One thing that really bothers me about this edition of D&D is the lack of support for players that want to play a classic swordsman wielding a single-handed blade. Despite being one of the most popular styles in literature and film, there is a distinct lack of feats made to support it. There's no Single Weapon Mastery. A player that wants to play this kind of character must actively choose to be weaker than every other martial character in the game. There are literally no feats in this game that grant a benefit that is strictly for this style.
Do you think this is an oversight by the designers? Is it intentional?
Before anyone starts, I fully acknowledge that this fighting style is significantly weaker than a sword and shield combo fighter in a real fight. However, this is a fantasy game where people get to let their imaginations run free. If we're letting people run around using two hand crossbows at the same time, seemingly loading them with their feet or teeth, then I think we can cut this style some slack.
just to confirm; this is a one-handed weapon held in one hand with nothing in the off-hand?
Yes.
Im pretty sure RAI duelist is meant for this. I don't believe RAI duelist is meant for Sword + busy offhand.
Note: RAI not RAW.
THis fighting style has not been any good since 2E. In 2E you could make it work with a kit.
Dueling is the fighting style and it's a decent choice. Other hand can hold a shield or a torch/lantern, because being able to see is handy. Defensive duelist, mobility, and possibly savage attacker work with the style.
DaveDash wrote:
The designers have said that RAI the +2 bonus to damage applies while wielding a shield. So yes, you are coorect that a single weapon and a nothing in the off hand is purposefully the weakest option in the PHB.
Luckily, you are encouraged to homebrew. One such option ends up roughly equal to the options presented in the PHB. See below:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHLtUBIOpuzbhov9Jk6GsCgftm1TIb2_Q8oHBWo26Jk/edit?usp=sharing
I know I can homebrew a better option for them, but the question is why such a thing is even necessary? Why the hate for one-handed wielders?
P.S. Bladesong style in 2nd edition was awesome.
Ashrym wrote:
Historically, swashbucklers were shielded duelists; fighting with sword and buckler.
colemcm wrote:
That's kind of the point of this thread. The bit you quoted from me was in response to DaveDash.
There seems to be this idea in gaming that if you're not using both hands in a fight, that you're horribly inefficient and at a considerable diasadvantage. Against a sword and shield fighter, I'd say that's true. Honestly, anyone fighting against a weapon/shield user is at a disadvantage. There's a reason it was the most popular form of combat throughout history. However, against someone using a great sword or two swords, a one-handed wielder really isn't that bad off. They have a narrower profile, making them more difficult to hit them. They can cover ground faster with lunges. Weapon recovery after a strike is faster with a light blade. A free hand can be used to grapple in a bind. Given all of this, why does the style receive no advantage in-game?
colemcm wrote:
I think duelist is fine, with just say a rapier. Then take the defensive duelist feat. Boom, you've got an effective fighter right there. Where is the problem?
I agree with some posters above that duelist is not meant to cover sword and board, but i dont think it breaks anything to allow it. GWF still do tons more damage with their rerolls and feat
You guys are missing the point. Every fighting style in the game has a feat that expands upon its abilities, except for this style. Saying a good way to fix this style is to not use it and choose some other style instead, is not really helpful. There is nothing that this style can take that will offer it the specific boost that feats like GWM do for heavy weapons, PM for polearms, Shield Master for shields, etc. . . It is a completely unsupported style. Anything that you can take for this style can also be taken for one of the other styles to the exact same effect. There is nothing to really define it as unique. It's a poor design choice.
Duelist as a fighting style is nice in early levels, but it quickly loses steam in later play and there's no way to expand its capabilities. The only way to make it a viable option under the current rules is to ban feats, which is a terrible idea.
colemcm wrote:
Nope. There are several.
1) The Healer feat requires an empty offhand to use a healer's kit. You can use a shield and stow your weapon when you want to heal, but that means you cannot take opportunity attacks or other weapon based reactions for a full round after using it. So the feat is substantially better with an empty offhand.
2) The Eldritch Knight basically does not work unless you either take the Warcaster feat or have a hand free. They can't really stow their weapon when they want to cast as many of their features combine attacking with casting spells or use their reactions to cast after attacking (like Shield). Paladins, war clerics, and valorous bards are in a similar predicament. Warcaster is not supposed to be a feat tax.
3) Grappling. You must have a hand free to grapple.
4) Holding a torch. Not every party has the light spell; but every party has humans and their nyctalopia.
5) Non mechanical flare. Many DMs respond well to flowery prose that is not just "I attack". Using your offhand to swing from the chandelier, or throw sand in their eyes, or knocking over some crates can earn a lot of Inspiration or other tactical advantages not covered by the combat rules, if you have a sympathetic DM.
Edit: Made it less wordy.
We may see more come out in the future. We've only JUST got the DMG.
Eric888 wrote:
I agree with those who are emphasizing grappling. Using your offhand to grapple is definitely the way to go. Check out the Grappler's Guide for further advice: http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4142801.
Noon wrote:
Main advantage of having a single weapon and nothing in the other hand is that you have a free hand.
that's it.
You can use you free hand for holding torch, climbing, grappling etc.
having no weapon/shield in one hand and demanding advantage for it, is not logical.
Free hand gives you versatility not better onehanded attack.
Trance-Zg wrote:
Eric888 wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
But being a free hand fighter is stupid. You only want a hand not holding a weapon or a shield if you need some utility from it.
Given that fencers exert a high degree of force into a very small area, it's not unreasonable to expect some sort of advantage against an opponent wearing armor or possessing natural armor.
Trance-Zg wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
colemcm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
I'd look at the following:
Human Variant Assassin Rogue 9/Battle Master Fighter 11 who takes Tavern Brawler at level 1 and puts an Expertise into Athletics. This gives you the following options:
If you have a free bonus action, you can punch your opponent via TWF, disengage, hide, dash, or grapple depending.
So as an example:
At 4th level, you hit an opponent. You spend a Superiority die to knock them prone, then spend your bonus action to grapple them. They're prone, grappled and usually in a lot of trouble.
It might not fit the idea of the classical straight up fencer, Fighter, but a really dirty Fighter who hits people hard for more damage, tripping them and then fouling them up in his cloak?
Seems to fit the bill...
Levels look like this:
Str 16, Dex 14
Rogue 1: Expertise in Athletics
Fighter 1-5
Rogue 2-3
Fighter 6-11
Rogue rest of way
Trance-Zg wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ahrimon wrote:
Let me make something clear. The purpose of this thread is not to whine. It's to point out that there are literally no feats that a fencer based character can take that any other style can't take to the exact same effect. There are no built in mechanisms for it to keep pace with the other styles. It's indisputable, so there's no point in debating this fact. I'm curious as to why this is.
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Single Blade Style Feat
While you wield a single one handed weapon and carry nothing in your off-hand you gain the following benefits.
-You can take a -5 penalty to your attack with a one handed melee weapon to gain a +10 bonus to your damage roll.
-When you score a critical hit with a one handed melee weapon, you can push your target 5 ft or knock it prone.
-You gain a +1 bonus to your Strength or Dexterity
Lawolf wrote:
colemcm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
But you're wielding a torch out of necessity, becuase you're human and its pitch black and you can't see anything.
And you're just making best out of a bad situation. Bad situation is that you can't have weapon/shield in your offhand.
And Im all for a feat that lets you improve your improvised attacks/defences.
But how can it be beneficial to have an empty hand instead of holding some attacking/defending item. even just as a "just in case, backup option".
ChrisCarlson wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
"Hey guys one-handed fighting is useless in this edition, right? I mean ok it has uses but only pure DPR counts"
Yeah if you set up the question such that only one answer "counts" then of course you're correct, fencing is awful, the sky is falling, let's all ragequit.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
1eejit wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
1eejit wrote:
colemcm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The one obstacle I find to playing an effective fencer type is when monsters are resistant to piercing damage- skeletons in particular, since they're common foes. Seems to happen more often for that than for other weapon types. Sure, you can switch weapons, but then you're not really playing Zorro or Errol Flynn anymore.
This is one reason I'm not happy with weapon damage type being brought back as a common resistance.
ChrisCarlson,
Saying that they have more options because they're not required to take a feat does not apply here. Neither character is required to choose any feat. They do, however, have the option to enhance their combat style. This is not something available to the fencer.
I view the fencer using the open hand for balance and/or defense. There are plenty of martial arts weapon styles that use one hand, with the second hand following, bracing, or used as a counter weight. But unless you add more depth to the game from the martial side in reference to maneuvers including tripping, disarms, etc. the concept can not be fully realized. And this is the biggest flaw in my mind for any martial concept in the game.
Uchawi wrote:
If you need further illustration of why they do not actually have equivalent options, consider the following example:
Two players are given the same amount of points to buy their character's attributes.
• Opportunity status = identical
The two players both choose to play a variant human.
• Opportunity status = identical
Both players choose to play a fighter with the goal of taking the battle master archetype.
• Opportunity status = identical
One player chooses great weapon fighting as his combat style while the other selects the duelist.
• Opportunity status = identical
Both players choose to take the Great Weapon Mastery feat.
• Opportunity status = identical.
After reading the specifics of the feat, the duelist realizes that he only gains half of the advantages that the feat offers because he does not use a heavy weapon and the feat grants a distinct advantage to players that do. The duelist then goes in search of a different feat that offers a distinct advantage for his chosen fighting style and finds nothing. There are a number of feats that he can choose from, but not a single one offers a distinct advantage to his combat style. The feats only offer general advantages to his style.
• Opportunity status = not identical
While both players can make the same choices, the great weapon style has access to an option that garners them a distinct advantage not available to other styles.
May people forget, that there are versatile weapons.
The longsword really was used with 1 and a half hands. You use both hands for many attacks but you could use the free off hand to grab the enemy arm.
Using a versatile weapon in D&D 5 works. being able to grab someone and pull him with you gives a lot of tactical advantage. It is just not that obvious.
UngeheuerLich wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
Given that a great weapon fighter can achieve 4-9 attacks a round, I would say that while the feat itself may not scale, its frequency of application does. While Defensive Duelist does scale, it can never be applied more than once a round.
colemcm wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
The D&D system seems to be based off of more defense in form of armor and shield or more offense via great weapon master feat or two-weapon fighting. One handed finess weapons came about after the decline in armor. Not during its heyday. Even using a one handed weapon you either choke up on the grip for more leverage, grabble while attacking or us another weapon for parrying. The two-weapon fighting style as MOAR attacks is actually quite different from most uses of two weapon fighting. The only thing a single handed weapon fighter would need would be the following feat.
Single weapon fighter
+1 to strength or dex
Once per round as a bonus action you can parry an incoming attack as long as you have a meele weapon in one hand and nothing in your off hand. Add your proficiency bonus to your AC. This does not stack with defensive duelist. Enemies have disadvantage on grapple or trip attempts against you.
If you're just looking for feat ideas, I'd go with something like:
Fencing Master
Prerequisite 13 dexterity or higher
You master a combat style that focuses on speed and precision instead of brute force.
When wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient, add your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage. (this makes the feat useful to any character using a finesse weapon)
When wielding a finesse weapon with which you are proficient and nothing in your other hand, and you score a critical hit, roll all damage dice three times instead of twice. (this becomes especially lethal with either a champion fighter who crits more often or a rogue who would roll sneak attack dice three times as well as the weapon damage dice.)
DLfan wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
My basic idea for a possible feat was:
Single Weapon Master
Requirement: Must be wielding a single weapon in one hand and have nothing in their other hand.
• When an opponent misses an attack roll against you, you may make a riposte attack against the attacker as a bonus action that deals 1d4 damage.
• As a bonus action, you may extend your reach by 5' to make a single attack or attack of opportunity against an opponent.
This allows the character to focus on fast attacks or quickly cover ground to attack an unsuspecting opponent.
5th edition is actually really great for Dexterity based fighters. If you use a rapier (which you can use with a shield, or you can fight with a pair of rapiers if you have the dual weapon fighting feat), you already get your Dexterity to hit and damage. And you get your proficiency bonus. Your bonus action gets you an extra attack for full damage. And Dexterity is a very useful stat, because it covers a major saving throw, many skills, a bonus to AC, and initiative. So, your fencing Dexterity based fighter is going to be fairly awesome.
There really is not an advantage to having a free hand, unless you need that hand to cast spells, grab stuff, pull levers, etc.. A person that does not need to do one of those things, should be at a disadvantge. Fencers, in real life, would always perfer a buckler or main gauche over a free hand, if possible.
If someone wanted to be a good 'free hand fighter' using only the existing feats, they should take the dual weapon feat, tavern brawler, and grappler. Then you could fight with both a rapier and an unarmed strike. You could attack first with the unarmed strike, and if it hit, you could use your bonus action to grapple (with advantage). If you miss, use your bonus action to hit with the rapier. At lower levels, when you don't have the dual weapon feat, substitute a short sword or scimitar for the rapier.
demon_idol wrote:
A free hand fighter feat should do something cool that is unique to the abilities granted by having a free hand in combat. There is no real reason that having a free hand would grant you -5 to hit, and +10 to damage. But, having a free hand would allow you to throw sand in a person's eyes, use your cloak as a distraction, punch your opponent in the face, or yank your opponent's clothing.
So, here is what I propose for a 'free hand fighter' feat:
Dirty Fighter (of Free Hand Fighter, if one perfers)
When you are fighting with a weapon in one hand, and nothing in the other hand, you gain the following benefits.
You may use your bonus action to fling neaby unattended objects or sand in an opponent's face, baffle an opponent with your cloak, or otherwise distract an oppoenent to disrupt their defenses. The next attack against that opponent has advantage.
You may use your bonus action to make an unarmed strike against an opponent. If that unarmed strike hits, it does damage as normal and you may attempt to grapple that opponent.
With all the ideas on this thread, it really speaks for a duelest to be a class and/or subclass. The feat is ok, but there is so much more.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Uchawi wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Fencing Master
You have been trained in the noble art of fencing; fighting with a single weapon and a free hand. You gain the following benefits when you are wielding a one-handed weapon and have neither a shield nor a weapon in your other hand:
* You gain a +1 bonus to AC as long as you can take reactions.
* You have a +3 bonus to damage rolls with one-handed melee weapons. If you attack with advantage, the bonus increases to +5.
* When an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you may use your reaction to sidestep and riposte; you make a single melee weapon attack against it. If your attack hits, you may also swap spaces with the enemy as part of your reaction.
Lawolf wrote:
Bloodscythe wrote:
colemcm wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
colemcm wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Chameleon-X wrote:
We will definitely be seeing more feats down the road, but there may never be anything introduced that requires wielding one weapon and nothing held in the other hand. Such a feat would hamper a character from holding a torch or drinking a potion... but there may be feats that specify that a character can be only holding one weapon and no shield... time will tell.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Seeing as you're the DM, and thus have full say in what is and isn't houseruled, I'll present more feat ideas...
Fencing Master:
While you are wielding a finesse weapon and no other weapon or shield, you gain the following benefits:
When an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you may use your reaction to reduce the damage by your dexterity modifier (minimum of 1)
When an attacker that you can see misses you with an attack, you may use your reaction to riposte, making a melee attack against the creature.
You can make an opportunity attack even when the target disengages.
My idea here is a fencer could technically dodge every turn, and just fight with their reaction. With disadvantage to hit the fencer due to the Dodge action being taken, there is a higher probability that the fencer will be riposting. This is exactly how a fencer fights... they stay on the defensive until an opening presents itself, and then they strike with lethal precision.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Disarming Duelist:
Your skill disarming others makes it harder for others to disarm you. You have advantage on strength saving throws against being disarmed.
When wielding a finesse weapon and no other weapon or shield, you gain the following benefit:
Using the attack action, you can make a special melee attack to disarm a creature, forcing it to drop an item it is holding of your choice. Roll the attack and damage normally.
On a successful hit, the target of your disarm must make a strength saving throw to continue holding the item. The DC equals 8 + your proficiency bonus + half of the damage rolled. In addition, the target takes half of the damage rolled.
If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
colemcm wrote:
Just house rule a new fighting style. A plus one to AC if off hand is empty and not engaged in spell casting, grappling etc.
Helaman wrote:
Helaman wrote:
Helaman wrote:
Trance-Zg wrote:
colemcm wrote:
DLfan wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
colemcm wrote:
DLfan wrote:
I absolutely agree that adding pluses should be avoided. A +x is powerful in this game.
You know what I'm mad about? No whip mastery feat. At least your duelist gets dodging bonuses and +2 damage.
In reality, fighting with a single 1H sword against someone else with two weaponsm weapin and shield or a two handed weapon puts you at a disadvantage.
It may look fine in movies but it's crapola in the real world.
Duelist favours this hollywood fighting style just fine...
You know what else isn't supported? fighters who specialize in using food as weapon. You should be able to hit a goblin with a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich, or throw apples at a skeleton. And this food-fighting style should be just as strong as any other choice in the game, because I think it's a valid tactic and it's been used in the real world for hundreds of years in school cafeterias.
Yes food fighting!
"Single weapon style
When fighting with a weapon in one hand and nothing in the other*, you may act as if your initiative was 2 higher than your roll. In addition, you may select a single opponent as a bonus action; your armour class increases by 2 against that opponent until your next turn."
Sidebar
*At the DMs discretion, you may hold a feathered hat, a drink, or a willing dance partner in your other hand.
colemcm wrote:
To the OP: Amen!
I completely agree that D&D has done an abysmal job of supporting this fighting style. 2e gave you an option for it, but since then it has been nada.
And what many people seem to refuse to acknowledge is that this style is so hugely popular in the fantasy genre that it is virtually the default in movies and TV shows. It's not just for rapiers either! Often characters fight with a longsword/bastard sword, and alternate between one and two handed usage in the middle of the fight. This is what we see when we actually see fantasy swordsmanship (choreography and all), and it's rather silly that it isn't represented in D&D.
Your frustration is completely justified and your claims about the popularity of the style in fantasy are accurate. People will find some reason to argue and disagree and suggest that it isn't a problem simply because when someone posts on the internet the most common response is to contradict or argue with whatever has been posted.
I made my own houserule, since they didn't provide an option. If you are using the Dueling fighting style and aren't using a shield, you get a +1 AC. Seems to balance well with the other fighting styles. No appropriate feat though, since the Defensive Duelist feat requires a finesse weapon.
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
colemcm wrote:
I like how 5E did make two-weapon and sword and board better though. They're not nearly as punitive a style to develop as they were in 3.0/3.5/PF.
colemcm wrote:
Sword_of_Spirit wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
The OP asked "why," so here's the basic answer: a free hand has lots of potential benefits, like being able to grapple, cast spells, and use items like potions or caltrops. A dex-based fighter isn't particularly excellent at any of those things, but a longsword fighter or blade-pact warlock or rogue might be, and those builds might not particularly need a giant boost from a special "fencer" fighting style to go along with those pre-existing advantages.
As others have said, you can houserule a solution pretty quickly if you're just interested in playing a fencer (+2 to hit is nice and simple), but you might also want to consider trying out some of those other options. For example, take 3 levels of thief rogue for fast hands and grab expertise in athletics, and you can grapple, topple bookshelves, swing from chandeliers, etc. as part of your combat routine.
Bloodscythe wrote:
Now everyone grab a dagger and lets go kill a dragon, because the rules say they work just fine against them.
ClockworkNecktie wrote: