D&D (2024) Fighting Styles Are Not Worth a Whole Feat

[Lojaan]

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

 

[Branduil]

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

 

[Horwath]

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.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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]

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]

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

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.

As it should be!

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.