Why does Rogue and Fighter get extra ASI's?

[Spacehamster]

So both those classes are among the least MAD classes yet they get more ASI's, never made sense to me, give that to paladin and monk and give fig and rogue some juicy ability instead would make more sense to me. :)

[Gastronomie]

Because the "Fighter"'s archetypes include Polearm Master/Sentinel Trololol builds and Sharpshooter Trololol builds?

Also because Fighters were probably designed to be the best class for newbies, and giving them too complex abilities could be troubling for them.

[Blue Lantern]

So both those classes are among the least MAD classes yet they get more ASI's, never made sense to me, give that to paladin and monk and give fig and rogue some juicy ability instead would make more sense to me. :)

Because they get less goodies than the other classes, besides their specific niche (fighting or sneak attack/expertise) they have very little tools, so by getting extra feats or higher ability scores they can stand up better with the rest of the other classes. Paladin and Monk get less stats but more goodies, is a trade-off.

What you propose is basically to remove the mechanical distinction between those classes.

[Spacehamster]

Because they get less goodies than the other classes, besides their specific niche (fighting or sneak attack/expertise) they have very little tools, so by getting extra feats or higher ability scores they can stand up better with the rest of the other classes. Paladin and Monk get less stats but more goodies, is a trade-off.

What you propose is basically to remove the mechanical distinction between those classes.

Not really, it only does that if you give the fig and rogue too similar perks in place of the bonus ASI's.

I have nothing against them as they are just seeing the trouble for groups that plays without feats, pretty much means the fighter gets to bump stats that he does not need as his shiny perk at level 6 and 14 well more like his late game ASIs is wasted and same for the rogue to a lesser extent. :)

[Logosloki]

ASIs do allow rogues and fighters to either pick up more feats (if they are playing with feats) or to accentuate strengths/shore up weaknesses. a little bit through raw attribute addition.

The problem I have though is that there is no martial equivalent to the spell pool, which leads to the developers filling the gaps with x uses or minor upgrades. Magical classes have plenty of - levels but those levels correspond to a new level of spells. ASIs then are a filler, whose value shifts based on the presence or absence of feats. No feats is...ok, not bad but nothing to write home about. Feats can bring some interesting mechanics to the fore but feats have the issue of being 1) optional, 2) rather small on the number of feats and 3) vary in quality too much. Some feats are at the point where people think they are over-tuned (PAM/Sentinel combo, sharpshooter on its own), whilst others are really there as filler (here's looking at you "weapon master").

[hymer]

Maybe it's because the rogue and the fighter are supposed to be particularly good at something everyone can do a bit of anyway: skills and fighting with weapons, respectively. Everyone also has access to ability scores and feats. Rogues and fighters than also get a leg up here.

From an outside perspecive, fighter's extra ASIs probably come from being the feat class, at the advent of feats to D&D.

[Daishain]

They're built to get more feats than other classes, that's why.

Which makes the odd decision to make feats a "variant rule" even more problematic.

[Spacehamster]

They're built to get more feats than other classes, that's why.

Which makes the odd decision to make feats a "variant rule" even more problematic.

Yeah that's mainly my point, they get pretty shafted if you run a featless game. :)

[Gastronomie]

Yeah that's mainly my point, they get pretty shafted if you run a featless game. :)I actually have never seen a single featless game, do those sorts of things even exist?

[Spacehamster]

I actually have never seen a single featless game, do those sorts of things even exist?

I actually asked that in another post and yep a few ppl that do that at least.

[R.Shackleford]

ASIs do allow rogues and fighters to either pick up more feats (if they are playing with feats) or to accentuate strengths/shore up weaknesses. a little bit through raw attribute addition.

The problem I have though is that there is no martial equivalent to the spell pool, which leads to the developers filling the gaps with x uses or minor upgrades. Magical classes have plenty of - levels but those levels correspond to a new level of spells. ASIs then are a filler, whose value shifts based on the presence or absence of feats. No feats is...ok, not bad but nothing to write home about. Feats can bring some interesting mechanics to the fore but feats have the issue of being 1) optional, 2) rather small on the number of feats and 3) vary in quality too much. Some feats are at the point where people think they are over-tuned (PAM/Sentinel combo, sharpshooter on its own), whilst others are really there as filler (here's looking at you "weapon master").

I'm working on making feats a martial equivalent of spells in my 5e.e5 set up. Caster a don't have enough time to focus on feats due to their practice with spell casting.

Partial Martials/Partial Casters will be a thing where you gain spells and a feat or feats and a spell or two but should be balanced... Eventually.

I don't think casters should get feats, ASI sure, but they just have time to learn a feat. Make Warcaster and Elemental feat into a subclass feature or whatever.


Edit

Equivilent as in getting cool things, not just making feats = spells.

[Tanarii]

Because they are flexible generalists. One of whom has a focus on weapons and armor and multiple attacks, and the other on skills and precise strikes.


I actually have never seen a single featless game, do those sorts of things even exist?
Yes. My default on-going campaign rule is no Feats and no Multiclassing. Players know it before they sign up for one of the games. When I feel players are getting tired of that, and no other DMs are offering alternatives, I'll offer a start at higher level, do what you want, short adventure arc game. But since players can find do what you want MC/Feat games a dime a dozen, I don't usually have trouble filling up all my games.

It probably makes a difference that I'm the only person offering an old fashioned high fatality dungeon-crawl sandbox that's an on-going integrated campaign, with game sessions available across multiple stores, and structure my sessions to end with characters in a safe spot to allow a walk-in policy. I modeled my game on the original game meaning of 'campaign'. That attracts in spite of restricting character options.

[PoeticDwarf]

So both those classes are among the least MAD classes yet they get more ASI's, never made sense to me, give that to paladin and monk and give fig and rogue some juicy ability instead would make more sense to me. :)

Fighter's have to improve their combat superiority in another way than extra attacks, and it's classic for D&D to give "bonus feats" to a fighter.

The Rogue is a skillmonkey, and skillmonkeys should get a feat extra (as skilled)

That monks are MAD is part of the monk class, removing it will make them feel less monk

A featless game (no variant rules, yeah they exsist) uses pointbuy 90% of the time. So the Fighter will have at level 6 a max stat and way higher HP on most levels.

Rogues are skillmonkeys and like to have either int or cha high too.

[Naanomi]

Fighters especially feel the effects of no feat games. Rogues can use a lot of stats for skills, but once a fighter maxes Str and Con you get two more ASIs of 'just +1 save and maybe initiative '. I guess they have more options for race if they are ok with a slightly weaker start

[hymer]

Fighters especially feel the effects of no feat games. Rogues can use a lot of stats for skills, but once a fighter maxes Str and Con you get two more ASIs of 'just +1 save and maybe initiative '. I guess they have more options for race if they are ok with a slightly weaker start

I agree. Yet, to be fair: Suppose you start out with something like 16 str or dex and 14 con. That's five ASIs before you're done with the good stuff, so it's not until 16 you get a severely reduced ASI. For a total of two over your whole career.
So a feat-less game hits really hard on fighters when it's also no multiclass, and you're playing at high levels.
Also, I certainly hope you won't be surprised to find at level 4 that you're playing a no-feats game. That information should have been available before character creation.

[Tanarii]

Rogues can use a lot of stats for skills, but once a fighter maxes Str and Con you get two more ASIs of 'just +1 save and maybe initiative '.
Fighters need stats for skills too.

[Blue Lantern]

Fighters need stats for skills too.

In fact considering 2 less proficiency and expertise, he needs it more than the rogue.
And no mistake, a +1 to a check has more value in 5e than in previous editions.

[R.Shackleford]

In fact considering 2 less proficiency and expertise, he needs it more than the rogue.
And no mistake, a +1 to a check has more value in 5e than in previous editions.

I don't think it really does have more value.

I think it only has more value IF the DM makes it worth more.

If the DM is setting weird DCs and ACs for stuff then yeah. But with the way the skill system works... Those +1s can be anywhere from worthless to a godsend.

[Tanarii]

I don't think it really does have more value.

I think it only has more value IF the DM makes it worth more.

If the DM is setting weird DCs and ACs for stuff then yeah. But with the way the skill system works... Those +1s can be anywhere from worthless to a godsend.
If he's setting "weird DCs" (ie outside of DC 10-20) then it could be less useful, not more. Because there's a strong possibility you can't make the check at all.

Otherwise each ASI is +5% on every attribute-related check you make. I don't know about you, but I generally, and my players in my games definitely, make FAR more attribute checks than combat rolls in the average session. And that's with paying careful attention to only rolling dice for things that have a meaningful chance of failure. +1 to an attribute isn't nothing. Except maybe in an AL hack-and-slash style adventure. Which aren't all of them.

(Edit: Although I'll grant that any one given stat's total checks in a session don't ever out-weigh total attack rolls.)

[Blue Lantern]

I don't think it really does have more value.

I think it only has more value IF the DM makes it worth more.

If the DM is setting weird DCs and ACs for stuff then yeah. But with the way the skill system works... Those +1s can be anywhere from worthless to a godsend.

I would say it is pretty factual that a +1 in a range of 5-30 is more valuable than in the range of 5-60 or more.
That the DM can make everything worthless or worthwhile at will is a different matter and one that is not easily discussed, being different from person to person.

[Saggo]

Yeah that's mainly my point, they get pretty shafted if you run a featless game. :)

You don't have to be MAD to benefit from 20 in 3 different stats. Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters could max Str/Dex, Con, and Int. Str-based fighters could get Str, Dex, and Con, to shore up the lack of Dex Save proficiency. Rogue can max Str for shove/grapple. Either one could max Cha to be the party face.

If no one has feats, having 2-3 (maybe 4 if you rolled for stats) 20s will be a lot more noticeable.

[Submortimer]

Yes. My default on-going campaign rule is no Feats and no Multiclassing. Players know it before they sign up for one of the games. When I feel players are getting tired of that, and no other DMs are offering alternatives, I'll offer a start at higher level, do what you want, short adventure arc game. But since players can find do what you want MC/Feat games a dime a dozen, I don't usually have trouble filling up all my games.


You know, in a game like that, I think I'd still let Fighters (and only fighters) take feats, if for no other reason than its one of the few ways fighters have to get more interesting things to do. You could even restrict it further, and limit Feats only to Champions, where it then becomes the "special thing" champions get.

[Tanarii]

You know, in a game like that, I think I'd still let Fighters (and only fighters) take feats, if for no other reason than its one of the few ways fighters have to get more interesting things to do. You could even restrict it further, and limit Feats only to Champions, where it then becomes the "special thing" champions get.I'll be honest, I've considered it, at least for the bonus level ASIs (so 6/14 for Fighters & 10 for Rogues). I don't see Champion / Battlemaster Fighters very much as PCs, mostly as NPCs. OTOH there's no way I'd allow GWF, PAM or Sharpshooter in that campaign as written, especially if Feats were a Fighter only thing. I'd never hear the end of it from Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger (archer) players. :smallwink:

[Vogonjeltz]

So both those classes are among the least MAD classes yet they get more ASI's, never made sense to me, give that to paladin and monk and give fig and rogue some juicy ability instead would make more sense to me. :)

The ASIs are alternatives to other features at that same point in other class progressions.

So I suppose the Paladin could hypothetically give up that 2nd level spell slot and their Aura of Protection in favor of an ASI at 6th level.
And the Monk could give up that point of ki, the ki-powered strikes, and their 6th level subclass feature.

The draw of the Fighter is the ASI, so I don't see a point to removing that flexibility.

[Logosloki]

I'm working on making feats a martial equivalent of spells in my 5e.e5 set up. Caster a don't have enough time to focus on feats due to their practice with spell casting.

Partial Martials/Partial Casters will be a thing where you gain spells and a feat or feats and a spell or two but should be balanced... Eventually.

I don't think casters should get feats, ASI sure, but they just have time to learn a feat. Make Warcaster and Elemental feat into a subclass feature or whatever.


Edit

Equivilent as in getting cool things, not just making feats = spells.

There is already the perfect base for this system too...on the warlock.

[Arkhios]

I'm going to second that fighters and rogues are the most versatile classes by default (and most likely the most numerous of any classes in any worlds, be they PC's or NPC's). There is no compulsory path for either of them. This fact applies to all classes, to be honest, but it accentuates with the two especially.

There's also the odd chance that sometimes people like to think - and play - out of the box. One could easily play a boastful rogue that took a proficiency in Medium Armor, and eventually took Medium Armor Mastery. Why? Because they can, and they won't be any less effective. To sneak attack, for example, you only need to be using a finesse or ranged weapon. That's it. If you can use Strength with either weapon types, you just might. You don't need to use Dexterity with those weapons, unless it's the only option.
Think of a Half-orc rogue, for example. It's true, Half-orcs have higher strength than usual and have no racial perks that would benefit rogue, but that doesn't mean you can't be a rogue. Or that you shouldn't be.

Likewise, a fighter (battle master, for example) might be of military background. Maybe an officer even, leading his or her own squad. Generally the leadership values a high charisma score (as seen with Inspiring Leader feat). Now, while Charisma isn't by any means a compulsory stat for a fighter, his or her background would support having a high charisma nevertheless. Even if the game didn't use feats a charismatic leader is more likely to be followed than a brutish oaf.
Not to mention there are skills that will benefit from high Charisma, even if you are a fighter. Intimidation comes to mind, especially.

[SharkForce]

I'm going to second that fighters and rogues are the most versatile classes by default (and most likely the most numerous of any classes in any worlds, be they PC's or NPC's). There is no compulsory path for either of them. This fact applies to all classes, to be honest, but it accentuates with the two especially.

There's also the odd chance that sometimes people like to think - and play - out of the box. One could easily play a boastful rogue that took a proficiency in Medium Armor, and eventually took Medium Armor Mastery. Why? Because they can, and they won't be any less effective. To sneak attack, for example, you only need to be using a finesse or ranged weapon. That's it. If you can use Strength with either weapon types, you just might. You don't need to use Dexterity with those weapons, unless it's the only option.
Think of a Half-orc rogue, for example. It's true, Half-orcs have higher strength than usual and have no racial perks that would benefit rogue, but that doesn't mean you can't be a rogue. Or that you shouldn't be.

Likewise, a fighter (battle master, for example) might be of military background. Maybe an officer even, leading his or her own squad. Generally the leadership values a high charisma score (as seen with Inspiring Leader feat). Now, while Charisma isn't by any means a compulsory stat for a fighter, his or her background would support having a high charisma nevertheless. Even if the game didn't use feats a charismatic leader is more likely to be followed than a brutish oaf.
Not to mention there are skills that will benefit from high Charisma, even if you are a fighter. Intimidation comes to mind, especially.

you can think or play outside the box with any class. being a fighter or rogue doesn't somehow unlock the box and let you out.

and the strength-based armour rogue isn't that unique. plenty of people have thought of it here (though most prefer to use multiclassing to get some extra goodies along the way).

[Arkhios]

you can think or play outside the box with any class. being a fighter or rogue doesn't somehow unlock the box and let you out.

and the strength-based armour rogue isn't that unique. plenty of people have thought of it here (though most prefer to use multiclassing to get some extra goodies along the way).

I feel like you missed the point.
Yes, you can think/play outside the box with any class.
Yes, those examples are not unique. That kind of proves the point though.

Fighter and Rogue increased versatility comes via access to extra ASI's. More abilities to use or spend for feats means more options to how the character plays out.

[SharkForce]

practically speaking, the fighter's "more feats" usually boils down to "spending your extra ASIs on combat feats".

but sure.

[Douche]

Yeah that's mainly my point, they get pretty shafted if you run a featless game. :)

Then don't play a fighter or rogue.

We answered the original question. They get more ASIs so they can grab a few extra feats, since those classes are built for using them.

If you play in a featless game then your DM is probably a boring douche anyway. Tell him you'd rather play calculator quest with his boring +1's

[MagusJeran]

So both those classes are among the least MAD classes yet they get more ASI's, never made sense to me, give that to paladin and monk and give fig and rogue some juicy ability instead would make more sense to me. :)

Because fighters need to be more skilled in combat, and the way 5E increases your effectiveness in combat is with your str or Dex bonus to hit. This is functionally similar to why fighters had a better Thac0 in 2e.

For Rogues, it reflects their need for skills based on their ASIs and replaces the 2E % tables for climbing walls, picking pockets, etc.

[Specter]

Guess I'm late to this party, but, anyway...

They get more ASI's for feats, because these are classes that require customization. A fighter can use a bow or a halberd, wear heavy armor or light, etcetc., and thus some feats will be necessary for this. A rogue, for instance, can be an Actor or a Dungeon Delver, something that's up to the player and not to the class.

[2D8HP]

Also because Fighters were probably designed to be the best class for newbies, and giving them too complex abilities could be troubling for them.
As sort of a "newbie" (over ten years RPG'ing, but then a 20 year gap until starting again with 5e), I must say, you nailed it!

[Submortimer]

I'll be honest, I've considered it, at least for the bonus level ASIs (so 6/14 for Fighters & 10 for Rogues). I don't see Champion / Battlemaster Fighters very much as PCs, mostly as NPCs. OTOH there's no way I'd allow GWF, PAM or Sharpshooter in that campaign as written, especially if Feats were a Fighter only thing. I'd never hear the end of it from Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger (archer) players. :smallwink:

Ah, see, but that's the point: each of those classes already has a way to rapidly boost their damage without ANY drawback (hunters mark, colossus strike, smite and improved smite, flame arrows, rage damage etc.). The fighter has none of those, at least, ones that are actually reliable. Bringing it back to SPECIFICALLY Champs only would be a fantastic way to offset the potential issues , since they (unlike the Battlemaster or the EK) have a means of offsetting the rather large -5 penalty for GWM.

In any case, that's just my two coppers. I've never had an issue with those feats at my tables, mostly because I'll secretly add on like 100 HP to the monster if I think they're gonna just steamroll the encounter.

[Sigreid]

Because while the other classes are perfecting their esoteric abilities, the level 20 fighter or rogue has worked hard to become man perfected.

[2D8HP]

Because while the other classes are perfecting their esoteric abilities, the level 20 fighter or rogue has worked hard to become man perfected.
Oh man that's good!
TAKE THAT WIZARDS! (said by my fighter4/rogue1 just before being polymorthed into a toad)!:smallwink:

[Gtdead]

I'm not sure why rogue gets an extra ASI, but Fighter in 3.5 got more than other classes. I guess they went with that, even if in it's current state, there are only 2 feats that make any difference in combat.

[Arkhios]

I'm not sure why rogue gets an extra ASI, but Fighter in 3.5 got more than other classes. I guess they went with that, even if in it's current state, there are only 2 feats that make any difference in combat.

In 3.X, rogues got a feature: "Special Ability" at level 10, 13, 16, and 19. I believe this is why they get an extra ASI. I'm not aware if rogues had a similar feature in earlier editions too, though.
(These Special Abilities were chosen from a list: Crippling Strike, Defensive Roll, Improved Evasion, Opportunist, Skill Mastery, Slippery Mind, and a Feat)


Because while the other classes are perfecting their esoteric abilities, the level 20 fighter or rogue has worked hard to become man perfected.
Then there's this very good argument. Because it's true. Fighters and rogues depend on their own abilities more than classes that lean more to magic or semi-magical abilities. (In case someone was wondering, why they have archetypes such as Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster? Well, they used to be prestige classes into which people had to be a rogue or a fighter to qualify for in the first place. It just makes common sense.)

[Gort]

So both those classes are among the least MAD classes yet they get more ASI's, never made sense to me, give that to paladin and monk and give fig and rogue some juicy ability instead would make more sense to me. :)

To make up for a lack of other abilities.

Fighters traditionally got more feats

Personally I don't think they needed it. It should be the same for all classes.

[NewDM]

practically speaking, the fighter's "more feats" usually boils down to "spending your extra ASIs on combat feats".

but sure.

I agree. I hate it when they make me choose between combat and role playing. I want to be good at both.

[NewDM]

Also because Fighters were probably designed to be the best class for newbies, and giving them too complex abilities could be troubling for them.

Yeah, they could have made a wizard that only got magic missile and been even simpler and thrown spell slots into the sub-class.

Wizard

Magic Bolt
When you choose this class at 1st level you hurl a bolt of magical energy at foes. It automatically hits and deals 1d6+1 damage.

Improved Bolt
At 5th level you gain another magical bolt. You can target the same creature or another creature with the bolt. You gain another bolt at 11th and 20th levels.

Empowered Bolt
At 9th level your bolts deal 1d8+1 damage. At 13th level your bolt deals 1d10+1 damage. At 17th level your bolt deals 1d12+1 damage.

Elemental Bolt
At 17th level choose a damage type from the following Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder. You can choose for your bolt to deal that damage type when you attack with it.

Bolt Master
Each time you deal maximum damage with a bolt you may fire another bolt as a bonus action.

Oh look an even simpler class and this one is magical.

[2D8HP]

Yeah, they could have made a wizard that only got magic missile and been even simpler and thrown spell slots into the sub-class.

Wizard

Magic Bolt
When you choose this class at 1st level you hurl a bolt of magical energy at foes. It automatically hits and deals 1d6+1 damage.

Improved Bolt
At 5th level you gain another magical bolt. You can target the same creature or another creature with the bolt. You gain another bolt at 11th and 20th levels.

Empowered Bolt
At 9th level your bolts deal 1d8+1 damage. At 13th level your bolt deals 1d10+1 damage. At 17th level your bolt deals 1d12+1 damage.

Elemental Bolt
At 17th level choose a damage type from the following Acid, Cold, Fire, Lightning, or Thunder. You can choose for your bolt to deal that damage type when you attack with it.

Bolt Master
Each time you deal maximum damage with a bolt you may fire another bolt as a bonus action.

Oh look an even simpler class and this one is magical.

O. K. I suspect that you may be joking:smallbiggrin: but I actually think it could work!

[SharkForce]

O. K. I suspect that you may be joking:smallbiggrin: but I actually think it could work!

that's kinda the point.

[Tanarii]

I agree. I hate it when they make me choose between combat and role playing. I want to be good at both.
I believe you mean combat and non-combat.

Because combat is Roleplaying. So is non-combat. You're making in-character decisions in both situations.

[NewDM]

O. K. I suspect that you may be joking:smallbiggrin: but I actually think it could work!

Yep. I was being sarcastic, but the numbers line up and it would be just as effective as a Champion Fighter.


I believe you mean combat and non-combat.

Because combat is Roleplaying. So is non-combat. You're making in-character decisions in both situations.

Yes, that's what I mean.

They should have learned that lesson from the last two editions. You don't give people options that include both combat and non-combat.

They should have specified "take a combat feat at levels X, Y, and X and take a non-combat feat at levels A, B, and C", but they chose to make people decide between taking a feat for a very detailed part of the game and a very non-detailed part of the game.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, that's what I mean.

They should have learned that lesson from the last two editions. You don't give people options that include both combat and non-combat.

They should have specified "take a combat feat at levels X, Y, and X and take a non-combat feat at levels A, B, and C", but they chose to make people decide between taking a feat for a very detailed part of the game and a very non-detailed part of the game.

I am not sure that is a lesson to learn. Sure you are fighting option paralysis but that does not mean the choice needs to or should be artificially restricted further for everyone.

However for your benefit why not try: W, A, X, Y, B, Z? 3:1 ratio for norms, 3:2 ratio for Rogues, and 4:2 ratio for Fighters.

[NewDM]

I am not sure that is a lesson to learn. Sure you are fighting option paralysis but that does not mean the choice needs to or should be artificially restricted further for everyone.

However for your benefit why not try: W, A, X, Y, B, Z? 3:1 ratio for norms, 3:2 ratio for Rogues, and 4:2 ratio for Fighters.

Well there could be a 'variant' rule that lets players pick whatever they want, but its less about paralysis and more about not giving up one for the other. If I know the game will have at least 1/3 combat, then I will definitely pick the combat feat every time for the simple fact that combat is more mechanically defined.

If I grab a feat like 'always remember what I heard', then that's redundant because in general I have a really good memory and all my characters have high Int scores. If I choose Linguist, it is dependent on the DM some DMs have lots of different languages, others everything that can speak talks in common and doesn't need to translate.

If it were grab combat feats at X levels, and grab non-combat feats at Y levels, then I would grab either Linguist or some other rp feat. Its about the only way I'm going to get one.

[OldTrees1]

Well there could be a 'variant' rule that lets players pick whatever they want, but its less about paralysis and more about not giving up one for the other. If I know the game will have at least 1/3 combat, then I will definitely pick the combat feat every time for the simple fact that combat is more mechanically defined.

If I grab a feat like 'always remember what I heard', then that's redundant because in general I have a really good memory and all my characters have high Int scores. If I choose Linguist, it is dependent on the DM some DMs have lots of different languages, others everything that can speak talks in common and doesn't need to translate.

If it were grab combat feats at X levels, and grab non-combat feats at Y levels, then I would grab either Linguist or some other rp feat. Its about the only way I'm going to get one.

That is no different from any of the other "1 choice, multiple options" situations. All of them can be contextualized as "giving up one for the other" that is the nature of the Opportunity Cost. Your reaction to the existence of this particular Opportunity Cost is a personal reaction and is nowhere near universally felt to the degree that you truly do feel it (You do truly feel the feeling you are communicating you feel. That is real.). As such making the default be highly restrictive is doing the player base a disservice when a vastly more elegant solution is merely to have the choice be artificially more restrictive for you to suit your preference to not be "giving up one for the other".

So leave the feats free and opt to personally use a player enforced variant more restrictive rule like the WAXYBZ I mentioned.

[Arkhios]

"spending your extra ASIs on combat feats".

I agree. I hate it when they make me choose between combat and role playing. I want to be good at both.

Yeah, sure... if you choose to ignore the non-combat feats. There are plenty of those as well: Actor, Athlete, Dungeon Delver, Keen Mind, Linguist, Lucky, Observant, Ritual Caster, Skilled

Quick glance and I'd say about half of the feats as a whole have very little to do with only combat.

Also, I really don't understand why make the rules overly complicated by restricting this or that for a select few, and make variant rule which is, technically, what we already have for fighters and rogues as default: You get extra ASI's. Nowhere does it say "you must pick combat feats".

If you prefer complicated and fine-detailed rules, don't play 5th edition. Clearly 3.5/Pathfinder is more suitable for your needs.

[NewDM]

Yeah, sure... if you choose to ignore the non-combat feats. There are plenty of those as well: Actor, Athlete, Dungeon Delver, Keen Mind, Linguist, Lucky, Observant, Ritual Caster, Skilled

Quick glance and I'd say about half of the feats as a whole have very little to do with only combat.

Also, I really don't understand why make the rules overly complicated by restricting this or that for a select few, and make variant rule which is, technically, what we already have for fighters and rogues as default: You get extra ASI's. Nowhere does it say "you must pick combat feats".

If you prefer complicated and fine-detailed rules, don't play 5th edition. Clearly 3.5/Pathfinder is more suitable for your needs.

It isn't that 'you must pick combat feats'. Its that if you pick a combat feat you absolutely know how it works and how it will affect your character. If you pick a non-combat feat its up in the air as to whether it will affect the game at all and some of the feats are nigh on useless.

For instance the one that lets you remember everything you have ever seen. I do that already and my characters have high enough intelligence that its believable in the game too. If you pick Linguist and your DM never has other languages in the game because everyone speaks common, then that was a wasted feat. Even if a feat is useful out of combat it might not be as useful as a combat feat because combat feats get to let you tell the DM what you are capable of, whereas a noncombat feat you have to see if the DM even cares that it has an effect.

For that simple reason most players are going to pick combat feats.

[Regitnui]

For instance the one that lets you remember everything you have ever seen. I do that already and my characters have high enough intelligence that its believable in the game too. If you pick Linguist and your DM never has other languages in the game because everyone speaks common, then that was a wasted feat. Even if a feat is useful out of combat it might not be as useful as a combat feat because combat feats get to let you tell the DM what you are capable of, whereas a noncombat feat you have to see if the DM even cares that it has an effect.

Surely then you ask the DM if the feat is appropriate? Personally, I like having multiple languages and accents existing in the world, so taking linguist allows you to bypass a lot of hand waving and pantomiming when you're talking to an elf warlord when none of you are elves. In my games, linguist is a good feat. If your DM doesn't use languages, then surely you'd know this or you can ask him and take a different noncombat feat.

[Zalabim]

It isn't that 'you must pick combat feats'. Its that if you pick a combat feat you absolutely know how it works and how it will affect your character. If you pick a non-combat feat its up in the air as to whether it will affect the game at all and some of the feats are nigh on useless.

For instance the one that lets you remember everything you have ever seen. I do that already and my characters have high enough intelligence that its believable in the game too. If you pick Linguist and your DM never has other languages in the game because everyone speaks common, then that was a wasted feat. Even if a feat is useful out of combat it might not be as useful as a combat feat because combat feats get to let you tell the DM what you are capable of, whereas a noncombat feat you have to see if the DM even cares that it has an effect.

For that simple reason most players are going to pick combat feats.

And that's why wizards are always skipping Suggestion to learn Web. Casters pick between combat and non-combat, well-defined and poorly-defined, spells all the time.

[Regitnui]

And that's why wizards are always skipping Suggestion to learn Web. Casters pick between combat and non-combat, well-defined and poorly-defined, spells all the time.

Fighters do get noncombat options, but they're just that; options. A wizard doesn't have to choose noncombat spells, and a fighter doesn't have to choose an noncombat background or noncombat feats. That isn't a strike against the class and mechanics, it's a strike against the player and their choices.

[NewDM]

Fighters do get noncombat options, but they're just that; options. A wizard doesn't have to choose noncombat spells, and a fighter doesn't have to choose an noncombat background or noncombat feats. That isn't a strike against the class and mechanics, it's a strike against the player and their choices.

Uh no. All classes get backgrounds and access to the same non-combat feats. The fighter only pulls ahead with feats near the end of the game that from going by what people say on these boards, never gets reached.

So:
Fighter - Feats, Background, Skills, Class Option(Archetype) out of combat feature, ??? (if past level 16 they get 2 more feats than everyone else).
Other Classes - Feats, Background, Skills, Class Option(Archetype) out of combat feature, Class feature for out of combat, (possibly out of combat spells).

Guess who's missing something for the first 16 levels?

They get feats to try to make up for not having out of combat options (except the rogue, it is meant to show how broad of a diversity of skills they have). Unfortunately you don't see a difference until level 16.

[Coffee_Dragon]

It isn't that 'you must pick combat feats'. Its that if you pick a combat feat you absolutely know how it works and how it will affect your character. If you pick a non-combat feat its up in the air as to whether it will affect the game at all and some of the feats are nigh on useless.

I've been pretty much conditioned to do this by CRPGs and action RPGs. Specifically, to go for the flat, non-situational, always-on, once-and-done, fire-and-forget bonuses almost exclusively to combat stats because that's usually the domain where you can't easily substitute player smarts, virtual time, or other game currencies for raw effectiveness.

A feat that gives me +3 to damage for fighting goblins outdoors if I remember to click the flashing blue icon to accept -12.5% to hit? No thank you, give me the one that gives me +1 to damage against everything all the time.

Extra general action points in combat? Gimme. Flat bonus to damage? Gimme. Flat bonus to crit chance? Gimme gimme gimme. Flat bonus to hit? Depends on whether I can use tactics, equipment or other resources to max out my chance to hit anyway. +30% damage resistance to poison with a side flavour or being raised by radscorpions or 5% damage resistance to everything? The latter, every time. (It's not like they'll put in twenty consecutive levels of nothing but poison critters to shaft anyone who didn't take the situational feat.) A feat that points me toward the nice things to say in a dialogue context? No, I'll manage dialogue, thanks, since you didn't implement social interaction to be a mechanically navigated system, so point me toward the combat perks.

D&D 5E feats are a very mixed bag for me. Some are a good match fluffically and crunchically for a given character concept. Some are powerful but I find them cheesy and/or poorly designed and won't take them unmodified for that reason. Some are just useless from a mechanical perspective.

Some feats effectively present you with a Stormwind trap. Since the amount of feats is actually pretty low, the selection is relatively chunky and arbitrary. This could lead you to think there are several feats you "must" have in order to represent your character concept properly. What dual wielder would not become so adept at dual wielding that they would eventually have Dual Wielder? What keenly minded wizard would not eventually be capable of what amounts to Keen Mind? But why would you have to take them because of flavour when there are so many possible feats with spot-on flavour that just don't exist? No, it makes little sense that you shouldn't be allowed to play your wizard as being keenly minded just because there happens to exist a Keen Mind that was not taken. If you look at Dual Wielder and each effect by itself is mechanically underwhelming for your character, should you still have to take it to justify role-playing a badass dual wielder or else be a stupid roll-player? I would dearly like to say no.

I mostly can't justify not raising stats first. For a rogue or DEX fighter, flat bonuses to damage, to hit, defence, initiative, skills - you just can't pass it up. For a full caster, primary casting stat and relevant skills. It's the ultimate in non-situational, always-on etc. After you've maxed that out, you can start with feats. The character-defining feat you want at first level, you get that from variant human.

In the end I always end up feeling a build "should" ideally have one or two feats more than they actually can have - and that's at 20th level, the mythical point that no campaign reportedly ever reaches anyway. The DMG tantalizingly holds out the prospect of advancing level 20 characters with arbitrary amounts of additional feats, but let's face it, that's fantasy land, or perhaps beyond fantasy land, as it were. Around 7-12, where most gaming probably should take place, you can't have nearly as much. It's not a bad thing in itself to force players into agonizing mechanical decisions, but this can feel harsh.

Actually I wouldn't mind some kind of revision of the whole feat/ASI system to allow people to have their ribbons and eat them too, but that goes too deeply into homebrew territory.

[Zalabim]

Uh no. All classes get backgrounds and access to the same non-combat feats. The fighter only pulls ahead with feats near the end of the game that from going by what people say on these boards, never gets reached.

So:
Fighter - Feats, Background, Skills, Class Option(Archetype) out of combat feature, ??? (if past level 16 they get 2 more feats than everyone else).
Other Classes - Feats, Background, Skills, Class Option(Archetype) out of combat feature, Class feature for out of combat, (possibly out of combat spells).

Guess who's missing something for the first 16 levels?

They get feats to try to make up for not having out of combat options (except the rogue, it is meant to show how broad of a diversity of skills they have). Unfortunately you don't see a difference until level 16.

Fighters get a bonus feat at level 6 and at level 14. Rogues get a bonus feat at level 10. So that is the level at which they have a bonus feat. Not level 16.

[Regitnui]

Fighters get a bonus feat at level 6 and at level 14. Rogues get a bonus feat at level 10. So that is the level at which they have a bonus feat. Not level 16.

His position seems to hinge on fighters using those feats to boost their combat effectiveness. So players will always choose to prioritize their combat prowess over noncombat, and therefore the fighter has no noncombat options. The big flaw is, of course, why wouldn't the player use an early-level ASI on a noncombat feat? Fighters, according to the detractors elsewhere, really only lose steam after level 10. Spend a feat in the early levels on something with noncombat utility and use the later feat slots to ramp up your combat effectiveness... Or am I missing the point?