D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[Bill Zebub]

I agree. I would like more feats for all characters because customization is fun. But the combat ones can be unbalancing and tend to skew towards classes that already hit pretty hard.

Yeah I would get rid of all feats that make you more effective at the thing you were going to do anyway (like hit things with sharp tools), and instead give you new options for things to do. If that makes sense.

 

[LordEntrails]

It was specifically if you go into their levels.
And they get the feats only at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th(which can be exchanged for a epic boon.) At their class levels(was thinking of a martial multiclass-styled thing though not sure).
I also dont think there is any level i listed here where they also get a level from ASI on top of the feat.

I think you have a vision here, but it's not clear.
So I take 4 levels of wizard then the 5th level as a fighter and I get a free feat? I don't think that's what you mean. It would be more like your 5th martial level you get a feat. i.e. 4 Wiz and then 5 Fig to get a free feat at 9th level (i.e. your 5th level martial feat), etc

As to other points about it's easy to build under powered martials. True, but isn't that true with all classes? And adding feats doesn't really fix that. It's a design issue with the sub-classes and should be, imo, fixed there. Not adding something (feats) that an optimized build will just further exploit and cause even greater disconnect between optimized and not builds.

 

[Quickleaf]

@FallenRX Could you describe some of the martial characters in your group where you're using this rule and what their feat selection looks like? (e.g. dwarf champion fighter 7th level, took feats X, Y, Z)

I'm curious whether most of them are selecting power-up feats vs. feats to flesh out their character? (I get that there can be overlap)

 

[FallenRX]

I think you have a vision here, but it's not clear.
So I take 4 levels of wizard then the 5th level as a fighter and I get a free feat? I don't think that's what you mean. It would be more like your 5th martial level you get a feat. i.e. 4 Wiz and then 5 Fig to get a free feat at 9th level (i.e. your 5th level martial feat), etc

As to other points about it's easy to build under powered martials. True, but isn't that true with all classes? And adding feats doesn't really fix that. It's a design issue with the sub-classes and should be, imo, fixed there. Not adding something (feats) that an optimized build will just further exploit and cause even greater disconnect between optimized and not builds.

The latter is what i mean, you get a free feat at your fifth martial level. So if your wiz 4/fig 1 you do not get any feat, but if your wiz 4/fig 5 you get the feat.

@FallenRX Could you describe some of the martial characters in your group where you're using this rule and what their feat selection looks like? (e.g. dwarf champion fighter 7th level, took feats X, Y, Z)

I'm curious whether most of them are selecting power-up feats vs. feats to flesh out their character? (I get that there can be overlap)

They usually select a mix of both really, they have found that usually within 2-3 they got about as much power they are gonna get so they start focusing on flavor stuff.

For example, a fighter player took GWM/PAM/Sent and got at all at 5th level(VHuman), after that, they wanted to shift over to something more versatile really. for the 9th, 13th, bonus feat he just took skilled, got skill expert with a ASI, and picked up Lucky because why not.

One player made a fun scout rogue where due to the subclass they got expertise in Nature and Survive, got Prodigy from the bonus feat, for some more skills and expertise, picked up skill expert for his fourth level, and then took skilled later at 9th, after that he then decided to get sharpshooter and Skulker.(he had a ton of skill profiecencies and had like 7 expertise on things was wild.)(Half elf btw)

As i said in my experience people just usually find a odd balance between power stuff and concept stuff, because the once they complete a power duo, they basically got most of their power really, everything else is marginal so they end up getting more utility options, or starting with the utility and then shifting for power later. Either way really.

There are definitely some kinda really good almost must-have feats though, my big issue is the Weapon Expert feats and the Power attack feats are the only weapons that get that power, but i feel making more feats that are designed to match that, would add a lot more variety. Lucky is also a must have really, there is no reason not to get it.

But i feel these issues are minor, for the most part, and tbh, are in the core game too. At least here they actually have room to pick some of the lesser/flavor stuff, where because they are taxed RAW, picking the power stuff is the only thing worth it.

 

[ECMO3]

Ive been experimenting with a house rule for my 5e game where i give martials a free feat that doesnt increase ASIs at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th level(17th level has an option to trade out the feat for an Epic Boon).

And i have been shocked at how much it helps the design of the game and gives martials the power and versatility to be competitive with casters, without too much loss to the balance, it genuinely gives martial classes tons of unique builds, options, and concepts, in a unique way that other classes can't quite imitate, and makes them super customizable in making your own character be kinda the martial hero you want them to be.

And i think i prefer this design to trying make martials battle masters or just tying them to some weird resource to imitate spellcasters.

Because it actually

1. Is super backward compatible with 5e, all of those feats you brought and have from hundreds of books are now clear support for martial classes(especially cool martially aligned stuff), without stepping on the toes of an existing idea
2. Is in line with One DnD making feats a core part of progression, and adding scaling to their power, making them tied to levels, making them more impactful as a game.
3. It makes Martials feel like martial heroes that just DO, not tied to any one unified ridiculous resource, but they are just GOOD at something, its build into them, the core feature without much limits, gives them unique options and actions in a meaningful way. And draw a good line in design, that is improvable.
4. It makes the martials and ways to support them forward with feats and customization incredibly good, in a way that is unique to them.

I think it is a much simpler more backwards compatible, and more fun way to give martials the variety we want, and solves one of the biggest issues that 5e has, which was by making feats optional in 5e, they removed the big route that Martials had in 3.5e to customize and do a lot of cool builds and stuff, its why some people still like playing martials more in busted old 3.5e/pf1e than 5e, because you can at least customize, get cool special attacks and over the top moves, that have some light scaling, than the otherwise very little here. They need feats to keep up, why not make this the design then?

Make feats a core part of martial progression with bonus feats, feats benefits them more than casters, anyway, and it allows us to customize martials(you can even make a feat chain that gives them battle master maneuvers like we all want), that works clearly with a system already in the game, that we know and love.

Feats are a core part of One DnD now, What is the excuse? Complexity can be handled the same way they handle feats in One DnD, just presenting a default option, with picking a feat from a wider pool an alternative. I see no reason why this isnt the way forward.

TLDR; 3.5e was right, 5e fixed the biggest issues with 3.5e feats, they should just be a core part of the martial progression, it is easily backwards compatible, easy to streamline with default options like One DnD is doing with them, was soft a direction they were going in 5e looking at fighter/rogue ASIs, and it can easily be adjusted to accommodate what everyone wants for martials(like making a maneuver feat chain, and more).
What are your thoughts on this, agree, or disagree, what do you think would be better?

I'm not sure what you caonsider a martial. Fighter, Monk, Barbarian and Rogue? In any case they already have their thing. Fighters get an extra ASI already, Barbarians have their Rage and a bunch of cool subclass abiltiies and Rogues are just all around useful with a crap ton of abilities and like Fighters they also get an extra feat. Monk is the only one that really seems to need another feat and not many combat feats are great for a Monk.

If I did this I would give it to all PCs. If you give it only to martials then Gish and Melee casters won't be able to keep up. At 13th level for example a fighter will have 4 more feats than a bladesinger or a Paladin and will blow them out of the water in melee.

 

[Tonguez]

There are definitely some kinda really good almost must-have feats though, my big issue is the Weapon Expert feats and the Power attack feats are the only weapons that get that power, but i feel making more feats that are designed to match that, would add a lot more variety. Lucky is also a must have really, there is no reason not to get it.

But i feel these issues are minor, for the most part, and tbh, are in the core game too. At least here they actually have room to pick some of the lesser/flavor stuff, where because they are taxed RAW, picking the power stuff is the only thing worth it.

yeah Ive been looking at 4e Weapon groups lately and all the weapon group feats that spawned as a means of martials to specialise in combat.
that versatility and more feats would be a boon for martials

 

[Tonguez]

I'm not sure what you caonsider a martial. Fighter, Monk, Barbarian and Rogue? In any case they already have their thing. Fighters get an extra ASI already, Barbarians have their Rage and a bunch of cool subclass abiltiies and Rogues are just all around useful with a crap ton of abilities and like Fighters they also get an extra feat. Monk is the only one that really seems to need another feat and not many combat feats are great for a Monk.

If I did this I would give it to all PCs. If you give it only to martials then Gish and Melee casters won't be able to keep up. At 13th level for example a fighter will have 4 more feats than a bladesinger or a Paladin and will blow them out of the water in melee.

A fighter is suppose to blow other classes out of the water when it comes to combat - thats the whole point of Fighters! Paladins get Smites and gish get ‘feats of magic‘ so why not give a Fighter an extra combat boost?

 

[Azzy]

Without an influx of a slew of new and thematic feats to go with this, this doesn't really seem like a worthwhile endeavor.

 

[ECMO3]

A fighter is suppose to blow other classes out of the water when it comes to combat - thats the whole point of Fighters! Paladins get Smites and gish get ‘feats of magic‘ so why not give a Fighter and extra combat boost?

A fighter should not be way better at melee than other characters designed for melee. Just because they decided to play a class without magic buffs does not mean you should make them more powerful.

A Paladin with smites or a Bladesinger is going to be WAY behind a fighter with 4 extra feats when it comes to melee and they shouldn't be. I wouldn't mind a little bit behind in melee (and both of those are already are with the current RAW) but it should be close, the fighter should not be running away with it. If a figther takes 3 rounds to kill a particular bad guy in melee without using limited resources a Bladeinsger or Paladin with the same strength should be able to do it in 4 rounds, also without spending any limited resources.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, a recurring issue in 5e is the whole 'here is an extremely limited number of options within a subsystem that never gets expanded. Your reward for reaching higher levels is picking the stuff you didn't want previously.' deal.

Gonna need at least 30 more feats to make this bird fly and honestly, it didn't work the last time it was tried. Whether thati as because feats back then were aenemic when aimed at fighters on purpose (spend a feat to not be terrible; everyone else si terrible) is up for debate.

Head start on the 30 though: All the Battlemaster maneuvers.