You do not suffer disadvantage on ranged spell attacks against creatures within 5 feet of you." This would make it so you'd still have disadvantage against other creatures if there was an enemy near you. |
| #8DevilbassMay 11, 2015 22:19:22 | I think a sword and.sorcery fighting style is a great idea. However I'm not sure how I feel about a version that makes ranged cantrips effective in melee. It seems redundant to me. Why is that such a benefit when cantrips such as shocking grasp exist, and I could just make weapon attacks anyway? Why not something like: when you wield a one handed weapon in one hand and no weapon or shield in the other, you gain a +1 to attack rolls with melee weapons and all spell attacks. This has the effect of benefiting both aspects of the sword and sorcery type as well as helping to offset a bit of the MAD that goes with it. |
| #9UngeheuerLichMay 11, 2015 23:08:47 | I like that Idea.
I don´t think it compares badly vs. defensive style.
Defensive style is "always on". That makes it the most versatile style of all. |
| #10miburo99May 11, 2015 23:49:59 | Whoa, a lot of responses here! Glad people are interested in this style of character. So a a couple of thoughts:
I can see why +1 attack or +1 damage would be useful, especially if it applies to both spells and weapons. However, it's harder to balance those effectively. No other melee-based fighting style offers a + to attack rolls, and + to damage for spells is kinda meh (and if you want + to damage for weapons, why not just go dueling?).
That's why I like the +1 to AC, it is easier to balance as Kentus noted. Makes up somewhat for not having a shield, and it provides a bit of the "Swordmage Warding" flavor from 4E, although you could fluff the AC bonus a number of different ways (using the blade to parry, creating an arcane ward, etc.). I also agree with UngeheurLich in that doesn't overshadow Defense style which works with all kinds of weapons and armor (in fact you could take both if you are multiclassing). Finally, the Mariner style from Unearthed Arcana provides a precedent for adding a situational +1 to AC.
As for the spellcasting ability, I wanted to make something that is useful not just for cantrips (Paladins and Rangers don't get combat cantrips, and neither does my Swordmage homebrew class). Also, not just useful for damage-dealing spells. It also doesn't make melee cantrips worse; shocking grasp is great not just because melee, but because it takes away reactions so you can disengage. I don't view this as stealing the thunder, just providing more options.
Danny_Montanny, I think I wasn't clear with the original wording on the removing disadvantage part. The intent is to remove disadvantage so you can cast attack roll spells in melee and not worry about it) Let's reword it like this: "You no longer suffer disadvantage on ranged attack rolls for spells when you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature." I've made the edit in the original and in my class as well.
Anyways, since this is homebrew feel free to use whatever variant of the fighting style works in your game =). |
| (Reply to #9)HermanTheWize |
|
| #12UngeheuerLichMay 12, 2015 10:35:17 | This is why I added quotation marks... now that I looked up the translation, I am not sure you can use them that way in English... |
| #13RCanineMay 20, 2015 0:35:32 | So the trick with this is to make it something interesting, but not so good that every other caster class cherry-picks the ability, and it shoudl emphasize that you switch between weapon attacks and spells. So I'd probably do something like:
|
| (Reply to #13)HermanTheWize |
|