D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[LordEntrails]

I will say when I read your title I did not like the idea, but reading through the post I'm much more intrigued by the idea. BUT, it seems easy to abuse for min/maxing (which I don't enjoy).

Specifically referring to Barb, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.

So one level of barb gets you free feats for the rest of the campaign?
Or do you get this only when you have X number of martial levels?
Why free feats at the same levels as regular feats? Seems to make those levels extra bouncy. Wouldn't it work better to spread them out? Perhaps tie them to marital class levels directly?

 

[Umbran]

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

The OP specifically asked for disagreements. Please don't try to dissuade folks from providing them.

 

[Mort]

Were those my words? That’s a curious interpretation of them. It’s almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting them to score points rather than having a good faith discussion.

If you want to actually discuss my position, which is doubtful, it’s that:

1.I think martial classes are currently competitive with spell using classes. Specifically, I would put monks at tier D/C, rogues at tier C/B, and fighter/barbarian at tier A/S.

2. This is supported by what I witness as an experienced DM.

3. This is supported by most tier rankings made by others, including those with a large number of respondents.

4. Therefore, giving that entire category a bunch of free feats would be unbalancing and unfair. You could make a case for monks and, to a lesser degree, rogues, but those are class specific issues that could be addressed in other ways. Actually, extra feats is not a bad idea for rogues, but monks have fundamental design flaws.

So if you must TLDR my position, it’s that I have seen no evidence to support the contention that martials as a broad category are struggling and so I would not want such a blanket solution at my table. YVMV.

I suspect that you are not actually looking for nuanced discussion, though. In that case, please carry on with your straw man attack.

Is this from a combat perspective or a full 3 pillars perspective?

If strictly from combat, I'd agree that (properly built) fighters and barbarians are good. BUT, once you get into exploration and social, fighters especially, get practically NO support at all, where casters get plenty.

Allowing for free/bonus feats could make up the difference quite a lot - especially if the feats were slated for utility use.

 

[LordEntrails]

Is this from a combat perspective or a full 3 pillars perspective?

If strictly from combat, I'd agree that (properly built) fighters and barbarians are good. BUT, once you get into exploration and social, fighters especially, get practically NO support at all, where casters get plenty.

Allowing for free/bonus feats could make up the difference quite a lot - especially if the feats were slated for utility use.

If the feats were utility feats. But my impression is that they are combat feats. Or atleast open to such.

I like the idea of giving all characters non-combat feats. Would help move focus away from combat to the other pillars. If that's of interest to a group.

 

[Clint_L]

Were those my words? That’s a curious interpretation of them. It’s almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting them to score points rather than having a good faith discussion.

If the feats were utility feats. But my impression is that they are combat feats. Or atleast open to such.

I like the idea of giving all characters non-combat feats. Would help move focus away from combat to the other pillars. If that's of interest to a group.

I agree. I would like more feats for all characters because customization is fun. But the combat ones can be unbalancing and tend to skew towards classes that already hit pretty hard.

You can make a case that fighters and barbarians are boring. I think it is hard to make a case that they are underpowered.

Edit: the more I think on it, the more I like OP's suggestion, but not for martial classes as a broad category. I think it applies best to rogues and rangers. It fits really well with the flexibility associated with those two classes, at least in my conception of them, and both could use a boost. I still think monk has more fundamental issues, and the powerful combat feats are not that useful for monks, aside from toughness and lucky (but I hate the lucky feat).

 

[Mort]

I agree. I would like more feats for all characters because customization is fun. But the combat ones can be unbalancing and tend to skew towards classes that already hit pretty hard.

Giving everyone the free out of combat feats will still ensure fighters are at the back of the pack - even at stuff they should excel at, say military strategy for example. Because casters will get the feats AND spells.

I also don't agree that most feats are unbalancing (sure there are the obvious standouts, but even they have to be used PROPERLY or they actually decrease effectiveness - which I have seen several times). They might let the fighter compete with casters for effectiveness (only in combat), but they have serious tradeoffs. Sure a fighter can take GWM at level 4, but then his primary stat suffers. Casters get spells whether they take an ASI or not.

You can make a case that fighters and barbarians are boring. I think it is hard to make a case that they are underpowered.

For fighters and barbarians, effectiveness heavily depends on build and subclass. It's not hard (especially for new players) to accidentally build an underpowered martial.

For casters (wizads, clerics etc.) the base class is strong enough and the primary stat important enough (as in does enough heavy lifting) that, regardless of subclass (though, sure, some subclasses are clearly "better") effectiveness is pretty easy.

 

[FallenRX]

I will say when I read your title I did not like the idea, but reading through the post I'm much more intrigued by the idea. BUT, it seems easy to abuse for min/maxing (which I don't enjoy).

So one level of barb gets you free feats for the rest of the campaign?
Or do you get this only when you have X number of martial levels?
Why free feats at the same levels as regular feats? Seems to make those levels extra bouncy. Wouldn't it work better to spread them out? Perhaps tie them to marital class levels directly?

It was specifically if you go into their levels.
And they get the feats only at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th(which can be exchanged for a epic boon.) At their class levels(was thinking of a martial multiclass-styled thing though not sure).
I also dont think there is any level i listed here where they also get a level from ASI on top of the feat.

 

[FallenRX]

Were those my words? That’s a curious interpretation of them. It’s almost like you are intentionally misrepresenting them to score points rather than having a good faith discussion.

If you want to actually discuss my position, which is doubtful, it’s that:

1.I think martial classes are currently competitive with spell using classes. Specifically, I would put monks at tier D/C, rogues at tier C/B, and fighter/barbarian at tier A/S.

2. This is supported by what I witness as an experienced DM.

3. This is supported by most tier rankings made by others, including those with a large number of respondents.

4. Therefore, giving that entire category a bunch of free feats would be unbalancing and unfair. You could make a case for monks and, to a lesser degree, rogues, but those are class specific issues that could be addressed in other ways. Actually, extra feats is not a bad idea for rogues, but monks have fundamental design flaws.

So if you must TLDR my position, it’s that I have seen no evidence to support the contention that martials as a broad category are struggling and so I would not want such a blanket solution at my table. YVMV.

If you think it is poor logic to expect evidence for a premise, then I don’t know what tell you. We disagree about logic.

I suspect that you are not actually looking for nuanced discussion, though. In that case, please carry on with your straw man attack.

Thats a interesting observation, but(Without feats espeically) in my experience and mathmatically a lot of martials espeically at the higher level of the game, tend to fall behind a lot.
Between the power of some conjure spells(which DM's are pretty lenient with) which can do much more damage, spells that just can circumvent entire fights, and just the raw out-of-combat utility over most other classes. On top of having outright better defenses due to amazing defensive spells such as, shield, absorb elements, and such.

I have not found martials keeping up, to be the case in most regards.
The only way that happens is if they get a feat(even then its shaky), and that is literally taxing them their asis to even be kinda competitive in any regard. I dont feel they should be taxed for what they need to keep up.
And as someone who tested the math with this, the power of a martials after like the two power feats(CBE/SS or PAM/GWM), really doesnt get much higher, and not much better than what they can actually already kinda do espeically with VHuman/CL.

This also offers more options of out of combat options as well, which feat have plenty, from access to spells(some of the best utility spells are level 1) with ritual caster, Healer, inspiring leader, Skilled, Lucky. and since they are no longer taxed for just getting the feats they need to make them meaningful, they can use that to actually get other Feats like Observant, chef, actor, stuff that is a ton of fun and flavor.

It also opens up a actual design space in the game for martially focused feats, and builds, from feat chains that can work/focus on concept, to useful weapon specialization stuff, for martials even floating archetype ideas in there.(which they are experimenting with stuff like the Cartomancer feat).

I feel this is giving martials some actual real choice and variety here, that is already just in the game, you do not need to make a whole new subsystem to make it work, its something that many people feel they have needed for awhile, and this isnt just my anecdotal experiences but a general consensus in the 5e player community as a whole, on a low or high level, and one of the key hopes people have for one dnd is addressing this.(One of the biggest points people want).

So if we are talking about data, mathematically, from anecdotal experiences, and just general overall vibe on the topic matter, i feel genuinely that the opposite is the truth. Now is it as bad as some people say it is? No, i can agree to that, but it definitely is a issue.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The issue that I see in the current version is that feats don't tend to scale well, particularly the utility feats, which are the ones most important to try to make up the difference between martials and casters.
The Skilled or Prodigy feats, which can counter the general tendency for casters to be better at skills than Fighters or Barbarians , for example, can be useful. However in general, nothing that they can do can compete with the ability to teleport across continents, or create useful objects out of thin air.

OneD&D sounds like it might have tiered feat trees, which should help counter this issue, but for the moment, giving martials extra feats is going to get them a little more breadth, but not do a whole lot in terms of raw power at the high end.

 

[FallenRX]

The issue that I see in the current version is that feats don't tend to scale well, particularly the utility feats, which are the ones most important to try to make up the difference between martials and casters.
The Skilled or Prodigy feats, which can counter the general tendency for casters to be better at skills than Fighters or Barbarians , for example, can be useful. However in general, nothing that they can do can compete with the ability to teleport across continents, or create useful objects out of thin air.

OneD&D sounds like it might have tiered feat trees, which should help counter this issue, but for the moment, giving martials extra feats is going to get them a little more breadth, but not do a whole lot in terms of raw power at the high end.

I agree.
I think the me adding the bit about trading out 17th level for a epic boon helps a bit, but its not quite good.
Helps though.

In the end the goal isnt to give them anything insane like teleporting across worlds or planes(Though Epic boons help with this).
Its more just giving them power to at least be good at what they should be good at.