Fighting Styles vs Feats, which is better?

[Dessert Nomad]

Fighting styles are significantly more powerful than feats, in my opinion. There's no feat which is as powerful as +1 to AC, or +2 to every attack roll you ever make. They aren't flashy, but they apply so frequently that they're on par with raising your primary stat, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of feats.

As James pointed out, Dual Wielder gives +1 AC in addition to other benefits so it's inarguably more powerful than just a +1 AC. Toughness gives the same HP benefit as +2 to con, which I think is at least on par with +1 AC. The -5 to hit, +10 to damage feats (even without their other benefits) outclass +2 to hit or reroll 1s and 2s on damage IMO. The 'extra attack that gets stat bonus' from Crossbow and Polearm mastery is at least equal to 'you get stat bonus on the bonus action extra attack', and both of those have an additional benefit. War Caster is essentially required for an EK that uses a shield or two weapons. Yeah, the vast majority of feats aren't directly useful to fighters and many aren't even combat oriented, but the good combat feats overwhelm fighting styles with their benefit. You do have to be doing whatever the feat supports to get the benefit, but the same applies to fighting styles.

Also the +2 to every attack roll you'll ever make is only really true if you take Crossbow Mastery to remove the melee range penalty or Sharpshooter for the -5/+10, if someone's in melee range you're going to do better on average by whipping out a rapier than by firing arrows. You could still choose to fire an arrow, but it's not your best option if you only have the fighting style.

 

[Satyrn]

Who knows why [MENTION=6976296]James Grover[/MENTION] was asking the question. Perhaps it was to figure out if he should multiclass to fighter or take a feat/ASI level. Perhaps he's looking at doing system tweaking or designing a new class. "Hmm, should I give another fighting style at 6th or an extra feat?".

He had a reason to ask it, why shoot down the question?

He asked "Any Thoughts?" I told him my thoughts, directly answering his question.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Who knows why @James Grover was asking the question. Perhaps it was to figure out if he should multiclass to fighter or take a feat/ASI level. Perhaps he's looking at doing system tweaking or designing a new class. "Hmm, should I give another fighting style at 6th or an extra feat?".

He had a reason to ask it, why shoot down the question?

Thanks, Blue, but I don't really think he was shooting it down really.

To answer the "why" is because I was thinking of tweaking the Fighting Style and some of the feats. For instance, the +2 attack bonus for Archery does, in essence, cancel out the half-cover penalty due to the bonus. Anyway, if you look at Archery and Sharp Shooter you get:

+2 Attack bonus
Negate cover penalties
No disadvantage for long range
+10 damage when -5 attack

I guess for balance I would like to see two features for Archery and the other two for Sharp Shooter. I have no idea which ones to put where, LOL, but that is why I am here.

There are other examples, of course, and since we are just beginning in 5E we aren't tweaking anything yet, more compiling a list of things we might want to change after a couple months of testing.

Also, I recall a post where one person said a house-rule for Weapon Master (or maybe it was Martial Adept...?) was a +1 Str or Dex, proficiency in two weapons, AND a Fighting Style. So, if I am recalling that correctly, that person obviously thinks feats are more "powerful" than a Fighting Style.

Anyway, I appreciate the input and look forward to hearing more. Thanks!

 

[happyhermit]

Sorry if this is a bit tangential but if you are new to 5e and thinking about tweaking things, I would just say ranged combat is really good. Maybe you are considering nerfing it, which I don't find necessary, but a boost would be more worrisome to me.

There are things that are not necessarily obvious that really makes ranged effective, like split movement for example. It lets you hide behind cover, stand up or pop out for a clear shot, then fall prone or move back to safety, all in one turn. My players LOVED this, it seemed to give them a feeling of action movie/western/whatever better than other implementations we tried. I actually was worried it was broken till I figured out readied actions, etc.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As James pointed out, Dual Wielder gives +1 AC in addition to other benefits so it's inarguably more powerful than just a +1 AC.

No, because it only applies when you're dual-wielding, which means you're still at a net penalty compared to using a shield. The feat helps you overcome part of the AC penalty from dual-wielding, but it's not good for characters who care about optimizing AC, which is where the fighting style really matters.

Toughness gives the same HP benefit as +2 to con, which I think is at least on par with +1 AC. The -5 to hit, +10 to damage feats (even without their other benefits) outclass +2 to hit or reroll 1s and 2s on damage IMO.

Now you're into the realm of trade-offs, rather than benefits. Increasing your max HP allows you to survive more attacks, but even if it keeps you alive for an equivalent amount of time, that's still damage that you need to heal later. A bonus to AC is a pure benefit.

Likewise, the Power Attack feats are situational, which reduces their overall contribution. You could argue that they're more powerful in enough situations to tip the balance, but you'd have to make the argument, and a lot of it is going to depend on circumstances. In any case, since everyone has equal access to feats and not everyone can take a fighting style, it would be better to take a fighting style if given the option, since you can just pick up the feat later.

Also the +2 to every attack roll you'll ever make is only really true if you take Crossbow Mastery to remove the melee range penalty or Sharpshooter for the -5/+10, if someone's in melee range you're going to do better on average by whipping out a rapier than by firing arrows. You could still choose to fire an arrow, but it's not your best option if you only have the fighting style.

There are other ways to avoid making melee attacks, but even if you do find yourself in those situations, it's still a relatively rare roll. Static bonuses that apply in routine situations are almost always more valuable than situational bonuses, unless those situational bonuses are proportionally powerful.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

There's no feat which is as powerful as +1 to AC, or +2 to every attack roll you ever make.

Which you must be dual-wielding in order to use. The Defense fighting style gives you a +1 bonus, while also letting you benefit from a shield and heavy armor. It pushes the envelope forward one step, instead of helping you to offset the AC penalty associated with not using a shield.

You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to count +2 to ranged attacks only as +2 to every attack you'll ever make because your preferred style is ranged, then it's only reasonable to treat +1 to AC when dual wielding as +1 AC all the time when your preferred style is dual wielding. You don't get the +2 when dealing nonlethal damage, if conditions make ranged attacks impossible, if you want to benefit from a shield*, if you have to use an improvised weapon or no weapon, if you need to hold an object or creature while fighting*, and various other situations. (* you can get one shot with a preloaded hand xbow in these conditions but can't reload). It's reasonable to either compare them on a 'when you're in your element' basis, or an 'do they help in unusual circumstances' basis, but choosing 'whichever basis helps the case I want and hurts the other case' just isn't.

No, because it only applies when you're dual-wielding... Static bonuses that apply in routine situations are almost always more valuable than situational bonuses...

Again, you don't get to have it both ways. For a dual wielding specialist, wielding two weapons instead of a weapon and shield is routine, the odd situation where you want a shield is situational.l. It's certainly not as common as the situation where an enemy moves next to you during combat.

 

[Satyrn]

Thanks, Blue, but I don't really think he was shooting it down really.

Thank you. I really wasn't. After all, that was my third post in this thread. At that point, 3 out of the 8 total posts were mine because I was fully engaged in the conversation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to count +2 to ranged attacks only as +2 to every attack you'll ever make because your preferred style is ranged, then it's only reasonable to treat +1 to AC when dual wielding as +1 AC all the time when your preferred style is dual wielding.

It's not that the +1 to AC while dual-wielding is a negligible benefit for a dual-wielder. It's that dual-wielding is not relevant to tanks, who use shields. There are dozens of formulas and features for calculating AC, but if you care about AC as your main thing, then you've already disregarded dual-wielding and archery as possibilities.

A +1 bonus to AC for a dual-wielder is worth less than a +1 bonus to AC for a tank, but more than a +1 bonus to AC for an archer. That's why +1 AC while dual-wielding (plus some other stuff) is balanced as a feat, but a +1 bonus to AC while using a shield would be overpowered as a feat (but is fine as a fighting style).

It's reasonable to either compare them on a 'when you're in your element' basis, or an 'do they help in unusual circumstances' basis, but choosing 'whichever basis helps the case I want and hurts the other case' just isn't.

Bonuses that help you in your element are worth more than bonuses that help you in adverse conditions, because you're going to stay in your element whenever you have the ability to do so. For the most part, unusual circumstances don't factor into the analysis, since they're too rare to matter.

 

[ccs]

Of course feats are more powerful than fighting styles.
Fighting styles only effect, well, fighting. + to AC/+ to ranged hit/+ to melee dam/whatever two wpn fighting does....
Feats? Sure, you've got your awesome GWM, SS, Pole arm master etc. But you've also got all kinds of other stuff that can give your character/fighter abilities not reliant upon hitting/shooting things. Things that can be used to shape RP/character development or respond to how a campaign develops.

 

[ccs]

Thanks, Blue, but I don't really think he was shooting it down really.

To answer the "why" is because I was thinking of tweaking the Fighting Style and some of the feats. For instance, the +2 attack bonus for Archery does, in essence, cancel out the half-cover penalty due to the bonus. Anyway, if you look at Archery and Sharp Shooter you get:

+2 Attack bonus
Negate cover penalties
No disadvantage for long range
+10 damage when -5 attack

I guess for balance I would like to see two features for Archery and the other two for Sharp Shooter. I have no idea which ones to put where, LOL, but that is why I am here.

There are other examples, of course, and since we are just beginning in 5E we aren't tweaking anything yet, more compiling a list of things we might want to change after a couple months of testing.

Also, I recall a post where one person said a house-rule for Weapon Master (or maybe it was Martial Adept...?) was a +1 Str or Dex, proficiency in two weapons, AND a Fighting Style. So, if I am recalling that correctly, that person obviously thinks feats are more "powerful" than a Fighting Style.

Anyway, I appreciate the input and look forward to hearing more. Thanks!

One change you might consider is to the Dueling style. As printed it gives a bonus to damage.
In our games we changed it to allowing the bonus to either damage OR to hit (player chooses wich at creation) because one of the players wanted to play a duelist who was more concerned with hitting the target vs causing damage. Dueling was an acceptable social thing where their character was from, but the actual damage caused wasn't the point. Duels were won by who hit first, or, in the event both parties hit, best {highest to-hit roll}. Killing the opponent wasn't the goal.