Quote from: Opaopajr;1006067So, 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?

I think the Attack steps too much on the non-casters who already achieve something with their bonus actions and reactions - the battle masters and the rogues, but even the limited ability of the war priest, for a caster example. Disengage as a bonus action, even only if you attack, changes the style of melee combat drastically and really undercuts the rogue's Cunning Action as something special - maybe more special than the sneak attack, because there are other classes that get to add dice to damage if not as consistently. I've seen players take two levels of rogue pretty much to get cunning action, and avoiding AoO is a frequent use/purpose of the Mobile feat.

QuoteIs 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?)

What's the standard for too powerful?

That everyone who is seeking greater effectiveness will take it? Not because of the fighting style, although I can imagine a number of characters playing AL who would take it, to combine the +1 AC of defensive fighting style with their offensive fighting style of choice (archery if ranged, dueling if they use a one-handed weapon, heavy weapon mastery if they go great weapon master, or pole arm master and sentinel) - compare to the number willing to use an attunement slot for a +1 protection item. I don't see much synergy otherwise, and fighter/ranger/paladin already get one. As you seem to suggest, the extra options have more potential for making this too powerful, and a fighting style is just an extra topping on the awesomeness sundae.

Or that it overshadows some character class (not thinking so much of niche protection, but adding one choice that undercuts other choices seems counterproductive). I see that a bit with the Disengage ability versus Cunning Action. When Sword Coast Adventurers Guide came out, AL allowed any level character one chance to rebuild, probably to stem the complaints from people who had an ordinary character at middle level but would have preferred one of the shiny new options. To put it another way, is it too powerful if it makes sincere non-min-maxing players unhappy with the choices they previously made where they would have used this feat instead? The prerequisites should block characters who are too far from fighting from getting this - who would the proficient in simple weapons but not already getting a fighting style characters be? Clerics and barbarians?

A fighting style alone is too little for a feat by itself; I liked the earlier version with a +1 to one ability better. With that, it would be more often used than some existing feats but far from the all-but-mandatory feat everyone takes.

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

Maybe a bit; I wouldn't like every combination of pieces of feats to be available, as you might as well price everything in tiny fractions of a feat. You could go full out with point costs for everything but explicitly place the onus on DMs to police the min-maxing at the expense of roleplaying; but we already have GURPS. It's also hard to steer between two extremes: e.g., either every Druid knows Druidic, because it's automatic, or almost none of them know it if it were optional because they would have had to give something else up and it didn't seem worth enough. (In fairness, I've seen a non-negligible number of Land Druids in AL play, where I had not expected any.)

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

Yeah, that is still unclear. Do you mean that the attack is rolled with disadvantage or that it has disadvantage which might be negated by advantage from some source? But also they could get a ranged opportunity attack in return for taking only melee fighting styles - that seems weird to me.

QuoteThoughts?

I have opinions at least. Still too tired and semi-coherent from the convention last weekend to dignify them as "thoughts".

I think the choice of skills is a little too restricted, even though that's probably not significant. Woodcarving doesn't say weapon making to me, but maybe because it's a little two general of a skill. If my concept is various kinds of skilled martial artist why couldn't the additional proficiency be lots of other things, reflecting whatever the master instructor uses as a context to teach weapon use? (For Mr. Miyagi's students, choose from floor refinishing, house painting or automobile detailing.)