Feats & martials - where does it really hurt?

[Waazraath]

Following the discussion on whether feats and / or multi-classing was a mistake, I notice that some folks consider feats a 'must' for martials to keep up on power.

Out of curiosity, lets discuss the impact the lack of feats has on martials, ok?

- Barbarians: I think those are hit the hardest by a lack of feats. Reckless attack (advantage on attacks), rage (for resistance) and Great Weapon Master just work too well together. Blocking this option turns damage down for barbarians. And of all the martials, I think they get the least 'extra' at the higher levels; some extra dice when critting, and a few puny extra damage points when raging, but that's it. Polearm Master is also one of the few options to get an extra attack (with the exception of the Berserker subclass) - though it depends on the subclass whether you already have a commonly used bonus action or not.

- Fighter: is also hurt quite a bit with fewer feats; they have 2 extra, and having to spend them on tertiary stat increases is in general weaker than even average feats. But unlike the barbarian, they don't have a way to get auto-advantage, which makes GWM less of an auto pick, especially at the lower levels when that -5 counts (exception is the Battle Master, which can spend a maneuver for an extra 1dx to hit). And a fighter does keep growing in damage over the levels (with a 3rd and 4th attack, also several sub classes do significantly extra damage), so it is less hampered at the higher levels compared to a barbarian in the damage department.

- Monk: a monk doesn't feel the lack of feats, at all. There hardly are any feats worth it for a monk, especially considering how good maxing out dex and wis is (and after that, +2 con might be better than many feats as well). At lower levels, monks are good in damage, and at highter levels, they stay relevant with stunning fists and utility / battlefield controll like abilities.

- Rogue: aren't hurt that much either. Damage keeps growing with sneak attack anyway and doesn't need feats, the only thing that might hurt a bit is missing out on crossbow expert, as an extra chance to deliver sneak attacks. It pushes them more towards a melee role, especially if cover is often an issue in your games (no SS, and possibility to get an extra attack with 2wf for which no feat is needed).


To summarize: I think the only martial that is really hurt by a lack of feats is the Barbarian; for Fighters it's a nuicanse, especially after maxing out your primary stat and constitution. For rogues and monks: not really an issue.


What do you think?

[Frozenstep]

For fighters, more attacks means more chances at getting that +10 damage. While it's not as reliable as reckless attack, there are plenty of situations where a spell will disable your opponents or grant you advantage on your attacks (greater invisibility). Throw in some elven accuracy on top, sharpshooting and crossbow expert, and you've got insane ranged damage.


Without feats, I think fighters may fall behind rogues in terms of ranged damage (if they don't action surge).

[NaughtyTiger]

I am definitely in the camp of martials need feats more than casters.

Most feats give your character something different to do; more choices.
In the case of martials, that is something different than swing axe/shoot bow.

Sharp/GWM make you weigh -5/+10
sentinel and polearm make you choose when to use that precious reaction.


Casters literally have 4-20 different things they can do in an action.
A level 1 wizard has 7 different spells to choose from (that can do 7 wildly different things) every turn.

[Contrast]

I am definitely in the camp of martials need feats more than casters.

Most feats give your character something different to do; more choices.

This is the real issue. It gives an option to add something to your character allowing you to interact with the world beyond 'I attack' or 'I use X skill'.

Combat feats let you focus down on being a damage dealer and make that your niche but particularly on fighter or rogue who get bonus feats it also gives you an option to add something like Ritual Caster or Inspiring Leader or even just Lucky to give you a few more levers to pull to interact with the world/party.

Casters already have a lot of levers so the loss is less noticable for them but many martials are pretty limited in that regard.

[Catullus64]

If martials are up for discussion, I think the definition of that word should include Paladins and Rangers. While they do have spells, their combat gameplay centers around fighting with weapons rather than casting spells.

Now, as to how they would be affected by lack of feats, the Paladin probably comes off fine; adequate damage at higher levels due to Smite scaling, and Auras become one of their most valuable contributions to a party. I think it would also encourage Paladins to lean into the support aspects of their class.

Rangers, on the other hand, would suffer. Regardless of how underpowered they actually are, Rangers suffer from a severe perception issue (that's player perception, not Wisdom (Perception)), which is often only mitigated by their high synergy with certain damage-focused feats, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert in particular. Take those away, and people would malign the class even more.

Let it be noted that I overwhelmingly do think that feats enrich the game and should be kept, I'm just engaging with the premise of the discussion here.

[NaughtyTiger]

Rangers, on the other hand, would suffer. Regardless of how underpowered they actually are, Rangers suffer from a severe perception issue (that's player perception, not Wisdom (Perception)), which is often only mitigated by their high synergy with certain damage-focused feats, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert in particular. Take those away, and people would malign the class even more.

i disagree with this on 2 points:
1) sharpshooter is broken. the range/cover rules should be removed and it be a half feat. but that is another thread.
2) i see a lot of versatility and choices in each of the ranger archetypes. our rangers always have choices besides shoot this; underpowered choices, but fun ones.
3) did i mention i hate sharpshooter?

[ZorroGames]

Must have missed this when I posted the thread on what you can build without Feats or Multi-classing.

A Mountain Dwarf build ended up S, Co, and W at 20, with one ASI at 19 unassigned.

I only considered three kinds of Fighter, a cleric, and Standard Human Wizard.

This thread complements my mental meanderings nicely, thanks.

[Trask]

The damage argument I get, sympathize with, even.

I really don't understand why people say feats give martials more choices. 90% of the time its not a choice, you're picking the good feats or you're doing it wrong. Is it really so much more stimulating to decide whether to just do more damage or not? I don't think so. I honestly feel like people who say that feats are important for martials because they give them options are not being completely honest. They give them a few very good options that make them mechanically strong.

[Boci]

The damage argument I get, sympathize with, even.

I really don't understand why people say feats give martials more choices. 90% of the time its not a choice, you're picking the good feats or you're doing it wrong. Is it really so much more stimulating to decide whether to just do more damage or not? I don't think so. I honestly feel like people who say that feats are important for martials because they give them options are not being completely honest. They give them a few very good options that make them mechanically strong.

If it isn't a choice 90% of the time, then its still a choice 10%. That may not be a lot, but how much choice do most fighters get in a featless game? Race, strenth or dex based, fighting style, archetype. Every little helps, even if it is just GWM/SS or polarmar mastery or Resilience (wisdom), that still a choice. A small one, but more than nothing. And for GWM at least, there is still a choice inherit in it. You probably shouldn't auto take the -5 penalty, so there is some tactical choice in when to use it. Not much, but fighters didn't have much to begin with, so it counts for a lot.

[Trask]

If it isn't a choice 90% of the time, then its still a choice 10%. That may not be a lot, but how much choice do most fighters get in a featless game? Race, strenth or dex based, fighting style, archetype. Every little helps, even if it is just GWM/SS or polarmar mastery or Resilience (wisdom), that still a choice. A small one, but more than nothing. And for GWM at least, there is still a choice inherit in it. You probably shouldn't auto take the -5 penalty, so there is some tactical choice in when to use it. Not much, but fighters didn't have much to begin with, so it counts for a lot.

I suppose this is true. It just also makes me wish WotC could do better.

[Catullus64]

The damage argument I get, sympathize with, even.

I really don't understand why people say feats give martials more choices. 90% of the time its not a choice, you're picking the good feats or you're doing it wrong. Is it really so much more stimulating to decide whether to just do more damage or not? I don't think so. I honestly feel like people who say that feats are important for martials because they give them options are not being completely honest. They give them a few very good options that make them mechanically strong.

I dissent. Can't speak for everyone else's game experience, but I think that the prevalence of things like Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and the -5/+10 feats tends to get overstated on forums like this one, where combat and character optimization often take center stage. (That's fine, good, even, but it can warp one's perception.)

If feats were axed, I wouldn't mourn the Great Weapon Masters and the Sentinels. I'd mourn the Magic Initiate fighters and Healer rogues. I'd miss the casual confidence of the Dungeon Delvers, the close shaves of the Lucky, or the cobbled-together speeches of the Inspiring Leaders. I'd miss my Mobile fighter, my Mobile Ranger, my Mobile monk, and my three Mobile Rogues. (Mobile is best feat don't @ me.)

My game experience has been full of great characters whose shenanigans wouldn't have happened without feats or multiclassing (I know the multiclassing discussion is a different thread, but since I don't like multiclassing all that much, feats are more important to me.)

[Skylivedk]

Following the discussion on whether feats and / or multi-classing was a mistake, I notice that some folks consider feats a 'must' for martials to keep up on power.

Out of curiosity, lets discuss the impact the lack of feats has on martials, ok?

- Barbarians: I think those are hit the hardest by a lack of feats. Reckless attack (advantage on attacks), rage (for resistance) and Great Weapon Master just work too well together. Blocking this option turns damage down for barbarians. And of all the martials, I think they get the least 'extra' at the higher levels; some extra dice when critting, and a few puny extra damage points when raging, but that's it. Polearm Master is also one of the few options to get an extra attack (with the exception of the Berserker subclass) - though it depends on the subclass whether you already have a commonly used bonus action or not.

- Fighter: is also hurt quite a bit with fewer feats; they have 2 extra, and having to spend them on tertiary stat increases is in general weaker than even average feats. But unlike the barbarian, they don't have a way to get auto-advantage, which makes GWM less of an auto pick, especially at the lower levels when that -5 counts (exception is the Battle Master, which can spend a maneuver for an extra 1dx to hit). And a fighter does keep growing in damage over the levels (with a 3rd and 4th attack, also several sub classes do significantly extra damage), so it is less hampered at the higher levels compared to a barbarian in the damage department.

- Monk: a monk doesn't feel the lack of feats, at all. There hardly are any feats worth it for a monk, especially considering how good maxing out dex and wis is (and after that, +2 con might be better than many feats as well). At lower levels, monks are good in damage, and at highter levels, they stay relevant with stunning fists and utility / battlefield controll like abilities.

- Rogue: aren't hurt that much either. Damage keeps growing with sneak attack anyway and doesn't need feats, the only thing that might hurt a bit is missing out on crossbow expert, as an extra chance to deliver sneak attacks. It pushes them more towards a melee role, especially if cover is often an issue in your games (no SS, and possibility to get an extra attack with 2wf for which no feat is needed).


To summarize: I think the only martial that is really hurt by a lack of feats is the Barbarian; for Fighters it's a nuicanse, especially after maxing out your primary stat and constitution. For rogues and monks: not really an issue.


What do you think?

With no disrespect, that you're off:

Fighters are potentially more hurt in the right party combo due to the -5/+10 will affect more attacks in higher tiers, especially when using action surge.

Monk and rogue benefit a lot from mobile (if not playing drunk monk/Swashbuckler), and rogues can also benefit from both xbe, relicensing accuracy (!!!), skulker, ritual caster and magic initiate.

Rangers can benefit greatly from PAM, Res, GWM and sharpshooter. Paladins benefit from the same except sharpshooter.

That means 4 classes are hurt more than full casters (mobile on monk Vs warcaster/Res Con on full casters being the open question).

As mentioned fighters gain a lot of versatility from the ASIs. That versatility is worth a lot less without feats. Res wisdom is potentially +7 vs +1 from a +2 wisdom bump.

[Keltest]

I dissent. Can't speak for everyone else's game experience, but I think that the prevalence of things like Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and the -5/+10 feats tends to get overstated on forums like this one, where combat and character optimization often take center stage. (That's fine, good, even, but it can warp one's perception.)

If feats were axed, I wouldn't mourn the Great Weapon Masters and the Sentinels. I'd mourn the Magic Initiate fighters and Healer rogues. I'd miss the casual confidence of the Dungeon Delvers, the close shaves of the Lucky, or the cobbled-together speeches of the Inspiring Leaders. I'd miss my Mobile fighter, my Mobile Ranger, my Mobile monk, and my three Mobile Rogues. (Mobile is best feat don't @ me.)

My game experience has been full of great characters whose shenanigans wouldn't have happened without feats or multiclassing (I know the multiclassing discussion is a different thread, but since I don't like multiclassing all that much, feats are more important to me.)

This is my thought as well. Feats that just let you do the same things you already did, but better, I could take or leave. They can be nice to have for a fighter, who is already defined by a fairly narrow range of actual ability, but they generally don't define a character the way the "do something completely different" feats do.

[patchyman]

Combat feats let you focus down on being a damage dealer and make that your niche but particularly on fighter or rogue who get bonus feats it also gives you an option to add something like Ritual Caster or Inspiring Leader or even just Lucky to give you a few more levers to pull to interact with the world/party.

Casters already have a lot of levers so the loss is less noticable for them but many martials are pretty limited in that regard.

I was going to post this as well. Barbarians and Fighters get very few ways to interact with the non-combat pillars. Skilled and especially Prodigy mean that your beatstick can participate when there is nothing to hit.

[Man_Over_Game]

So the overall idea is that we wouldn't need feats if martials were designed a little bit more like casters?

I agree with that. The awkward part is, it's already been done...With 4e. And, uh, we all know how that turned out.


Or, maybe that wasn't the problem with 4e, and was just something that was easy to blame. Couldn't say.

[Keltest]

So the overall idea is that we wouldn't need feats if martials were designed a little bit more like casters?

I agree with that. The awkward part is, it's already been done...With 4e. And, uh, we all know how that turned out.


Or, maybe that wasn't the problem with 4e, and was just something that was easy to blame. Couldn't say.

They don't necessarily need to be more like casters, they just need things to do outside combat. The rogue is a skill monkey, casters get a bit of everything, rangers are useful for moving groups over ground, and for scouting. Fighters and barbarians... fight. You could do interesting things with them, like allow a barbarian to innately communicate with animals (not necessarily speak, but understand them and communicate simple things back.) Fighters could be so big and tough that when you run into a physical obstacle, like a cliff that needs climbing, theyre just automatically really well equipped to deal with it even if they don't specifically prepare for it. Basically, they need something for them to do that they can say "hey, this is my special thing I am doing to solve this problem."

[OldTrees1]

Don't forget combat is not everything.

On Rogues I like feats as a way of adding features rather than just increasing numbers. Expertise does a good enough job on the numbers, so it is the features that give the most expansion.

[Catullus64]

So the overall idea is that we wouldn't need feats if martials were designed a little bit more like casters?

I agree with that. The awkward part is, it's already been done...With 4e. And, uh, we all know how that turned out.


Or, maybe that wasn't the problem with 4e, and was just something that was easy to blame. Couldn't say.

The thing is, even if it could be done more elegantly than in 4e, it would still create a problem. Having some classes be more mechanically simplistic than others, with less strenuous roleplaying demands, is an important part of the game, especially now that D&D has rededicated itself to being welcoming to new players. Making all classes caster-level complex would be its own problem.

The problem arises if mechanical and thematic simplicity becomes ALL a given class is capable of; AD&D fighters suffered from this in a huge way. A modular system like feats allows the existence of simple classes to be preserved, while not relegating those classes to a noob ghetto for more advanced players. If you really don't like feats, the next-best solution is to make it so that magical and nonmagical in the game fiction are not tied directly to complexity and simplicity in the game rules; that's what 4e did, and people (at least a lot of the old guard) rejected it en masse.

[Boci]

I agree with that. The awkward part is, it's already been done...With 4e. And, uh, we all know how that turned out.

Well, no, in 4e every class used the same template, so whilst casters and martials were more similar, it wasn't because martials were designed to be more like casters, it was because every class came from the same mould.

ToB/PoW and now spheres of might is a better examples, though the first one at least is controversial too. Or at least it used to be.

[jas61292]

The idea that martials need feats to keep up in usefulness to casters is not entirely unfounded. Feats are an excellent tool for expanding on martials abilities.

What is untrue is that they are necessary to keep up in combat. The advantage casters have over martials is in exploration and social interaction. They also have some advantage in tactics. What they do not have is an advantage in combat power. When the game is played as intended, martials will do the most damage, feats or no. And it is not particularly close. Sure, if you let the casters nova and then rest all the time the balance is thrown off, but the game is not designed for that. Andvwhen played with varying amounts of combat (not even a ton, just an uncertain amount between rests), martials clean up in the damage department.

Feats are great for martial characters, but the most popular feats for them (GWM, PAM, SS, etc) are largely poorly designed messes that miss the entire point of feats. See, the thing with feats is that they are a alternative to an ability score increase. If you want to be better at what you already do, you take an ASI. If you want to learn to do something new, you take a feat. The problem feats, which are largely the combat feats, are poorly made because they are largely about making you better at what you already do, not providing new capabilities.

Take Sharpshooter, for example. I consider this the most poorly designed of all feats. Why? Because it provides no new strategy or ability, and just makes you better at what you already do, to an extent so far beyond an ASI that it is laughable. Does it encourage you to do anything new or different? No. It encourages you to shoot. The power attack aspect is not anything new or different when it largely comes down to a simple math calculation, and everything else is just basically there to say "hey, you know all the downsides of ranged combat? They are gone now." The archer without Sharpshooter and the archer with it are going to act largely the same, but the one with it will be better.

What makes this worse is that, in the pursuit of higher numbers, you actually end up faring worse in comparison to casters. You already were ahead in damage, but you have gained nothing on them in places they were ahead. The archer who takes Actor has done more to close the gap between martial and caster than the one that took Sharpshooter, but the latter is often considered more powerful.

If feats were designed to be entirely non combat related, or at the very least only combat related if they are based in tactics, not power, like Sentinel, then they would be an excellent tool to help balance martial characters with casters. But as is they are used more to try and separate optimized and unoptimized martials than having anything to do with casters.

[Man_Over_Game]

They don't necessarily need to be more like casters, they just need things to do outside combat. The rogue is a skill monkey, casters get a bit of everything, rangers are useful for moving groups over ground, and for scouting. Fighters and barbarians... fight. You could do interesting things with them, like allow a barbarian to innately communicate with animals (not necessarily speak, but understand them and communicate simple things back.) Fighters could be so big and tough that when you run into a physical obstacle, like a cliff that needs climbing, theyre just automatically really well equipped to deal with it even if they don't specifically prepare for it. Basically, they need something for them to do that they can say "hey, this is my special thing I am doing to solve this problem."

I agree, I just feel that that's more of a "caster" thing than a "rogue" thing. At least, with 5e. The concept that a non-combat power can prove just as useful as a combat one is better reflected with casting than any other part of the game. Something like Featherfall, or Rope Trick, are great examples as to what kind of options we should be providing to non-casters. The issue is, not even Rogues, the specialist in zero-magic non-combat options, doesn't have anything close to that level. We need skills and features that rival magic, without having to be magic.


The thing is, even if it could be done more elegantly than in 4e, it would still create a problem. Having some classes be more mechanically simplistic than others, with less strenuous roleplaying demands, is an important part of the game, especially now that D&D has rededicated itself to being welcoming to new players. Making all classes caster-level complex would be its own problem.
I agree. I think subclasses were a great way of doing this. Make a simple chassis, allow a subclass to make it complex. That way, you can have someone that plays like a Fighter but thinks like a Wizard.

WotC kinda dropped the ball on that one. All Barbarian builds are very straightforward, Samurai and Champion aren't much different in terms of playstyle or contribution, and even the Battlemaster isn't all that difficult when compared to the easiest Druid in the game.

They decided to have everything revolve around thematics, while trying to tie in the original gameplay of the class into those thematics, but didn't take into account the preferred gameplay of the player. A player who plays a Barbarian can only play like a Barbarian. What good is having 5 different types of Barbarian if they all feel and play the same? I dunno, just my personal gripe. If they had developed more martial subclasses like the Battlemaster, or caster subclasses like the Draconic Sorcerer, there'd be a lot more diversity.

[Waazraath]

Interesting replies. My thread was mostly written from a 'combat' perspective, not as much a 'versatility' perspective. Reading through everything, I don't think I was specific enough.

So let me try again: as for combat, I think barbarians suffer the most of a lack of feats, fighter less, and rogues and monks hardly.


Outside of combat, it is different of course: a feat for some extra skills, to get rituals, or a familiar and a few cantrips, does wonders for your versatility. Stuff like healer or inspiring leader might be mostly combat focussed (though they work against traps as well, sort of), but do add another option to a character, I admit. And yeah, feats add more.

Then again: if somebody wants to play a fighter with more options, there's already the Eldritch Knight, for the Rogue (not convinced they need it, think skill and expertise should be enough, but still) there's the Arcane Trickster, and other subclasses that add interesting options as well (non-magical charm and agro effect on the Swashbuckler for example), there are several sub classes of Monk that are quite versatile out of combat. Only the barbarian has a hard time (again). It really is the most mono-focused class in 5e, isn't it?
But considering all that: how bad is a lack of feats, if every martial class (bar 1) has at least 1 subclass that offers quite some versatility out of combat?

And that's disregarding the fact that everybody can get a handy cantrip like mage hand or minor illusion, or stuff like flight, pass without trace or disguise self, with race.

[Ryuu Hayato]

The idea that martials need feats to keep up in usefulness to casters is not entirely unfounded. Feats are an excellent tool for expanding on martials abilities.

What is untrue is that they are necessary to keep up in combat. The advantage casters have over martials is in exploration and social interaction. They also have some advantage in tactics. What they do not have is an advantage in combat power. When the game is played as intended, martials will do the most damage, feats or no. And it is not particularly close. Sure, if you let the casters nova and then rest all the time the balance is thrown off, but the game is not designed for that. Andvwhen played with varying amounts of combat (not even a ton, just an uncertain amount between rests), martials clean up in the damage department.

Feats are great for martial characters, but the most popular feats for them (GWM, PAM, SS, etc) are largely poorly designed messes that miss the entire point of feats. See, the thing with feats is that they are a alternative to an ability score increase. If you want to be better at what you already do, you take an ASI. If you want to learn to do something new, you take a feat. The problem feats, which are largely the combat feats, are poorly made because they are largely about making you better at what you already do, not providing new capabilities.

Take Sharpshooter, for example. I consider this the most poorly designed of all feats. Why? Because it provides no new strategy or ability, and just makes you better at what you already do, to an extent so far beyond an ASI that it is laughable. Does it encourage you to do anything new or different? No. It encourages you to shoot. The power attack aspect is not anything new or different when it largely comes down to a simple math calculation, and everything else is just basically there to say "hey, you know all the downsides of ranged combat? They are gone now." The archer without Sharpshooter and the archer with it are going to act largely the same, but the one with it will be better.

What makes this worse is that, in the pursuit of higher numbers, you actually end up faring worse in comparison to casters. You already were ahead in damage, but you have gained nothing on them in places they were ahead. The archer who takes Actor has done more to close the gap between martial and caster than the one that took Sharpshooter, but the latter is often considered more powerful.

If feats were designed to be entirely non combat related, or at the very least only combat related if they are based in tactics, not power, like Sentinel, then they would be an excellent tool to help balance martial characters with casters. But as is they are used more to try and separate optimized and unoptimized martials than having anything to do with casters.

I couldn't agree more.

Fighters have 7 AIs, but one of them is feat tax, or you'll "playing wrong".

Another thing is Fighters don't have Wis proficiency. Fighters are good in saves, that's historic. And, all we have is Indomitable. Indomitable (level 9 fighter ability) is way weaker than Elegant Courtier (level 7 samurai ability). I would appreciate a game without feats if fighters have Wis proficiency.

As said, Sentinel is a great example from what a feat should have be. They bring more strategy to battle, create a new moves. That's what matials need.

[HiveStriker]

Following the discussion on whether feats and / or multi-classing was a mistake, I notice that some folks consider feats a 'must' for martials to keep up on power.

Out of curiosity, lets discuss the impact the lack of feats has on martials, ok?

- Barbarians: I think those are hit the hardest by a lack of feats. Reckless attack (advantage on attacks), rage (for resistance) and Great Weapon Master just work too well together. Blocking this option turns damage down for barbarians. And of all the martials, I think they get the least 'extra' at the higher levels; some extra dice when critting, and a few puny extra damage points when raging, but that's it. Polearm Master is also one of the few options to get an extra attack (with the exception of the Berserker subclass) - though it depends on the subclass whether you already have a commonly used bonus action or not.

- Fighter: is also hurt quite a bit with fewer feats; they have 2 extra, and having to spend them on tertiary stat increases is in general weaker than even average feats. But unlike the barbarian, they don't have a way to get auto-advantage, which makes GWM less of an auto pick, especially at the lower levels when that -5 counts (exception is the Battle Master, which can spend a maneuver for an extra 1dx to hit). And a fighter does keep growing in damage over the levels (with a 3rd and 4th attack, also several sub classes do significantly extra damage), so it is less hampered at the higher levels compared to a barbarian in the damage department.

- Monk: a monk doesn't feel the lack of feats, at all. There hardly are any feats worth it for a monk, especially considering how good maxing out dex and wis is (and after that, +2 con might be better than many feats as well). At lower levels, monks are good in damage, and at highter levels, they stay relevant with stunning fists and utility / battlefield controll like abilities.

- Rogue: aren't hurt that much either. Damage keeps growing with sneak attack anyway and doesn't need feats, the only thing that might hurt a bit is missing out on crossbow expert, as an extra chance to deliver sneak attacks. It pushes them more towards a melee role, especially if cover is often an issue in your games (no SS, and possibility to get an extra attack with 2wf for which no feat is needed).


To summarize: I think the only martial that is really hurt by a lack of feats is the Barbarian; for Fighters it's a nuicanse, especially after maxing out your primary stat and constitution. For rogues and monks: not really an issue.


What do you think?
Hi ;)
Thanks for bringing this interesting side-discussion. :)

First of all, speaking only for me, I feel feats are near-mandatory not primarily (or at all) for "keeping up in power", but rather in "expanding my options".

Let's first view two martial/combat oriented feats.

1. Sentinel: first benefit of a feat is purely improving your chance of getting an OA, which is nice but very bland to me. If I didn't have it, it wouldn't really change much my tactical awareness (at most I'd stay closer to enemies in general as long as my HP can bear the added threat).
However, the negation of any speed to enemy on a hit *is* bringing me a truely different way to approach my decision making: now my OA can bring a soft control value, instead of "just bringing closer to death" value. And one that I could technically replicate with a Grapple except that a) I would be stuck there too and b) Grapple can only be taken with Attack action on raw (and OA is a reaction on its own).

2. Defensive Duelist: as a pure Champion Fighter for example, I'd have little in the way of defense against both melee and ranged attacks alike. Against the first, moving away (or killing first ^^) is the only decent option to reduce threat if I want to keep my action on Attack. On ranged, finding cover or getting far enough (or both) is the only way.
In other words, until I pick Defensive Duelist, I have nothing relevant to use a reaction when on the defensive.

In other words, I really don't care about the feats like Elven Accuracy, GWM or Sharpshooter that simply trivialize some things and make thinking all about "should I try the -5+10" to be caricatural...

I do care about feats that enhance some tactics to make them staple of my turns (like Grappler, Shield Master, Prodigy, Mage Slayer, Dual Wielder, Mobile, Skulker) or the ones that bring options I could simply not hope to have otherwise (Defensive Duelist, Sentinel, UA weapon feats IIRC, Athlete -making prone spring viable even for regular mobility martials-, Warcaster, Martial Adept, Magic Initiate).

With that said, IF we could have a larger array of plain tactical options one can use (like Disarm from optional rules in DMG, Taunt which has disappeared, or ones to design like Feint, Destabilize, Cleave, Blind, things like that) if you be far easier to renounce to feats.

----
Let's now talk on the OTHER feats, which are even more crucial for me to be available: those like Ritual Caster, Observant, Actor, Keen Mind, Healer, Skilled, Prodigy, some racial feats, Magic Initiate.
Those not only bring extremely solid benefits, they more importantly bring features that, while technically can be used in combat, are much more useful OUT of it.

I could probably live without those and not feel a big lack on a Ranger, 4e Monk, or Rogues. I would feel *very* limited on any other class about what I can do in non-violence situation.
I mean, yeah, you do have some skill proficiencies...
But you'll often have a character that has ways to overshine you in half of them.
At least those feats, since you choose them, bring you something to really make your character feel original among all of the same class and archetype (*cough* Barbarians / Fighters / Open Hand Monks *cough*) and ensure you're not completely useless in social or exploration situations (*cough* bis repetitae *cough*).

-------------
Now for a quick feedback on your analysis of "martial needs feats".

Barbarians: they don't really need feats to shine in raw power, but they do severely lack tactical versatility except some archetypes. Outside fights they are basically useless (especially considering mental stats are probably lame) except for carrying loot. Yaaay.
Need for feats: EXTREME.

Fighters: the multiple attacks means it's easier to mix in some Grapple or Shove, and most archetypes provide additional tactical options of their own (notably Cavalier, Battlemaster, Eldricht Knight). Still, except Samurai and one other I don't remember which, they are 100% focused fighting. Sooo...
Need for feats: IMPORTANT.

Monks: I very strongly disagree with you. There are many feats that are more beneficial to a Monk than an early stat bump, with Mobile being the first and foremost, and half archetypes can perfectly live with less than maxed DEX or WIS.
Besides, they only start getting out-of-combat features after level 13 or so, which is something most people will never see. Meaning that for most of their life, without feats they are near useless in non-combat situations except scouting/infiltration for some archetypes (*cough* Shadow/4E *cough*).
Need for feats: IMPORTANT.

Rangers: they are good in melee and range, they are versatile and combat-efficient with spells, they have many useful things to do otherwise with spells and features.
Although they'll hit a damage ceiling on mundane turn earlier than others without feats, they are overall the one class that can live without whatever archetype you pick.
Need for feats: REASONABLE.

Rogues: if you're an Arcane Trickster or a Thief, you'll have enough creative things to do in various situations. For the other archetypes, it's more clearly cut and more DM-dependant.
For melee Rogues, Mobile is a must-have feat, as well as Magic Initiate (Booming Blade), Sentinel or Grappler depending on your style.
For ranged Rogues, Magic Initiate for makeshift covers (Mold earth) or illusions to hide behind (Minor Illusion) is great, as well as Elven Accuracy if you qualify, Skulker or Mage Slayer.
Besides that, Thief greatly benefits from Healer, most Rogues from Observant and/or Keen Mind and/or Magic Initiate.
Fortunately, you also have Expertise and ultimately Reliable Talent which means you can actually try hard things with simple skill checks. As a consequence...
Need for feats: REASONABLE.

[Zetakya]

The problem that Martial classes have - which is not entirely to do with Feats - is that 5e (as compared to 3.5e, which is the only basis I or most people will be using for comparison) severely limited the ability of player characters to control the battlefield. In particular, the fact that opportunity attacks are only on exit from your entire area of reach instead of against movement within the area of reach severely hampers the ability of martial classes to lock control the ability of enemy movements. This in turn makes the ability of martials to defend their squishier allies harder, and therefore means that the martial classes become defined more by raw damage output.

Feats are essential to martial classes because several of the most popular ones (Sentinel, Polearm Master) recover the martial classes lost abilities to control the fight. If you want to take Feats out, you have to put the Control back somewhere else.

[Waazraath]

Hi ;)
Thanks for bringing this interesting side-discussion. :)

...

I do care about feats that enhance some tactics to make them staple of my turns (like Grappler, Shield Master, Prodigy, Mage Slayer, Dual Wielder, Mobile, Skulker) or the ones that bring options I could simply not hope to have otherwise (Defensive Duelist, Sentinel, UA weapon feats IIRC, Athlete -making prone spring viable even for regular mobility martials-, Warcaster, Martial Adept, Magic Initiate).

With that said, IF we could have a larger array of plain tactical options one can use (like Disarm from optional rules in DMG, Taunt which has disappeared, or ones to design like Feint, Destabilize, Cleave, Blind, things like that) if you be far easier to renounce to feats.

----
Let's now talk on the OTHER feats, which are even more crucial for me to be available: those like Ritual Caster, Observant, Actor, Keen Mind, Healer, Skilled, Prodigy, some racial feats, Magic Initiate.
Those not only bring extremely solid benefits, they more importantly bring features that, while technically can be used in combat, are much more useful OUT of it.

I could probably live without those and not feel a big lack on a Ranger, 4e Monk, or Rogues. I would feel *very* limited on any other class about what I can do in non-violence situation.
I mean, yeah, you do have some skill proficiencies...
But you'll often have a character that has ways to overshine you in half of them.
At least those feats, since you choose them, bring you something to really make your character feel original among all of the same class and archetype (*cough* Barbarians / Fighters / Open Hand Monks *cough*) and ensure you're not completely useless in social or exploration situations (*cough* bis repetitae *cough*).

-------------
Now for a quick feedback on your analysis of "martial needs feats".

Barbarians: they don't really need feats to shine in raw power, but they do severely lack tactical versatility except some archetypes. Outside fights they are basically useless (especially considering mental stats are probably lame) except for carrying loot. Yaaay.
Need for feats: EXTREME.

Fighters: the multiple attacks means it's easier to mix in some Grapple or Shove, and most archetypes provide additional tactical options of their own (notably Cavalier, Battlemaster, Eldricht Knight). Still, except Samurai and one other I don't remember which, they are 100% focused fighting. Sooo...
Need for feats: IMPORTANT.

Monks: I very strongly disagree with you. There are many feats that are more beneficial to a Monk than an early stat bump, with Mobile being the first and foremost, and half archetypes can perfectly live with less than maxed DEX or WIS.
Besides, they only start getting out-of-combat features after level 13 or so, which is something most people will never see. Meaning that for most of their life, without feats they are near useless in non-combat situations except scouting/infiltration for some archetypes (*cough* Shadow/4E *cough*).
Need for feats: IMPORTANT.

Rangers: they are good in melee and range, they are versatile and combat-efficient with spells, they have many useful things to do otherwise with spells and features.
Although they'll hit a damage ceiling on mundane turn earlier than others without feats, they are overall the one class that can live without whatever archetype you pick.
Need for feats: REASONABLE.

Rogues: if you're an Arcane Trickster or a Thief, you'll have enough creative things to do in various situations. For the other archetypes, it's more clearly cut and more DM-dependant.
For melee Rogues, Mobile is a must-have feat, as well as Magic Initiate (Booming Blade), Sentinel or Grappler depending on your style.
For ranged Rogues, Magic Initiate for makeshift covers (Mold earth) or illusions to hide behind (Minor Illusion) is great, as well as Elven Accuracy if you qualify, Skulker or Mage Slayer.
Besides that, Thief greatly benefits from Healer, most Rogues from Observant and/or Keen Mind and/or Magic Initiate.
Fortunately, you also have Expertise and ultimately Reliable Talent which means you can actually try hard things with simple skill checks. As a consequence...
Need for feats: REASONABLE.


You're welcome. And well, yeah, recycling 3.x feats could be nice, but on the other hand, by making someting a feat, it also implies that you need that feat to do it. I think every character that has a decent persuation or charisma, and speaks an enemy's language, should be able to try and taunt. Codefying it implies 'no unless', and I understand why folks have problem with that. Then again, it should be possible to design feats that are useful and don't restrict play to much, there are several already.

I more or less agree with you about what are the interesting feats, and that are those that add options and versatility and not just raw power, but as I said earlier, my OP was mostly about the combat pillar. And from there, I think a class like the barbarian really does need something like GWM, or else be outdamaged by classes like the rogue and casters. That would reduce the fun for me, playing a bbn.

As for your feedback: I don't think we're very much apart, only on the monk. I don't see mobile as needed in any way. Open hand: you can push an opponent away, and retreat; shadow: just teleport away; any monk: stun an enemy and move away without retalliation. But besides all this, it's also a matter of tactics; monks have a high movement and are very mobile; imo they should get to the caster or some pesky archers in a fight, not duking it out with the biggest fattest monster, if they have any choice. (and if they have not: see the options mentioned before). Also, as for the shadow monk, I think minor illusion and short range teleport at will (outside bright light) are pretty decent non-combat options, also when not infiltrating. But ymmv.


The problem that Martial classes have - which is not entirely to do with Feats - is that 5e (as compared to 3.5e, which is the only basis I or most people will be using for comparison) severely limited the ability of player characters to control the battlefield. In particular, the fact that opportunity attacks are only on exit from your entire area of reach instead of against movement within the area of reach severely hampers the ability of martial classes to lock control the ability of enemy movements. This in turn makes the ability of martials to defend their squishier allies harder, and therefore means that the martial classes become defined more by raw damage output.

Feats are essential to martial classes because several of the most popular ones (Sentinel, Polearm Master) recover the martial classes lost abilities to control the fight. If you want to take Feats out, you have to put the Control back somewhere else.

I don't know, not (yet) convinced. Any martial character can use a grapple to restrict movement, just athletics + high str makes 'em better than most of the opponents. Not to mention for example barbarians, that get advantage. Let alone folks specializing in it, by taking a race like Simic Hybrid. Battlemasters control the battlefield with trip, and can debuff with disarm. Open hand monks can push opponents 15ft away, or make them prone. Barbarians have subclasses that can make enemies prone, or restrict movement.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't know, not (yet) convinced. Any martial character can use a grapple to restrict movement, just athletics + high str makes 'em better than most of the opponents. Not to mention for example barbarians, that get advantage. Let alone folks specializing in it, by taking a race like Simic Hybrid. Battlemasters control the battlefield with trip, and can debuff with disarm. Open hand monks can push opponents 15ft away, or make them prone. Barbarians have subclasses that can make enemies prone, or restrict movement.

It's worth noting that Disengage is a lot more powerful than it was in previous editions, and Opportunity Attacks are a lot less frequent due to mobility effects and the competition for Reactions.

As a result, the physical placement/control impact of a martial isn't worth nearly as much.

Additionally, grappling does remove an opponent's method of movement, but it's countered by two different stats while initiated with only one. In most scenarios, unless you're really specced into Grappling, it's less efficient for the initiator. Not to mention that it requires 50%-100% of your damage contribution for the round to stop a single opponent, or that it's removed with any form of forced or magical movement (Thunderwave, Misty Step).

Beyond that, what you've described is about 1/2 of the options available to those classes. I'm not saying that's a terribly bad ratio, but what you're suggesting to the other 50% is along the lines of "Your means of controlling the battlefield is spending an attack to attempt a Grapple, or hitting a reckless opponent who runs past you once a round".

Is that enough? I don't mean to imply that it isn't, I'm honestly asking if you feel that it is.

[Trask]

It's worth noting that Disengage is a lot more powerful than it was in previous editions, and Opportunity Attacks are a lot less frequent due to mobility effects and the competition for Reactions.

As a result, the physical placement/control impact of a martial isn't worth nearly as much.


This is one of the biggest culprits IMO. One thing I've been doing for a while is letting someone replace their OA with a grapple or shove and thats worked out pretty well to help the high strength characters hold the line.

Something else I haven't done but have considered is changing the disengage action to only apply to creatures you were within reach of when you took that action, so that you can't simply disengage past an entire group of enemies, but I'm not sure about that one yet.

[stoutstien]

This is one of the biggest culprits IMO. One thing I've been doing for a while is letting someone replace their OA with a grapple or shove and thats worked out pretty well to help the high strength characters hold the line.

Something else I haven't done but have considered is changing the disengage action to only apply to creatures you were within reach of when you took that action, so that you can't simply disengage past an entire group of enemies, but I'm not sure about that one yet.

Something I did when I merged some of the feats on the weapons as features I also changed disengage to treat threatened Space as different terrain.

I added to some versatile weapon to have a shove AOO and grapple as AOO is standard choice. This also includes climbing on a larger creature if it is moving away.

I'm not quite satisfied with it but it is a lot less static.

[SociopathFriend]

The idea that martials need feats to keep up in usefulness to casters is not entirely unfounded. Feats are an excellent tool for expanding on martials abilities.

What is untrue is that they are necessary to keep up in combat. The advantage casters have over martials is in exploration and social interaction. They also have some advantage in tactics. What they do not have is an advantage in combat power. When the game is played as intended, martials will do the most damage, feats or no. And it is not particularly close. Sure, if you let the casters nova and then rest all the time the balance is thrown off, but the game is not designed for that. Andvwhen played with varying amounts of combat (not even a ton, just an uncertain amount between rests), martials clean up in the damage department.


This is actually something I've noticed from my current (albeit indefinitely postponed due to virus) stint as a Necromancy Wizard.
I have almost no offensive spells in terms of dealing damage and much of what I do have is defensive (Absorb Elements, Shield, False Life, Greater Invis, etc).
However purely through consistent use of my Undead (basically worse martials in other words) I've actually not only kept up damage with the Blaster Sorcerer but even surpassed him given I can go through a 10-round combat just having them slug it out while I expend no spells but he throws Fireballs out like candy.

Once we start hitting 3 or 4 different encounters, or even enemies entering in groups instead of all at once, he starts falling behind while my guys are still going strong.

We even had a Battle Royale before New Years. The other casters all expended themselves meanwhile my Undead were consistently still around and dishing out damage long after everyone was running empty.

[DarknessEternal]

This is actually something I've noticed from my current (albeit indefinitely postponed due to virus) stint as a Necromancy Wizard.
I have almost no offensive spells in terms of dealing damage and much of what I do have is defensive (Absorb Elements, Shield, False Life, Greater Invis, etc).
However purely through consistent use of my Undead (basically worse martials in other words) I've actually not only kept up damage with the Blaster Sorcerer but even surpassed him given I can go through a 10-round combat just having them slug it out while I expend no spells but he throws Fireballs out like candy.

Once we start hitting 3 or 4 different encounters, or even enemies entering in groups instead of all at once, he starts falling behind while my guys are still going strong.

We even had a Battle Royale before New Years. The other casters all expended themselves meanwhile my Undead were consistently still around and dishing out damage long after everyone was running empty.

Why aren't your enemies killing your undeads?

[SociopathFriend]

Why aren't your enemies killing your undeads?

Because the party keeps killing them first.
(Ahem)

Mainly because the ones that do damage are Skeletons armed with bows and so the enemy doesn't get in range of them with the Zombie frontline. I only keep around 4-6 at a time purely to keep my turns fast.
But also because a Necromancer Zombie is surprisingly hard to put down if they keep making that Con Save. And a reasonable DM allows them to be proficient in armor if they were proficient with it in life and died still wearing the stuff- albeit I've not had an armored one in quite some time after an ally Cleric blew them all up with his Turn Undead.

Or if you're asking why they've never been AoE'd to death easy- I know Counterspell and am quite happy to trade Spell Slots every round to use it while the Undead continue dishing out consistent damage that gets surprisingly high as the rounds go on.

That's why I commented on the bit about martial damage adding up over rounds. Even weak stuff like Zombie slams can add up since they can keep doing it all day long regardless of spell slots.
Admittedly Necromancer Undead are above the regular ones but even without the inherent buff their damage still adds up rather quickly.

[Benny89]

My opinion is that there are feats that are way too strong. Feats you just can't ignore (like PAM, GWM, SS, XBE) and there are way to few feats to that would be more balanced but more specialized. A general feat like -2 to git/+4 damage should be enough. But it's not cause base class don't scale well at all.

What martial classes need is more "build in" damage boosts in their chasis.

For example Paladins at level 11 get +1d8 to all attacks. Clerics get +2d8 to one attack. Bladesinger get's + INT to all attacks at level 14. Pact of The Blade Warlock gets +CHA to all his attacks second time. Arcana Cleric gets +WIS second time to his blade cantrips. Those are example of build in damage boosts. Barbarian gets Rage bonus, but if we didn't have GWM feat - we could give him bigger numbers from Rage so he could maybe take Magic Initiate or Ritual Caste without feeling like he is gimping himself?

Fighters could get improvements to their Fighting Styles. For example Dueling later would get some DC attack that can make enemy bleed or another +2 to damage or bonus 1dX damage, anything. Battlemaster should be the basic fighter. Manouvers give bonus damage, control, something to do.

Also Power Attack feat should be back. Remove GWM. Add Power Attack, so at least it's usable with all weapons, not only Heavy and two handed.

What I am trying to say is that one Feat can give 80% of the damage dealt by combat character later in game. That is the problem. Combat character should be able to deal 70% of his potential damage without feats, which could get him to 100%. But currently a simple math shows how much more efficient and deadly is PAM GWM Barb of Fighter vs just Fighter or Bard using 2 handed sword and taking some interesting feats.

[Pex]

I still maintain particular feats are over hyped. I've played enough games to have seen them taken at least once, but it's not every game. When they are taken everyone is happy when they're used, and the DM isn't resenting it. I can accept mileage varies with people having problems in games I'm not in, which is most games of the world :smallwink:, but I don't see them as a universal problem.

Personally I value AC highly even for warriors, so great weapon master and pole arm master aren't as appealing because you can't use a shield. My barbarian went with shield master feat. My paladin does use a greatsword, but he doesn't have great weapon master. I do plenty enough damage with smites I don't want the risk of missing.

I'm glad the feat options are there even if I don't take them.

[Gungor]

From a min-max perspective, feats are necessary.

From a broader "fun" perspective, not necessarily. Martial classes can use their ASIs to boost some of their secondary/tertiary stats which can make the character more versatile or interesting:

* A barbarian can boost WIS, playing to the archetype of a character who isn't "book smart" but very in tune with her/his surroundings. This can contribute to out-of-combat activities like exploration and survival. And give the character a chance to calm the bear down, rather than splitting the bear in half with an axe. Or, to really play a cool mash-up, boosting INT or CHA - "Not all barbarians are stupid and uncouth, you know."

* For fighters in particular, no feats gives you the chance to max STR/DEX, CON, and be really strong in another ability of your choice. Powerful? Maybe not. Fun/interesting? You bet.

* I also want to give a plug for the mechanical versatility of a battlemaster fighter who has maxed STR and DEX. Given a longbow and a greatsword, you have a ton of options on the battlefield. Trip attack a flying enemy, pin one down from 60 feet away with a menacing attack from a longbow, and once things are to your liking, drop the bow, draw the sword, and wreak havoc.

[CBAnaesthesia]

From a min-max perspective, feats are necessary.

From a broader "fun" perspective, not necessarily. Martial classes can use their ASIs to boost some of their secondary/tertiary stats which can make the character more versatile or interesting:

* A barbarian can boost WIS, playing to the archetype of a character who isn't "book smart" but very in tune with her/his surroundings. This can contribute to out-of-combat activities like exploration and survival. And give the character a chance to calm the bear down, rather than splitting the bear in half with an axe. Or, to really play a cool mash-up, boosting INT or CHA - "Not all barbarians are stupid and uncouth, you know."

Yep, one of my favorite characters ever was an Ancestral Barbarian with 14 Cha and a Noble background. He was descended from a family of not!Vikings who had conquered the region and, while he wasn't exactly the pride of his house, he was a pretty civilized guy - the ancestor spirits he channeled that were more stereotypical barbarians though.


I still maintain particular feats are over hyped. I've played enough games to have seen them taken at least once, but it's not every game. When they are taken everyone is happy when they're used, and the DM isn't resenting it. I can accept mileage varies with people having problems in games I'm not in, which is most games of the world :smallwink:, but I don't see them as a universal problem.

Personally I value AC highly even for warriors, so great weapon master and pole arm master aren't as appealing because you can't use a shield. My barbarian went with shield master feat. My paladin does use a greatsword, but he doesn't have great weapon master. I do plenty enough damage with smites I don't want the risk of missing.

I'm glad the feat options are there even if I don't take them.
Yeah I didn't take GWM with my maul-wielding EK/Wizard until level 18, he was a very fun and sufficiently powerful character.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Feats and spells are similar in that they give the player a unique way to modify or ignore the basic rules.

That's fun. And that fun and flexibility is the reason why there are so many weapon-oriented classes that give you access to spells.

Paladins, Rangers, Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, many flavors of Clerics and Bards, plus all the clever multiclassing options. I'm sure I've overlooked a bunch.

Pure martials get very boring after a while.