Would you allow a Feat that granted a Fighting Style?

[jaappleton]

Spend a Feat, gain a fighting style. That's it.

No other bonuses, no doubling up on the same style.

[Appleheart]

Spend a Feat, gain a fighting style. That's it.

No other bonuses, no doubling up on the same style.

Yes.

I'd probably even allow it as a half-feat, so add +1 str or dex on top.

Fighting styles are cool, but not as strong as a feat. IMO at least. :)

[Theodoxus]

I did, as part of my massive expansion of feats. I also broke all feats into 'half feats' (without the bonus to an attribute). I then grant a feat at all odd levels, leaving ASIs as they currently are.

I've had all of 1 player pick up a fighting style - it was a barbarian (which I honestly think should get them as part of the base class - but that's a different discussion) who wanted dueling style.

[Sigreid]

No. I'm generally against giving away a class's tricks.

[Brookshw]

No. I'm generally against giving away a class's tricks.

I'm inclined this way as well.

[OvisCaedo]

Mmm. Probably, yeah. Though maybe I'd have to think carefully about specific circumstances... The only thing springing to mind is that archery style is pretty silly, but how many character types would want it that don't get fighting styles normally? Ranged rogues?

It's not really a specific class's trick when so many classes already share it, though it IS a bit muddier by not every fighting style being present on all classes.

[MaxWilson]

Spend a Feat, gain a fighting style. That's it.

No other bonuses, no doubling up on the same style.

I'd prefer having them seek out the fighting style knowledge in-play from a weapon master instead of getting it through spending a "feat" offscreen. I don't love the feat idea conceptually, but it wouldn't break anything. If a player really wanted it I'd probably shrug and say, "Okay, sure," but I wouldn't add it to my houserules doc.


Mmm. Probably, yeah. Though maybe I'd have to think carefully about specific circumstances... The only thing springing to mind is that archery style is pretty silly, but how many character types would want it that don't get fighting styles normally? Ranged rogues?

Bladesingers and monks come to mind.

[Talsin]

Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Warlock may find a lot of benefit in these, but I don't think any of it would be game-breaking.

Plus Ranged Rogues can get Archery breaking bounded accuracy in their favor for a big wallop. NOTE: I'm biased against the Archery Fighting Style for this break.

[stoutstien]

Yes.

I'd probably even allow it as a half-feat, so add +1 str or dex on top.

Fighting styles are cool, but not as strong as a feat. IMO at least. :)

2nd this. I replaced the weapon master feat with +1 str/Dex and a style pick.

[diplomancer]

Fighting styles are as much of a class trick as expertise, and there is a feat fod Expertise (Prodigy).

Yes for me, and I think, as feats go, it's underpowered.

[Kurt Kurageous]

I would rate it as a half feat with +1 STR or DEX.

It would be a reasonable choice for martials, same as warcaster or other magic only feat. Only a champion gets a second fight style, and that's at level 10.

This would also open up styles to Pally that might be otherwise unavailable!

[Kurt Kurageous]

2nd this. I replaced the weapon master feat with +1 str/Dex and a style pick.

Yeah because who in their right mind takes weapon master? You take it because your DM won't bend from RAW and let you trade something for the ONE weapon you want to use (not FOUR!).

[Sigreid]

Fighting styles are as much of a class trick as expertise, and there is a feat fod Expertise (Prodigy).

Yes for me, and I think, as feats go, it's underpowered.

True, and I thought that was a bad move as well.

[MagneticKitty]

Maybe with the prerequisite of having multi attack. This ensures they are at least part martial...
But I'd have to think of the balance implications. This would allow swords bard and blade singer but not cleric. And I feel cleric would be ok. Maybe a prerequisite of str or dex 13 and lv 8?
Hmmm. I dunno

Edit: maybe the prerequisite to use at least one martial weapon? This excludes most casters. Powers up dwarf a bit. Allows anyone to take with feat tax of the one that grants martial weapons

[OvisCaedo]

Bladesingers and monks come to mind.

Do they, though? I mean, if something's free, it's always nice, but I'm not sure if either of them would gain enough from a fighting style to want to cash a feat in for it. Bladesinger compatible options would be... dueling and the +1 AC style, yeah? Those both seem like hard sells over just taking a dex ASI, though I suppose some people have been suggesting it would be a half-feat, which would make them MUCH more appealing on this front. Monk, though, would pretty much just be... dueling, which wouldn't apply to bonus action attacks anyhow? That also doesn't sound very tempting at all.

Though if they otherwise had weapons, I suppose either could consider archery for switch-hitting.

It still feels to me like a ranged rogue is by far the stand-out for people who would want this at all, though, both through higher value from +2 to attack and from their increased ASI count making the cost of such a feat relatively lower.

edit: also, I don't see any reason to try to put in requirements to exclude casters. Why would you want to bother cutting off an option that would probably be bad for most of them to take? Is it just about Hexblade?

[stoutstien]

True, and I thought that was a bad move as well.

Im curious to why you think that allowing expertise as a feat was a bad move.

[Sigreid]

Im curious to why you think that allowing expertise as a feat was a bad move.

Because to me it's the prime defining advantage a rogue brings to the party. I know that some people say sneak attack is, but sneak attack is just damage and everyone does damage. Until that feat only 2 classes could bring repeatable, nearly supernatural levels of success without using magic.

[Bjarkmundur]

I don't see a problem with it.
As a player, I almost always request custom feats after the first or second one I take and make sure they have more flavor than power. I usually pair Fighting Style with martial weapon proficiency in a feat.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Because to me it's the prime defining advantage a rogue brings to the party. I know that some people say sneak attack is, but sneak attack is just damage and everyone does damage. Until that feat only 2 classes could bring repeatable, nearly supernatural levels of success without using magic.

A feat that lets you join the skill monkey club is game breaking. Like a feat letting someone beside the god-powered types turn undead.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'll be honest, I'm....kinda confused as to why allowing class features as feats is a bad thing.

Most of the class features that you can get from feats are available as a level 1 dip into that class.


Ritual Caster
Magic Initiate
Spell Sniper (Warlocks/Sorcerers)
Martial Adept
Gaining armor proficiencies
Gaining skill proficiencies
PAM Attacking as a Bonus Action (Beserker Barbarian, virtually any TWF)


Would a Fighting Style be much different? Nope. In fact, a Fighting Style should be more on the table than many of those on the list, since 3 classes already have access to Fighting Styles. It seems odd to me to simultaneously say it's acceptable for them to have the same unique features, but it's unacceptable to allow it to someone else at a high cost (of a feat).

[diplomancer]

I think that a feat for a level 1 class feature is ok for most of them. Possible exceptions would be the level 1 subclass features that Clerics, Sorcerers and Warlocks get.

[MaxWilson]

Do they, though? I mean, if something's free, it's always nice, but I'm not sure if either of them would gain enough from a fighting style to want to cash a feat in for it.

I'm not sure they would, either, but I know I've been tempted by Sharpshooter for a Shadow Monk PC, but decided against it because without Extra Attack 2 and without Archery style, it didn't seem like enough payoff. If I'd had Archery style I probably would have gone for it. If I had to pay an ASI for Archery style and then a second ASI for Sharpshooter? Eh, probably not, but I'd think about it for a bit first.

For a Bladesinger I think I'd go ahead and spend those ASIs, assuming I rolled high enough that I wasn't more tempted to boost Int/Dex. Having a good long-range attack option is valuable, especially against magic-immune creatures. But, maybe I'm wrong--on reflection I might be better off in those cases with Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter + upcast Magic Weapon.

[Sigreid]

I'll be honest, I'm....kinda confused as to why allowing class features as feats is a bad thing.

Most of the class features that you can get from feats are available as a level 1 dip into that class.


Ritual Caster
Magic Initiate
Spell Sniper (Warlocks/Sorcerers)
Martial Adept
Gaining armor proficiencies
Gaining skill proficiencies
PAM Attacking as a Bonus Action (Beserker Barbarian, virtually any TWF)


Would a Fighting Style be much different? Nope. In fact, a Fighting Style should be more on the table than many of those on the list, since 3 classes already have access to Fighting Styles. It seems odd to me to simultaneously say it's acceptable for them to have the same unique features, but it's unacceptable to allow it to someone else at a high cost (of a feat).

Because this is a game framed around classes. When I dont want classes to matter I play something else.

[Willie the Duck]

Because to me it's the prime defining advantage a rogue brings to the party. I know that some people say sneak attack is, but sneak attack is just damage and everyone does damage. Until that feat only 2 classes could bring repeatable, nearly supernatural levels of success without using magic.

I agree with this conceptually, at least to the point where I feel that why exactly are we still having classes and niches if there is no niche protection. OTOH, D&D has always been a mongrel beast and the edition has several other ways to make multi-class concepts (including Multiclassing and taking multiclass-like archetypes), so why not this as well?


Mmm. Probably, yeah. Though maybe I'd have to think carefully about specific circumstances... The only thing springing to mind is that archery style is pretty silly, but how many character types would want it that don't get fighting styles normally? Ranged rogues?
It's not really a specific class's trick when so many classes already share it, though it IS a bit muddier by not every fighting style being present on all classes.

Well, there's the other one -- Dexadins would like to be better at switch-hitting with bows (ranged being their major weak point). Mind you, fighters still have action surge and more feats, but up until 11th level and a third attack, this would make paladins keep pace pretty well (even without being able to use smites at range). I'm of two+ minds about this. I think that a bow-using paladin ought to be viable, OTOH paladins as written for 5e do not need additional boosts, OTOOH this would disincentivize Warlock dipping which I'm always in favor of... etc.

[Man_Over_Game]

Because this is a game framed around classes. When I dont want classes to matter I play something else.

That's fair. Does that mean you'd prefer to ban those feats from your games?

[MaxWilson]

That's fair. Does that mean you'd prefer to ban those feats from your games?

Is there a difference between banning a feat and answering "No" to a forum post asking if you'd allow a hypothetical feat?

[Wryte]

Because this is a game framed around classes. When I dont want classes to matter I play something else.

Letting one class get one low level feature from another is pretty far from making classes not matter. I mean Fighting Styles are already features of 3 different classes as it stands.

I'd just add it to the Weapon Master feat to make that feat not completely pointless.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is there a difference between banning a feat and answering "No" to a forum post asking if you'd allow a hypothetical feat?

I think so.

There's a difference between traditionalism and following what works.

If there's a reason those feats are acceptable (like how Polearm Master does more than allowing a Bonus Action Attack), then I think there'd be a valid reason to keep some of those feats but deny access to a Fighting Style.

If there was no reason, and those feats are acceptable because the book says they are, it reflects that the argument is more of traditional vs. unconventional. The new idea is being denied because it's new, not because they believe in the idea that it's bad to make class features generic.

Of course, it could be a little of both (Segried doesn't like those feats, but only allows them because they're the default), but I like to know where that division is. Not necessarily from him, but just from everyone.


Is a Fighting Style feat a problem because it makes things generic (and all other feats that make things generic are bad feats that we shouldn't play with), or do we just not like the idea because we don't like homebrew? It's somewhere on that scale, and I'd like to hear where people fall on it, I guess.

[stoutstien]

Letting one class get one low level feature from another is pretty far from making classes not matter. I mean Fighting Styles are already features of 3 different classes as it stands.

I'd just add it to the Weapon Master feat to make that feat not completely pointless.

Four classes. sword bard, fighter, pally, and ranger.

[OvisCaedo]

...On a side note, I'd completely forgotten that barbarians don't get fighting styles. Hm.

[stoutstien]

I'll be honest, I'm....kinda confused as to why allowing class features as feats is a bad thing.

Most of the class features that you can get from feats are available as a level 1 dip into that class.


Ritual Caster
Magic Initiate
Spell Sniper (Warlocks/Sorcerers)
Martial Adept
Gaining armor proficiencies
Gaining skill proficiencies
PAM Attacking as a Bonus Action (Beserker Barbarian, virtually any TWF)


Would a Fighting Style be much different? Nope. In fact, a Fighting Style should be more on the table than many of those on the list, since 3 classes already have access to Fighting Styles. It seems odd to me to simultaneously say it's acceptable for them to have the same unique features, but it's unacceptable to allow it to someone else at a high cost (of a feat).

Could add battle master maneuver(s), Athletics (2nd story work/ drunken monk), and sulker is almost the same as gloomstalker lv 3 feature.

[Sigreid]

That's fair. Does that mean you'd prefer to ban those feats from your games?

In general as a DM I try to be as permissive as possible with what has been officially published. That doesn't mean everything that I allow is something I think was a good choice for WoTC in the first place.

[MaxWilson]

I think so.

There's a difference between traditionalism and following what works.

If there's a reason those feats are acceptable (like how Polearm Master does more than allowing a Bonus Action Attack), then I think there'd be a valid reason to keep some of those feats but deny access to a Fighting Style.

If there was no reason, and those feats are acceptable because the book says they are, it reflects that the argument is more of traditional vs. unconventional. The new idea is being denied because it's new, not because they believe in the idea that it's bad to make class features generic.

Of course, it could be a little of both (Segried doesn't like those feats, but only allows them because they're the default), but I like to know where that division is. Not necessarily from him, but just from everyone.

Is a Fighting Style feat a problem because it makes things generic (and all other feats that make things generic are bad feats that we shouldn't play with), or do we just not like the idea because we don't like homebrew? It's somewhere on that scale, and I'd like to hear where people fall on it, I guess.

Oh, by "those feats" did you mean Prodigy? I thought you meant the hypothetical Fighting Style feat, since Sigreid didn't mention any specific feats in the post you were quoting.

For me I'll say this bit in bold is a big part of my concern. I favor parsimony, especially for player-facing options. I try to keep my number of house rules small so they are easy for a new player to comprehend, and only introduce house rules when there's a lot of bang for the buck. There's a lot of things that I could house rule to make more sense but in practice haven't, because it's just not worth the extra complexity.

This is one of them, and it's why if a player wanted it I'd probably be like, "Okay, fine, your character has that now" but I wouldn't add it to my house rules document as a rules option because it's not worth the cognitive overhead.


In general as a DM I try to be as permissive as possible with what has been officially published. That doesn't mean everything that I allow is something I think was a good choice for WoTC in the first place.

Ditto here. Healing Spirit is a design abomination but I haven't disallowed it, partly because Aura of Vitality was already almost as bad (though much less accessible) and partly because I want to let people play the game they signed up to play (5E in this case). I do tweak it mildly to prevent it from healing multiple people per round, though.

[stoutstien]

I would note the classes that have the most definition as far as exclusive tricks are either one of the least popular classes or concerned weak/not fun in filling that role.
Druid, Barbarian, and rangers come to mind.

I think if we said expertise was a rogue only feature we would start seeing less of them, not more.

[Sigreid]

Oh, by "those feats" did you mean Prodigy? I thought you meant the hypothetical Fighting Style feat, since Sigreid didn't mention any specific feats in the post you were quoting.



I actually put expertise and fighting style in very much the same category. In both cases they are a features, and really the only class features, that make a class definitively better than is achievable by other classes without resorting to magic.

[Greywander]

Spend a Feat, gain a fighting style. That's it.

No other bonuses, no doubling up on the same style.

I'd probably even allow it as a half-feat, so add +1 str or dex on top.

2nd this. I replaced the weapon master feat with +1 str/Dex and a style pick.

I'd just add it to the Weapon Master feat to make that feat not completely pointless.
This was also the route I went with my own houserules. Here's my version of the feat:

Fighting Style

Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn one fighting style of your choice.
If you chose the Protection fighting style, you also gain proficiency with shields.
If you chose the Defense fighting style, you also gain proficiency in light and medium armor.
If you chose any other fighting style, you gain proficiency in any two weapons of your choice.
You may take this feat more than once.

This handily replaces Weapon Master, as well as Lightly Armored. Moderately Armored is still handy, as it gives both medium armor and shields, but if you've already got one or the other then this is better. The reason I give both light and medium armor together is that every class either (a) already has light armor, or (b) has another class feature that mitigates the need for armor (Unarmored Defense, Mage Armor, etc.). Skipping straight to medium armor shouldn't be too game breaking.

Also note that in my version of the feat, the two weapon proficiencies you pick don't need to relate to your chosen fighting style, e.g. you can pick two melee weapons when you choose the Archery style. This gives you the opportunity to get a weapon that works with the fighting style, but provides flexibility in case you already have the right weapon proficiency and want something else.

[TyGuy]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/3720-fighting-style-adept

This is the fifth most popular homebrew feat on D&D beyond.

It's a half feat with a +1 str or dex and a fighting style. With a hefty prerequisite of 15 dex, con, or str.

[Jerrykhor]

Wow, who knew such a simple suggestion can spawn some strong (but also wrong) opinions.

Fighting style is about as unique a class feature as Ritual Casting, and Ritual Casting can be taken as a feat. So if there is already a precedent, its fine.

Even certain features aren't exclusive to one class, if you look hard enough. For example, Land Druids have 2 features that share with other classes, one with Wizard, and one with Ranger.

[Sigreid]

Wow, who knew such a simple suggestion can spawn some strong (but also wrong) opinions.

Fighting style is about as unique a class feature as Ritual Casting, and Ritual Casting can be taken as a feat. So if there is already a precedent, its fine.

Even certain features aren't exclusive to one class, if you look hard enough. For example, Land Druids have 2 features that share with other classes, one with Wizard, and one with Ranger.

My opinion isn't wrong, it's just different than yours.

Edit: I'll also state that if I were making the final decision in the design paladins and rangers would not have a fighting style and bards would not have expertise. It would define fighters as, well, the best fighters and rogues as the supreme skill masters. Each able to do things within their native sphere others could not.

[Jerrykhor]

My opinion isn't wrong, it's just different than yours.

Edit: I'll also state that if I were making the final decision in the design paladins and rangers would not have a fighting style and bards would not have expertise. It would define fighters as, well, the best fighters and rogues as the supreme skill masters. Each able to do things within their native sphere others could not.

There's a big difference in what it is, and what it should be. And that's why you're wrong. Currently as it is, Fighting Style aren't a unique class defining feature. Just because you think it should be one, doesn't make you right.

And logically speaking, why should it be only for Fighters? Other martial classes can fight too, so why should they not have Fighting Styles?

Do you also hate stuff like Magical Secrets that can potentially poach unique spells from another class' spell list? If you do, then you are also wrong! Having a class system in itself doesn't mean that each class should be 100% unique.

[Sigreid]

There's a big difference in what it is, and what it should be. And that's why you're wrong. Currently as it is, Fighting Style aren't a unique class defining feature. Just because you think it should be one, doesn't make you right.

And logically speaking, why should it be only for Fighters? Other martial classes can fight too, so why should they not have Fighting Styles?

Do you also hate stuff like Magical Secrets that can potentially poach unique spells from another class' spell list? If you do, then you are also wrong! Having a class system in itself doesn't mean that each class should be 100% unique.

Yeah, done with you.

[Kane0]

I'd allow it, but as a player I wouldn't take it.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'd just add it to the Weapon Master feat to make that feat not completely pointless.

That was my idea as well. Give the option of 1 Fighting Style as well as +1 Str/Dex, and proficiency in 4 weapons. Might have someone actually pick this thing for once.

[Kane0]

May as well make it all simple and martial weapons plus the Style and +1 stat

[strangebloke]

Sure, as a half feat. But you can't pick archery.

Archery is too good as a half feat. Everything else is too weak as a full feat.

[Illven]

My opinion isn't wrong, it's just different than yours.

Edit: I'll also state that if I were making the final decision in the design paladins and rangers would not have a fighting style and bards would not have expertise. It would define fighters as, well, the best fighters and rogues as the supreme skill masters. Each able to do things within their native sphere others could not.

What would you give the Paladin, Ranger, and Bard to make up for it?

[Wryte]

Edit: I'll also state that if I were making the final decision in the design paladins and rangers would not have a fighting style and bards would not have expertise. It would define fighters as, well, the best fighters and rogues as the supreme skill masters. Each able to do things within their native sphere others could not.

Fighters are already defined as the best fighters by virtue of getting up to twice as many attacks as anyone else and having enough bonus ASIs to freely take combat feats while still maxing out their combat stats. Should they also be the only ones who get Extra Attack? This is bordering on the kind of purity class design that thinks there should only be three classes in the game - fighter, rogue, and magic-user - who should all be pigeonholed into a single niche with no abilities outside of it.

That's just not what D&D is. The great thing about D&D is that you can do things outside of a narrowly defined niche. If you want classes that can never do anything outside of their specific niche, video games have you covered.

[Theodoxus]

Sure, as a half feat. But you can't pick archery.

Archery is too good as a half feat. Everything else is too weak as a full feat.

I changed Archery to +1 Hit/Dam with ranged weapons. Seemed a decent compromise, and I haven't had any ranged player complain...

[TIPOT]

I did, as part of my massive expansion of feats. I also broke all feats into 'half feats' (without the bonus to an attribute). I then grant a feat at all odd levels, leaving ASIs as they currently are.

I've had all of 1 player pick up a fighting style - it was a barbarian (which I honestly think should get them as part of the base class - but that's a different discussion) who wanted dueling style.

Do you have this uploaded somewhere? I'd be interested in giving it a read! :smallsmile:

[Willie the Duck]

https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/3720-fighting-style-adept

This is the fifth most popular homebrew feat on D&D beyond.

It's a half feat with a +1 str or dex and a fighting style. With a hefty prerequisite of 15 dex, con, or str.

Interesting, the 15 Con in particular. I mean, I think I understand the logic -- Joe the cantrip-dropping cleric with medium armor, Jim the heavy armor/shillelagh dwarven nature cleric, and Janice the hobgoblin abjurer with the moderately armored feat are all SAD/really-low-MADness builds with feats to spare, letting them get the +1 AC of fighting style:defensive might feel like a kick in the teeth to Jennie the fighter who, despite getting extra ASIs, usually feels pretty ASI thirsty and just lost some uniqueness-- best to pad this bonus with some extra requirement (such as a Str/Dex above what they would need for any of their tricks). OTOH, those are exactly the kind of casters (so worried about front line damage) that probably already would be seeking a 15+ Con. So it is a little bit of a non-penalty penalty.



Yeah, done with you.
Good call.

[Brookshw]

That's just not what D&D is. The great thing about D&D is that you can do things outside of a narrowly defined niche. If you want classes that can never do anything outside of their specific niche, video games have you covered.

It sounds like anyone playing 1e or 2e isn't playing D&D by that definition (I mean, multiclassing or dual classing as your race allowed was a thing, but it was rare anyone actually did it). In addition, what does it matter if a "class" can't do anything outside of it's niche if a character can by multiclassing? It seems like there's already an avenue to get the desired effect, the question really is what resource is appropriate to spend to get it.

(give it enough time though, I won't be surprised if eventually there's a splatbook that provides the fighting style as a feat)

[stoutstien]

+2 hit in a vacuum is fine it's just when you combine it with the ignoring cover and the -hit/+damage of SS that it seems out of line of other fighting styles.
I do agree it should have probably just been +1 hit which imo is about on par with +2 damage or at least it is in most reasonable AC thresholds.

[Willie the Duck]

It sounds like anyone playing 1e or 2e isn't playing D&D by that definition (I mean, multiclassing or dual classing as your race allowed was a thing, but it was rare anyone actually did it).

To counter, now it sounds like by your definition, playing 1e or 2e with multiclassing or dual classing isn't playing those editions.


+2 hit in a vacuum is fine it's just when you combine it with the ignoring cover and the -hit/+damage of SS that it seems out of line of other fighting styles.
I do agree it should have probably just been +1 hit which imo is about on par with +2 damage or at least it is in most reasonable AC thresholds.

Well, that is the thing. The feat system generally treats things like they are in a vacuum, so it's not surprising that it might set up some builds which are high-powered if not overly powerful. The -5/+10 feats in general are only worrisomely powerful when they are combined with significant pluses to hit and/or simple access to advantage. A self-blessing archery vengeance paladin would do real well in that regard. :smallbiggrin:

[Brookshw]

To counter, now it sounds like by your definition, playing 1e or 2e with multiclassing or dual classing isn't playing those editions.


Eh, one's a statement regarding what D&D is which establishes its identity and boundaries, one's a statement of common experience within D&D and inclusive of alternatives while acknowledging they weren't common. I think those distinctions are fairly clear and carry easily distinguishable implications for when something does and does not exist within the scope of D&D.

[Theodoxus]

Do you have this uploaded somewhere? I'd be interested in giving it a read! :smallsmile:

The General and Racial Feats sections would be of most interest to you - there isn't much that wouldn't work with base 5E. The rest are both campaign specific and taken from 4E - so they'll probably take some conversion to work with base 4E.

I haven't finalized all the rules around the system, but if you're interested in the rest, DM me.

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/SkRODzemE

[Sigreid]

What would you give the Paladin, Ranger, and Bard to make up for it?

Hadn't really thought about it since I currently just play the game pretty much as written. I'm not even entirely sure that they would need a replacement but if it was replaced I think I'd want it replaced with something specific to the class as well.


Fighters are already defined as the best fighters by virtue of getting up to twice as many attacks as anyone else and having enough bonus ASIs to freely take combat feats while still maxing out their combat stats. Should they also be the only ones who get Extra Attack? This is bordering on the kind of purity class design that thinks there should only be three classes in the game - fighter, rogue, and magic-user - who should all be pigeonholed into a single niche with no abilities outside of it.

That's just not what D&D is. The great thing about D&D is that you can do things outside of a narrowly defined niche. If you want classes that can never do anything outside of their specific niche, video games have you covered.

Fighters don't actually become any better at fighting than the other martial classes until level 11 when the 3rd attack comes online (talking core class here, I'm aware that the subclasses have some cool combat abilities).

It's definitely not bordering on purity of only three classes. I like all the classes though I have personal hangups with the flavor of warlocks that tends to stop me from playing them. I also have zero problem with multi-classing. While I don't often do that, the one guy in our group who does do it a lot has built some cool characters with it.

I don't spend any time at all harassing the devs about their design choices playing the game as is, but sometimes opine on those choices here like just about everyone else, so sue me.

I like video games too, but even the ones modeled on RPGs are a different beast all together.

[MaxWilson]

Fighters don't actually become any better at fighting than the other martial classes until level 11 when the 3rd attack comes online (talking core class here, I'm aware that the subclasses have some cool combat abilities).

Just my opinion, but I'd put the breakpoint at level 6, when they get their first bonus feat. Before that, Action Surge is certainly nice for bursty situations, but getting e.g. GWM/PAM online when other PCs have only GWM is really noticeable all day every day.

[Sigreid]

Just my opinion, but I'd put the breakpoint at level 6, when they get their first bonus feat. Before that, Action Surge is certainly nice for bursty situations, but getting e.g. GWM/PAM online when other PCs have only GWM is really noticeable all day every day.

Fair statement.

[GlenSmash!]

Archery fighting style on Rogues and Kensei Monks seem to gain the most out of this.

I also wouldn't mind Dueling on a Spear wielding PAM Barbarian. 4ish attacks per round each getting +2 damage from Dueling and +2 from Rage is pretty decent.

Also even if the feat can only be taken once, this opens up 2 fighting style options for non champion Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers, and 3 style champions. I think that's kind of a neat idea.


I'll also state that if I were making the final decision in the design paladins and rangers would not have a fighting style and bards would not have expertise. It would define fighters as, well, the best fighters and rogues as the supreme skill masters. Each able to do things within their native sphere others could not.

I'm on board with you here.

I play a lot of Barbarians and they fight just fine without fighting styles. Paladins and Rangers could have gotten unique class features to help them fight just like the Barbarian did.

Ultimately styles are the way they are, stealing other classes abilities as Feats already has precedent in the game, and I don't think this would be game breaking so I'd allow it.

I do find it a bit boring though. It would not excite me to see the option in a published 5e book.