D&D 5E Feats, class balance and fun

[abe ray]

I just added the fly speed to it as a perquisite if it helps & it make the dragon go faster basically.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I DM and play 5e using all available feats since day 0, and so far my table has no complaints about it. ...
As I don't have experience playing without feats, it makes me wonder. What do you guys think about it?

I run with feats in AL, and without them at home and convention games. A few feats are arguably broken, some are superfluous, and at the levels I run, the siren call of stats would usually be louder, anyway. It's great that they're there for those who want to bring in some of the customization/optimization of the modern editions, but it's good that they're optional for those wanting to minimize CharOP rewards or simply evoke the classic game more closely.

Is getting yet another ABI as a 14th level fighter still exciting when there are no feats to choose from?

I can't see how it would be.

Does it affect how you feel as a high level fighter alongside your reality-changing wizard friend?

If you're not feeling bad about choosing fighter by 14th level, already, again, I can't see how it could be.

As my favorite edition is 1e, I have zero problems playing a fighter to high lvs without feats (or even built in ASIs).

As my favorite edition was 1e, I see no reason to play a fighter.* The Druid is pretty appealing, again, though. First time in a long time I can say that with a straight face.

This question is at the heart of most arguments about fighters in 5E. If you never see 9th level, the fighter is fine. After that the versatility and power of a full caster begins to be too much to compete with balance-wise.

But until that second extra attack at 11th, the fighter hasn't really pulled ahead of the Paladin/Ranger//Barbarian (War Cleric/Valor Bard/etc), either. Seems like a catch-22, in a way. To be fully-realized 'best at fighting' you need to play to moderately high level (11th), but by then, fighting, itself has been overshadowed by casting.




















* in 1e, or in 5e which evokes AD&D so well. In 3.5 and 4e there were specific fighter builds that could be worth playing.

 

[Rhenny]

Just a question somewhat tangentially related to the main topic. As you mentioned you don't put a premium at primary attribute maxing: do you also create warriors with more balanced stats, for example not dumping str assuming your bladesinger and tempest cleric are dex-based to attack?

Usually I use the attributes to determine the type of character I will play, so for the most part I max initial attributes. The Tempest cleric I created was created by rolling 4d6 drop one in order to determine strength, dexterity, con, etc. it turned out that he had an 18 in Dex and a 16 in wisdom and a bunch of close to average scores in the other attributes. This inspired the idea that he was raised by Elves. The other pc, I think I used point buy and put higher scores into intelligence, dexterity and constitution.

 

[Barolo]

Oh, so you rolled the stats in order? I was wondering where the idea of a swashbuckling cleric came from, I guess this explains. Really nice!

 

[Sacrosanct]

My reality-changing wizard friends will be changing reality wether I have feats or not. They've been doing so for decades, regardless of edition. There's no feat (aside from in 3x Epic/Mythic PF) that a fighter can take to rival that.
So were I to suffer class ability envy (I don't)? Then I wouldn't be playing a fighter in the 1st place.

As my favorite edition is 1e, I have zero problems playing a fighter to high lvs without feats (or even built in ASIs).

And yes, for me, another ASI is still just as exciting as a feat (picking new feats is not a favorite activity for me in 3x/PF, just a chore). Better yet, my ____ Saves increase.
I'm also one of the odd players who will boost things like Wis, Cha, & Int as a fighter - because I've likely started off with decent+ Str/Dex/Con scores.

This pretty much sums up my position and feelings as well. AD&D was my preferred edition all the way up until 5e came out, so naturally I have not problems playing a fighter without feats. I certainly don't think it's boring. Probably because what makes a PC boring or not is how I play their personality, and has very little to do with a power or ability. And being an AD&D guy for so long, you'd be surprised at how much can be done via simple ability checks.

That doesn't mean I'm against feats. I actually like them. I think they make multi-classing extinct, which is a great thing. But not having them isn't going to deter me from playing a fighter.

There is nothing mundane about fighters, because they don't manipulate magic the same way as wizards makes them no less magic. It's the fault of the community for reinforcing this argument, so please don't do it..

Say what now? This doesn't make any sense. Fighters are mundane, if you take away their items. I've been playing fighters for 35 years and there was nothing inherently magical about the class at all. There was no spellcasting, no bending of reality, none of that. I mean, I can literally point to the class itself and find not a single magical thing about it, which by definition makes them mundane.

 

[Caliban]

Say what now? This doesn't make any sense. Fighters are mundane, if you take away their items. I've been playing fighters for 35 years and there was nothing inherently magical about the class at all. There was no spellcasting, no bending of reality, none of that. I mean, I can literally point to the class itself and find not a single magical thing about it, which by definition makes them mundane.

I think they are implying that some of the things fighters can do in D&D aren't actually physically possible and they are positing that it is due to them internalizing magic to enhance their abilities beyond that of mortal man. YMMV. (Eldritch Knight is obviously a spellcasting fighter, and I supposed you could explain some of the Battlemaster abilities as pseudo-magical. I suppose some of the fighter base class abilities could be seen as superhuman - Second Wind, for example.)

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think they are implying that some of the things fighters can do in D&D aren't actually physically possible and they are positing that it is due to them internalizing magic to enhance their abilities beyond that of mortal man. YMMV. (Eldritch Knight is obviously a spellcasting fighter, and I supposed you could explain some of the Battlemaster abilities as pseudo-magical. I suppose some of the fighter base class abilities could be seen as superhuman - Second Wind, for example.)

Things like second wind aren't magical though. That can be explained easily by adrenaline. And HP aren't magical either, as they include things like experience and luck.

And even if you could make the argument that 5e fighters are all magical (I don't agree, but for sake of the argument), there's no way you could make the argument that the position of fighters being mundane is "..the fault of the community for reinforcing this..." because D&D has existed a long time, and for decades there was nothing magical about the class. What part of the AD&D or B/X fighter was magical? It literally is a mundane class, and that's not a false description given by the community, but how it is defined.

 

[Caliban]

Things like second wind aren't magical though. That can be explained easily by adrenaline. And HP aren't magical either, as they include things like experience and luck.

And even if you could make the argument that 5e fighters are all magical (I don't agree, but for sake of the argument), there's no way you could make the argument that the position of fighters being mundane is "..the fault of the community for reinforcing this..." because D&D has existed a long time, and for decades there was nothing magical about the class. What part of the AD&D or B/X fighter was magical? It literally is a mundane class, and that's not a false description given by the community, but how it is defined.

As I said, YMMV. I'm the one who originally described them as "Mundane vs. Magical".

 

[Satyrn]

As I don't have experience playing without feats, it makes me wonder. What do you guys think about it? Is getting yet another ABI as a 14th level fighter still exciting when there are no feats to choose from?

Well, my gnome battlemaster is nowhere near level 14 yet, but I think I would find ABIs quite nice for him if I didn't have feats to choose from.

As you said, some feats are intended to help with the Social or Exploration pillars. Well, the ABIs can do that quite well, too, by boosting my skill checks. I used my skill proficiencies to build in some ranger and rogue into my fighter (and tacked on a smidgeon of wizard with alchemist's supplies). By upping my Wisdom from its sad 10, I'd be a master of survival and animal handling. Quite useful for exploration. By upping my Charisma, I'd get more out of my roguish sweet-talking.

There seems to me to be plenty of benefit to be had from ABIs for me.

Oh, and I could just funnel them into upping my 8 Strength if I wanted to make my fighter more fightery, too.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh, so you rolled the stats in order? I was wondering where the idea of a swashbuckling cleric came from, I guess this explains. Really nice!

Oh, for another similar method, I started my gnome battlemaster with the default array, but randomly determined which ability got each number. And randomly choose a race (and subrace), and class (and subclass).

The high Dex/ low Strength immediately said swashbuckler to me. And I went right ahead builing it as a berserker barbarian . . . right up until I noticed the barbarian simply does not work with Dex.

So I built up the gnome swahbuckler concept as a fighter, as an arcane trickster, as a beastmaster ranger, as an abjuration wizard (I have a 14 Intelligence), then merged them all into the battlemaster as well as could be managed.