# Fighting Styles Are Not Worth a Whole Feat



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 4, 2022)

The title is the post, really. 

+2 to ranged weapon attacks is good, but it isn’t equal to the other feats, IMO. 

I’m curious where others place them in relation to the other new feats.


----------



## Lycurgon (Oct 4, 2022)

I agree that are not worth a feat. It is an odd choice to make them feats when they are still using them as class features. The Ranger still gets one at 2nd level. 

I guess it cuts down on word count when you only print them once in the Feat section and just list which ones each class can take, rather than repeated printing each one in all the Warrior (and Ranger) class descriptions.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 4, 2022)

I agree they're rarely worthwhile as feats, but putting all the descriptions together somewhere means they don't have to be repeated for multiple classes, and including that section in feats allows for the niche option of choosing them that way.

I do think it's silly, though (and contrary to the goal of forwards compatibility) that even with this reorganization they're specifying which fighting styles a given class can take. Let people make polearm Rangers and dual wielding Paladins if they want to!


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 4, 2022)

I think that they're worthwhile as a level 1 feat, I might think twice before picking one up at level 4+, especially with how the level 4 feats seem to all be half feats, at higher levels I'd want some stat increases to continue that side if character advancement.

Though if they also have a 4th level bonus feat as they were suggesting in the Dragonlance UA, I might consider a second fighting style.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The title is the post, really.
> 
> +2 to ranged weapon attacks is good, but it isn’t equal to the other feats, IMO.
> 
> I’m curious where others place them in relation to the other new feats.




+2 to ranged attack is the only one I would call equivalent of a feat (attribute increase)...
The rest... not so much. Maybe duelling too.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The title is the post, really.
> 
> +2 to ranged weapon attacks is good, but it isn’t equal to the other feats, IMO.
> 
> I’m curious where others place them in relation to the other new feats.



Agreed. If they're going to be feats, they need to be buffed.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The title is the post, really.
> 
> +2 to ranged weapon attacks is good, but it isn’t equal to the other feats, IMO.
> 
> I’m curious where others place them in relation to the other new feats.



agree 100%

not even archery is worth full feat.

+2 ranged attack vs +2 dex?
you have -1 attack and gain +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 init, +1 to 3 skills, +1 dex saves.

rest are "quarter" feat at best.
dueling and defense are best of that lot.

remake, dueling, great weapon style and archery to bonus damage equal to your proficiency modifier.
just pick; one handed weapons, two handed weapons or ranged weapons.

unarmed style: unarmed damage 1d6(1d8 if both hands free), as Bonus action make one unarmed attack.

blind sight: same, 10ft

defense: +1 AC

Guerrilla: +5ft movement, full climb and swim speed


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 4, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> I think that they're worthwhile as a level 1 feat, I might think twice before picking one up at level 4+, especially with how the level 4 feats seem to all be half feats, at higher levels I'd want some stat increases to continue that side if character advancement.



IMO they need to make it so that if you take a level 1 feat after level 1, you get a +1 ASI. 


cbwjm said:


> Though if they also have a 4th level bonus feat as they were suggesting in the Dragonlance UA, I might consider a second fighting style.



Fighting styles can be very good, but the feat just needs a boost. Maybe proficiency in a weapon or armor or something. 


UngeheuerLich said:


> +2 to ranged attack is the only one I would call equivalent of a feat (attribute increase)...
> The rest... not so much. Maybe duelling too.



The whole structure of 1st level feats is also bad IMO, but the fighting style feat bothered me in Tashas as well, and the invocation feat. These features are not worth a whole feat, except in comparison to the weakest feats.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The title is the post, really.
> 
> +2 to ranged weapon attacks is good, but it isn’t equal to the other feats, IMO.
> 
> I’m curious where others place them in relation to the other new feats.



I've always thought that they were barely worth a 1st level class feature.  I doubt I will ever take one again if they remain both a feat and this weak.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 4, 2022)

They could just make a 4th level feat that's: +1 to STR/DEX/CON and pick a Fighting Style feat of your choice.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 4, 2022)

I see this as doing two things:


Put all the fighting styles in one place, so you don't have to repeat them in each class that has them.
Give people who really want more fighting styles than their class would give them the option of taking them at the cost of a feat.
But I don't think the game expects people to spend feat slots on fighting styles. It's only there as an "I guess?!?!" option.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The title is the post, really.
> 
> +2 to ranged weapon attacks is good, but it isn’t equal to the other feats, IMO.



I think that’s working as intended. Fighting styles aren’t meant to be something you want to spend a feat on. Martial classes will get one for free, some subclasses (like Champion) might grant additional ones for free, and for the most part, no one will take them outside of that. The only difference between that and how it works in the 2014 rules is that if someone REALLY wants a fighting style for some reason, they can take it.

Also, I _think_ characters who’s first class is in the Warrior group might be able to take a fighting style as their background feat? Not positive if that’s the case though.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

Kobold Avenger said:


> They could just make a 4th level feat that's: +1 to STR/DEX/CON and pick a Fighting Style feat of your choice.



All feats should be with +1 ASI. 

At 1st level, just take any feat without +1 ASI.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 4, 2022)

They're 1st level feats, not 4th level feats, so they shouldn't be compared to feats like heavy armor master or sharpshooter, but to feats like alert, savage attacker and tough. 

I think some fighting styles are in need of a buff (protection, great weapon, two weapon), some are overall fine (dueling, defense) and then you have archery as the powerful outlier.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> All feats should be with +1 ASI.
> 
> At 1st level, just take any feat without +1 ASI.



Or just let them grant a +1. Every player will be getting the same benefit so it's not like there will be any power imbalance.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> Or just let them grant a +1. Every player will be getting the same benefit so it's not like there will be any power imbalance.



I believe that it is to prevent PCs having an 18 in primary at 1st level.

I agree with that. I would rather that 1st level characters get 2 feats without any ASI than one feat with +1 ASI.

an "18" can wait until 4th level.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I believe that it is to prevent PCs having an 18 in primary at 1st level.
> 
> I agree with that. I would rather that 1st level characters get 2 feats without any ASI than one feat with +1 ASI.
> 
> an "18" can wait until 4th level.




Or +1/+1 from background, +1 from a feat.
Only exception is the human. He would get one more +1, but you can easily make an exception that human may take a feat and ignore the stat increase.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 4, 2022)

You are _not meant to take them_ as regular feats (even at lv1). You take the freebies you get from your class... which may include multiple fighting style picks for Warriors.

I'm not happy about them being listed under feats, done that way just so they wouldn't have to make a separate page for fighting styles, like under the Warrior group entry.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 4, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I think that’s working as intended. Fighting styles aren’t meant to be something you want to spend a feat on. Martial classes will get one for free, some subclasses (like Champion) might grant additional ones for free, and for the most part, no one will take them outside of that. The only difference between that and how it works in the 2014 rules is that if someone REALLY wants a fighting style for some reason, they can take it.



I think that is bad design, and I don’t think I even agree that it’s the case. I think they fully intend people to consider and extra fighting style to be worth the same resource as magic initiate and other level 1 feats. 


Charlaquin said:


> Also, I _think_ characters who’s first class is in the Warrior group might be able to take a fighting style as their background feat? Not positive if that’s the case though.



Even then they’re not worth actually doing so.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that is bad design, and I don’t think I even agree that it’s the case. I think they fully intend people to consider and extra fighting style to be worth the same resource as magic initiate and other level 1 feats.
> 
> Even then they’re not worth actually doing so.



this.

outside archery style, ofc, for a warrior type no style can compete with +2 HP per level.
Especially for a (bear totem)barbarian where it is worth double due to rage.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> this.
> 
> outside archery style, ofc, for a warrior type no style can compete with +2 HP per level.
> Especially for a (bear totem)barbarian where it is worth double due to rage.



Tough might be overtuned for a level 1 feat.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Oct 4, 2022)

I think it depends on the build/character IMHO. As it is in 5e a monk may get a worthwhile boost from the Unarmed style at early levels and can change it later for dueling. If the styles change in the new revision it may be different. Likewise archery can be a good boost for a ranged attacker. +2 to damage on an attack isn't a lot but it makes a difference over the rounds. I've found that +2 on a melee attack with a longsword or shortsword is not a lot but dueling can be a decent choice if you need to leave one hand free.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Tough might be overtuned for a level 1 feat.



A little, I see 1st level feats as normal(4th level) feats without ASI.

Tough could be little bit reworked:

+1 HP, and +1 per character level.
that is +2 HP on 1st level and +1 HP on later levels.
when you spend HDs, you regain 1 extra HP per HD spent.

this would effectively be like increasing class HD by one step.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 4, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Tough might be overtuned for a level 1 feat.



Nah, the level 1 feats aren’t especially weak in general.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Nah, the level 1 feats aren’t especially weak in general.



It feels like an auto pick for anyone who wants to stay alive in melee, and strong in general. More in the ball park of a 4th level feat than a 1st level one.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> It feels like an auto pick for anyone who wants to stay alive in melee, and strong in general. More in the ball park of a 4th level feat than a 1st level one.



though is in that, I would say 2/3rd of a feat area. Too weak for a feat, to strong to give it +1 ASI.


----------



## TwoSix (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> though is in that, I would say 2/3rd of a feat area. Too weak for a feat, to strong to give it +1 ASI.



I think "2/3 of a normal" feat is intended to be the rough ballpark of power for a level 1 feat. 

What I would do to boost fighting styles to the range of a level 1 feat is to make a single feat called "Fighting Style", put all the fighting style options under that feat, and the feat allows you to pick 2.  I would also remove the defensive (+1 AC) option as it's too obvious and boring.


----------



## Chaosmancer (Oct 4, 2022)

There are certainly multiple levels here. 

First, some of the styles need buffed in general. Protection, Great Weapon Master, maybe two weapon fighting. I actually think with the change to Sharpshooter, Archery isn't overpowered anymore. 

Then, frankly, there is no reason to make these feats. I think it is the same type of "simplification" they've been doing in a few places. Since this is a "feature" that multiple classes can get, it is a "feat" instead of something else. But I honestly think making them a list in the Warrior group makes just as much sense. 

Especially since the thing I'm already thinking we should do is make a 4th level feat that gives a fighting style and some other general benefit, like the superiority dice and a maneuver. There are absolutely a few classes (currently) who can benefit from fighting styles, and as we expand into having things like Bladesingers and Bladelocks and Valor Bards, it can make sense for them to want the Fighting Styles. I don't think they should be punished for wanting those features by getting something so much weaker than what they could have otherwise gotten. Additionally, for those saying you can take them at 1st level, that is only true if you are part of the warrior group, since they are limited. And, frankly, only Defensive really stacks with the other styles, so there isn't any reason that a warrior is going to want to have it as their first level feat. 

Finally, there is no reason to limit these. Rangers can be strength and wield a heavy weapon. Paladins can dual-wield, if barbarians get them in the new OD&D, they can use shields. There isn't any reason to limit these options.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> *All feats* *should be with* +1 ASI.
> 
> At 1st level, just *take any feat without* +1 ASI.



How does that work exactly? 

My personal preference would be for ASI's after racial/background/whatever bonuses to just go away.  Make it feats only.  Make items and special ways to get stat increases mean something again.  Make 20s mean something again, rather than be common place for any mid or high level PC.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Tough might be overtuned for a level 1 feat.




Not really. +1 AC can easily be better than 40hp at level 20. It is probably not worse at level 1.

Maybe using prof bonus or half prof bonus wouls make them really good however: +6 to damage at high level is probably as good as -5/+10 used to be for TWF.
+3 armor should compete with tough.
+6 to hit for bow fighters seem too good actually. Maybe half proficiency rounded up would be perfect here.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I believe that it is to prevent PCs having an 18 in primary at 1st level.



Rolling is a default method and 57%(slight upward rounding) of PCs who roll will have a 16 to add the +2 ASI to.  WotC doesn't have a goal to prevent 18's in the primary at 1st level, or even 20's, since rolling yields those as well.  If they wanted to prevent 18+ at first level, rolling would go away or change to d4's or something.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that is bad design, and I don’t think I even agree that it’s the case. I think they fully intend people to consider and extra fighting style to be worth the same resource as magic initiate and other level 1 feats.



I agree.  If they aren't intended to be something you would spend a feat on, then they should never have been converted from class abilities to feats.  If that's the intent, then it wasted work.

More likely they are intended to be chosen as feats, but are just badly designed at this point.  Either way it's just bad right now.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Not really. +1 AC can easily be better than 40hp at level 20. It is probably not worse at level 1.



I don't agree.  That +1 AC is only going to turn 1 out of every 20 attacks(on average) against you from a hit to a miss.  You may well be unconscious before you ever get to the attack that would miss, where that 40 hit points will make a difference far more often.

Same at 1st level.  You only have 2 extra hit points at 1st level, but 20 attacks against you will take several fights, so the 2 hit points will be more useful.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 4, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You are _not meant to take them_ as regular feats (even at lv1). You take the freebies you get from your class... which may include multiple fighting style picks for Warriors.
> 
> I'm not happy about them being listed under feats, done that way just so they wouldn't have to make a separate page for fighting styles, like under the Warrior group entry.



When Jerremy Crawfor talks about the fighting styles he said they made them fests so any class could take them.
But compared to other feats that give a ASI in addition to the feats powers they feel underwhelming.
Yes having a fighting style on your mace and shield wielding cleric might sound like a cool concept but as the rules are now you  you would have to chose a sub par feat for that concept


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 4, 2022)

On another note the fighting styles should be one feat.

FIGHTING STYLE
1st-Level    
Feat Prerequisite: Warrior Group 
Repeatable: yes but you have to chose a different fighting style each time.

Chose one of the following fighting styles, if this fighting style was granted to you by the  fighting style class feature you might be limited in the fighting styles you are allowed to chose see the fighting style feature description in your class details.

list styles here.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't agree.  That +1 AC is only going to turn 1 out of every 20 attacks(on average) against you from a hit to a miss.  You may well be unconscious before you ever get to the attack that would miss, where that 40 hit points will make a difference far more often.
> 
> Same at 1st level.  You only have 2 extra hit points at 1st level, but 20 attacks against you will take several fights, so the 2 hit points will be more useful.



After crunching a few numbers, I have to agree. For +1 AC to match the value of +2 hp/level, you need an absurdly high AC, _and_ you need to be almost exclusively facing enemies that rely on attack rolls to damage you.

Toughness has gone from a medium-quality feat in 5E to a top-tier pick in 1D&D. And Defense remains one of the weakest fighting styles.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I don't agree.  That +1 AC is only going to turn 1 out of every 20 attacks(on average) against you from a hit to a miss.  You may well be unconscious before you ever get to the attack that would miss, where that 40 hit points will make a difference far more often.
> 
> Same at 1st level.  You only have 2 extra hit points at 1st level, but 20 attacks against you will take several fights, so the 2 hit points will be more useful.




Depends on your total armor.

Assuming enemies attack with +4 to hit, dealing 6 points of damage. 
Your AC with chain + shield is 18 without defense style. 19 with defense style. 12 HP without tough, 14 with tough.

In that case, the tough character can withstand one more hit.

Hit chance for the enemy is 7 out of 20 attacka, 35%. Against defense it is 6 out of 20, 30%.

So on average it takes about 7 rounds to put you down to 0 hp with defense style and 8 to 9 rounds with tough. If you consider that tough is a once per day boost to hp and does not help you recovering, over the course of a day, you might get more out of defense style than you might think.

Of course, as all fighting styles, as I said already, it is a bit to weak to be considered a feat.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I believe that it is to prevent PCs having an 18 in primary at 1st level.
> 
> I agree with that. I would rather that 1st level characters get 2 feats without any ASI than one feat with +1 ASI.
> 
> an "18" can wait until 4th level.



Which is fair enough, but I honestly think it doesn't matter, besides, plenty of people roll and get that 18, or much more rarely a 20, at 1st level anyway.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 4, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> You are _not meant to take them_ as regular feats (even at lv1). You take the freebies you get from your class... which may include multiple fighting style picks for Warriors.
> 
> I'm not happy about them being listed under feats, done that way just so they wouldn't have to make a separate page for fighting styles, like under the Warrior group entry.



They are literally already a feat (fighting initiate from Tasha's), I think the intent is for people to take them.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

cbwjm said:


> Which is fair enough, but I honestly think it doesn't matter, besides, plenty of people roll and get that 18, or much more rarely a 20, at 1st level anyway.



we haven't rolled for abilities since 2003, I think...


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> we haven't rolled for abilities since 2003, I think...



From the polls that I've seen online here and elsewhere, it seems that a slightly higher percentage of people use point buy/arrays than roll for stats, which leave nearly half of groups rolling for stats.  WotC knows this and rolling is a default method of stat generation, so while your group doesn't roll, WotC clearly isn't trying to avoid people starting with 18-20 in a stat, because they use rolling as a default method.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> From the polls that I've seen online here and elsewhere, it seems that a slightly higher percentage of people use point buy/arrays than roll for stats, which leave nearly half of groups rolling for stats.  WotC knows this and rolling is a default method of stat generation, so while your group doesn't roll, WotC clearly isn't trying to avoid people starting with 18-20 in a stat, because they use rolling as a default method.



I think what percentage would have been if PHB was written for ability generation:

1. Default: ability array; 15,14,13,12,10,8

2. Variant 1; point buy

3. Variant 2; roll 4d6D1 six times. This method can produce wildly different characters in power level in your group.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> we haven't rolled for abilities since 2003, I think...



All of my groups love to roll for stats, we like that randomness.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> I agree.  If they aren't intended to be something you would spend a feat on, then they should never have been converted from class abilities to feats.  If that's the intent, then it wasted work.
> 
> More likely they are intended to be chosen as feats, but are just badly designed at this point.  Either way it's just bad right now.



Right. They certainly aren't in Tasha's as a feat in order to not be taken. 

Oh well, I will certainly tell them they're a mistake as-is when the survey is posted.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I think what percentage would have been if PHB was written for ability generation:
> 
> 1. Default: ability array; 15,14,13,12,10,8
> 
> ...



Probably higher given the number of new people to D&D since 5e came out.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 4, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Right. They certainly aren't in Tasha's as a feat in order to not be taken.
> 
> Oh well, I will certainly tell them they're a mistake as-is when the survey is posted.



Same. They need to be improved or moved back to the classes.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 4, 2022)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> When Jeremy Crawford talks about the fighting styles he said they made them feats so any class could take them.



So much for that benefit of the doubt, then. It's a certain kind of a combo, to dismissively put class features as feats, while wildly over-estimating their actual value at the same time.


----------



## Weiley31 (Oct 4, 2022)

Also, Fighting Initiate IS a thing (at the moment) so that Feat technically covers all the Fighting Styles if you're going by learning them as a feat.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 5, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> Also, Fighting Initiate IS a thing (at the moment) so that Feat technically covers all the Fighting Styles if you're going by learning them as a feat.



it's a bad feat now, it will be a bad feat in 2024 if it stays a full feat, unless fighting styles get buffed a lot. Even archery.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 5, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> I agree they're rarely worthwhile as feats, but putting all the descriptions together somewhere means they don't have to be repeated for multiple classes, and including that section in feats allows for the niche option of choosing them that way.



I don't see how putting all of them in the same place is a good thing. The extra content better be worth having to move pages back and fort during character creation.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Oct 6, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> How does that work exactly?
> 
> My personal preference would be for ASI's after racial/background/whatever bonuses to just go away.  Make it feats only.  Make items and special ways to get stat increases mean something again.  Make 20s mean something again, rather than be common place for any mid or high level PC.



Or at least separate ASIs from feats. Right now, having to choose between ASIs and a feat seems an unnecessary dilemma. I guess the thought was that a character in a game that allowed feats would be more powerful than a character in a game that didn't? What difference does that make? As long as characters in the same game are comparable to each other, you're good.

Although a game that included both ASIs and feats though would have characters more powerful than the baseline game allowed for. But just up the challenge level of your encounters to compensate.

The mishmash of feats with ASIs has lead to these +1/feats which makes it that much harder to balance feats against each other IMO.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 9, 2022)

Some of the Fighting Styles in the 2014 Players Handbook are like half of a feat. Most of them are less than that.

If you had to choose between a cantrip and a Fighting Style, the cantrip is sometimes better.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 27, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> They're 1st level feats, not 4th level feats, so they shouldn't be compared to feats like heavy armor master or sharpshooter, but to feats like alert, savage attacker and tough.
> 
> I think some fighting styles are in need of a buff (protection, great weapon, two weapon), some are overall fine (dueling, defense) and then you have archery as the powerful outlier.



That's just a noob trap, and I'd prefer to leave system mastery behind in 3E. As it stands, it seems reasonable for a fighter to take another style feat later on, but under this they're just being short changed because a designer decided to put a class feature as a feat instead because they want to slightly save on word count.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

nm


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 28, 2022)

I use standard array because I work with a lot of new players and rolling just leads to trouble when one kid is super lucky and another in the same group is super unlucky. It just feels patently unfair that so much subsequent gameplay comes down to one set of dice rolls, so I prefer them to all start on equal footing, especially as they are learning the game.

That said, rolling is still the first method of stat generation described in the PHB, so I have to imagine lots of folks still prefer it.

As for fighting styles: they are okay compared to most of the new level 1 feats.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> From the polls that I've seen online here and elsewhere, it seems that a slightly higher percentage of people use point buy/arrays than roll for stats, which leave nearly half of groups rolling for stats.  WotC knows this and rolling is a default method of stat generation, so while your group doesn't roll, WotC clearly isn't trying to avoid people starting with 18-20 in a stat, because they use rolling as a default method.



I think here more use point buy, but I also think this sample is biased.

Your chance of getting an 18 by rolling using the PHB method is not great.  The median is going to be very close to standard array:  8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 I think.


----------



## ECMO3 (Oct 28, 2022)

Horwath said:


> it's a bad feat now, it will be a bad feat in 2024 if it stays a full feat, unless fighting styles get buffed a lot. Even archery.



I like fighting initiate (Superior Technique style) at 4th level on Human Arcane Tricksters after taking Martial adept at 1st level.

This gives you 2 battlemaster dice, which is usually more than 1 every battle.

For maneuvers I get quick toss, disarming attack and menacing attack.

Use quick toss so I can cast an action spell like tashas laughter or tashas mind whip and still get in a sneak attack (with an extra d6 damage) or alternatively use it if I miss with my attack.

Use disarming attack and then send in mage hand legerdemain to take the weapon or whatever you knocked out of his hand

I rarely use menacing attack, but I use it occasionally if I am not going to be able to get far enough away and want to get the bad guys off of me.  Bad guy gets into melee with you and hit him with menacing attack and you can disengage and back up 10 feet and he can't come attack you in melee on his turn.

When you consider the effects or what amounts to an extra action and the extra damage I think this outruns an ASI at  4th level.


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 28, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> I think here more use point buy, but I also think this sample is biased.
> 
> Your chance of getting an 18 by rolling using the PHB method is not great.  The median is going to be very close to standard array:  8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 I think.



The chances of starting with one...

20: 9.34% (18+2 for race/background)
19 or 20: 30.07% (17-18+2 for race/background)
18-20: 56.76% (16-18+2 for race/background)

Nearly 1 in 10 PCs that roll can have a 20, and 56.76% of rolled PCs can have an 18+.  Clearly WotC is not trying to avoid 18+ to a prime stat at 1st level if one of the default methods of stat generation generates 18+ almost 57% of the time.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Oct 28, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> How does that work exactly?
> 
> My personal preference would be for ASI's after racial/background/whatever bonuses to just go away.  Make it feats only.  Make items and special ways to get stat increases mean something again.  Make 20s mean something again, rather than be common place for any mid or high level PC.




Howabout you get +1 from class, +1 from race or background, and +1 from your "level 1" feat (but they are the same as the level 4 feats, or at least also have a +1 ASI). They can't all three be in the same ability. (Max +2)


----------



## Maxperson (Oct 28, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Howabout you get +1 from class, +1 from race or background, and +1 from your "level 1" feat (but they are the same as the level 4 feats, or at least also have a +1 ASI). They can't all three be in the same ability. (Max +2)



I'm okay with that.  I just want to see additional bonuses beyond that first +3 total be earned from the DM through items, rewards, etc., not from leveling up.


----------



## Baumi (Oct 28, 2022)

I agree that you should get something for taking lower level feats.

I think that the Fighting Styles are ok compared to the other first level feats, not great but if you like to fight in a certain way than it is certainly usefull. But when you get highter level feats you should be given the +1 ASI when you take a first level feat or it will be a trap option for non-optimizers/new players.

Btw. I don't like the +1 ASI's. They are confusing for beginners (also why do you get the +2/+1 with backgrounds instead of just higher Starting Attributes) and half the time you gain odd Stats that doesn't help you anyway.

In similar note, why are Epic Boons Feats? The Character Classes say you get an Epic Boon with no mention of beeing a Feat and then they are listed under Feats as Level 20 Feats. What purpose does this serve? Can you take a lower Level Feat instead?


----------



## Horwath (Oct 28, 2022)

Baumi said:


> I agree that you should get something for taking lower level feats.
> 
> I think that the Fighting Styles are ok compared to the other first level feats, not great but if you like to fight in a certain way than it is certainly usefull. But when you get highter level feats you should be given the +1 ASI when you take a first level feat or it will be a trap option for non-optimizers/new players.



agree.



Baumi said:


> Btw. I don't like the +1 ASI's. They are confusing for beginners (also why do you get the +2/+1 with backgrounds instead of just higher Starting Attributes) and half the time you gain odd Stats that doesn't help you anyway.



higher point buy pool(32 pts) with option to buy 16,17 and 18.

cost:
8: 0 pts
9: 1 pt
10: 2 pts
11: 3 pts
12: 4 pts
13: 5 pts
14: 6 pts
15: 8 pts
16: 10 pts
17: 13 pts
18: 16 pts

or standard array of: 16,16,14,12,10,8

for rolling it could be buffed to 3 rolls with 5d6D2 and 3 rolls with 4d6D1. to compensate for not using +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1.





Baumi said:


> In similar note, why are Epic Boons Feats? The Character Classes say you get an Epic Boon with no mention of beeing a Feat and then they are listed under Feats as Level 20 Feats. What purpose does this serve? Can you take a lower Level Feat instead?



it would be a waste. maybe 2 or 3 feats instead of epic boon if it could be interchangeable.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 28, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> That's just a noob trap, and I'd prefer to leave system mastery behind in 3E. As it stands, it seems reasonable for a fighter to take another style feat later on, but under this they're just being short changed because a designer decided to put a class feature as a feat instead because they want to slightly save on word count.



I also dislike trap options and Ivory Tower design, but if a feat is marked as a 1st level feat, I would expect it to be less powerful than a 4th level feat, just like epic boons (20th level feats) seem to be stronger than 4th level feats. The numbers should communicate the intent well enough.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 28, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I also dislike trap options and Ivory Tower design, but if a feat is marked as a 1st level feat, I would expect it to be less powerful than a 4th level feat, just like epic boons (20th level feats) seem to be stronger than 4th level feats. The numbers should communicate the intent well enough.



1st level feat does not have an ASI.

they should be balanced around that.

so that you can take that feat at levels 4+ and just add +1 ASI.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Oct 29, 2022)

IMO, there are no "trap" options if a feat or spell or whatever variable attribute you want to choose contributes to the character concept you want to play.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 31, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I also dislike trap options and Ivory Tower design, but if a feat is marked as a 1st level feat, I would expect it to be less powerful than a 4th level feat, just like epic boons (20th level feats) seem to be stronger than 4th level feats. The numbers should communicate the intent well enough.



The issue is that means that a fighter can't gain a second style without shortchanging themselves a stat point. That's crap design simply because a dev wanted to save a few words (probably so they can add more spells  ). 

Easy enough fix is that all first level feats grant a +1 if taken after first level. This helps avoid noob trap of using a higher level feat slot for a lower level slot. 

Or better yet, just decouple feats and stat bumps entirely.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 31, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> IMO, there are no "trap" options if a feat or spell or whatever variable attribute you want to choose contributes to the character concept you want to play.



Not a fan of the logic that crappy balance is acceptable if people can be suckered into doing it for "teh roleplaying"!

Maybe the designers can actually instead put some work in for once? It really isn't hard to TRY and balance, but you all keep giving them free passes because someone somewhere will spend an entire feat to get a cool hat with no mechanical bonus so they can be "RP'er than thou".


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Oct 31, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> Not a fan of the logic that crappy balance is acceptable if people can be suckered into doing it for "teh roleplaying"!
> 
> Maybe the designers can actually instead put some work in for once? It really isn't hard to TRY and balance, but you all keep giving them free passes because someone somewhere will spend an entire feat to get a cool hat with no mechanical bonus so they can be "RP'er than thou".




Just like the cake, the balance is a lie.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 1, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> Just like the cake, the balance is a lie.



This is a false dichotomy.


----------



## Olrox17 (Nov 1, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> The issue is that means that a fighter can't gain a second style without shortchanging themselves a stat point. That's crap design simply because a dev wanted to save a few words (probably so they can add more spells  ).
> 
> Easy enough fix is that all first level feats grant a +1 if taken after first level. This helps avoid noob trap of using a higher level feat slot for a lower level slot.
> 
> Or better yet, just decouple feats and stat bumps entirely.



I agree with your design intent.


----------



## Lojaan (Nov 1, 2022)

They're not just a feat. They're the first step in a feat chain. Not sure how I feel about that.


----------



## Branduil (Nov 1, 2022)

Easiest way to fix the Fighting Style feats is to make it one feat that lets you choose two styles each time.


----------



## Horwath (Nov 1, 2022)

Branduil said:


> Easiest way to fix the Fighting Style feats is to make it one feat that lets you choose two styles each time.



two styles or style and martial weapons proficiency.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 1, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> Just like the cake, the balance is a lie.



A pithy response in lieu of expecting designers to do their job.

You know you can always do whatever you want with balanced rules, since you don't care about the mechanical side of the game, right? On the flipside, it's a lot more work for those who care to make a balanced game.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Nov 1, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> A pithy response in lieu of expecting designers to do their job.
> 
> You know you can always do whatever you want with balanced rules, since you don't care about the mechanical side of the game, right? On the flipside, it's a lot more work for those who care to make a balanced game.




A poor assumption on your part if you believe that I don't care about mechanics.

I just happen to personally believe chasing balance is ultimately a fool's errand.  Another way to put it that might raise less hackles:  balance is in the eye of the beholder.  Clearly, there are others among the posters here who don't feel the same.  And that's fine - I do hope you submit your feedback/concerns to WotC and we end up with a better game because of it.


----------



## Undrave (Nov 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> From the polls that I've seen online here and elsewhere, it seems that a slightly higher percentage of people use point buy/arrays than roll for stats, which leave nearly half of groups rolling for stats.  WotC knows this and rolling is a default method of stat generation, so while your group doesn't roll, WotC clearly isn't trying to avoid people starting with 18-20 in a stat, because they use rolling as a default method.



Savages


Horwath said:


> I think what percentage would have been if PHB was written for ability generation:
> 
> 1. Default: ability array; 15,14,13,12,10,8
> 
> ...



As it should be! 


fluffybunbunkittens said:


> So much for that benefit of the doubt, then. It's a certain kind of a combo, to dismissively put class features as feats, while wildly over-estimating their actual value at the same time.



Not a fan of that. 


MoonSong said:


> I don't see how putting all of them in the same place is a good thing. The extra content better be worth having to move pages back and fort during character creation.



Augh I hate that.


ehren37 said:


> That's just a noob trap, and I'd prefer to leave system mastery behind in 3E. As it stands, it seems reasonable for a fighter to take another style feat later on, but under this they're just being short changed because a designer decided to put a class feature as a feat instead because they want to slightly save on word count.



Again: not a fan of that. 

I’m already convinced that some of the initial feats in the first PHB were originally Fighter class features that were then moved to the Feats section because they wanted the Fighter to be the ‘Get loads of Feat’ guy. Like in 3.x, to please the Grognards. Heavy Armor Mastery? That’s just an upgrade of the Defense Fighting style. Sharpshooter? That’s just an upgrade to the Archery style. Shield Mastery? Polearm Mastery? Sentinel? Great Weapon Mastery? They’re all pretty much formatted like the Fighting styles and synergize with them very well. Inspiring Leader could have been a Battlemaster feature even. 

This is just more sign of a philosophy saying that if a Fighter can do something, everybody else should get to, ‘cause it’s just a Fighter. 'Cause who cares, right?


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Nov 1, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> A poor assumption on your part if you believe that I don't care about mechanics.
> 
> I just happen to personally believe chasing balance is ultimately a fool's errand.  Another way to put it that might raise less hackles:  balance is in the eye of the beholder.  Clearly, there are others among the posters here who don't feel the same.  And that's fine - I do hope you submit your feedback/concerns to WotC and we end up with a better game because of it.



If what you're saying is that perfect balance is impossible to achieve, then yes, agreed. But your drive by posts communicate that you think any pursuit of balance is foolish. So maybe not a poor assumption on the poster you're responding to's part, but a failure on your part to communicate your intent clearly.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Nov 3, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> IMO, there are no "trap" options if a feat or spell or whatever variable attribute you want to choose contributes to the character concept you want to play.



There's a name for that.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 3, 2022)

Undrave said:


> This is just more sign of a philosophy saying that if a Fighter can do something, everybody else should get to, ‘cause it’s just a Fighter. 'Cause who cares, right?



To me this really improves the game.  Being able to take Sentinel with a Wizard or Sharpshooter with a Rogue is awesome.  I also love putting the fighting styles into a feat as well so other classes can even get those (albeit at a hefty price)


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Nov 3, 2022)

Gladius Legis said:


> There's a name for that.



Good point. One can also consider that a perceived weakness chosen for character concept reasons need not invalidate the overall mechanical effectiveness of a character.  Especially in the context of the whole party.

I guess it all comes down to one's (or the table's) definition of "optimization".  When that, IMO, lurches into the territory of a player telling another player that they shouldn't pick a particular option for their character because "it's a trap!" (which essentially boils down to: "no weaknesses allowed in the party"), well... some/many tables are going to find that just doesn't jive with their play goals.  Every table may have a different take on this, of course, but I don't think this perspective is particularly novel.


----------



## Undrave (Nov 3, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> To me this really improves the game.  Being able to take Sentinel with a Wizard or Sharpshooter with a Rogue is awesome.  I also love putting the fighting styles into a feat as well so other classes can even get those (albeit at a hefty price)



It's a presentation thing. If you can get class features with a feat, then it's kind of a light sprinkle of multi classing, which is fine. But when your class feature is 'you get a feat', even if from a limited list, then it's no longer your class feature, it's just a feat. 

Magic Initiate isn't the Spellcasting class feature. 

Is there any other class in the game where there is a feat letting your steal from a _*Subclass*_ the same way you can pick up Battlemaster maneuvers? I can't think of one...


----------



## Undrave (Nov 3, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> Good point. One can also consider that a perceived weakness chosen for character concept reasons need not invalidate the overall mechanical effectiveness of a character.  Especially in the context of the whole party.
> 
> I guess it all comes down to one's (or the table's) definition of "optimization".  When that, IMO, lurches into the territory of a player telling another player that they shouldn't pick a particular option for their character because "it's a trap!" (which essentially boils down to: "no weaknesses allowed in the party"), well... some/many tables are going to find that just doesn't jive with their play goals.  Every table may have a different take on this, of course, but I don't think this perspective is particularly novel.




IMO a trap option is something that lies about its value, or something that fails to do what its flavour pretend it does. Imagine if the Chef feat only gave you prof. in Cooking Ustensiles and like... the Survival skill to gather ingredients. It wouldn't be very good and wouldn't make you much of a chef. 

Optimal options don't have to be flavourless or universally good, but they can't just be flavourful but while having no impact.


----------



## ECMO3 (Nov 3, 2022)

Undrave said:


> It's a presentation thing. If you can get class features with a feat, then it's kind of a light sprinkle of multi classing, which is fine. But when your class feature is 'you get a feat', even if from a limited list, then it's no longer your class feature, it's just a feat.
> 
> Magic Initiate isn't the Spellcasting class feature.
> 
> Is there any other class in the game where there is a feat letting your steal from a _*Subclass*_ the same way you can pick up Battlemaster maneuvers? I can't think of one...



You can get the maenuvers with a fighting style too, so it is not just a battlemaster thing, but there plenty of examples from other classes.

Mobile feat steals from Swashbuckler subclass.

Poisioner steals from the Assassin subclass

Magic Initiate allows you to pick up spells and cantrips otherwise only available Wizards in the Dunamancy or Chronogy subclasesses.

Ritual Caster is a ripoff from pact of the Tome Warlocks

*That is just subclasses, you also have the following class ripoffs:*

Gift of Chromatic Dragon is close to being a ripoff of Elemental Affinity from the Draconic Sorcerer subclass.

The fighter unarmed fighting style, the fighting initiate feat that lets anyone get that, Tavern Brawler feat, Dragon Hide feat and several racial abilities all steal the unarmed strike ability from the Monk.

The skill expert, prodigy feat steal expertise from Bard and Rogue and in addition to those two, several backgrounds and the skilled feat let you take thieves tools from the Rogue.

I don't get your comment about Magic initiate, because it does allow any class to cast.  Telepathic feat, Fey Touched Feat and Shadow Touched feat all do that as well, stealing from multiple casters.

The metamagic adept feat steals from sorcerer

The invocation feat (can't remember what it is called) and Warcaster both steal from Warlock


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Nov 3, 2022)

Undrave said:


> IMO a trap option is something that lies about its value, or something that fails to do what its flavour pretend it does. Imagine if the Chef feat only gave you prof. in Cooking Ustensiles and like... the Survival skill to gather ingredients. It wouldn't be very good and wouldn't make you much of a chef.
> 
> Optimal options don't have to be flavourless or universally good, but they can't just be flavourful but while having no impact.




Honest (ahem) question:  Do you think any of the proposed OneD&D feats, especially those 1st level feats, are lying about their value?

And, one thing I hope everyone here can agree on, a Chef feat had best be flavourful or that restaurant is not going to get much repeat business.  Amirite?


----------



## Undrave (Nov 4, 2022)

ECMO3 said:


> Mobile feat steals from Swashbuckler subclass.



Mobile came first, so it's not the same thing.


ECMO3 said:


> I don't get your comment about Magic initiate, because it does allow any class to cast.



What I mean is that Magic Iniate only gives you limited casting, it doesn't give you the 'Spellcasting' class feature with the full description of how many spells and how many slots and the progression. But I forgot Ritual Caster, you're right.

A lot of multi classing feat are watered down versions of what a class can do, they are there to give you a dash of that class, to dip your toes without a level dip, and they work great in general. But even if a feat allowed you to grab a Fighting Style, it was still a FIGHTER'S fighting style you were picking. It's not like if Magic Initiate allowed you to pick spells from ANY class and pick whatever casting ability you wanted: you still had to reference a class either way. Same with Ritual Caster, you didn't have free reign and had to reference a class. 

Putting Fighting Styles in the feat section just detaches them from the Class. Imagine if Sneak Attack was a feat anybody could pick? Would it still feel like a Rogue's class feature?


----------



## Undrave (Nov 4, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> Honest (ahem) question: Do you think any of the proposed OneD&D feats, especially those 1st level feats, are lying about their value?



Eeeh... haven't dived deep enough into them, but I don't like the idea of level gated feat because of the imbalance it creates between feats. You might have a cool concept in mind that requires two level 1 feat and if you pick the other at level 4 you basically get punished for it. I don't think we get enough feats in the game for it to be so tightly level gated Maybe if there were two blocks: 1-10 and 11-20? Or if we got another feat between level 1 and level 4, but as it stands... not a fan.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Nov 4, 2022)

Undrave said:


> Eeeh... haven't dived deep enough into them, but I don't like the idea of level gated feat because of the imbalance it creates between feats. You might have a cool concept in mind that requires two level 1 feat and if you pick the other at level 4 you basically get punished for it. I don't think we get enough feats in the game for it to be so tightly level gated Maybe if there were two blocks: 1-10 and 11-20? Or if we got another feat between level 1 and level 4, but as it stands... not a fan.




I can understand that - would something like this work for you?

_If this level 1 feat is taken at level 4 or higher, add a +1 to Dex or Str_


----------



## Horwath (Nov 4, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> I can understand that - would something like this work for you?
> 
> _If this level 1 feat is taken at level 4 or higher, add a +1 to Dex or Str_



yes.

all Level 1 feats should come with +1 ASI if taken at 4th level or later.


----------



## leonardozg (Nov 4, 2022)

Fighting Style is not worth a whole feat, agreed, but it is also not a good 1st (or 2nd) level feature. Why not allowing 2 fighting styles for both Feat and Feature?


----------



## Horwath (Nov 4, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> Fighting Style is not worth a whole feat, agreed, but it is also not a good 1st (or 2nd) level feature. Why not allowing 2 fighting styles for both Feat and Feature?



outside archery? not it's not a good feature.

GWF is terrible, defense is meh, dueling and blindsight could be passable, the one with +1 dice and one known maneuver is only worth if you are battlemaster.


----------



## Undrave (Nov 4, 2022)

leonardozg said:


> Fighting Style is not worth a whole feat, agreed, but it is also not a good 1st (or 2nd) level feature. Why not allowing 2 fighting styles for both Feat and Feature?



Fighting styles combination are not all equal. Some of them compliment each other better than others (You can pretty much slap Defense on any build and it'll be good, but GWM and Archery don't have any synergy, for exemple). 

Plus, it's not like Fighting Style is the ONLY class feature you get? They work fine as minor class features.


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash (Nov 5, 2022)

I said it in the survey, they need to call it something other than feat; however, put it by the feat section. That way they cut down on word count and if they add new ones everyone knows where to look.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 10, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> Good point. One can also consider that a perceived weakness chosen for character concept reasons need not invalidate the overall mechanical effectiveness of a character.  Especially in the context of the whole party.
> 
> I guess it all comes down to one's (or the table's) definition of "optimization".  When that, IMO, lurches into the territory of a player telling another player that they shouldn't pick a particular option for their character because "it's a trap!" (which essentially boils down to: "no weaknesses allowed in the party"), well... some/many tables are going to find that just doesn't jive with their play goals.  Every table may have a different take on this, of course, but I don't think this perspective is particularly novel.



I think there's a notable difference between lecturing another player on trap options, and asking game designers to put in some effort and not design trap options, particularly on such low hanging balance fruit as giving level 1 feats a stat bump if selected after first level.


----------



## ehren37 (Nov 10, 2022)

Swarmkeeper said:


> I can understand that - would something like this work for you?
> 
> _If this level 1 feat is taken at level 4 or higher, add a +1 to Dex or Str_



Yes, it would be much better. Though honestly I'd prefer to decouple feats from stats entirely. "At level 4/8/12/16/20 Add 1 to two different stats. If one is under 18, add another +1 to that stat." It helps MAD concepts and also flattens the curve between those who rolled well and those that didnt by implementing a "catch up mechanic" if you will.


----------

