D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[EzekielRaiden]

So what?

In real life

Is D&D "in real life"? I honestly cannot believe you are making this argument.

You are making claims with no data at all to back them up, which can be further refuted by the limited data we have.

Your arguments have done much the same. "X was more fun in its game than Y was in its game" absolutely has no data whatsoever to back it up, and can be refuted by what little data we actually have, including things like explicit statements from the developers themselves who recognized issues with how they implemented things.

We aren't getting anywhere by pointing fingers and making it personal.

No it isn't and not all the sandwiches cost the same at Subway.

BUT ALL CLASSES COST THE SAME IN D&D.

That's the point.

You have one menu. Everyone pays exactly the same amount to get something from that menu: one class (at least to start), one race, one background. Why should people who just happen to like wearing bathrobes and shouting weird words get great physical prowess and tons of special extra bonus rewards while people who like chainmail and weapons and physical fitness get just great physical prowess and nothing else?

D&D presents its options as commensurate. Nowhere--not one single place--will say that Wizards are just objectively more powerful than Fighters. If you can present even one single quote from the books that explicitly says this, I will gladly and instantly surrender. But you won't find one, because it doesn't exist. Instead, we have mountains of examples of the designers themselves talking about things like adding Concentration to the game because casters could achieve too much with their spells in prior editions...aka...casters were overpowered and needed to be rebalanced.

Or, if we take a slightly wider scope, looking at things like the heartfelt appeal from Mr. Buhlman for people to give PF2e a chance, because the designers themselves had become painted into a corner, unable to fix any of the outstanding issues of the Pathfinder ruleset (all of which were inherited from 3e) without radical rules changes because casters broke balance by being overpowered. Or the rise of the "Spheres" rules (Spheres of Power/Might), which are now supplements for both PF1e and 5e, which were specifically an effort to give fun and exciting options to non-spellcaster characters (Spheres of Might) while forcing spellcasters to become more focused and thematic rather than the sprawling morass that standard PF spellcasting was. (The PF1e version came first, then was adapted for 5e later.) And Spheres rules are incredibly popular among PF1e fans--far and away the most requested alternate rules stuff for PF1e.

People like balance...when it serves a useful function. But to know that it serves a function, and agree that that function is useful, is a nontrivial thing.

No they aren't If they like playing a fighter then they like the mechanics.

What? Since when is liking "having martial skill and not using magic" equivalent to being absolutely 100% in love with the mechanical characteristics of the 5e Fighter as it exists?

For goodness' sake, we literally had a quarantine subforum for Warlord discussion in Ye Olden Dayse (dear God I can't believe that was almost a decade ago...) specifically because people weren't happy with the specific mechanics of Fighter but wanted the thematic content that, by design, only Fighters could represent.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@FallenRX I think your idea has some merit.
Like others before me have said, one must beware of abuse. So for instance they (players) could use these bonus feats to gain proficiency with every saving throw category for their characters. This is not the goal when we're looking for "well-rounded" fighters.

If I were to consider this option seriously I'd likely limit which feats could be acquired with the additional new feats earned.

 

[FallenRX]

@FallenRX I think your idea has some merit.
Like others before me have said, one must beware of abuse. So for instance they (players) could use these bonus feats to gain proficiency with every saving throw category for their characters. This is not the goal when we're looking for "well-rounded" fighters.

If I were to consider this option seriously I'd likely limit which feats could be acquired with the additional new feats earned.

Resilient you cannot pick again.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Resilient you cannot pick again.

Firstly - that's not the only problematic feat, that's just 1 example of misuse. Do you at least agree with my sentiment?

Secondly - you mean in general or in your homebrew rules? As far as I understand you can pick up Resilient multiple times for each ability you're not proficient in.

EDIT: I was corrected by @EzekielRaiden and @FallenRX. I was under the mistaken impression you could take Resilient multiple times.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@FallenRX I think your idea has some merit.
Like others before me have said, one must beware of abuse. So for instance they (players) could use these bonus feats to gain proficiency with every saving throw category for their characters. This is not the goal when we're looking for "well-rounded" fighters.

If I were to consider this option seriously I'd likely limit which feats could be acquired with the additional new feats earned.

I think a useful rule of thumb could be "you must have already taken at least one feat that doesn't apply to combat for each combat-related feat you take using this rule. If you aren't sure whether something counts as 'combat related,' ask me, but in most cases it should be clear. Feats that give spells depend on which spell you learn."

Then, if someone wants Lucky, they're going to have to take Actor or Learned or Skilled first, or whatever. If someone really wants to sink four feats into Resilient, they'll either have to wait until high-ish level or make use of other features to get enough feats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Firstly - that's not the only problematic feat, that's just 1 example of misuse. Do you at least agree with my sentiment?

Secondly - you mean in general or in your homebrew rules? As far as I understand you can pick up Resilient multiple times for each ability you're not proficient in.

Having just looked it up...the feat does not say it can be taken multiple times, which means it cannot. You apparently only get to take Resilient once. Guess you should always choose Con (or Wis, if you already have Con.)

 

[Aldarc]

One problem with Martials getting free feats adds complexity. The fighter was one of the worst classes to give beginners in 3e precisely because you had to pre-plan characters to navigate the various feat options that were out there. Building a stronger core fighter (and other martials) would, IMHO, go further than giving them more feats.

 

[Immoralkickass]

If martials should get free feats, should Half-martials (half-casters duh) get free half-feats?

 

[Horwath]

Maybe martials just need battlemasters maneuvers at-will.

I.E. you know a number of Battlemaster maneuvers equal to prof bonus.
You can use one maneuver per attack. Except those that say that can be used in addition to other maneuver.
bonus die is d4 at 1st level, d6 at 5th level, d8 at 9th level, d10 at 13th level and d12 at 17th level.

 

[Krachek]

Classes balance is highly dependent on play style, players needs and expectations.

So I agree to your home brew 100%.

Feats are a super tools to be used in balance, boon, rewards. They are generic multi purpose class features. You want to give a boost to every one, you give all of them a feat. You want to help a specific character, a feat is always useful, never too shiny.

As for balance, DnD is not a card game nor a wargame. The tactical balance ask for such games is only a small part of DnD game play.
In a wargame, the fight is only there to use your tactical skills. In DnD you can make bold move or inefficient move to just play your character. Some players dont look to win a fight, they play their PC within a fight.
that way what look imbalance to some players are leverage to better role play for others.