D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[ECMO3]

Limited resources are still resources available to be used. If you want to compare what a class is capable of in a day of adventure, you need to base it on what a class is actually capable of. Not using spells and other abilities in the comparison would be as like comparing fighter and bladesinger performance where the fighter can't use weapons.

Sure, but this thread is focused on feats which are not (generally) limited resources.

There is no real comparison. A Wizard is more capable than a fighter IMO because of limted resources. That is how it is, but that is not a reason to give a fighter more feats.

Give them both more feats. If you want more martial options Allow a fighter 3 more feats at 13th level and allow a Wizard 3 more feats at 13th level. What I am most upset about is this idea that fighters should get more when other classes don't.

I would ask you to explain your reasoning. A Bladesinger needs Max Int, Dex and Con. A Fighter needs Max Str, Dex and Con. Therefore they will have the same Wisdom and Charisma given the same rolls. Both classes have 4 skills from class and background.

A fighter does NOT need max con. With a 10 constitution a fighter has the MORE hit pionts than a bladesinger with a 14 constitution, not equal hit points, MORE hit points. That is the wholepoint!

Further a fighter does not need both max strength and dex any more than a bladesinger needs max strength and dex and even with characters with equal scores a fighter will still generally do more damage with weapons.

So to correct you a Fighter needs maximum Strength and Dexterity to be good at both ranged and melee attacks. To be a near equal a bladesinger needs a maximum strength, dexterity, constitution and intelligence and even with those scores she will be using weapons in melee and ranged that have lower damage!

The Bladesinger can have 4 Int-based skills, each at +10. The Fighter can only have 1 skill at +10, and the other three will probably only be up to +7 at best.
Therefore the Bladesinger is objectively better than an equivalent fighter out of combat without using spells

That is just not true. I assume you are talking about level 13-16 with a +5 in intelligence and proficiency. With the same number of hit points a fighter can have 4 skills with a +10 at 16th AND in addition have another 9 skills that are better than a Wizard with the same number of hit points. For example:

16th level point buy Fighter: S15 D20, C10, I10, W20, CH12
Athletics: 9, Acrobatics 10, SOH 10, Stealth 10, Arcana 0, History 0, Investigation 0, Nature 0, Religion 0, Animal handling 5, Insight 5, Medicine 5, Perception 5, Survival 5, Deception 1, Intimidation 1, Performance 1, Persuasion 1 Total=68

16th level point buy Bladesinger Wizard: S8, D20, C14, I20, W12, CH8 (I think this is the absolute best a Wizard could do for this comparison)
Athletics -1, Acrobatics 5, SOH 5, Stealth 5, Arcana 10, History 10, Investigation 10, Nature 10, Religion 5, Animal Handling 1, insight 1, Medicine 1, Perception 1, Survival 1, Deception -1, Intimidation -1, Performance -1, Persuasion -1. Total=60

In addition to having better scores, more hit points and doing more damage; the fighters higher scores are in more important skills. Athletics is more important than acrobatics, Perception is more important than Investigation, Survival is more important than Nature!

.
The initial discussion was purely about melee. If you want to shift the goal to ranged combat, I'm pretty sure that 13th level Bladesinger can still absolutely destroy the fighter's performance in a combat encounter if they choose to get serious about it.

I think you are wrong.

A Bladesinger in ranged cobat is casting a cantrip and using a light crossbow .... unless she is in bladesong in which case she is throwing a dagger.

By 13th level a fighter with 3 extra feats is ignoring long range, ignoring cover, getting 3 attacks a round, adding a +10 to damage on low AC enemies, and doing 1d4+2 for base damage. This is assuming they optimized for melee by going with high strength and took GWM and PAM. If they actually optimized for ranged they would blow a bladesinger out if the water.

For example:
F13 with 3 extra feats has Sharpshooter, GWM, PAM, Archery, Thrown weapon fighting and 20 strength is doing 3d4+21 damage (29.5) while being optimized for melee. In addition this character ignores cover, ignores long range and her attack roll is at +12. This does not include the +10 from sharpshooter.

Bladesinger 13 on point buy is going to have a 20 in dex and an 18 in intelligence. She will do 1d8+3d10+5 (26). This with an attack of +10 for 1d8+5 and +9 for 3d10 and she will not ignore cover or long range.

If you want to actually put an AC to it(including sharpshooter) :

AC 10: Bladesinger 25.7, Fighter 47.7
AC15: Bladesinger 20.975, Fighter 34.5
AC20: Bladesinger 13.475, Fighter 21.745

Keep in mind, this is with a fighter that is actually optimized for melee!

"Without resorting to spells" - Why should they not need to spend their class resources in the same way that the fighter is spending their class resources?

Because we are talking about martial combat and a fighter is not spending any resources.

As already pointed out to you a couple of times, they do not need the extra feats "to keep up". The entire point of the extra feats is to try to help the fighter "keep up" with the bladesinger and similar classes in overall adventuring performance.

But that won't accomplish this.

If you actaully want to do this you will need to give them spells. Lots of spells!

Otherwise they are not keeping up at all, they are just doing better in melee combat and making the game more unbalanced!

Character concept is a thing, you know?

Exactly!

You can play the character you want without giving that chartacter random, unwarranted boons.

The current fighter is perfectly viable as is, is enjoyed by many players as is, without putting in sopme kind of homebrew to give it more capability so it outshines other classes in melee.

Well, this is actually a very good analogy comparing performance at basketball with performance at the challenges a D&D party have to face. You and LeBron James are going to be matched against other teams chosen to be at the same average basketball skill of the two of you.
How much fun do you think you are going to have?

I think most people would jump at the chance to play BBall with Lebron James. I think if I was Lebron James and advertised "who wants to play basketball with me at XXX this afternoon" I would have hundreds show up to play with me.

I think I, and most people, would have a crapton of fun.

Moreover if it was a situation where we were drawing up teams and picking players, I think Lebron James would be the first player I picked on my team. The fact that he was better than me would be a GOOD thing if he was on my team!

Have you ever seen the commercial where kids are picking teams and Charles Barkley is there? This is EXACTLY the situation we are talking about.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Have you ever seen the commercial where kids are picking teams and Charles Barkley is there? This is EXACTLY the situation we are talking about.

Hmm. Yeah, you're right. I can't think of a single difference. Playing D&D is really EXACTLY like that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Have you ever seen the commercial where kids are picking teams and Charles Barkley is there? This is EXACTLY the situation we are talking about.

The fighter gets Charles Barkley (I'll give you in his prime, but certainly not that time he grew huge and house Godzilla in basketball) while the wizard has Shaq, LeBron, and MJ in their prime and the Monstars -- all on the court at once.

And we're told that's fair because we're told Shaq will be the one to make the free throws... sometimes. Which, watching that is a punishment to everyone involved (this being a stand-in for the 5 minute workday)

If we're going to use a tortured analogy, let's make it accurate.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

Sure, but this thread is focused on feats which are not (generally) limited resources.

There is no real comparison. A Wizard is more capable than a fighter IMO because of limted resources. That is how it is, but that is not a reason to give a fighter more feats.

Give them both more feats. If you want more martial options Allow a fighter 3 more feats at 13th level and allow a Wizard 3 more feats at 13th level. What I am most upset about is this idea that fighters should get more when other classes don't.



A fighter does NOT need max con. With a 10 constitution a fighter has the MORE hit pionts than a bladesinger with a 14 constitution, not equal hit points, MORE hit points. That is the wholepoint!

Further a fighter does not need both max strength and dex any more than a bladesinger needs max strength and dex and even with characters with equal scores a fighter will still generally do more damage with weapons.

So to correct you a Fighter needs maximum Strength and Dexterity to be good at both ranged and melee attacks. To be a near equal a bladesinger needs a maximum strength, dexterity, constitution and intelligence and even with those scores she will be using weapons in melee and ranged that have lower damage!



That is just not true. I assume you are talking about level 13-16 with a +5 in intelligence and proficiency. With the same number of hit points a fighter can have 4 skills with a +10 at 16th AND in addition have another 9 skills that are better than a Wizard with the same number of hit points. For example:

16th level point buy Fighter: S15 D20, C10, I10, W20, CH12
Athletics: 9, Acrobatics 10, SOH 10, Stealth 10, Arcana 0, History 0, Investigation 0, Nature 0, Religion 0, Animal handling 5, Insight 5, Medicine 5, Perception 5, Survival 5, Deception 1, Intimidation 1, Performance 1, Persuasion 1 Total=68

16th level point buy Bladesinger Wizard: S8, D20, C14, I20, W12, CH8 (I think this is the absolute best a Wizard could do for this comparison)
Athletics -1, Acrobatics 5, SOH 5, Stealth 5, Arcana 10, History 10, Investigation 10, Nature 10, Religion 5, Animal Handling 1, insight 1, Medicine 1, Perception 1, Survival 1, Deception -1, Intimidation -1, Performance -1, Persuasion -1. Total=60

In addition to having better scores, more hit points and doing more damage; the fighters higher scores are in more important skills. Athletics is more important than acrobatics, Perception is more important than Investigation, Survival is more important than Nature!





I think you are wrong.

A Bladesinger in ranged cobat is casting a cantrip and using a light crossbow .... unless she is in bladesong in which case she is throwing a dagger.

By 13th level a fighter with 3 extra feats is ignoring long range, ignoring cover, getting 3 attacks a round, adding a +10 to damage on low AC enemies, and doing 1d4+2 for base damage. This is assuming they optimized for melee by going with high strength and took GWM and PAM. If they actually optimized for ranged they would blow a bladesinger out if the water.

For example:
F13 with 3 extra feats has Sharpshooter, GWM, PAM, Archery, Thrown weapon fighting and 20 strength is doing 3d4+21 damage (29.5) while being optimized for melee. In addition this character ignores cover, ignores long range and her attack roll is at +12. This does not include the +10 from sharpshooter.

Bladesinger 13 on point buy is going to have a 20 in dex and an 18 in intelligence. She will do 1d8+3d10+5 (26). This with an attack of +10 for 1d8+5 and +9 for 3d10 and she will not ignore cover or long range.

If you want to actually put an AC to it(including sharpshooter) :

AC 10: Bladesinger 25.7, Fighter 47.7
AC15: Bladesinger 20.975, Fighter 34.5
AC20: Bladesinger 13.475, Fighter 21.745

Keep in mind, this is with a fighter that is actually optimized for melee!



Because we are talking about martial combat and a fighter is not spending any resources.



But that won't accomplish this.

If you actaully want to do this you will need to give them spells. Lots of spells!

Otherwise they are not keeping up at all, they are just doing better in melee combat and making the game more unbalanced!



Exactly!

You can play the character you want without giving that chartacter random, unwarranted boons.

The current fighter is perfectly viable as is, is enjoyed by many players as is, without putting in sopme kind of homebrew to give it more capability so it outshines other classes in melee.




I think most people would jump at the chance to play BBall with Lebron James. I think if I was Lebron James and advertised "who wants to play basketball with me at XXX this afternoon" I would have hundreds show up to play with me.

I think I, and most people, would have a crapton of fun.

Moreover if it was a situation where we were drawing up teams and picking players, I think Lebron James would be the first player I picked on my team. The fact that he was better than me would be a GOOD thing if he was on my team!

Have you ever seen the commercial where kids are picking teams and Charles Barkley is there? This is EXACTLY the situation we are talking about.

So, something kinda struck me here, and it's that you said that the fighter getting 3 more feats than the wizard was upsetting. My question is why? Most of your argument then seems to discuss that the fighter can use these feats to outshine other classes in combat, however the last part seems to argue that if the wizard is unbalanced it's fine for the game. So what confuses me is that, even if the feats push our hypothetical fighter into an unbalanced state of the game, why should it matter? After all, the other players should feel good to have someone who can mulch the enemy monsters quicker, and the bladesinger should be fine with it because unbalance is fun, correct?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sure, but this thread is focused on feats which are not (generally) limited resources.

It is a thread about whether feats work as a potential solution to the adventuring performance disparity in some classes. Adventuring performance includes use of resources, both at the character build level (feat and spell choice for example) and at the actual daily level, such as Action Surge and spells.

There is no real comparison. A Wizard is more capable than a fighter IMO because of limted resources. That is how it is, but that is not a reason to give a fighter more feats.

Well, yes, it is. You can go with the previously-suggested route of specifying that they can't be combat feats if you think that your fighter player would just tunnel-vision into only combat feats if they had the choice.

Give them both more feats. If you want more martial options Allow a fighter 3 more feats at 13th level and allow a Wizard 3 more feats at 13th level. What I am most upset about is this idea that fighters should get more when other classes don't.

. . . Fighters already get more feats. Are you upset about the entire concept, or just saying that you believe that fighters are already way more powerful than the other classes in general adventuring performance?

A fighter does NOT need max con. With a 10 constitution a fighter has the MORE hit pionts than a bladesinger with a 14 constitution, not equal hit points, MORE hit points. That is the wholepoint!

Further a fighter does not need both max strength and dex any more than a bladesinger needs max strength and dex and even with characters with equal scores a fighter will still generally do more damage with weapons.

So to correct you a Fighter needs maximum Strength and Dexterity to be good at both ranged and melee attacks. To be a near equal a bladesinger needs a maximum strength, dexterity, constitution and intelligence and even with those scores she will be using weapons in melee and ranged that have lower damage!

Hmm. I think that that one is on me form not being clear enough.

Fighter needs to max Strength, and also invest (probably at least 14s) in Dex and Con. Bladesinger needs to max Int, and also invest (again, probably at least 14s) in Dex and Con. Then they can start investing in actual feats. (Actual order may vary, but by 13th level they should have some feats and been able to max their primary stat.)

That is just not true. I assume you are talking about level 13-16 with a +5 in intelligence and proficiency. With the same number of hit points a fighter can have 4 skills with a +10 at 16th AND in addition have another 9 skills that are better than a Wizard with the same number of hit points. For example:

16th level point buy Fighter: S15 D20, C10, I10, W20, CH12
Athletics: 9, Acrobatics 10, SOH 10, Stealth 10, Arcana 0, History 0, Investigation 0, Nature 0, Religion 0, Animal handling 5, Insight 5, Medicine 5, Perception 5, Survival 5, Deception 1, Intimidation 1, Performance 1, Persuasion 1 Total=68

16th level point buy Bladesinger Wizard: S8, D20, C14, I20, W12, CH8 (I think this is the absolute best a Wizard could do for this comparison)
Athletics -1, Acrobatics 5, SOH 5, Stealth 5, Arcana 10, History 10, Investigation 10, Nature 10, Religion 5, Animal Handling 1, insight 1, Medicine 1, Perception 1, Survival 1, Deception -1, Intimidation -1, Performance -1, Persuasion -1. Total=60

In addition to having better scores, more hit points and doing more damage; the fighters higher scores are in more important skills. Athletics is more important than acrobatics, Perception is more important than Investigation, Survival is more important than Nature!

Hang on. You are seriously suggesting that a Fighter should realistically spend some of their 4 ASIs on maxing out Wisdom?

Just to clarify, is this the same fighter that you are saying has:

No they won't. To start with the fighter is getting three attacks and 3 extra feats at 13th level means 4 ASIs and 3 feats. At least one of them can be a fighting style and with the wider number available there is ALWAYS going to be a very good one to take.

Between Defense, Archery, Thrown Weapon Fighting, Dueling and Unarmed combat there are at least 2 fighting styles for every fighter style you want that will be a significant boost, meanwhile a Bladesinger does not get any fighting style and a Paladin has fewer good choices.

Think about this - Thrown Weapon Fighting Style, Feat-Archery Fighting Style, Feat-Sharpshooter, Feat-GWM, Feat-Slasher, Feat-Crusher, Feat-Heavy Armor Master, Feat-Pole Arm Master

This character would gave a 20 strength on point buy and DESTROY any bladesinger or Paladin possible at both melee and ranged combat with weapons (throwing darts) and that is before we even consider the subclass abilities. Heck that character would dominate melee while also outruning a Ranger XBE-Sharpshooter in ranged fights without even using a bonus action!

. . . because I think that your DM really needs to take a look at your character sheet.

I think you are wrong.

A Bladesinger in ranged cobat is casting a cantrip and using a light crossbow .... unless she is in bladesong in which case she is throwing a dagger.

By 13th level a fighter with 3 extra feats is ignoring long range, ignoring cover, getting 3 attacks a round, adding a +10 to damage on low AC enemies, and doing 1d4+2 for base damage. This is assuming they optimized for melee by going with high strength and took GWM and PAM. If they actually optimized for ranged they would blow a bladesinger out if the water.

A 13th level Bladesinger is a 13th level full caster. To suggest that if they want to really pull out the stops in a major fight, they won't use their main class ability is like me saying that the fighter won't use Action Surge or Extra attack or maneuvers if they have them.

.For example:
F13 with 3 extra feats has Sharpshooter, GWM, PAM, Archery, Thrown weapon fighting and 20 strength is doing 3d4+21 damage (29.5) while being optimized for melee. In addition this character ignores cover, ignores long range and her attack roll is at +12. This does not include the +10 from sharpshooter.

Bladesinger 13 on point buy is going to have a 20 in dex and an 18 in intelligence. She will do 1d8+3d10+5 (26). This with an attack of +10 for 1d8+5 and +9 for 3d10 and she will not ignore cover or long range.

If you want to actually put an AC to it(including sharpshooter) :

AC 10: Bladesinger 25.7, Fighter 47.7
AC15: Bladesinger 20.975, Fighter 34.5
AC20: Bladesinger 13.475, Fighter 21.745

Keep in mind, this is with a fighter that is actually optimized for melee!

OK. Now show me what you think will happen in an fight that matters, (end of adventure BBEG and minions for example) where the characters will actually use their class abilities.

Because we are talking about martial combat and a fighter is not spending any resources.

Action Surge, superiority dice (if they have them) are all resources that a fighter will be spending in martial combat. (And outside of combat if they can.) You cannot make an honest comparison between two classes if you ignore large chunks of their capabilities.

Exactly!

You can play the character you want without giving that chartacter random, unwarranted boons.

Don't play a fighter if you don't like what you get out of it.

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

So, which are you saying: That people should play the class with the concept they want, or the mechanics that they want?

I think most people would jump at the chance to play BBall with Lebron James. I think if I was Lebron James and advertised "who wants to play basketball with me at XXX this afternoon" I would have hundreds show up to play with me.

I think I, and most people, would have a crapton of fun.

Moreover if it was a situation where we were drawing up teams and picking players, I think Lebron James would be the first player I picked on my team. The fact that he was better than me would be a GOOD thing if he was on my team!

Remember this is a match where you are playing against a team of an even match to you and LeBron.
So they will be significantly worse than LeBron, but significantly better than you.
LeBron will outperform you massively and people may be saying that he shouldn't let you get hold of the ball at all.
Will you feel that you are significantly contributing to the games?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

indeed a lot of optimizer guide place martial in the middle tier for combat.
in fact in combat most classes and subclasses perform well and even bad ones are not so lame.

In my experience and in my opinion (discounting eldritch knight and Arcane trickster)the fighter can (and often does) deal massive damage and tank multi hits/turns hits into misses. (of course level of optimization matters too)

The barbarian can do both easier and better.

The rouge if built 100% (or atleast 85%) combat can come close enough to the two and in a lucky game may gall between the two.


Hexblades, Sword or Valor Bard, War clerics, any combat ready druid. armor artificers and Bladesinger Wizards if they wish to be melee can be withing level+2 of the hp of the fighter (slightly worse against barbarian but right on with rouges) have teh same to hit ratio, and 70--90% of the damage of a fighter... BUT have a bunch of exploration and socail things the fighter can never have.

The fighter and barbarian can never keep up in social or exploration... a rouge is a big MAYBE.


The worst offenders are the wizard druid and cleric. They can change day to day from "I will out fit myself of exploration, tomorrow for a dungeon crawl, and the day after that for an intrigue at the palace... (honorable metion to teh artificer here, they wont pack the punch but they out strip fighter rouge and barbarian in flexability)



this has lead to us having people say "My concept workss best as a fighter" (sometimes rogue or barbarian or ranger) then making a hexblade or a bladesinger or some multi classed monster and asking "Can I refluff my spells as martial abilities so I can have the fun of the better built class but with the feel and flavor of the one I wanted"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The fighter gets Charles Barkley (I'll give you in his prime, but certainly not that time he grew huge and house Godzilla in basketball) while the wizard has Shaq, LeBron, and MJ in their prime and the Monstars -- all on the court at once.

And we're told that's fair because we're told Shaq will be the one to make the free throws... sometimes. Which, watching that is a punishment to everyone involved (this being a stand-in for the 5 minute workday)

If we're going to use a tortured analogy, let's make it accurate.

okay let me try one of these...

the fighter gets 5 Olympic bronze medalists form sports that aren't basket ball(say lifiting running swimming archery ect)... the wizard gets to pick day by day with his choices being the dream team from teh 90's and noble prize winning scientists, and 1 or 2 of the gold medilists in the same sports the fighter picked from... most days the game will be basket ball but 25% of the time its random math test or a dinner party or a race.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In my experience and in my opinion (discounting eldritch knight and Arcane trickster)the fighter can (and often does) deal massive damage and tank multi hits/turns hits into misses. (of course level of optimization matters too)

The barbarian can do both easier and better.

The rouge if built 100% (or atleast 85%) combat can come close enough to the two and in a lucky game may gall between the two.


Hexblades, Sword or Valor Bard, War clerics, any combat ready druid. armor artificers and Bladesinger Wizards if they wish to be melee can be withing level+2 of the hp of the fighter (slightly worse against barbarian but right on with rouges) have teh same to hit ratio, and 70--90% of the damage of a fighter... BUT have a bunch of exploration and socail things the fighter can never have.

The fighter and barbarian can never keep up in social or exploration... a rouge is a big MAYBE.


The worst offenders are the wizard druid and cleric. They can change day to day from "I will out fit myself of exploration, tomorrow for a dungeon crawl, and the day after that for an intrigue at the palace... (honorable metion to teh artificer here, they wont pack the punch but they out strip fighter rouge and barbarian in flexability)



this has lead to us having people say "My concept workss best as a fighter" (sometimes rogue or barbarian or ranger) then making a hexblade or a bladesinger or some multi classed monster and asking "Can I refluff my spells as martial abilities so I can have the fun of the better built class but with the feel and flavor of the one I wanted"

People do this? I have never heard of it.

 

[Clint_L]

What subclass is the fighter? I’ll take a level 13 echo knight against a level 13 blade singer in combat.

 

[nevin]

"I haven't seen a problem, therefore there isn't a problem" is not exactly good logic.

neither is "you don't see my problem so your blind" LMAO