I honestly think that a paladin who takes the two-weapon fighting style can benefit from it a lot. He can now deal with a 1st lvl smite: 2d6+4d8+6(str. modifier) dealing an average of 31 damage while with Dual wielder(6d8+3) average of 30 damage.
If a rogue's dex is already 20 (by whatever means, likely some combination of a good initial roll plus racial bonus, possibly plus ASI's or dex boosts from feats taken at earlier levels), can they even still benefit from a dex ASI? Thought they were limited by racial stat limits (usually 20)...
I'm assuming point buy, which means you'll need 2 ASIs to reach 20 unless you're doing custom lineage and take a half-feat.
Every poll I have ever seen has rolled stats way out in front of all other methods of generation. Of course going with point buy gives you "set" numbers to work with to do comparisons, but I just don't think it shows a realistic take on the way the game is actually played at most tables.
If the argument is that Fighting Initiate is never the optimal choice for a given build, I don't think that is quite as controversial an opinion. But if we removed all options that weren't optimal, the game would be much smaller and much less interesting.
I'm in a game with a level 12 sorcerer who still primarily uses her spell slots for magic missile. Many people are happy to sacrifice combat effectiveness in order to achieve their vision of their character. If you think an option is bad, consider that it may be not for you but rather for that sizeable portion of the playerbase.
The only requirement for Fighting Initiate is proficiency with a Martial Weapon which really does impede some subclasses in taking it such as Armorer Artificer, Wizard, and so on. What is nice is the fact a Moon Druid which is able to take this is Blindfighting style which will be usable in any form unless that form is deaf?
I think it is useful for many classes. As an avid duel wielder as well as a dex based Paladin enthusiast I would definitely consider picking a variant human for this feat and take two weapon fighting alongside defense from Paladin since you cant multiclass without 13 strength. Defense is incredibly useful to offset the lack of a shield and once you can get the dual wielder feat you can go ham with two rapiers.
Not all feats are as good as others, and while this one is niche I still think it is useful in certain circumstances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
If a rogue's dex is already 20 (by whatever means, likely some combination of a good initial roll plus racial bonus, possibly plus ASI's or dex boosts from feats taken at earlier levels), can they even still benefit from a dex ASI? Thought they were limited by racial stat limits (usually 20)...
I'm assuming point buy, which means you'll need 2 ASIs to reach 20 unless you're doing custom lineage and take a half-feat.
Every poll I have ever seen has rolled stats way out in front of all other methods of generation. Of course going with point buy gives you "set" numbers to work with to do comparisons, but I just don't think it shows a realistic take on the way the game is actually played at most tables.
I make the assumption that anyone who doesn't use point buy isn't going to care about balance issues on this scale.
If a rogue's dex is already 20 (by whatever means, likely some combination of a good initial roll plus racial bonus, possibly plus ASI's or dex boosts from feats taken at earlier levels), can they even still benefit from a dex ASI? Thought they were limited by racial stat limits (usually 20)...
I'm assuming point buy, which means you'll need 2 ASIs to reach 20 unless you're doing custom lineage and take a half-feat.
Every poll I have ever seen has rolled stats way out in front of all other methods of generation. Of course going with point buy gives you "set" numbers to work with to do comparisons, but I just don't think it shows a realistic take on the way the game is actually played at most tables.
I make the assumption that anyone who uses point buy isn't going to care about balance issues on this scale.
It probably should have been a half-feat, in my opinion. That being said...
If a martial is running in a party that's going to be using Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc. as a regular battlefield tactic then Blind Fighting becomes a rather significant combat benefit and shouldn't be ignored. When under these blinding effects, a PC's attacks against enemies and an enemies against the PC are neutral, meaning neither are made at either advantage or disadvantage. Blind Fighting then gives the PC's attacks advantage while also giving enemies disadvantage against the PC which is a huge swing in combat. Not only that but it allows the PC to take opportunity attacks when in these conditions which is normally not possible because they require you to see the target move. I would also note here that a Fog Cloud cast at just 3rd level is a 60-foot radius. If this is the tactic that the party wishes to adopt, it doesn't take a lot of upcasting to completely prevent enemies from moving out of the effect even in large open areas.
Another option, if playing in Tier 1, that's just as strong or stronger than most available feats is Interception. This will completely negate almost every hit it's used on and will really allow people wishing to play the defender persona to shine. However, because this ability is used after the hit is made, it is never wasted and thus does become quite powerful. The PC does not have to use their reaction if the target evades the attack through their AC alone. I think it's probably quite overpowered in this tier so be careful with it. If a second character picks this up then that party will be almost completely immune to attacks if they stick together so the DM will have to adjust and mix in some magical effects or additional traps to even threaten the party (but don't work around it completely since the players still want their choices to have meaning).
A ranger or paladin getting access to a couple of cantrips is fantastic.
You can't get cantrips from the FI feat. Paladins and rangers can get them from their own fighting styles, though.
A fighter getting both blind fighting and duelling is amazing when you have a darkness/devil sight warlock in the party.
Personal preference over total character optimisation such as taking both the thrown and archery fighting style (they do stack for some weapons).
You get both of those combinations if you take the level fo fighter as well.
There are loads of reasons why I might take it rather than multiclass. Bladesinger with defensive style for increased AC, or duelling to increase their blade damage. They aren’t optimal sure, but they can still be useful for someone who doesn’t want to play 💯 optimised builds. Otherwise every single pc in the game would be either a Chronurgy wizard or a Hexadin.
So, yeah. It's not an better choice to take the feat instead of the fighter level then?
Not every game allows multiclassing, and even in those that do, sometimes it's more beneficial to keep going on your main progression than to divert for a level. I've played an artificer/wizard to character level 12, and I can say that my one level of wizard has been tremendously helpful but also it's been agonizing at times to see what I could've had if I'd bitten the bullet and just gone straight artificer. That and some people simply don't like single-level multiclass dips for purely mechanical benefit with no narrative reason for it.
I've yet to see an actual game that doesn't allow multiclassing. Even less so, one that allows feats but not multiclassing. That said, the premise of the question obviously assumes both. But yes, as I mentioned, Artificer might be one of the few classes that might actually benefit from this feat.
I don't allow multiclassing in my games. In my opinion, it is a feature that only fuels Munchkin behaviour. I do allow feats because feats make for more interesting characters than ASI bonuses.
That said, I haven't seen any of your games either.
The classes/character builds who would benefit from a fighting style but not a level of fighter (because of cool capstones) pretty much already has access to fighting styles and they seldom need more than one, as far as I can see.
The classes that are based on 'hit things with weapons' and don't have fighting style are
Barbarian (has a cool capstone, though taking 2 levels of fighter for action surge is also pretty cool)
Bard (valor) (only marginally based on hitting things with weapons)
Monk (will have trouble benefiting from a fighting style, but you also don't want to slow your monk progression)
Rogue (capstone is pretty skippable)
Warlock (hexblade) (taking 2 levels of fighter for action surge is likely an upgrade)
Wizard (bladesinger) (only marginally based on hitting things with weapons)
The question for all of those classes, though, is "is fighting initiate really the best use of a feat?" Sure, I'll benefit, but there are other things I'll benefit more from.
Barbarians doesn't really need a fighting style, they need ASIs more (unless you roll really well) but yes, their capstone is not worth a level of fighter. Monks could get the fighter level at level 15 since they peak at level 14, depending on how which level their campaign stops at.
So a general followup question, how common is it for games to include a bunch of spells n stuff that would make blindfighting ueful? Especially considering its short range.
So a general followup question, how common is it for games to include a bunch of spells n stuff that would make blindfighting ueful? Especially considering its short range.
This is very player dependant. I just had a situation yesterday where my monk could have used it because our druid used fog cloud (allowing npc's we were protecting to run away without attacks of opportunity) .
A party that plans CC strategies can focus on options like darkness and fog cloud when they have party members that are not impacted by them.
TLDR: having blind fighting encourages players to use the spells that make it useful.
My 2 cents is it's worth it when it suits the idea you have for your character. Everyone can argue the min-max aspects of stats and dips and the like, but not all feats exist to be optimal. They exist to flavor your character according to your vision for them.
I personally use Fighting Initiate a lot. It's probably up there on one of my most used feats for non-spellcasters.
Even the Battlemaster Fighter only really gets the one Fighting Style. The Champion Fighter gets an additional Fighting Style, and the College of Swords Bard gets "a fighting style". Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, get "a fighting style". The champion fighter is the only one I could find that gets a second one. For the rest, you have to multiclass for 2 levels to get an additional fighting style. That's if you even want a second one.
In a campaign that allows Feats, but not Multiclassing, this feat allows you to get a second fighting style, or a style in the first place if your class and subclass don't get one at all (mostly casters).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I used to talk to Player Characters, but then they made a meme out of guards who used to be adventurers until they took an arrow to the knee, and after that, I just didn't feel my 2 copper opinion was all that interesting, to be honest.
Not every game allows multiclassing, and even in those that do, sometimes it's more beneficial to keep going on your main progression than to divert for a level. I've played an artificer/wizard to character level 12, and I can say that my one level of wizard has been tremendously helpful but also it's been agonizing at times to see what I could've had if I'd bitten the bullet and just gone straight artificer. That and some people simply don't like single-level multiclass dips for purely mechanical benefit with no narrative reason for it.
I've yet to see an actual game that doesn't allow multiclassing. Even less so, one that allows feats but not multiclassing. That said, the premise of the question obviously assumes both. But yes, as I mentioned, Artificer might be one of the few classes that might actually benefit from this feat.
There arenseveral reasons why you'd choose the feat.
You might prefer your capstone ability over what that level of Fighter provides. In cases where you're not expecting to get to L20, whichever ability would get cut off.
I touched upon this but I can clarify. Which class(es), which would actually benefit enough from a Fighting Style that makes the feat worth taking wouldn't benefit more from just taking that first level of Fighter? If you are going for full spellcasting or high level abilities you don't really need a Fighting Style. Or you belong to a class that already gets one.
You might a Barb and unwilling to sacrifice that sweet d12 hit die.
That's a difference of, on average, one single hit point over 20 levels. Barbarians benefit more from taking Con +2 than this feat. But as you noticed, I did mention barbarians as one of the few exceptions. :)
You might have maxed out your ASIs and not interested in the other feats (I always struggle to find a feat I'm actually happy with).
If you have maxed out ASIs you can't take this feat. Or do you mean that you have already maxed your stats? In that case, a level of Fighter actually makes even more sense.
You might decide that you don't want to deal with different types of hit dice.
How is this more beneficial?
You might prefer to maintain spell slot progression.
You might like to keep learning more spells instead.
If your want to go for optimal spellcasting there are better feats than Fighting Initiate.
You may want to avoid losing the claim that you've never multiclassed before.
This isn't really a benefit, now is it? Also, that ship sailed a looong time ago. ;)
None of which is to say that it's a bad or suboptimal thing to go for a level in Fighter, but there are certainly circumstances in which a player might choose the feat. I would prefer more interesting feats in its place - but we have it.
So, in which of those situations is it actually better to pick the feat over the whole class level?
A feat and a level have different opportunity costs. This isn't a fair comparison.
In this case I think it is. At least for those characters where taking the feat is a valid option to begin with. If you've trained enough to, narratively, justify taking the FI feat then I say you are just as justified to take a level of fighter.
Though I agree that the "special feature you can barely use" feats don't seem worthwhile. They probably *are* just as good as many other feats, but they don't appeal.
Yeah, but except for a few of the early ones (like Weapons master) most of them at least have some kind of appeal and actual benefit to them. I dunno.
My current game allows feats but no multiclassing :P.
I like how it can give Monks a 1d8 damage die for their unarmed attacks. Monks don't get a d6 until lvl 5, and a d8 until lvl 11. True only get STR bonus but it's nice to do 1d8 at lvl 1 instead of d4.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I've never taken this feat (and as a DM, I rarely get a chance to play), but it feels like a "flare" feat. It's not powerful, but it adds style to a PC. Reading through this thread seems to confirm that assessment.
But let me ask...
I like to give a free feat around level 5 from a list of (arguably) least favorite/useful feats (note that I don't include half-feats on this list). Do you feel Fighting Initiate is at the same level as these other feats on my list? Or is it OP in comparison? Thanks!
I find it funny that this thread took two years to reach the conclusion that it's beneficial to take Fighting Initiate over a level in fighter when you want a fighting style but don't want a level in fighter. It doesn't matter how much math you do, or how far you push optimization, it will never be more complicated than that.
Why does 'useful' have to mean 'useful for optimization'? I took this feat to let a blind character start with the Blind Fighting fighting style. It made the character I wanted to play be more viable for a game that largely assumes combat is a regular thing.
I honestly think that a paladin who takes the two-weapon fighting style can benefit from it a lot. He can now deal with a 1st lvl smite: 2d6+4d8+6(str. modifier) dealing an average of 31 damage while with Dual wielder(6d8+3) average of 30 damage.
Every poll I have ever seen has rolled stats way out in front of all other methods of generation. Of course going with point buy gives you "set" numbers to work with to do comparisons, but I just don't think it shows a realistic take on the way the game is actually played at most tables.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
If the argument is that Fighting Initiate is never the optimal choice for a given build, I don't think that is quite as controversial an opinion. But if we removed all options that weren't optimal, the game would be much smaller and much less interesting.
I'm in a game with a level 12 sorcerer who still primarily uses her spell slots for magic missile. Many people are happy to sacrifice combat effectiveness in order to achieve their vision of their character. If you think an option is bad, consider that it may be not for you but rather for that sizeable portion of the playerbase.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The only requirement for Fighting Initiate is proficiency with a Martial Weapon which really does impede some subclasses in taking it such as Armorer Artificer, Wizard, and so on. What is nice is the fact a Moon Druid which is able to take this is Blindfighting style which will be usable in any form unless that form is deaf?
I think it is useful for many classes. As an avid duel wielder as well as a dex based Paladin enthusiast I would definitely consider picking a variant human for this feat and take two weapon fighting alongside defense from Paladin since you cant multiclass without 13 strength. Defense is incredibly useful to offset the lack of a shield and once you can get the dual wielder feat you can go ham with two rapiers.
Not all feats are as good as others, and while this one is niche I still think it is useful in certain circumstances.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I make the assumption that anyone who doesn't use point buy isn't going to care about balance issues on this scale.
Hm. Yes.
It probably should have been a half-feat, in my opinion. That being said...
If a martial is running in a party that's going to be using Fog Cloud, Darkness, etc. as a regular battlefield tactic then Blind Fighting becomes a rather significant combat benefit and shouldn't be ignored. When under these blinding effects, a PC's attacks against enemies and an enemies against the PC are neutral, meaning neither are made at either advantage or disadvantage. Blind Fighting then gives the PC's attacks advantage while also giving enemies disadvantage against the PC which is a huge swing in combat. Not only that but it allows the PC to take opportunity attacks when in these conditions which is normally not possible because they require you to see the target move. I would also note here that a Fog Cloud cast at just 3rd level is a 60-foot radius. If this is the tactic that the party wishes to adopt, it doesn't take a lot of upcasting to completely prevent enemies from moving out of the effect even in large open areas.
Another option, if playing in Tier 1, that's just as strong or stronger than most available feats is Interception. This will completely negate almost every hit it's used on and will really allow people wishing to play the defender persona to shine. However, because this ability is used after the hit is made, it is never wasted and thus does become quite powerful. The PC does not have to use their reaction if the target evades the attack through their AC alone. I think it's probably quite overpowered in this tier so be careful with it. If a second character picks this up then that party will be almost completely immune to attacks if they stick together so the DM will have to adjust and mix in some magical effects or additional traps to even threaten the party (but don't work around it completely since the players still want their choices to have meaning).
You can't get cantrips from the FI feat. Paladins and rangers can get them from their own fighting styles, though.
You get both of those combinations if you take the level fo fighter as well.
So, yeah. It's not an better choice to take the feat instead of the fighter level then?
That's one game then. I'm genuinly surprised.
Barbarians doesn't really need a fighting style, they need ASIs more (unless you roll really well) but yes, their capstone is not worth a level of fighter. Monks could get the fighter level at level 15 since they peak at level 14, depending on how which level their campaign stops at.
So a general followup question, how common is it for games to include a bunch of spells n stuff that would make blindfighting ueful? Especially considering its short range.
This is very player dependant. I just had a situation yesterday where my monk could have used it because our druid used fog cloud (allowing npc's we were protecting to run away without attacks of opportunity) .
A party that plans CC strategies can focus on options like darkness and fog cloud when they have party members that are not impacted by them.
TLDR: having blind fighting encourages players to use the spells that make it useful.
My 2 cents is it's worth it when it suits the idea you have for your character. Everyone can argue the min-max aspects of stats and dips and the like, but not all feats exist to be optimal. They exist to flavor your character according to your vision for them.
I personally use Fighting Initiate a lot. It's probably up there on one of my most used feats for non-spellcasters.
Even the Battlemaster Fighter only really gets the one Fighting Style. The Champion Fighter gets an additional Fighting Style, and the College of Swords Bard gets "a fighting style". Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, get "a fighting style". The champion fighter is the only one I could find that gets a second one. For the rest, you have to multiclass for 2 levels to get an additional fighting style. That's if you even want a second one.
In a campaign that allows Feats, but not Multiclassing, this feat allows you to get a second fighting style, or a style in the first place if your class and subclass don't get one at all (mostly casters).
I used to talk to Player Characters, but then they made a meme out of guards who used to be adventurers until they took an arrow to the knee, and after that, I just didn't feel my 2 copper opinion was all that interesting, to be honest.
My current game allows feats but no multiclassing :P.
on my BS artificer Fighting Initiate Archery was very good.
I like how it can give Monks a 1d8 damage die for their unarmed attacks. Monks don't get a d6 until lvl 5, and a d8 until lvl 11. True only get STR bonus but it's nice to do 1d8 at lvl 1 instead of d4.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
How about a bladesinging wizard taking it? Taking a fighting style that pairs well to a dueling fighting style would work nicely, i think.
I'm hopeful that it becomes a 1st-level feat like Magic Initiate is. Or if they plan to make it a 4+ feat, it should be a half-feat.
I've never taken this feat (and as a DM, I rarely get a chance to play), but it feels like a "flare" feat. It's not powerful, but it adds style to a PC. Reading through this thread seems to confirm that assessment.
But let me ask...
I like to give a free feat around level 5 from a list of (arguably) least favorite/useful feats (note that I don't include half-feats on this list). Do you feel Fighting Initiate is at the same level as these other feats on my list? Or is it OP in comparison? Thanks!
I find it funny that this thread took two years to reach the conclusion that it's beneficial to take Fighting Initiate over a level in fighter when you want a fighting style but don't want a level in fighter. It doesn't matter how much math you do, or how far you push optimization, it will never be more complicated than that.
Why does 'useful' have to mean 'useful for optimization'? I took this feat to let a blind character start with the Blind Fighting fighting style. It made the character I wanted to play be more viable for a game that largely assumes combat is a regular thing.