My confusion was from this video and the feat's description from third party content that listed a different weapon master feat and did not clarify that it was homebrew. There's no mention of acquiring a fighting style. Modifying the feat to include one would be introducing homebrew to your game. Note : One possible source of your confusion suggested by linksassin in the comments could be the similarly named Great Weapon Master feat PHB, p. There is no overlap in the benefits they provide. Sign up to join this community.DnD Shield Fighter Adding Sword & Board Combat to Your Game Dungeons and Dragons Character Builds
The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Home Questions Tags Users Unanswered. Does the Weapon Master feat grant you a fighting style? Ask Question. Asked 11 months ago. Active 9 months ago. Viewed 17k times. GcL Active Oldest Votes. No other official feats currently allow a PC to learn a fighting style, either. Tiggerous Tiggerous I agree, but I cannot find the link.
The querent might have seen the same post. While not the same as the "Fighting Styles" feature, I could see people swapping names without steel road barrier. Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of You gain proficiency with any four weapons of your choice; OR you gain a fighting style of your choice from the Fighter's list.I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's.
I will not reason and compare: my business is to create. They end up being mechanical clutter. IMO, a particular dual weapon combo should be a weapon proficiency, not a feat. I don't even get the idea of a general affinity for dual wielding that spans all weapons.
If it costs two weapon proficiency slots to be competent in a specific weapon pair, that seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.
I like those, especially "if they hit, they roll damage for both weapons and take the higher roll" - something I"ve considered for 5e too.
Weapon proficiency and feats are two different ways of dealing with weapon specialization. Thank you for 'fixing' the lackluster Dual Wielding rules in 5e. Let's try that again In regards to the quarterstaff bit: I feel like the quarterstaff being one-handed is a type-o. Yes the spear is also considered one-handed but logic says that using a pole to poke with is easier then trying to bludgeon.
You can't get the power required with just one hand. So quarterstaff should have the two-handed property. It's just like the Greatclub. Its the only weapon weighing more then 6-lbs. So once more I feel it to be a type-o. The thing that does concern me is that you don't need TWF style as a prerequisite for the "Duel Wielder" feat.
It seems to be a cheat for fighters to get 2 fighting very quickly. Making a fast switch when needed, just drop the off-hand weapon and move straight to GWF.My gaming schedule has given me a lot more chances to see people create new 5e characters lately, including more than a few fighters and paladins. Some of those players set out to be the tankiest tanks that ever tanked, so they pick up the Protection fighting style, and… it kinda works, but the more I see it, the less I like it.
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield. SRD, p.
Attacks a Target Other than You : Your goal as a defender is to keep attention focused on you. Your gameplay is all about frustrating the enemy whenever they try anything other than just attacking you. That is Within 5 Feet of You : You can only defend people near you with your shield, even if your reach is greater than 5 feet for some reason. Now, I love reactions in 5e. A lot of my favorite design involves new reaction options for attack, defense, or mobility. Howeveryou only get one reaction per round, which refreshes at the start of your turn.
The effect of this fighting style needs to be pretty impressive. Here are the possible outcomes:. In addition to competing for your reaction against OAs and superior Sentinel OAs I mean, holy geezSentinel was a lot of fun the other dayProtection is also competing against five other fighting styles — or, if you know you want to play a shield fighter, two other fighting styles: Defense and Dueling. Given the bounded accuracy of 5e, one point of AC is strong and dependable. Also, well, passive abilities are hard to beat.
Protection is far from the only active defense that is, defense that uses your reaction in the game. Again, this is hugely advantageous, and costs a reaction in addition to a vital class currency Font of Inspiration is a life-changing feature for almost any bard. It also scales a bit by level, as your CS die gets bigger and you get more of them.
It costs your reaction, requires that you can see the attacker, and halves the damage dealt to you. No help for nearby allies, though. Spend your reaction to move 5 feet away from an opponent this does not provoke OAs to reduce damage from a melee weapon attack roll by 1d6. The problem I keep coming back to in addressing Protection is the tension between the very early point of declaration and the peripheral effects of Disadvantage blocking Sneak Attack, not stacking with other sources of disadvantage, etc.
That would be the lowest-hanging fruit answer, though: change Protection so that, instead of disadvantage, you can spend your reaction to force a reroll of one weapon attack that hits an adjacent ally. If it makes sense for Parry or the… unnamed defensive maneuver that UA played with for Cavaliers and Scouts which granted a Combat Superiority die to AC and halved damage from the attack then it makes sense here, I think.
This is not exactly the hill I care to die on, but still. When a creature you can see hits a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to force the enemy to reroll the attack.
If you are wielding a shield, the enemy rerolls the attack with disadvantage. You must use the new result. With a shield, if the initial attack had advantage, the reroll applies disadvantage, and thus the enemy rolls a single die. I would think about adding damage mitigation alsobut I would like to keep my revised Protection from taking up appreciably more time or mental energy than the original. Your email address will not be published.
Perhaps if you additionally imposed advantage on all attacks to yourself from all creatures until the start of your next turn really lowering your defensesyou could impose disadvantage on all attacks from all creatures to the protected target. I like your suggestion.I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create. Yeah, I hate that too. Really good analysis. Do you have something like a complete set of house-rules for 5e, or is this just a one-off?
To be honest I am always trying new stuff with 5e. Some house rules become permanent, others change frequently. I do not have an unified document But maybe that would be a good idea, I usually love those. Simple fix: disallow dual-wielding of versatile or reach weapons. What makes you say that sword and main-gauche isn't a viable tactic?
There are lots of simple fixes for 5e weapons I would think that a main-gauche would count as either a dagger or a shortsword, which are both light weapons, which means you don't need the Dual Wielder feat to use them in your off-hand. I agree with your line of thinking, but in 5e RAW, if the weapon in you MAIN hand isn't light, you cannot attack with a dagger or a shortsword.
I have found 5e to be a VERY bias game against certain areas, in fact heavy handed in the designers not liking something and punishing players for choosing certain styles of characters.
You must have either the feat or fighting style to perform it. And for those who think TWF isn't real here are historical occurrences of it go do some research if you dare!
Yeah, I see how this might be an overreaction to abuses in 3. Eh, I reread your post and realized I had asked a stupid question. This is a great write-up, thank you for sharing :. Two weapon fighting mainly existed as a style for civilian use because carrying an extra blade around was less cumbersome than a shield if you didn't expect a fight to be likely.
The same goes for situations when weapons had to be hidden, and better a second weapon than an empty hand. A staff was something that people mostly carried when they were too poor for something else or weapons were regulated. It's basically always better to put a spearhead on one end. Two weapon fighting was often done to show off in duels, etc. Similarly people were very impressed anytime peasants armed only with staffs repelled armed soldiers and the like, so this often gets mentioned.
People with a one-handed weapon expecting combat nearly always favored a shield. You can't actually attack any faster in most situations with two weapons because it involves too much reorienting of the body and is difficult for the brain to process efficiently, so the second weapon would be defensive, for which a shield is better.
Furthermore no matter how deadly you are with two weapons most strikes don't have sufficient stopping power to down a enemy immediately so you're dealing with a few swings. There are also feats that make you better with one style or the other. Some real-world and fantasy styles are sorely missing, and if you are swinging a weapon without an adequate feat either because you didn't pick it or because it doesn't exityou are probably getting outshined by warriors who have them.Advertise with Us.
Remember Me? General Rules. Last Jump to page: Results 1 to 10 of Thread: 5e: Are fighting styles equivalent in value to a feat? Thread Tools Show Printable Version. I'm looking at some of the fighting styles offered to fighters, paladins and rangers and comparing them to some of the feats Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, etc.
Would you say they are equivalent enough that some of those feats could just be made fighting styles in a homebrew? Where, how and why was the distinction drawn anyway? I think feats are more robust and offer more.
Unlike 3e feats, 5e feats are more of a bucket of a few benefits, rather than just one. If you're stupid, your PC will die. If you're an asshole, your PC will die probably from the other PCs. If you're unlucky, your PC may die.
PC's die. Get over it and roll up a new one. What you could do is allow one of the classes to swap out their fighting style for a simmilar feat if they gain a second style as the fighter does. Now adding more simple styles has some merit. Though what is there covers a good spread. No, Feats are stronger. Outside of a few weak ones, the Fighting Styles don't compare. Where, how, why distinction is drawn?
Dunno exactly. But most feats give you more than one benefit for a start. Others just nullify penalty conditions outright i. Alert wholly nulls Surprise. Protection Style and its ilk is already deeply neglected by DPS-ers crowd.
Giving them the option between Style v. Feat is a no brainer. You pick the feat. The basic bullet point math alone says more dots of exception clause stuff is better than one.
Just make your fuckin' guy and roll the dice, you pricks.
Focus on what's interesting, not what gives you the biggest randomly generated virtual penis. But maybe it's more like Katamari Damacy. You keep sticking shit on your characters until they are big enough to be a star. Originally Posted by Omega. While feats aren't equivalent to a fighting style, theoretically they are equivalent to a 2 point stat boost. Originally Posted by Sacrosanct. Originally Posted by Baron Opal. And having to make that choice was an excellent design decision, I think.They are coded to be a fighter specific feature, with the half-fighter classes of paladin and ranger getting a taste.
It simply says these styles are adopted as a specialty. Fighters get this feature at first level, while paladins and rangers wait until level two, and both have two fewer options to choose from than fighter.
Other melee combatants, such as barbarians, monks, and rogues, are left out of this type of weapon training. Memory-Required Passive as a category means these styles provide a passive bonus, but you have to actively remember to use the bonus, rather than add it flat into your bonuses when you calculate things.
The fighting styles, when placed into categories, look thus:. It should come as no shock to experienced gamers that both categories of passive styles are objectively superior to the active style, which is a shame. Easy, and sheet-friendly. Memory-required passive can take a hit here. Great Weapon Fighting always lets you reroll any 1s or 2s you roll on your weapon die once per attack, and take the second result.
You might not spend your bonus action on the attack. As many people have discussedthe Protection fighting style is cool, but lacking. Unfortunately, there are a lot of things working against the style. I like that it requires you to be near an ally, rather than an opponent.
It costing a reaction is also fine, but it requires a bit more oomph behind the feature. The Sentinel Feat provides some new uses of an opportunity attack and a way to spend your reaction while adjacent to a foe.
I am fine with competing reactions, as Sentinel is a more offensive type of fight control, versus the defensive control Protection is trying to engender. Not scaling is pretty rough. As the game progresses, most of the other fighting styles scale inherently. Archery, Duelist, and Great Weapon Fighting all get better as you get more attacks. Defense allowing the AC bonus means more avoidance across the board, even with creatures getting additional attacks. They apply to a single attack, regardless of how the game progresses.
Not great. The early declaration for Protection is hard, as it triggers the reaction use when an ally is attacked. So two attack die are rolled, and the lowest result is taken. Only in the advent of different color dice that you declare one to be first roll and the other the disadvantage die or the baked-in features of Roll20 would you know if your imposition of disadvantage changed the outcome.
Both dice could still be a hit and both dice could be a miss. You must be wielding a shield. If this would reduce the incoming damage to 0, the target takes no damage.For centuries, great warriors have looked to nature and the multiverse to find inspiration in battle.
Countless monastic and contemplative orders have crafted intricate unarmed fighting styles based on the deadliness and grace of natural and supernatural creatures. Although many such fighting techniques were created by secretive orders, they have since spread to practitioners the world over. As a swift actionyou can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies.
Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style. You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style. For example, if you have feats associated with Mantis Style and Tiger Styleyou can use a swift action to adopt Tiger Style at the start of one turn, and then can use other feats that have Tiger Style as a prerequisite.
By using another swift action at the start of your next turn, you could adopt Mantis Style and use other feats that have Mantis Style as a prerequisite. Archon Style : Archon style protects allies from harm, even if it means temporarily sacrificing your safety in the process. Ascetic Style : You blend arms and martial arts, using weapons with the same ease as unarmed strikes. Barracuda Style : You study a combat style consisting of fluid, circular motions suited for moving and fighting underwater.
Beastmaster Style : While in this style, you have greater control over your non-mount animal companion. Source PZO Boar Style : A tribe of orcs who disdained the use of weapons originally developed this savage unarmed fighting style. They preferred to slaughter their enemies with their bare hands and teeth. Over the centuries, a variety of races have adopted the Boar Stylemost notably goblinoids, ogresand trolls.
The objective of the Boar Style is to attack with as much viciousness and cruelty as possible in order to break enemy morale. Fanatical followers of the style use herbal and alchemical reagents to harden their nails and teeth, sometimes performing self-mutilating procedures that result in claw-like nails and sharpened teeth.
Brute Style : Adherents to this style emulate the destructive and overwhelming power of brutish creatures. This forceful style focuses on knocking opponents prone and then crushing them by treading heavily upon them. Bulette Charge Style : You use the weight of your armor to enhance your movement.
Crane Style : Crane style focuses on defense and agile counterattacks.