So, Sage Advice gave me an idea that is buzzing through my head and it seems mechanically okay to me given the number of feats, but I am not sure is actually intended. As a result, I am hoping to get a sanity check.
Here is the idea:
Level 6 Fighter
Origin Feat: Tavern Brawler
Level 1 Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
Level 4 Feat: Dual Wield
Level 6 Feat: Dueling Fighting Style
Wield Shortsword + Shield. Use Shield as an Improvised Weapon due to Tavern Brawler.
Attack with Shortsword x2 (Attack, Extra Attack), add Dueling Fighting Style extra damage to each attack
Attack with Shield with Bonus Action (from DW feat), keep AC, no Dueling extra damage since the shield is not technically a weapon
This idea is prompted by these Sage Advice clarifications:
Dueling
Is the Dueling feat intended to support using a Shield?
Yes. A character with the Dueling feat can equip a Shield or hold a Spellcasting Focus or another object that isn’t a weapon in their other hand.
And
If you attack with a Shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?
Attacking with a Shield doesn’t deprive you of the Shield’s bonus to AC.
Add in Shield Master at Level 8 for a free Push/Prone as well.
Just a thought experiment. Not claiming it is efficient.
So you want to say it’s a weapon for the purposes of dual-wielding, while simultaneously saying it is not a weapon for purposes of dueling? I’d say nope. Pick one or the other.
Yes, but the prerequisite is having the Fighting Style feature. If you have that feature, you can take a Fighting Style feat any time you are granted a feat. That's the whole reason for them to be feats in the first place.
Yes, but the prerequisite is having the Fighting Style feature. If you have that feature, you can take a Fighting Style feat any time you are granted a feat. That's the whole reason for them to be feats in the first place.
I don't think it's as clear as that. The prerequisite is just "Fighting Style Feature" with no further information given. I think there are arguments to be made that either you don't really have the feature so much as use it when you get it, or that the prerequisite means you must be using said fighting style feature to get the feat.
Yes, but the prerequisite is having the Fighting Style feature. If you have that feature, you can take a Fighting Style feat any time you are granted a feat. That's the whole reason for them to be feats in the first place.
I don't think it's as clear as that. The prerequisite is just "Fighting Style Feature" with no further information given. I think there are arguments to be made that either you don't really have the feature so much as use it when you get it, or that the prerequisite means you must be using said fighting style feature to get the feat.
There are other feats that have class features as prerequisites written in exactly those terms. For instance, Elemental Adept says "Spellcasting or Pact Magic Feature", written in exactly the same way. It means that in order to take the Elemental Adept feat, you have to have one of those features. Why would this one be different?
Yes, but the prerequisite is having the Fighting Style feature. If you have that feature, you can take a Fighting Style feat any time you are granted a feat. That's the whole reason for them to be feats in the first place.
I don't think it's as clear as that. The prerequisite is just "Fighting Style Feature" with no further information given. I think there are arguments to be made that either you don't really have the feature so much as use it when you get it, or that the prerequisite means you must be using said fighting style feature to get the feat.
There are other feats that have class features as prerequisites written in exactly those terms. For instance, Elemental Adept says "Spellcasting or Pact Magic Feature", written in exactly the same way. It means that in order to take the Elemental Adept feat, you have to have one of those features. Why would this one be different?
You don't ever use the fighting style feature after getting the fighting style, though you are probably right. I'm going to add this to my list of things that need sage advice.
So you want to say it’s a weapon for the purposes of dual-wielding, while simultaneously saying it is not a weapon for purposes of dueling? I’d say nope. Pick one or the other.
It's a Dm/table ruling but in general I agree with Xalthu here.
You are either fighting as a duelist or fighting with two-weapon fighting in this case they are exclusive.
So, Sage Advice gave me an idea that is buzzing through my head and it seems mechanically okay to me given the number of feats, but I am not sure is actually intended. As a result, I am hoping to get a sanity check.
Here is the idea:
Level 6 Fighter
Origin Feat: Tavern Brawler
Level 1 Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
Level 4 Feat: Dual Wield
Level 6 Feat: Dueling Fighting Style
Wield Shortsword + Shield. Use Shield as an Improvised Weapon due to Tavern Brawler.
Attack with Shortsword x2 (Attack, Extra Attack), add Dueling Fighting Style extra damage to each attack
Attack with Shield with Bonus Action (from DW feat), keep AC, no Dueling extra damage since the shield is not technically a weapon
This idea is prompted by these Sage Advice clarifications:
Dueling
Is the Dueling feat intended to support using a Shield?
Yes. A character with the Dueling feat can equip a Shield or hold a Spellcasting Focus or another object that isn’t a weapon in their other hand.
And
If you attack with a Shield—most likely as an improvised weapon—do you keep the +2 bonus to AC?
Attacking with a Shield doesn’t deprive you of the Shield’s bonus to AC.
Add in Shield Master at Level 8 for a free Push/Prone as well.
Just a thought experiment. Not claiming it is efficient.
If I was your DM (which is your table ruling, as stated in Sage advice) this would not be allowed. Because it’s stretching the rules so you benefit both ways. And if you look at other abilities, it’s an either or option for players. Like say using the light weapon property (2014) rules and monk unarmed attack with bonus action, you get one or the other (not both).
so if you using it with duelist style, then you can’t use it for dual wielding (as an improvised weapon). Pick either or style (but I’m not in your table or your dm.
The only argument that would persuade me was RAF (see sage advice) but it would have to be a compelling argument (like I won the lottery) to let this fly.
The argument of pick one or the other doesn't make sense to me. That used to be the argument with regards to keeping AC when attacking with the shield, but SA clearly states you keep AC and implies an Improvised Weapon is not a Weapon via Dueling (especially considering technically anything in the offhand can be an Improvised Weapon at any time regardless of proficiency).
So, in my mind, it is a question on if DW, RAI, allows for the Bonus Action attack to be performed with an Improvised Weapon.
Edit to add: Additionally, this fighter concept requires two Feats (Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder) and an additional Fighting Style (Two-Weapon Fighting) to gain a single 1d4+STR additional attack from the Shield per round. Polearm Master gives that with one Feat, and is compatible with Dueling fighting style with the Spear or Quarterstaff. That kind of investment seems like it should be rewarded instead of limited, in my mind. It isn't the most efficient or broken build. It isn't like Nick would allow an additional Shield attack. Heck, the character would likely be far more efficient with other Feats and 1d8 base weapons instead of the 1d6 Shortsword. So, in comparison to other options that could be done, to me this kind of combo doesn't seem significant enough to reject.
As a note, I am a forever DM. I don't expect to play the vast majority of my own character concepts hence why this is a thought experiment.
With regards to taking a second Fighting Style as a Feat, the rules are:
Feat Descriptions
This chapter’s feats are organized by category—Origin, General, Fighting Style, or Epic Boon—and alphabetized in each category. All the feats are listed alphabetically in the Feat List table. If a feat can be taken more than once, an asterisk appears after its name in that table.
And
Category. A feat is a member of a category, which is noted in the feat. If you’re instructed to choose a feat from a specific category, such as the Origin category, that category must appear under the feat’s name. If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
And
Level 1: Fighting Style
You have honed your martial prowess and gain a Fighting Style feat of your choice (see chapter 5). Defense is recommended.
Whenever you gain a Fighter level, you can replace the feat you chose with a different Fighting Style feat.
And
Level 4: Ability Score Improvement
You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat (see chapter 5) or another feat of your choice for which you qualify. You gain this feature again at Fighter levels 6, 8, 12, 14, and 16.
And
Prerequisite. To take a feat, you must meet any prerequisite in its description unless a feature allows you to take the feat without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite includes a class, you must have at least 1 level in that class to take the feat.
When you’re holding a Melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Fighter Level 1 gives you the "Fighting Style" feature and a feat from the Fighting Style category of feats.
If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
Class Level 4 ASI grants "or another feat of your choice for which you qualify." It does not specify a category.
Therefore, at Fighter Level 4, you can choose from the Fighting Style category of feats because a) you have the "Fighting Style" feature and b) the ASI does not specify a category to choose from (i.e. ASI are not limited to just General and Origin feats).
With regards to taking a second Fighting Style as a Feat, the rules are:
Feat Descriptions
This chapter’s feats are organized by category—Origin, General, Fighting Style, or Epic Boon—and alphabetized in each category. All the feats are listed alphabetically in the Feat List table. If a feat can be taken more than once, an asterisk appears after its name in that table.
And
Category. A feat is a member of a category, which is noted in the feat. If you’re instructed to choose a feat from a specific category, such as the Origin category, that category must appear under the feat’s name. If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
And
Level 1: Fighting Style
You have honed your martial prowess and gain a Fighting Style feat of your choice (see chapter 5). Defense is recommended.
Whenever you gain a Fighter level, you can replace the feat you chose with a different Fighting Style feat.
And
Level 4: Ability Score Improvement
You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat (see chapter 5) or another feat of your choice for which you qualify. You gain this feature again at Fighter levels 6, 8, 12, 14, and 16.
And
Prerequisite. To take a feat, you must meet any prerequisite in its description unless a feature allows you to take the feat without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite includes a class, you must have at least 1 level in that class to take the feat.
When you’re holding a Melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
Fighter Level 1 gives you the "Fighting Style" feature and a feat from the Fighting Style category of feats.
If you’re instructed to choose a feat and no category is specified, you can choose from any category.
Class Level 4 ASI grants "or another feat of your choice for which you qualify." It does not specify a category.
Therefore, at Fighter Level 4, you can choose from the Fighting Style category of feats because a) you have the "Fighting Style" feature and b) the ASI does not specify a category to choose from (i.e. ASI are not limited to just General and Origin feats).
Problem here is there are only three core classes that have the Fighting Style Feature as part of their respective class abilities: Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger.
No where else can the fighting style feature be obtained, and given how the prerequisite for the Fighting Style Feats require the Feature of the same name, it’s designed that way to prevent the very issue that is being proposed.
The very same classes that have the feature also allow the player to change their selected fighting style at different times, and attempts to circumvent that is not the RAI of how it all works.
Using sword and board is one thing considering that 24 has I believe a general shield feat that allows a shield bash as an additional attack once per turn during the Attack Action, and attempts to combine it with Dual Wielding or other features to try to prevent the loss of bonus damage and gain more actions then are possible is where the problem lies.
If you want more attacks, wielding two different weapons in different hands is the way, simply because the design of shields is as Armor not as a Weapon. Different sized shields could have different weights and abilities depending on construction, and that starts to bring the game back into a 3/3.5 level of complexity.
But attempting to have your cake and eat it alone isn’t how the system works, its one or the other.
If you’re using a shield, you give up a bit of offense for a bit of defense, if your Dual Wielding you give up a bit of defense for a bit of offense. But you really can’t have both at the same time.
[ Note: both the Paladin and Ranger get the Fighting Style Feature at Lv2 while the Fighter has it available at Lv1. So this statement is somewhat incorrect:
Prerequisite. To take a feat, you must meet any prerequisite in its description unless a feature allows you to take the feat without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite includes a class, you must have at least 1 level in that class to take the feat.
Which means the ability to just grab a fighting style feat by taking 1 level of a class that doesn’t grant the feature until later is the issue, and errata is needed.]
Btw, a fighter can change Fighting style on every level up, and can take a second style when they reach level 7 as a Champion subclass.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Seems pretty clear. The fighting style feats don't have a class as part of a pre-requisite section so that doesn't apply and it soley has the requirement of having a fighting style feature instead, which Pal/Rgr don't get until level 2, and seeing as ASI don't hit until level 4 is a moot point.
Seems pretty clear. The fighting style feats don't have a class as part of a pre-requisite section so that doesn't apply and it soley has the requirement of having a fighting style feature instead, which Pal/Rgr don't get until level 2, and seeing as ASI don't hit until level 4 is a moot point.
Exactly. If you have the Fighting Style class feature, it's perfectly fine to take a Fighting Style feat any time you're granted a feat. It doesn't matter which class you got that feature from, or how many levels you have in that class, as long as you have enough levels to get the feature.
Using sword and board is one thing considering that 24 has I believe a general shield feat that allows a shield bash as an additional attack once per turn during the Attack Action, and attempts to combine it with Dual Wielding or other features to try to prevent the loss of bonus damage and gain more actions then are possible is where the problem lies.
If you want more attacks, wielding two different weapons in different hands is the way, simply because the design of shields is as Armor not as a Weapon. Different sized shields could have different weights and abilities depending on construction, and that starts to bring the game back into a 3/3.5 level of complexity.
But attempting to have your cake and eat it alone isn’t how the system works, its one or the other.
If you’re using a shield, you give up a bit of offense for a bit of defense, if your Dual Wielding you give up a bit of defense for a bit of offense. But you really can’t have both at the same time.
Setting aside the argument about whether an ASI can select a Fighting Style Category feat, let me put my proposal another way:
Option 1 is clearly allowed, and even advertised as an optimal build option. Option 2 is valid only if the DM rules that a Shield is considered to be a weapon specifically for DW, but not for Dueling. Mechanically, the difference is that Option 2 does less damage and requires 2 additional feats, but as a result is not limited to just Spear/Quarterstaff. Option 1 is objectively better because Polearm Master has both offensive and defensive characteristics (attack a foe entering a threatened space) and the freedom to select 2 other feats (1 Origin and 1 ASI).
The argument of "you sacrifice offense for defense when holding a shield" argument does not make any sense to me when there is an objective and advertised build that explicitly gets both for less investment.
Using sword and board is one thing considering that 24 has I believe a general shield feat that allows a shield bash as an additional attack once per turn during the Attack Action, and attempts to combine it with Dual Wielding or other features to try to prevent the loss of bonus damage and gain more actions then are possible is where the problem lies.
If you want more attacks, wielding two different weapons in different hands is the way, simply because the design of shields is as Armor not as a Weapon. Different sized shields could have different weights and abilities depending on construction, and that starts to bring the game back into a 3/3.5 level of complexity.
But attempting to have your cake and eat it alone isn’t how the system works, its one or the other.
If you’re using a shield, you give up a bit of offense for a bit of defense, if your Dual Wielding you give up a bit of defense for a bit of offense. But you really can’t have both at the same time.
Setting aside the argument about whether an ASI can select a Fighting Style Category feat, let me put my proposal another way:
Option 1 is clearly allowed, and even advertised as an optimal build option. Option 2 is valid only if the DM rules that a Shield is considered to be a weapon specifically for DW, but not for Dueling. Mechanically, the difference is that Option 2 does less damage and requires 2 additional feats, but as a result is not limited to just Spear/Quarterstaff. Option 1 is objectively better because Polearm Master has both offensive and defensive characteristics (attack a foe entering a threatened space) and the freedom to select 2 other feats (1 Origin and 1 ASI).
The argument of "you sacrifice offense for defense when holding a shield" argument does not make any sense to me when there is an objective and advertised build that explicitly gets both for less investment.
Edit to add: Cannot fix DDB forum formating.
Both are allowed, shield master feat gives a shield bash attack as part of the attack action like nick does.( or close enough)
Though for a level six fighter, you certainly left a lot off the table as far as worth.
By dual wielding, by 6th level I’m doing far more in damage than the shield and weapon, meaning I’m eliminating the potential influx of reciprocal damage and thus reducing the need for heavier armor.
With a shield your action economy is limited by shield use options, while the weapon juggernaut is limited by current weapon selection and relative mastery thereof.
Defense shaves off offense, Offense shaves off defense.
If i can eliminate a threat faster than normal the need to defend more is lessened.
If I have to defend more and wait to attempt to grind down a threat by insuring its harder to hit me, then I potentially leave a chance that threat will wait; find a weakness and exploit it the second it’s available.
Sorry but if you need to burn a 4th level feat to become effective, your already behind the curve and the reason is that shield that not only holds back damage but potential as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Using sword and board is one thing considering that 24 has I believe a general shield feat that allows a shield bash as an additional attack once per turn during the Attack Action, and attempts to combine it with Dual Wielding or other features to try to prevent the loss of bonus damage and gain more actions then are possible is where the problem lies.
If you want more attacks, wielding two different weapons in different hands is the way, simply because the design of shields is as Armor not as a Weapon. Different sized shields could have different weights and abilities depending on construction, and that starts to bring the game back into a 3/3.5 level of complexity.
But attempting to have your cake and eat it alone isn’t how the system works, its one or the other.
If you’re using a shield, you give up a bit of offense for a bit of defense, if your Dual Wielding you give up a bit of defense for a bit of offense. But you really can’t have both at the same time.
Setting aside the argument about whether an ASI can select a Fighting Style Category feat, let me put my proposal another way:
Option 1 is clearly allowed, and even advertised as an optimal build option. Option 2 is valid only if the DM rules that a Shield is considered to be a weapon specifically for DW, but not for Dueling. Mechanically, the difference is that Option 2 does less damage and requires 2 additional feats, but as a result is not limited to just Spear/Quarterstaff. Option 1 is objectively better because Polearm Master has both offensive and defensive characteristics (attack a foe entering a threatened space) and the freedom to select 2 other feats (1 Origin and 1 ASI).
The argument of "you sacrifice offense for defense when holding a shield" argument does not make any sense to me when there is an objective and advertised build that explicitly gets both for less investment.
Edit to add: Cannot fix DDB forum formating.
Both are allowed, shield master feat gives a shield bash attack as part of the attack action like nick does.( or close enough)
Though for a level six fighter, you certainly left a lot off the table as far as worth.
By dual wielding, by 6th level I’m doing far more in damage than the shield and weapon, meaning I’m eliminating the potential influx of reciprocal damage and thus reducing the need for heavier armor.
With a shield your action economy is limited by shield use options, while the weapon juggernaut is limited by current weapon selection and relative mastery thereof.
Defense shaves off offense, Offense shaves off defense.
If i can eliminate a threat faster than normal the need to defend more is lessened.
If I have to defend more and wait to attempt to grind down a threat by insuring its harder to hit me, then I potentially leave a chance that threat will wait; find a weakness and exploit it the second it’s available.
Sorry but if you need to burn a 4th level feat to become effective, your already behind the curve and the reason is that shield that not only holds back damage but potential as well.
If you are duel wielding daggers at level 5, you are getting an average of .375 dpr extra without fighting styles, or, still .375 actually, with. Two AC is much better than .375 added dpr
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, Sage Advice gave me an idea that is buzzing through my head and it seems mechanically okay to me given the number of feats, but I am not sure is actually intended. As a result, I am hoping to get a sanity check.
Here is the idea:
This idea is prompted by these Sage Advice clarifications:
And
Add in Shield Master at Level 8 for a free Push/Prone as well.
Just a thought experiment. Not claiming it is efficient.
I think it works. Add enspelled armour with Shield spell on it for bonus dodges without using a feat for defensive duelist.
Life's hard - get a helmet!
So you want to say it’s a weapon for the purposes of dual-wielding, while simultaneously saying it is not a weapon for purposes of dueling? I’d say nope. Pick one or the other.
A shield is not a melee weapon and does not qualify for duel wielder. I also don't believe you can get fighting styles using ASIs.
Fighting styles are feats in ‘24.
Yes, but they have the prerequisite of fighting style feature, unlike epic boons, which only have the prerequisite of level 19+.
Yes, but the prerequisite is having the Fighting Style feature. If you have that feature, you can take a Fighting Style feat any time you are granted a feat. That's the whole reason for them to be feats in the first place.
pronouns: he/she/they
I don't think it's as clear as that. The prerequisite is just "Fighting Style Feature" with no further information given. I think there are arguments to be made that either you don't really have the feature so much as use it when you get it, or that the prerequisite means you must be using said fighting style feature to get the feat.
There are other feats that have class features as prerequisites written in exactly those terms. For instance, Elemental Adept says "Spellcasting or Pact Magic Feature", written in exactly the same way. It means that in order to take the Elemental Adept feat, you have to have one of those features. Why would this one be different?
pronouns: he/she/they
You don't ever use the fighting style feature after getting the fighting style, though you are probably right. I'm going to add this to my list of things that need sage advice.
It's a Dm/table ruling but in general I agree with Xalthu here.
You are either fighting as a duelist or fighting with two-weapon fighting in this case they are exclusive.
If I was your DM (which is your table ruling, as stated in Sage advice) this would not be allowed. Because it’s stretching the rules so you benefit both ways. And if you look at other abilities, it’s an either or option for players. Like say using the light weapon property (2014) rules and monk unarmed attack with bonus action, you get one or the other (not both).
so if you using it with duelist style, then you can’t use it for dual wielding (as an improvised weapon). Pick either or style (but I’m not in your table or your dm.
The only argument that would persuade me was RAF (see sage advice) but it would have to be a compelling argument (like I won the lottery) to let this fly.
The argument of pick one or the other doesn't make sense to me. That used to be the argument with regards to keeping AC when attacking with the shield, but SA clearly states you keep AC and implies an Improvised Weapon is not a Weapon via Dueling (especially considering technically anything in the offhand can be an Improvised Weapon at any time regardless of proficiency).
So, in my mind, it is a question on if DW, RAI, allows for the Bonus Action attack to be performed with an Improvised Weapon.
Edit to add: Additionally, this fighter concept requires two Feats (Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder) and an additional Fighting Style (Two-Weapon Fighting) to gain a single 1d4+STR additional attack from the Shield per round. Polearm Master gives that with one Feat, and is compatible with Dueling fighting style with the Spear or Quarterstaff. That kind of investment seems like it should be rewarded instead of limited, in my mind. It isn't the most efficient or broken build. It isn't like Nick would allow an additional Shield attack. Heck, the character would likely be far more efficient with other Feats and 1d8 base weapons instead of the 1d6 Shortsword. So, in comparison to other options that could be done, to me this kind of combo doesn't seem significant enough to reject.
As a note, I am a forever DM. I don't expect to play the vast majority of my own character concepts hence why this is a thought experiment.
With regards to taking a second Fighting Style as a Feat, the rules are:
And
And
And
And
And
Problem here is there are only three core classes that have the Fighting Style Feature as part of their respective class abilities: Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger.
No where else can the fighting style feature be obtained, and given how the prerequisite for the Fighting Style Feats require the Feature of the same name, it’s designed that way to prevent the very issue that is being proposed.
The very same classes that have the feature also allow the player to change their selected fighting style at different times, and attempts to circumvent that is not the RAI of how it all works.
Using sword and board is one thing considering that 24 has I believe a general shield feat that allows a shield bash as an additional attack once per turn during the Attack Action, and attempts to combine it with Dual Wielding or other features to try to prevent the loss of bonus damage and gain more actions then are possible is where the problem lies.
If you want more attacks, wielding two different weapons in different hands is the way, simply because the design of shields is as Armor not as a Weapon. Different sized shields could have different weights and abilities depending on construction, and that starts to bring the game back into a 3/3.5 level of complexity.
But attempting to have your cake and eat it alone isn’t how the system works, its one or the other.
If you’re using a shield, you give up a bit of offense for a bit of defense, if your Dual Wielding you give up a bit of defense for a bit of offense. But you really can’t have both at the same time.
[ Note: both the Paladin and Ranger get the Fighting Style Feature at Lv2 while the Fighter has it available at Lv1.
So this statement is somewhat incorrect:
Prerequisite. To take a feat, you must meet any prerequisite in its description unless a feature allows you to take the feat without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite includes a class, you must have at least 1 level in that class to take the feat.
Which means the ability to just grab a fighting style feat by taking 1 level of a class that doesn’t grant the feature until later is the issue, and errata is needed.]
Btw, a fighter can change Fighting style on every level up, and can take a second style when they reach level 7 as a Champion subclass.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Seems pretty clear. The fighting style feats don't have a class as part of a pre-requisite section so that doesn't apply and it soley has the requirement of having a fighting style feature instead, which Pal/Rgr don't get until level 2, and seeing as ASI don't hit until level 4 is a moot point.
Life's hard - get a helmet!
Exactly. If you have the Fighting Style class feature, it's perfectly fine to take a Fighting Style feat any time you're granted a feat. It doesn't matter which class you got that feature from, or how many levels you have in that class, as long as you have enough levels to get the feature.
pronouns: he/she/they
Setting aside the argument about whether an ASI can select a Fighting Style Category feat, let me put my proposal another way:
Option 1 is clearly allowed, and even advertised as an optimal build option. Option 2 is valid only if the DM rules that a Shield is considered to be a weapon specifically for DW, but not for Dueling. Mechanically, the difference is that Option 2 does less damage and requires 2 additional feats, but as a result is not limited to just Spear/Quarterstaff. Option 1 is objectively better because Polearm Master has both offensive and defensive characteristics (attack a foe entering a threatened space) and the freedom to select 2 other feats (1 Origin and 1 ASI).
The argument of "you sacrifice offense for defense when holding a shield" argument does not make any sense to me when there is an objective and advertised build that explicitly gets both for less investment.
Edit to add: Cannot fix DDB forum formating.
Both are allowed, shield master feat gives a shield bash attack as part of the attack action like nick does.( or close enough)
Though for a level six fighter, you certainly left a lot off the table as far as worth.
By dual wielding, by 6th level I’m doing far more in damage than the shield and weapon, meaning I’m eliminating the potential influx of reciprocal damage and thus reducing the need for heavier armor.
With a shield your action economy is limited by shield use options, while the weapon juggernaut is limited by current weapon selection and relative mastery thereof.
Defense shaves off offense, Offense shaves off defense.
If i can eliminate a threat faster than normal the need to defend more is lessened.
If I have to defend more and wait to attempt to grind down a threat by insuring its harder to hit me, then I potentially leave a chance that threat will wait; find a weakness and exploit it the second it’s available.
Sorry but if you need to burn a 4th level feat to become effective, your already behind the curve and the reason is that shield that not only holds back damage but potential as well.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
If you are duel wielding daggers at level 5, you are getting an average of .375 dpr extra without fighting styles, or, still .375 actually, with. Two AC is much better than .375 added dpr