Olrox17
Hero
Tough might be overtuned for a level 1 feat.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D (2024) Fighting Styles Are Not Worth a Whole Feat
- Thread starter doctorbadwolf
- Start date
shadowoflameth
Adventurer
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
Legend
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
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Nah, the level 1 feats aren’t especially weak in general.
Olrox17
Hero
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
Legend
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
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
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
Legend
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.
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
Morkus from Orkus
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
Legend
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.
Similar Threads
