Fighting Styles vs Feats, which is better?

[FrogReaver]

While we are talking fighting styles... I wish there was a mobile fighting style that helped with OA's or gave extra movement.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Maybe he doesn't allow multiclassing?

Yeah, I am seriously considering not allowing it. Looking at the way it has worked since 3E and how often I have seen people dip for min/maxing reasons, I am not fond of just letting people do it. I have already voiced to my players that if they plan to multiclass, I have to see it in role-playing before I'll let them just take a level. For instance, if a Fighter wanted to take a level of Monk, he had better start being friendly/ learning stuff from the Monk before he levels up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, I am seriously considering not allowing it. Looking at the way it has worked since 3E and how often I have seen people dip for min/maxing reasons, I am not fond of just letting people do it. I have already voiced to my players that if they plan to multiclass, I have to see it in role-playing before I'll let them just take a level. For instance, if a Fighter wanted to take a level of Monk, he had better start being friendly/ learning stuff from the Monk before he levels up.

There's little abuse available in the core game for multiclassing due to most good class abilities being deeper than a level or two and the binding of ASIs to class level instead of character level. It's your houserule that significantly boosts fighting styles that would be prone to multiclassing dip abuse. When you're nerfing other options to correct for your houserule, you might want to step back and reconsider if what you're doing is at all balanced. As I recall, you've yet to actually play or run the game and are speculating on white room analysis, despite every caution to not do so.

Yes, GWF is less than great fighting style, but that doesn't mean it actually has to be improved -- some fighting style has to be the worst one after all. Your proposed boosting of fighting styles will have serious long term distortions on the game. Fighters are not weak as written, and you should get some experience with the system before trying to modify it so greatly or you will find you're running into real problems before long balancing the game. Every one of your changes is extreme in it's effect. 5e has a subtle balance; it rewards small changes and can quickly go pear shaped with big changes.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

There's little abuse available in the core game for multiclassing due to most good class abilities being deeper than a level or two and the binding of ASIs to class level instead of character level. It's your houserule that significantly boosts fighting styles that would be prone to multiclassing dip abuse. When you're nerfing other options to correct for your houserule, you might want to step back and reconsider if what you're doing is at all balanced.

I would hardly call not using an optional thing like multiclassing nerfing. Even if the benefits are not as good as a houserule might make them otherwise, dipping happens way too much for my taste since 3E implemented multiclassing the way it happens now. I also happen to think certain feats are unbalanced and in the end might now allow feats in the game at all.

As I recall, you've yet to actually play or run the game and are speculating on white room analysis, despite every caution to not do so.

And as I have said numerous times in most of my threads, these are the ideas I am thinking of using once we've played the RAW for a while. Yeah, I get it, ok? Enough already. It seems like some posters are extremely vocal against houserules, as if the RAW are gospel. I've played enough RPGs for long enough to know if something doesn't feel right to MY sense of how I want to run the game.

Yes, GWF is less than great fighting style, but that doesn't mean it actually has to be improved -- some fighting style has to be the worst one after all.

Which one is worse would all be a matter of opinion depending on what the player wants, but when you compare the Fighting Styles to many of the other features other classes get, to me they seem underwhelming.

Your proposed boosting of fighting styles will have serious long term distortions on the game. Fighters are not weak as written, and you should get some experience with the system before trying to modify it so greatly or you will find you're running into real problems before long balancing the game. Every one of your changes is extreme in it's effect. 5e has a subtle balance; it rewards small changes and can quickly go pear shaped with big changes.

Well, unless you tried playing with the changes I proposed, you can't know that they would have serious long-term distortions on the game--that statement is as much white room analysis as what I am doing. Nothing wrong with it, that is why it is called analysis, but at this point it is simply your opinion.

Obviously I am not thrilled with the Fighting Styles, so if you have some alternative tweaks to recommend from your experience, please feel free to share them. If you can offer justification as to why my proposed changes would so drastically unbalance the game, let's hear them. But just saying it is so is not really helpful.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I would hardly call not using an optional thing like multiclassing nerfing. Even if the benefits are not as good as a houserule might make them otherwise, dipping happens way too much for my taste since 3E implemented multiclassing the way it happens now. I also happen to think certain feats are unbalanced and in the end might now allow feats in the game at all.

You haven't played 5e at all, yet. Dipping happens exactly no times in your game.

And as I have said numerous times in most of my threads, these are the ideas I am thinking of using once we've played the RAW for a while. Yeah, I get it, ok? Enough already. It seems like some posters are extremely vocal against houserules, as if the RAW are gospel. I've played enough RPGs for long enough to know if something doesn't feel right to MY sense of how I want to run the game.

I think planning what you're going to do now is a bit premature, then. I have no problem with houserules -- I have had a few myself, and will have a few in my upcoming campaign. I like houserules, but it's worth cautioning new players that drastic houserules will have drastic effects. \

Which one is worse would all be a matter of opinion depending on what the player wants, but when you compare the Fighting Styles to many of the other features other classes get, to me they seem underwhelming.

They aren't, really. They have long term impacts. Yes, GWF has a low average effect, but it can have an amazing effect, turning a 1 to a 12, which is remembered. Averages are not what actually happens at the table. Further, pluses to damage are increased with extra attacks. If you play to Tier III or IV, your fighting styles will be adding rather large amounts of additional damage due to extra attack. As I said, 5e has a subtle balance, and you need to take in the holistic effects of early class abilities to understand their full impacts. For fighting styles, consider what they'll do over a campaign where fighters will be attacked more often than other classes (substantially increasing the benefit of a small bump to AC) and attack more often (substantially increasing the impact of a small bonus to damage/attack). Frontloading because it seems to make fighters better at low levels will bite you as early as Tier II.

Well, unless you tried playing with the changes I proposed, you can't know that they would have serious long-term distortions on the game--that statement is as much white room analysis as what I am doing. Nothing wrong with it, that is why it is called analysis, but at this point it is simply your opinion.

I have plenty of experience with 5e and making changes to it. For example, many of your fighting styles are similar to high end magic items, like +3 armor or +3 weapons. I've personally seen the distortion those can have, so doubling up on them is easy to guess. One of my houserules, for example, is no pluses to armor or weapons. Extra dice of damage or nifty effects are neat and don't unbalance to core math engine behind bounded accuracy. So, yes, I can evaluate the impact your changes will likely have. What I can't evaluate is if you'd care. I would, so I offer my observations and cautions.

You are, of course, free to ignore them.

Obviously I am not thrilled with the Fighting Styles, so if you have some alternative tweaks to recommend from your experience, please feel free to share them. If you can offer justification as to why my proposed changes would so drastically unbalance the game, let's hear them. But just saying it is so is not really helpful.

I do not, because I do not fully understand what your goal for the change is. You've so far talked about what changes you'd make, but not what the goal behind those changes really is. I can guess it's that you think fighters should be hitting harder and be tankier, but that's a guess. If that's so, then I'd recommend much smaller changes -- fighters already hit hard and tank pretty well (although there's the counterintuitive example of the barbarian being the better tank, but that's due to resistance to damage and how bounded accuracy reduces the impact of AC unless it's very high).

To be perfectly frank, you come across as less of a DM looking to improve gameplay than a player wanting to play a fighter and looking for support for power-ups to the class to pitch to your DM. I say this because all of your posts so far have been about improving the fighter and nothing at all on how the game plays (something a new DM to 5e usually asks) or why the sorcerer doesn't do what it says on the tin (instead of being the easy wizard, it's a class that almost requires non-intuitive/non-precedent play to get the most out of it).

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I do not, because I do not fully understand what your goal for the change is. You've so far talked about what changes you'd make, but not what the goal behind those changes really is. I can guess it's that you think fighters should be hitting harder and be tankier, but that's a guess. If that's so, then I'd recommend much smaller changes -- fighters already hit hard and tank pretty well (although there's the counterintuitive example of the barbarian being the better tank, but that's due to resistance to damage and how bounded accuracy reduces the impact of AC unless it's very high).

Well, that is kind of it. I mean, to me a Fighting Style for a Fighter represents his core training and something his concept is revolved around, most likely guiding his development. It would be like saying a Wizard gets a few spells at 1st-level, but doesn't really get much more. I am primarily looking for a way to scale the Fighting Styles as a Fighter gains levels. To me, it makes sense. He would naturally improve it what he is based on.

I suppose if I approach it another way, since Fighting Styles aren't that great, I could allow characters to learn a new style when their Extra Attack increases. That would show how they have developed and learned something new. Since the styles don't overlap much, it would give the player with a Fighter more options for developing their character. Then I also wouldn't need to bother rewriting the current styles, just allowing players to learn more of them. This would also tie it into the Fighter class Extra Attack feature, so increases wouldn't be based on Proficiency Bonus, but instead on actual Fighter levels...

See, that is why I love forums. Hashing things out helps me find better solutions. I think that is probably best. Allow Fighters to pick up extra Fighting Styles (since most times you will have to pick one or the other to implement), but they have the freedom to switch. For instance, a Fighter with a scimitar can opt for Two-Weapon Fighting or Dueling. Toss in Dual Wielding Feat and he could switch to Long Swords and even later learn Greater Weapon Fighting if he wanted. A tanky Fighter could learn both Defense and Protection by 5th-level without having to dip into a couple levels of Paladin or Ranger. It isn't a great compromise, but it does offer the Fighter something more to reflect their increased learning/ diversity.

To be perfectly frank, you come across as less of a DM looking to improve gameplay than a player wanting to play a fighter and looking for support for power-ups to the class to pitch to your DM. I say this because all of your posts so far have been about improving the fighter and nothing at all on how the game plays (something a new DM to 5e usually asks) or why the sorcerer doesn't do what it says on the tin (instead of being the easy wizard, it's a class that almost requires non-intuitive/non-precedent play to get the most out of it).

LOL I am sure I will have more to address when I take deeper looks into the other classes as well, but that is another story.

 

[Horwath]

I would value fighting style as "half-feat"

I even have house rule feat:

Combat training:
gain +1 to str, dex or con.
Gain one fighting style,
gain proficiency in one weapon.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would hardly call not using an optional thing like multiclassing nerfing. Even if the benefits are not as good as a houserule might make them otherwise, dipping happens way too much for my taste since 3E implemented multiclassing the way it happens now. I also happen to think certain feats are unbalanced and in the end might now allow feats in the game at all.



And as I have said numerous times in most of my threads, these are the ideas I am thinking of using once we've played the RAW for a while. Yeah, I get it, ok? Enough already. It seems like some posters are extremely vocal against houserules, as if the RAW are gospel. I've played enough RPGs for long enough to know if something doesn't feel right to MY sense of how I want to run the game.



Which one is worse would all be a matter of opinion depending on what the player wants, but when you compare the Fighting Styles to many of the other features other classes get, to me they seem underwhelming.



Well, unless you tried playing with the changes I proposed, you can't know that they would have serious long-term distortions on the game--that statement is as much white room analysis as what I am doing. Nothing wrong with it, that is why it is called analysis, but at this point it is simply your opinion.

Obviously I am not thrilled with the Fighting Styles, so if you have some alternative tweaks to recommend from your experience, please feel free to share them. If you can offer justification as to why my proposed changes would so drastically unbalance the game, let's hear them. But just saying it is so is not really helpful.

1) I think you are overfocusing the importance of fighting styles. They aren't really intended to be build defining unless you want them to be. Subclass choice is meant to be the main choice.

2) I think you are over-focusing on the fighter class. If you look at other classes, most of them get abilities that amount to little more than fluff.

3) Feats are intended to be used in conjunction with fighting styles, rather than an either/or. That's why fighters get more. If you want to play a fighter very focused on dual wielding, you would take the fighting style and Dual Wielder. Then maybe Defensive Duelist, and so on to further focus your character. You can find feats that support and supplement every fighting style. Or you can play a fighter who doesn't specialise in a particular fighting style.

4) Don't worry about banning multiclassing. This isn't 3rd edition. A multiclassed character in 5e is going to be significantly weaker than a single classed character (exception: Hexblade Warlock with Paladin or Bard).

5) On the whole 5e is well balanced and fighters perform just fine. As the proverb goes, "if it aint broke don't try and fix it".

 

[clearstream]

But if I had to choose between a +2 to hit with ranged attacks, or removing -5 worth of penalties in extreme situations, I would always choose the former over the latter. There are other ways to get around those penalties.

Archery is probably the strongest fighting style, so I partly endorse your opinion, but if it came down to a straight choice between Archery and RAW Sharpshooter, I would always take Sharpshooter. The power-attack is that strong.

 

[clearstream]

Well, that is kind of it. I mean, to me a Fighting Style for a Fighter represents his core training and something his concept is revolved around, most likely guiding his development. It would be like saying a Wizard gets a few spells at 1st-level, but doesn't really get much more. I am primarily looking for a way to scale the Fighting Styles as a Fighter gains levels. To me, it makes sense. He would naturally improve it what he is based on.

For that kind of project, remember that Archery and Dueling scale implicitly with Extra Attacks. Defense scales both with number of attacks received (the more received, the more damage it will mitigate) and at the margin... how to explain that? Say a foe needs 14+ to hit my Plate and Shield AC of 20. What is +1 worth in that situation? In one sense, it is worth 5%, but in terms of reduction of expected hits it is worth 1/7 or about 14% (there were 7 ways for a foe to hit me, now there are 6). Say I usually also get Greater Invis. cast on me, now it's value goes through the roof.

In summary, some seemingly small values are magnified through features that scale with tier.



Side note, Dueling, TWF and Protection are bad styles. I'd start with them, were I improving fighting styles.