D&D 5E Martials should just get free feats

[FallenRX]

Ive been experimenting with a house rule for my 5e game where i give martials a free feat that doesnt increase ASIs at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th level(17th level has an option to trade out the feat for an Epic Boon).

And i have been shocked at how much it helps the design of the game and gives martials the power and versatility to be competitive with casters, without too much loss to the balance, it genuinely gives martial classes tons of unique builds, options, and concepts, in a unique way that other classes can't quite imitate, and makes them super customizable in making your own character be kinda the martial hero you want them to be.

And i think i prefer this design to trying make martials battle masters or just tying them to some weird resource to imitate spellcasters.

Because it actually

1. Is super backward compatible with 5e, all of those feats you brought and have from hundreds of books are now clear support for martial classes(especially cool martially aligned stuff), without stepping on the toes of an existing idea
2. Is in line with One DnD making feats a core part of progression, and adding scaling to their power, making them tied to levels, making them more impactful as a game.
3. It makes Martials feel like martial heroes that just DO, not tied to any one unified ridiculous resource, but they are just GOOD at something, its build into them, the core feature without much limits, gives them unique options and actions in a meaningful way. And draw a good line in design, that is improvable.
4. It makes the martials and ways to support them forward with feats and customization incredibly good, in a way that is unique to them.

I think it is a much simpler more backwards compatible, and more fun way to give martials the variety we want, and solves one of the biggest issues that 5e has, which was by making feats optional in 5e, they removed the big route that Martials had in 3.5e to customize and do a lot of cool builds and stuff, its why some people still like playing martials more in busted old 3.5e/pf1e than 5e, because you can at least customize, get cool special attacks and over the top moves, that have some light scaling, than the otherwise very little here. They need feats to keep up, why not make this the design then?

Make feats a core part of martial progression with bonus feats, feats benefits them more than casters, anyway, and it allows us to customize martials(you can even make a feat chain that gives them battle master maneuvers like we all want), that works clearly with a system already in the game, that we know and love.

Feats are a core part of One DnD now, What is the excuse? Complexity can be handled the same way they handle feats in One DnD, just presenting a default option, with picking a feat from a wider pool an alternative. I see no reason why this isnt the way forward.

TLDR; 3.5e was right, 5e fixed the biggest issues with 3.5e feats, they should just be a core part of the martial progression, it is easily backwards compatible, easy to streamline with default options like One DnD is doing with them, was soft a direction they were going in 5e looking at fighter/rogue ASIs, and it can easily be adjusted to accommodate what everyone wants for martials(like making a maneuver feat chain, and more).
What are your thoughts on this, agree, or disagree, what do you think would be better?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Somewhere around here I proposed a fighter subclass that was basically the same thing: a non-ASI feat for each subclass feature.

So, yes, I approve.

 

[Clint_L]

I think martial classes are already competitive with casters. Most of the tier rankings I see, including ones with large numbers of responses, suggest the same. They are also heavily played. So for my campaigns, this would be unbalancing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What do you count as a martial?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think martial classes are already competitive with casters. Most of the tier rankings I see, including ones with large numbers of responses, suggest the same. They are also heavily played. So for my campaigns, this would be unbalancing.

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

 

[James Gasik]

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

But quite common in these sorts of discussions.

 

[FallenRX]

What do you count as a martial?

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

 

[Tonguez]

I approve

Ive thought of spells as Feats of Magic since 3.5 and thus agree that Martials should be given more Feats of Prowess to use at will too

and yeah Martials in 3.5 was way cooler than 5e

 

[Clint_L]

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

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.

 

[DarkCrisis]

We can call it “3rd edition”