D&D 5E Fighters: a humble proposal

[Tony Vargas]

I will add though that if you're going to allow fighters to have them, then you may as well go ahead and let all characters have them. Fighters have access to the most feats...so it seems a bit pointless to limit players who would likely have less feats.

The whole point is to give fighter something unique, and to keep feats mostly off the table for simplicity elsewhere (fighter is the simplest class).

Though, to further keep a lid on it, maybe they could only take Feats with their two 'extra' ASIs, at 6th and 14th. And/or limit the feat option to the Champion, specifically.


edit: Oh, the OP should also decide if Fighters can be variant humans and get that feat at 1st level. Shades of 3e, there.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that would make what Ancalagon was aiming for - fighters being unique in that they alone can select feats - completely pointless.

Possibly. It's hard to say without knowing more details about the game and the players. I only mentioned it because it seemed like the reason for no feats was to minimize complexity. Allowing fighters, with the highest possible number of feats to have them seems like the door is open. May as well just allow them across the board. I'd think with the higher number of ASIs/Feats the fighters would still stand out.

But if that wasn't the case for their game, then certainly they could limit it to just fighters. I did say that I didn't think it would throw the game balance off.

Well, having access to the non-martial feats would be a way for the fighters to get diversity no? Say you have a champion who at level 6 decides to go for magical initiate. Sure it's only a tiny bit of magical power... but think of what he could do with it! He could get a familiar. Or shield. Or expeditious retreat. And for the cantrips... prestidigitation for fun/utility, and one ranged damage cantrip so he always has a "magical bow replacement" at hand.

Heck he could then walk around and insist that everyone refers to him as a wizard

Sure, that's certainly possible. That's one of the things I like about feats and why I don't restrict them in my game.

My comment about possibly limiting them to martial based feats was more about any potential to see fighters stepping on the toes of the other classes. If you allow a fighter to take magic initiate and have access to even a small number of spells, but then don't allow a wizard the option to take martial adept or something similar, it could create a problem.

My comment was about possibly avoiding such a problem. But as I said above, it's hard to know without having more details about your players and game.

 

[aco175]

We have been playing 5e without feats entirely and have not had any problems. Everyone seems to like it just fine. It does lead a bit to all the fighters taking the same choices, but I'm seeing everything on the boards showing only 2-3 feats that all the fighters take. Without feats the fighter still makes a good class with them being able to crit with a 19-20 at 3rd level and getting 2 attacks at 5th level. It gives them a 'thing' that the other classes do not get, but they each get something.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the only real fix is to eat all Eldritch Knight and Battle Master babies.

Oh, sorry, thought the thread title was "Fighters: A modest proposal".

 

[Istbor]

I don't see any real problem with that house rule. It would be interesting to see in play.

My question is this: Fighters are boring? Where did you get that idea? I have not been this interested in playing a fighter in a long time. While I could see how the Champion is more lackluster than the other sub-classes I certainly don't see the whole class as ho-hum.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's a good rule.

One interesting thought experiment - in a game that included feats, what might one give the fighters instead of feats? What would be "more feats" than feats? If you were to replace ASIs/Feats with some class feature (or even just the "extra" ones), what would that feature look like?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

My question is this: Fighters are boring? Where did you get that idea? I have not been this interested in playing a fighter in a long time. While I could see how the Champion is more lackluster than the other sub-classes I certainly don't see the whole class as ho-hum.

Each sub-class of fighter has a particular group of people that mention its perceived shortcomings (I won't debate the accuracy of those perceptions in this thread) often enough that the perception easily becomes that the class isn't satisfying in a general sense.

In truth, it is just that each sub-class of fighter is meant to appeal to completely different things that a player might want out of a fighter-type character, so anyone that likes one sub-class but not another shouldn't be counted as "doesn't like the class" even though it is easy to see them as counting that way.

 

[bedir than]

It's a good rule.

One interesting thought experiment - in a game that included feats, what might one give the fighters instead of feats? What would be "more feats" than feats? If you were to replace ASIs/Feats with some class feature (or even just the "extra" ones), what would that feature look like?

I'm tempted to say a Bonus Action that can be used as an additional attack at 1st level.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's a good rule.

One interesting thought experiment - in a game that included feats, what might one give the fighters instead of feats? What would be "more feats" than feats? If you were to replace ASIs/Feats with some class feature (or even just the "extra" ones), what would that feature look like?

I think there are a couple of options in the DMG that might work...allowing fighters to Mark enemies, or perhaps allowing fighters to grant flanking bonuses of some kind to allies who are adjacent or flanking a foe.

I don't know of that would "minimize complexity" as [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] mentioned in the OP, but those might be options. Or things along those lines.

 

[brehobit]

This would actually make me _more_ likely to play a fighter. And (of course) a lot less likely to play a human. Cool idea.

The one thing I'd add is letting rogues take a feat at level 10 (when they get a bonus) for much the same reasons.