I'd make the feat a Fighting Style and +1 to some relevant attribute.

So instead of this:

Quote from: Opaopajr;1005394Feat

Fighting Style Training v.01
pre-requisite: a class with a fighting style, OR proficiency with all simple weapons and a STR or DEX of 14.
* Gain a Fighting Style
* Gain Tool proficiency in Smithy or Woodcarving.
* Increase any stat by +1

you would prefer:

Fighting Style Training v.012
pre-requisite: a class with a fighting style, OR proficiency with all simple weapons and a STR or DEX of 14.
* Gain a Fighting Style
* Gain Tool proficiency in Smithy or Woodcarving.
* Increase a stat by +1 associated to your Gained Fighting Style
Great Weapon Master - STR
Archery - DEX
Defense - CON
Two-Weapon Fighting - INT
Protection - WIS
Dueling - CHA

I think it's weaker and promotes gaming the system, but it is thematic. Thoughts?

Quote from: Opaopajr;1005640So instead of this:



you would prefer:

Fighting Style Training v.012
pre-requisite: a class with a fighting style, OR proficiency with all simple weapons and a STR or DEX of 14.
* Gain a Fighting Style
* Gain Tool proficiency in Smithy or Woodcarving.
* Increase a stat by +1 associated to your Gained Fighting Style
Great Weapon Master - STR
Archery - DEX
Defense - CON
Two-Weapon Fighting - INT
Protection - WIS
Dueling - CHA

I think it's weaker and promotes gaming the system, but it is thematic. Thoughts?

OK, let's play with this.  The issue I have here is that Two Weapon Fighting would conflict with the Eldritch Knight path.  Also, it promotes the multiple attribute dependency issue that the Monk has.

I don't think Fighting Styles should be made Feats in the first place, because it robs the martial classes of something unique they have.

But if you're dead set on going down that route, I'd try to make the feat be something different enough to not just be a cut and paste of it.

Also, I always considered Fighting Styles to be a bigger investment in feats.

To get a feat, you give up a +2 ASI, but to get a Fighting Style, you have to completely multiclass and take a level in an entirely different class.

Furthermore, you only get a Fighting Style once; you get ASIs all the time. Rather than a kind of special ability or flourish, it's the core of your character's approach: their fighting style.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1005655OK, let's play with this.  The issue I have here is that Two Weapon Fighting would conflict with the Eldritch Knight path.  Also, it promotes the multiple attribute dependency issue that the Monk has.

That would be the gaming the system I was worried about, yes. And...? What would be your solution to this version, reordering which stats get what style? Or do you prefer a floating +1 to any stat as the previous version in this chain? And why?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1005657I don't think Fighting Styles should be made Feats in the first place, because it robs the martial classes of something unique they have.

But if you're dead set on going down that route, I'd try to make the feat be something different enough to not just be a cut and paste of it.

Also, I always considered Fighting Styles to be a bigger investment in feats.

To get a feat, you give up a +2 ASI, but to get a Fighting Style, you have to completely multiclass and take a level in an entirely different class.

Furthermore, you only get a Fighting Style once; you get ASIs all the time. Rather than a kind of special ability or flourish, it's the core of your character's approach: their fighting style.

Well, I guess adding this sub-topic to this topic was germaine. I see your argument, but ask you to reconsider, for several points:

* Infrequency does not mean power, (e.g. lest Thieves' Cant or Remarkable Athlete be overinflated ).
* Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster are neat parallel feats, and do open magic up (marginally) to non-magic users.
* What you are arguing in preserving class benefit can easily be managed through the Prerequisites clause.

Currently the Prerequisite clause "prof in all simple weapons" restricts single-class Druids, Sorcerers, & Wizards. Granted the other threshold of STR/DEX 14 is not all that hard. Do you think it would be better served with a STR/DEX 16? Or how about restricting it to only the first Prerequisite clause, only "classes that have Fighting Styles?"

As to whether I think this would rob martial classes? Perhaps in part, but it also opens them up laterally in magical weapon badassery, too. A Variant Human Fighter can come out of the gate with two styles (likely GW/Archery & Defense, sigh...). A martial can laterally progress instead of load specific. Will they? That's another good question.

For my own preference, I don't like 5e multi-classing much and don't allow it. However, if I do build a feat I have to assume that, too, is on. What sort of non-Fighting Style class shenanigans do people already see: Cleric, Bard, Monk, Rogue, Warlock, etc?

Quote from: Opaopajr;1005825What sort of non-Fighting Style class shenanigans do people already see: Cleric, Bard, Monk, Rogue, Warlock, etc?

Most common shenanigans:

1. 1-level dip in Fighter to gain fighting style and weapon/armor proficiencies.
2. 2-level dip in Warlock by sorcerers to gain EB+AB.
3. 1-level dip in Druid by Life Cleric (or vice versa) to gain powered-up goodberries.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1005811That would be the gaming the system I was worried about, yes. And...? What would be your solution to this version, reordering which stats get what style? Or do you prefer a floating +1 to any stat as the previous version in this chain? And why?

Honestly, if I was to use that idea, I'd limit it to three stats, Dexterity, Strength and Constitution.  Thing is, I also see a lot more styles using Dexterity than Strength.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1005828Most common shenanigans:

1. 1-level dip in Fighter to gain fighting style and weapon/armor proficiencies.
2. 2-level dip in Warlock by sorcerers to gain EB+AB.
3. 1-level dip in Druid by Life Cleric (or vice versa) to gain powered-up goodberries.

Why allow 'dipping' at all? Just don't allow multi-classing.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;1005828Most common shenanigans:

1. 1-level dip in Fighter to gain fighting style and weapon/armor proficiencies.
2. 2-level dip in Warlock by sorcerers to gain EB+AB.
3. 1-level dip in Druid by Life Cleric (or vice versa) to gain powered-up goodberries.

Thank you! And of these dipping into Fighter will likely be the easiest way to circumvent all the Prereq. clauses. That would mean the latter two, though opened up by "must be proficient in all simple" (by warlock & cleric), is really unnecessary. It would be a clause accomplished by already doing what they wanted to do, no decision needed.

OK! Good, removing those extra clauses down to "Must be a class with fighting styles."

Of this 1-lvl dip Fighter, are there any immediate signs for abuse of this -- beyond the obvious "choose: Defense, apply your floating +1 stat where you need it"? (Which does make an argument for leaving Defense linked with CON...)

Quote from: Voros;1005933Why allow 'dipping' at all? Just don't allow multi-classing.

Because the nature of Feats are not designed granularly to power up or down depending on what optional material is turned on. Thus if I am designing something for Ch. 6 Options, I should keep an eye to disruptive combinations elsewhere in the optional material as a matter of courtesy. Just because you or I may not use Multi-Classing doesn't mean others will not either. It's part and parcel of the package of Ch. 6 Options designing, I think.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1005850Honestly, if I was to use that idea, I'd limit it to three stats, Dexterity, Strength and Constitution.  Thing is, I also see a lot more styles using Dexterity than Strength.

Yes, DEX is the psycho hose beast god stat in the room, isn't it? DEX has Archery to itself, and tends to favor finesse and/or light weapons for Dueling & Two-Weapon Fighting. So that's half the styles out of the gate. And Defense sorta doesn't care, as long as you got armor, which then feeds into Light and Med. supporting DEX's benefit to AC (so make that four to DEX).

You have made a compelling counter argument towards keeping the styles to stats fixed! Thank you!

So, I'll be honest, this version is my preferred version.

FEAT
Fighting Style Training v.02
pre-requisite: a class with a fighting style, OR proficiency with all simple weapons and a STR or DEX of 14.
* Gain a Fighting Style
* Gain Tool proficiency in either Smithy or Woodcarving.
* If you Attack as an action you may Disengage or Shove as a Bonus Action.
* If an opponent you can see leaves your close range into your long range during combat, you may use your reaction to take a ranged Opportunity Attack upon them. Only usable if this attack would have disadvantage.

I like it because it opens Bonus and Reaction for attacks, which is action economy that really helps martials. However there seems to be disinterest among you respondants. I am curious, why?

Is it too powerful? Should it offer only opening one or the other of Bonus or Reaction? (How about an option of bullet 3 or 4, which means taking the feat again gives more the 2nd time around?)

Is it because it steps on the toes of Shield Master's Shove?

Is it because the fourth bullet clause reads obliquely, and thus suffers from CCG too-much-text-itis?

Other?

Thoughts?

Part of my ambivalence is that there is no flavor being presented. I like feats to be capturing some sort of flavor and then designing top down from that. This is just a bunch of unrelated mechanics and it feels lifeless. Having a flavor in mind helps give a design goal to tune towards.

For instance, why is there wood carving there? Or smithy proficiency? It feels like it's trying to tell a story, but what? What is the concept being captured here?

Mechanically, it feels too fiddly and also steps on the Shield Master. If there was some important reason for it though it could be ironed out, but right now it just seems randomly tacked on because I don't know the flavor you're going for.

Thanks for replying!

Well, I thought the Smithy or Woodcarving skills would be obvious in relation to weapon-making. Carpentry is less related to weapon making due to greater emphasis on complexity of joined pieces and overall frames. So the overall theme is developing Weapon Mastery that is flexible in its breadth.

Hence being able to offer any Fighting Style, one weapon-making related skill, and opening Bonus & Reaction into melee, close-ranged battle tactics.

The Shove is there with Disengage to manage the melee flow. So your PC can readily reposition themself or others AFTER a weapon Attack (doesn't combine with Cast Spells or Use an Object tricks). This creates: a) PC mobility to shift into new formations, b) PC gap creation through 5' shove (of friend or foe!), and c) PC prone creation to advantage melee over ranged (again, useful for friend or foe!). Go to out-of-movement friendly caster who got too close to range attacks, shove prone, "Get down!" and move up to engage. Things like that.

And the Reaction gives an extra, less guaranteed, OA attack. Won't be as useful to longer-ranged range weapons, but supports short- and mid- ranged throughput. So you can get that "Badass fighter throws a dagger/handaxe at enemy going for his further away exposed comrades" effect. Paired with Dual Wielder feat, you can even achieve that "throws sword into foe, picks up another weapon lying around to fight next enemy" heroic effect -- and be good at what he picks up!

Does it make more thematic sense now? I personally thought this was tactically obvious, but good to hear it called out! What's obvious to me is not obvious to everyone.

Any other questions?

And we had newcomers concerned that there's not enough 5e talk on here!