D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[Krachek]

I have never seen this... can you give an example of something that is an obstacle enough to be considered an encounter but no game machanics were used?


except that isn't true... cause the casters have the OPTION to do other but not the non casters

You should have been with your party in the house of a farmer eating pie, learning about local gossips. when such an event take 30 minutes of game play it is an encounters and nobody try to use deception skill or cast a spell on the farmer wife.

Those encounters are the most challenging in DnD. They require good character personality, ideal, flaw, to have a good sense of the role of your character in the story and the world. And the most difficult part, your multiple class options are mostly useless!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You should have been with your party in the house of a farmer eating pie, learning about local gossips. when such an event take 30 minutes of game play it is an encounters and nobody try to use deception skill or cast a spell on the farmer wife.

that (to me) sounds like just rp not an encounter... there was nothing going on. maybe it's just us useing the word encounter differently.

Those encounters are the most challenging in DnD. They require good character personality, ideal, flaw, to have a good sense of the role of your character in the story and the world. And the most difficult part, your multiple class options are mostly useless!

that seems to me to be the easiest part... maybe again that's just groups being diffrent. We don't use the ideal/flaws from teh book we write our own and just talk sometimes for hours, but I wouldn't clasify that as an encounter

 

[Clint_L]

Hasn't been specified. Generally people will pick BM if they want to show that Fighters are good in combat because it is very optimisable. I don't know much about Echo Knight.

I don't think it really needs to be argued that fighters are good in combat. They are great at two of the pillars of combat, delivering and absorbing damage, and depending on sub-class choice (e.g. BM) can be good at control, too. I assume the main argument is about whether they should have more out of combat options.

But yeah, echo knights are great. I was just pointing out that the debate seemed to be about a specific wizard sub-class versus a generic fighter without their own sub-class advantages. Fighters vary by sub-class quite a lot. And that force cage isn't doing much to an echo knight - maybe it'll buy a round or two, but considering the echo knight can swap places with their echo as a bonus action as often as they like, I wouldn't pin my hopes on a force cage saving the day.

But I think any subclass of fighter has a good shot against a bladesinger at level 13. Obviously you could tweak the bladsinger to be optimized against the fighter if you knew that specific battle was coming, but the fighter could be optimized as well, though not as effectively, depending on sub-class. If the bladesinger just wants to escape or has a terrain advantage they are going to be tough to corral, but the moment it becomes melee that wizard is going to have a bad day.

Edit: It's interesting to me that this thread has once again become mostly about fighters. I think rogues need a boost far more, and they are also the class that makes the most sense to have extra feats.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm curious, Clint, what's wrong with Rogues, in your opinion? They have a reliable way to deal a lot of damage, have no need to be in melee if they don't want to be, are the masters of skills, and even the humble Thief gets a lot of versatility in and out of combat.

Obviously, I had a great experience playing a Rogue, so I am legitimately curious as to what problems you see them face.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I don't think it really needs to be argued that fighters are good in combat. They are great at two of the pillars of combat, delivering and absorbing damage, and depending on sub-class choice (e.g. BM) can be good at control, too. I assume the main argument is about whether they should have more out of combat options.

True. We went on a slight digression when someone claimed that the suggested extra feats would all be spend on combat feats, but in general I think the idea for the extra feats is to improve the out of combat capabilities.

But yeah, echo knights are great. I was just pointing out that the debate seemed to be about a specific wizard sub-class versus a generic fighter without their own sub-class advantages. Fighters vary by sub-class quite a lot. And that force cage isn't doing much to an echo knight - maybe it'll buy a round or two, but considering the echo knight can swap places with their echo as a bonus action as often as they like, I wouldn't pin my hopes on a force cage saving the day.

But I think any subclass of fighter has a good shot against a bladesinger at level 13. Obviously you could tweak the bladsinger to be optimized against the fighter if you knew that specific battle was coming, but the fighter could be optimized as well, though not as effectively, depending on sub-class. If the bladesinger just wants to escape or has a terrain advantage they are going to be tough to corral, but the moment it becomes melee that wizard is going to have a bad day.

I'm not thinking fighting against each other. Just how well each would do in a big ultimate encounter where both would be willing to use their class abilities to the fullest. Even if performance is limited to melee attacks only (the fighter's forte), you're still competing against the bladesinger, their simulacrum, and both of their level 6 summons even before they stat casting spells like sword wind strike or similar.
In a long, 8-combat adventuring day, the fighter is probably going to win out. However it seems most groups don't do that and have a shorter adventuring day. In such a day, including non-combat challenges, I think that the bladesinger is going to win out.

Edit: It's interesting to me that this thread has once again become mostly about fighters. I think rogues need a boost far more, and they are also the class that makes the most sense to have extra feats.

Rogues keep up fairly well in damage against a baseline fighter, and certainly do better out of combat, but unless this is a long adventuring day involving a lot of repeated skill rolls, they still have the limitation of poor scaling. They are the best class for skill rolls, but there are so many things that skill rolls just can't do that other classes can.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm curious, Clint, what's wrong with Rogues, in your opinion? They have a reliable way to deal a lot of damage, have no need to be in melee if they don't want to be, are the masters of skills, and even the humble Thief gets a lot of versatility in and out of combat.

Obviously, I had a great experience playing a Rogue, so I am legitimately curious as to what problems you see them face.

I don't think rogues are terrible - I put them at C/B tier. Again depending on sub-class; arcane tricksters are pretty strong, for example. In combat rogues are competent - good but not great damage dealers who offer maneuverability. Basically skirmishers. Nice to have, but not essential, and as noted they don't scale super well. They are better out of combat by being skills specialists, but I don't think this is really all that great a niche, because most skills in D&D don't see much use.

I like rogues and also find them fun to play, so they aren't in need of a drastic overhaul. But I do think they could use a small boost, and a few extra feats would do that and be thematically appropriate for a class that specializes in, well, having specialities.

 

[Mort]

I don't think rogues are terrible - I put them at C/B tier. Again depending on sub-class; arcane tricksters are pretty strong, for example. In combat rogues are competent - good but not great damage dealers who offer maneuverability. Basically skirmishers. Nice to have, but not essential, and as noted they don't scale super well. They are better out of combat by being skills specialists, but I don't think this is really all that great a niche, because most skills in D&D don't see much use.

I like rogues and also find them fun to play, so they aren't in need of a drastic overhaul. But I do think they could use a small boost, and a few extra feats would do that and be thematically appropriate for a class that specializes in, well, having specialities.

I think one thing that hampers rogues (as the skill master class) is the fact that many (too many) DMs knee jerk to "no way" when presented with creative or out of the box skill use (especially at high levels) while at the same time defaulting to "yes, sure..." when presented with creative or out of the box spell usage - when it should be exactly the other way around.

 

[ECMO3]

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?

This sort of unbalance is fine for the game, in fact good for the game.

I think making the fighter some super-human melee god is bad for the game because it detracts from Wizards, Clerics, Paladins and Barbarians who want to melee and be just as good.

Also people claim they want balance, but what they really want is more powerful fighters because if actual balance is what they wanted they would simply give the figther spells. That is the easiest AND most effective way to balance those classes. Giving 3 more feats to the fighter won't actually balance the class powerwise and in fact unbalances the game by making the fighter WAY better than any other class at one aspect of it. This is particularly true in 5E with the focus on bounded accuracy.

If you gave the fighter full spell progression starting at say level 4 he would actually be pretty balanced with a Wizard without running away from everyone in a fashion not intended.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This sort of unbalance is fine for the game, in fact good for the game.

I think making the fighter some super-human melee god is bad for the game because it detracts from Wizards,

Welp, there it is.

Detracting from fighters? Good for the game. Detracting from the mighty wizards? Bad.

I say thee nay.

 

[Shadowedeyes]

This sort of unbalance is fine for the game, in fact good for the game.

I think making the fighter some super-human melee god is bad for the game because it detracts from Wizards, Clerics, Paladins and Barbarians who want to melee and be just as good.

Also people claim they want balance, but what they really want is more powerful fighters because if actual balance is what they wanted they would simply give the figther spells. That is the easiest AND most effective way to balance those classes. Giving 3 more feats to the fighter won't actually balance the class powerwise and in fact unbalances the game by making the fighter WAY better than any other class at one aspect of it. This is particularly true in 5E with the focus on bounded accuracy.

If you gave the fighter full spell progression starting at say level 4 he would actually be pretty balanced with a Wizard without running away from everyone in a fashion not intended.

Okay, but if those players want to be good in melee, they can just play a fighter, right? I mean, no one is forcing them to play those other classes. Although I would think Barbarians would fall into the martial category, and this be getting the extra feats as well.