D&D (2024) Rules Clarification: Fighting Style Feats

[ECMO3]

That was what I thought initially as well. However, in Chapter 5: Feats > Feat Descriptions > Parts of a Feat > Category it states: "If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category." So for example for the Bard class when you get a feat at level 4 it states "You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat (see chapter 5) or another feat of your choice for which you qualify."

Since it doesn't qualify that it has to be a general feat, it can be a fighting style feat.

This would be correct except that the fighting style feats all have a prerequisite of having the Fighting Style feature and a Bard doesn't.

Because of this wording you need at least one level in Fighter or two levels in Ranger or Paladin to qualify as these are the only ways to get the Fighting Style feature.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Here are my thoughts:

• The only classes that can take a Fighting Style Feat are Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers?

As discussed, yes.

• Because "Fighting Initiate" is not included in the PHB, unless a table explicitly permits the inclusion of "Fighting Initiate" from Tasha's (which, if Remathilis is correct here, is a range of options that D&D designers are moving away from--something that I am fine with, especially with the introduction of Weapon Masteries), then only characters who are at least 1st-level in fighter or 2nd-level in either Paladin or Ranger, will ever be able to take a Fighting Style Feat? This supposition is based on my reading of how "prerequisite" is defined on page 199 and the prerequisite of "Fighting Style Feature" on pages 209-210 under each individual Fighting Style Feat.

While the wording has changed with the new PHB, it seems to me that if a table is allowing Tasha's feats not in the 2024 PHB, then the implication of this feat is that a character without Fighter 1 or Ranger/Paladin 2 can select a Fighting style feat.

That was the effect when the feat was first published, and it should be the effect now. Nothing is gained by niggling over incompatibilities of wording that could not be expected when Tasha's was published.

• However, Fighters (only) can switch Fighting Style Feat every time they advance in level?
• Champions receive an additional Fighting Style Feat at 7th level?

yes.

• Finally, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers can select a new Fighting Style Feat whenever they reach a level wherein they earn a new feat if they so choose? This is different from the implementation of Fighting Styles in 2014, wherein the Player's Handbook specifies "You can't take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again" (page 72, 2014). So, for example, a 12th level Fighter Champion character who went all-in on Fighting Style Feats when selecting feats (4th, 6th, 8th, and 12th level) could have a total of six Fighting Style Feats?

Yes. That will mean, however, that they lose out on the +1 ASI that is now part of all the general feats.

 

[Charlaquin]

That was the effect when the feat was first published, and it should be the effect now. Nothing is gained by niggling over incompatibilities of wording that could not be expected when Tasha's was published.

I mean… I think it seems pretty obvious that they wrote the prerequisite for the new Fighting Style feats specifically to invalidate the Tasha’s Fighting Initiate feat.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I mean… I think it seems pretty obvious that they wrote the prerequisite for the new Fighting Style feats specifically to invalidate the Tasha’s Fighting Initiate feat.

Hah. I come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

What benefit does the feat confer, if it were adopted, in your view?
Were any other feats similarly written out of functionality?

 

[Mort]

Hah. I come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

What benefit does the feat confer, if it were adopted, in your view?
Were any other feats similarly written out of functionality?

On it's face it seems pretty clear. You need the fighting style class feature to take these feats, otherwise tough luck.

If your have still uses Tasha's, which does not have the prerequisite and the DM is fine with that, then sure. But the Tasha's feats are not these feats.

 

[Hatmatter]

• Because "Fighting Initiate" is not included in the PHB, unless a table explicitly permits the inclusion of "Fighting Initiate" from Tasha's (which, if Remathilis is correct here, is a range of options that D&D designers are moving away from--something that I am fine with, especially with the introduction of Weapon Masteries), then only characters who are at least 1st-level in fighter or 2nd-level in either Paladin or Ranger, will ever be able to take a Fighting Style Feat? This supposition is based on my reading of how "prerequisite" is defined on page 199 and the prerequisite of "Fighting Style Feature" on pages 209-210 under each individual Fighting Style Feat.

While the wording has changed with the new PHB, it seems to me that if a table is allowing Tasha's feats not in the 2024 PHB, then the implication of this feat is that a character without Fighter 1 or Ranger/Paladin 2 can select a Fighting style feat.

That was the effect when the feat was first published, and it should be the effect now. Nothing is gained by niggling over incompatibilities of wording that could not be expected when Tasha's was published.

Hi Kobold, thanks for responding. However, I read this three times and I cannot tell how it is different from what I wrote? Maybe you were just agreeing with me? I thought it went without saying that how the Fighting Style Initiate Feat worked...I merely included a summary in my post in order to create a comprehensive post about the issue so that I could be sure to get as much clarification or correction from other members here as possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hah. I come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

What benefit does the feat confer, if it were adopted, in your view?

The Tasha’s feat? No benefit. That’s what I’m saying, I think they specifically wrote the new Fighting Style Feats in such a way that Fighting Initiate wouldn’t work unless you were a class that could take the Fighting Style Feats anyway (in which case there’s no functional difference between them).

Were any other feats similarly written out of functionality?

Yeah, any old Feat that doesn’t grant +1 to an ability score. Under the 2024 rules you could, take, say, Prodigy, in theory. But since it’s not an Origin Feat you can’t take it at 1st level, and it doesn’t grant +1 to an ability score, so no one is going to want to take it at 4th level and up.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Hi Kobold, thanks for responding. However, I read this three times and I cannot tell how it is different from what I wrote? Maybe you were just agreeing with me? I thought it went without saying that how the Fighting Style Initiate Feat worked...I merely included a summary in my post in order to create a comprehensive post about the issue so that I could be sure to get as much clarification or correction from other members here as possible.

Yes -- I think we agree on this one. But there is clearly room for a range of views...

 

[Kobold Stew]

...case in point.

The Tasha’s feat? No benefit. That’s what I’m saying, I think they specifically wrote the new Fighting Style Feats in such a way that Fighting Initiate wouldn’t work unless you were a class that could take the Fighting Style Feats anyway (in which case there’s no functional difference between them).

See, this doesn't make sense to me. I see how preferring the 2024 wording of the prerequisite and letting it take precendent over the wording of the Tasha's feat creates this outcome, but it seems such an elaborate effort on the part of the designers for such a minimal effect.

They developed a whole class feature in order to invalidate a single, underpowered feat? That outcome is improbable enough to me that it leads me to look for a different explanation, and I find one: the feat creates an exception to the general applicability of the (new) Fighting Style prerequisite.

The result of my proposal is a weak feat, which (as you go on to say) no one is likely going to want.

Yeah, any old Feat that doesn’t grant +1 to an ability score. Under the 2024 rules you could, take, say, Prodigy, in theory. But since it’s not an Origin Feat you can’t take it at 1st level, and it doesn’t grant +1 to an ability score, so no one is going to want to take it at 4th level and up.

But the situation you describe is not, in my view, comparable what you suggest for the Tasha's feat. The feats without the +1 are, on balance, going to be weaker, but they still do something.

With the interpretation you propose for Fighting Initiate, the feat does nothing, I think. And that is unique, and again makes me ask if there is perhaps an alternative interpretation that makes sense. And I think there is. If a table includes pre-2024 content, yes, some feats are going to be weaker, particularly those without an ASI. But they are still viable choices, as (I believe) Fighting Initiate is, with the reading I suggested.

 

[Charlaquin]

...case in point.

See, this doesn't make sense to me. I see how preferring the 2024 wording of the prerequisite and letting it take precendent over the wording of the Tasha's feat creates this outcome, but it seems such an elaborate effort on the part of the designers for such a minimal effect.

No more elaborate than inventing feat categories so that pre-2024 feats couldn’t be taken at 1st level. And I wouldn’t say that making a level or two of Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger a requirement for gaining a fighting style through feats is minimal at all.

They developed a whole class feature in order to invalidate a single, underpowered feat?

Well, no, the class feature already existed. They changed the way the class feature functions, in a way that has no apparent functional difference at all, except that it prevents non-martial characters can no longer acquire them without multiclassing. Unless you allow the Tasha’s feat to circumvent the prerequisite, in which case the change accomplishes literally nothing.

That outcome is improbable enough to me that it leads me to look for a different explanation, and I find one: the feat creates an exception to the general applicability of the (new) Fighting Style prerequisite.

That doesn’t seem plausible to me. If they intended for the Tasha’s feat to be an exception, what was the point of even changing fighting styles into Feats in the first place?

The result of my proposal is a weak feat, which (as you go on to say) no one is likely going to want.


But the situation you describe is not, in my view, comparable what you suggest for the Tasha's feat. The feats without the +1 are, on balance, going to be weaker, but they still do something.

But it gets around a restriction they clearly want to exist, otherwise they wouldn’t have re-written fighting styles to have such a prerequisite.

With the interpretation you propose for Fighting Initiate, the feat does nothing, I think.

Correct.

And that is unique, and again makes me ask if there is perhaps an alternative interpretation that makes sense.

Is it though? Every pre-2024 version of a Feat that has been reproduced in the 2024 PHB does nothing now. Fighting Initiate seems, in my view, to have been reproduced in 2024, just in the form of several individual feats instead of one single feat that gives you a choice of several benefits. But, due to the Tasha’s version having a different name than its various 2024 counterparts, it’s still technically selectable at tables that allow pre-2024 material (which is reportedly the intended default). And, selecting the Tasha’s version allows you to circumvent the one meaningful change present in the 2024 version. That definitely doesn’t seem like an intended outcome to me.