Should MAD classes get an extra ASI? Or, should feats be decoupled from ASIs?

[Greywander]

I was reading through the thread on fixing monks, and saw one person suggested giving monks an extra ASI. This struck me as a potential good solution for any MAD class. Ironically, fighters and rogues, the two classes that already get extra ASIs, are both pretty SAD, outside of specific subclasses.

Another option would be to simply decouple feats from ASIs. When you think about it, if feats are meant to be an optional rule, then the differences between MAD and SAD diminish greatly. A SAD build will max their primary stat, then put any remaining ASIs into CON or a tertiary stat. MAD builds will max their primary stat, then their secondary stat, and may have an ASI left to put into CON or a tertiary stat. Arguably, MAD builds have a smoother progression, since they can be boosting an important stat all the way up until their last ASI. A lot of aspects of ability scores, from limited ASIs to racial ASIs to MAD vs. SAD classes, just make a lot more sense if the assumption is that you're playing without feats. But almost everyone seems to play with feats (and I do think feats add a lot of value to the game), so we can have our cake and eat it too by simply decoupling feats from ASIs.

So, you'd still get your ASIs like normal, but now you'd get feats some other way. But how? The easiest would probably be to get a feat at the same time as an ASI (not including extra ASIs, e.g. for fighter or rogue). That's a straight power boost, but it should be fine as long as it applies to everyone. Maybe it would scale according to character level, not class levels, so even multiclass builds would get the same number of feats. Another option is spending XP for feats, with an escalating cost the more feats you buy. Something nice about this is that it gives you control over both how many feats you get and when you get them. Something less nice about this is that it can desync the PCs so they aren't leveling up all at the same time. You could make it a quest reward, e.g. sometimes completing a quest might give you a feat, or a feat token, and you would be able to spend feat tokens to buy feats (again, with an escalating cost).

What are some ways you might want to implement feat and ASI decoupling? (I hope we see something like this for the alleged "5.5e", but I'm not especially hopeful it will be more than an amalgamation of existing variant and optional rules.)

[strangebloke]

Framing it as MAD vs. SAD is I think a mistake.

If you look at the classes that are MAD you end up with a list like

wizard (dex/con/int)
paladin (str or dex/con/cha)
sorcerer (dex/con/cha)
non-hexblade warlocks (dex/con/cha)
bard (dex/con/cha)
monk (dex/con/wis)
ranger (dex/con/wis)

It's pretty self evident that the only classes on this list that actually need more flexibility are the monk and maybe the ranger (though as with sorcerers their MADness is the least of their problems.) Wizards are technically MAD but they have loads of options and customization elsewhere in their build so its not a problem. If anything this is a feature, since you can build a wizard for survivability rather than maxxed intelligence and be pretty effective.

Conversely, of the SAD classes, I'd argue that fighters and rogues really need the flexibility granted to them by those extra ASIs, and that Barbarians are frustatingly inflexible in part because they lack extra ASIs. Basically I think this is the wrong way to approach the problem.

[Bobthewizard]

I think decoupling feats and ASIs is fine for a campaign. I've played in a lot of games where everyone gets a free feat at level 1. Sometimes variant humans get 2 and sometimes they don't. That's about the same as giving a 31 point buy with max 17 at character creation.

I've also played in a few games with the ASI and feat at each ASI. It's a definite power boost but it's fine.

It is a relative nerf to SAD classes and especially to fighter and rogue. They only need so many feats, so normally they get their best feats and max primary score several levels before paladins. I would say that paladins and gish spell casters seem to make out the best in the feat + ASI system, and they don't really need the help. Second best would be barbarians and monks, and they could use the help.

So if you are the DM and are going to do this, make sure you tell the players before character creation, and don't add it into an existing game with a fighter or rogue alongside a paladin or bladesinger.

[Amechra]

The thing is that there's a difference between the way that a Wizard's MAD (they want high Int and a medium Dex/Con) and a Monk's MAD (they want high Dex and Wis and a medium Con), where "high" is 16+ and "medium" is 14-ish.

The way that the standard array shakes out is that it produces one high stat and two medium stats or two high stats. As a result, Monks start off a little behind unless you're playing with point-buy (and willingly have multiple dump stats). The Barbarian has a different issue, in that it's MAD the same way as a Wizard, but all of the ability scores it wants you to have are physical stats (you want high Str, medium-to-high Con, and medium Dex). This is mostly a problem because the only proactive Exploration/Social stat that a Barbarian is going to tend to be remotely good at is Dexterity, and Barbarians don't get any Dexterity skills as class skills!

I actually think that you'd get some pretty good results by giving everyone +1 to one ability score at character creation, as long as that ability score isn't already one of their highest.

[Skrum]

I strongly support decoupling ASI's and feats (getting to one of each), along with ASI's + feats granted by overall character level. I really don't like the disincentive to multi class, and this is my least favorite part of the 5e structure.

As far as this acting as a class balancing feature....I'm skeptical these types of changes are going to be really effective. There's too many moving parts, too many class combinations to say "this upstream change is going to benefit the classes that need it, and benefit the classes that don't need it less."

I think the only thing to say for sure is multi classing would get a large boost. Which I think is great.

[False God]

I don't mind the tradeoff for feats and ASI, sometimes you want a simple character with high stands, sometimes you want neat little features.

Letting you take feats OR ASI whenever they pop up accommodates that.

As for MAD classes, most of them are fine. The attempt to balance out 3 important scores tends to result in, IMO, better characters. "Better" defined here as "being able to do more things" and "living longer". The reality is that SAD classes should be made MAD.

Most classes, IMO, should have at least 2 primary scores, representing the primary drivers of the class. Sure, they can have more optionally, but, simply speaking, like Barbarians being Strong(Str) and Tough(Con). They should then have one-of-two secondary scores representing "other things" you can do with the class. Like, again for Barbarians, Wis(Nature, Medicine, etc..) or Cha(Intimidation, Leadership).

You can continue this design space and assign 2 stats to each of the 3 pillars for each class. 2 for combat, 2 for social and 2 for exploration (they need not always use the same stats or skills for these areas). You can then look at classes and determine what they're good at, what they're okay or situationally good at, and what they're bad at.

And by dependent I really do mean dependent, not "If I'm a really good min/maxer I can build around the need for a second score!"

[Fumble]

Instead of racial stat increases maybe give classes a floating number of points they can put towards stats. Four or five points with no stat going above 18 at level one.

It's not fun to visualize and plan a character but have to choose between mediocre stats or a feat knowing that you probably won't play long after lvl 10.

[jas61292]

First off, let me say that I am of the opinion that Feats being optional is an excellent thing. Them existing is also great, but I love that they are optional. I also love how, in theory, at least, allowing them is not a huge boost in power precisely because they are a tradeoff. So no, I absolutely do not think they should be decoupled from ASIs. I think that is one of the best design decisions of 5e, and hope they keep it that way.

Now, with that said, should MAD classes get an extra ASI? Well, it definitely depends on what you consider MAD. But personally, I say probably not. Not because I don't think it would help balance out the classes, but because doing so would be actually changing the classes, and if you are doing that, I think the correct solution is not to improve MAD classes, but rather to take SAD classes and make them more MAD. Having a single stat you use for everything for your class, but also kinda wanting Dex and Con is not MAD. Its extremely SAD. And I do not think that is good design. Fixing that would be a better solution.

That said, simply throwing in an extra ASI for the MAD classes would be a far simpler solution. And I don't necessarily think that would be bad. But I think it has to be done on a class by class basis. Arguably, the Monk and Paladin are both equally MAD, but the Monk could really use an extra ASI, whereas I find it more arguable that the Paladin deserves a nerf more the a buff.

[strangebloke]

The thing is that there's a difference between the way that a Wizard's MAD (they want high Int and a medium Dex/Con) and a Monk's MAD (they want high Dex and Wis and a medium Con), where "high" is 16+ and "medium" is 14-ish.

The way that the standard array shakes out is that it produces one high stat and two medium stats or two high stats. As a result, Monks start off a little behind unless you're playing with point-buy (and willingly have multiple dump stats). The Barbarian has a different issue, in that it's MAD the same way as a Wizard, but all of the ability scores it wants you to have are physical stats (you want high Str, medium-to-high Con, and medium Dex). This is mostly a problem because the only proactive Exploration/Social stat that a Barbarian is going to tend to be remotely good at is Dexterity, and Barbarians don't get any Dexterity skills as class skills!

I actually think that you'd get some pretty good results by giving everyone +1 to one ability score at character creation, as long as that ability score isn't already one of their highest.

"everyone gets a free feat at level one, you can point buy up to 16"

Solves any MAD issues.

[OldTrees1]

Classes can specialize in many different parts of the 5E mechanics. Bards and Rogues specialize in reliable expertise in skills for example. It is not outlandish to consider a class that leans on the ability scores mechanics a bit more and other areas a bit less. Such a class would have uses for multiple ability scores and try to make various different combinations and prioritizations valid choices. Since such a class is leaning on the ability scores mechanic a bit more, it would make sense for them to enhance that area with an extra ASI to show specialization and to supply more resources to the minigame of prioritizing between multiple ability scores.

In short, I could easily see a MAD class that gets extra ASIs.

[Pex]

Even SAD classes care about their other scores for their non-class specific uses. In 5E they matter for their saving throws if nothing else. I would prefer Feats be divorced from ASI. I can only hope 5.5 will do that, but I doubt it.

[Oramac]

Personally, I'd support decoupling feats and ASIs as well, and putting feats at regular character level intervals. I specify character levels intentionally. Currently, let's say I'm going to play a game at 8th level. I can either play a single class (doesn't matter what) and I get my choice of two ASIs, or two feats, or one of each. But if I want to MC, say 3 cleric / 5 wizard (which I have done), I get screwed out of basically half of those benefits that the single class gets. Sure, I could go 4 and 4 instead of 3 and 5, but maybe I want the 5th level feature (3 rogue / 5 barb for extra attack, for example). Giving feats at character levels means that my 3/5 character is now only 25% behind instead of 50% (2 feats and 1 ASI vs 2 feats and 2 ASIs for the single class). It is worth noting that this would make half-feats rather significantly stronger, as the extra +1 to a stat would become really sought after and help to close the gap even more.

Just my .02

[Greywander]

The thing is that there's a difference between the way that a Wizard's MAD (they want high Int and a medium Dex/Con) and a Monk's MAD (they want high Dex and Wis and a medium Con), where "high" is 16+ and "medium" is 14-ish.
Exactly. Monks are MAD because they really want both DEX and WIS at 20. Wizards... I keep forgetting that not everyone dips cleric for medium armor. But while wizards can benefit from maxing DEX, they don't need it in the same way monks do. Wizards only get DEX for AC; monks get DEX for AC, attacks, and damage, while also getting WIS for AC and ki save. Basically, the functions of INT for a wizard are split between DEX and WIS on a monk, though with the trade off that both provide AC. Wizards want DEX in the same way that everyone wants CON, they're not necessary to be competent, they just help you stay alive a bit longer.


I strongly support decoupling ASI's and feats (getting to one of each), along with ASI's + feats granted by overall character level. I really don't like the disincentive to multi class, and this is my least favorite part of the 5e structure.
Interesting. I don't that that would be too popular on the forums here, but I'd be down for something like that. What if we just straight up pulled out ASI levels and compressed each class down to 15 levels? You'd basically just skip over the levels that grant ASIs, getting all the benefits (e.g. additional spell slots, ki/sorcery points, the rare class feature that falls on an ASI level, etc.) when you take the level after the ASI. This would then give you 5 extra levels to play around with multiclassing, which, since we're skipping ASI levels, could actually get you 6th level features on another class.

You'd almost have to do it this way if you're moving ASIs over from class levels to character levels. Though instead of getting 5 extra levels for multiclassing, there might be a way to insert the ASIs as empty levels into your character progression. So for a straight classes character, nothing would really change, but for multiclass builds, you'd always get an ASI at character levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, essentially "pausing" your multiclass progression on those levels as you take a dummy level that gives you an ASI. The only issue I can think of with that is, what would the hit die be for the ASI level?


As for MAD classes, most of them are fine. The attempt to balance out 3 important scores tends to result in, IMO, better characters. "Better" defined here as "being able to do more things" and "living longer". The reality is that SAD classes should be made MAD.

Even SAD classes care about their other scores for their non-class specific uses. In 5E they matter for their saving throws if nothing else. I would prefer Feats be divorced from ASI. I can only hope 5.5 will do that, but I doubt it.
I get what you're saying, and I think I can actually agree that it would be better for classes to have more uses for other ability scores, but as Pex points out, everyone cares about getting more stat points. The issue at the moment is that SAD builds are free to max out one stat and then spend the rest of their ASIs on feats, while MAD builds need to spend more ASIs on stats. If ASIs and feats were decoupled, then you'd have no choice but to spend ASIs on stats, which would lead to SAD builds finding interesting things to do with their extra stat points. Like, I don't know, a fighter who is also a field medic, so they pick up Medicine proficiency and buff their WIS. They don't need to, it doesn't really make them a better fighter, but it does make them a more interesting character.

Would it be better if the mechanics better incentivized raising other stats? Maybe, but it could also lead to more cookie cutter cases. Right now, you'll be hard pressed to find a monk who boosts anything that isn't DEX or WIS, and likewise a paladin who boosts anything that isn't STR or CHA. But a fighter? Once they max out STR/DEX, and maybe buff their CON a bit, they're free to do whatever. SAD classes have flexibility in where they put the rest of their stat points, MAD classes do not.

[Witty Username]

I am warming up to the idea that Feats shouldn't exist, they seem to cause more problems then they provide solutions for.

[JohnDaBarr]

I am warming up to the idea that Feats shouldn't exist, they seem to cause more problems then they provide solutions for.

As the game progresses most monsters usually just become big HP sponges that are really a pain to deal with without GWM or Sharpshooter. Also, feats are still the only way of gaining skills, weapon proficiency and similar stuff that your players might want to get...

It really annoys me that a character can go from lvl 1 to lvl 20 and learn reality altering magic but learning a skill proficiency is basically impossible by RAW...


Ultimately you might be correct. Simply removing feats is the most elegant solution here, just because they made this poor of a job implementing feats in the game.

[Slider Eclipse]

Interesting. I don't that that would be too popular on the forums here, but I'd be down for something like that. What if we just straight up pulled out ASI levels and compressed each class down to 15 levels? You'd basically just skip over the levels that grant ASIs, getting all the benefits (e.g. additional spell slots, ki/sorcery points, the rare class feature that falls on an ASI level, etc.) when you take the level after the ASI. This would then give you 5 extra levels to play around with multiclassing, which, since we're skipping ASI levels, could actually get you 6th level features on another class.

You'd almost have to do it this way if you're moving ASIs over from class levels to character levels. Though instead of getting 5 extra levels for multiclassing, there might be a way to insert the ASIs as empty levels into your character progression. So for a straight classes character, nothing would really change, but for multiclass builds, you'd always get an ASI at character levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, essentially "pausing" your multiclass progression on those levels as you take a dummy level that gives you an ASI. The only issue I can think of with that is, what would the hit die be for the ASI level

Personally I'd rather take it the opposite way (though I do agree Feats and ASI's should definitely be decoupled from both each other and Class levels) and instead boost what Classes can do than change the level cap. As it already stands most classes just kinda stop getting anything of note around 11th level until maybe right before the capstone. many Subclasses also have an issue with putting very useful but underpowered feats at the late game tiers as well such as the ever so common "if this Feature would use a Resource, you now always start every encounter with at least 1 use of that feature" mechanic. my take would be to further condense the Subclasses to stop delivering new features by 10th level in place of Class level based ASI's, and implement a "Prestige Class" option for high level play that adds additional features to further expand on playstyles and make those dead levels a little more useful.

This solves several issues as now you have an incentive to both stay in a single class besides spells due to actually getting class features late game, yet also have an incentive to Multiclass early thanks to not losing ASI/Feats if you really want/need to dip somewhere.

[Gtdead]

For this discussion we have to assume that MAD classes are in need of buffing just because they are MAD. This isn't the case, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's say that it is.

The extra ASI solution has been discussed so many times. Unless it is limited to an attribute increase, people will just get another feat. It doesn't solve the problem, it just increases their power across the board.
Decoupling by itself also doesn't solve the MAD problem because (unless Clineage, and assuming a feat and an ASI every 4 levels), the first secondary stat increase will be at level 12 which is very late to matter in the majority of cases. So relative to the SAD classes, MAD won't get better really, at least not in a timeframe that makes sense.

The power difference between a level 8 Sorcerer (2 feats/20 CHA) and a level 8 Monk (2 feats/20 DEX) is similar to a level 8 sorcerer (2 feats/16 CHA) and a level 8 monk (2 feats/16 DEX). Sure DEX is a more impactful stat but instead of DEX Monk, try STR Barbarian or STR Paladin or STR Ranger.

On the other hand, MAD and SAD designations don't tell the whole story. Casters needs both CON and the relevant mental stat for their basic function. So essentially, every caster is MAD. I'd go as far as to say that circumstantially, Monk gets less from WIS as a whole stat than casters gain from just better concentration saves.

A solution, which isn't elegant, but would work to that end, would be to both decouple the ASIs from feats, and double the ASIs. Every four levels, every class gets both a feat and 2 +2 increases to attributes. This should in theory buff the MAD classes relative to the SAD classes because they gain more from their secondary stat.

Another solution is to remove Attribute increases all together and only allow feats. This will work to the same end but it will nerf classes that are very SAD (rogue mostly), so I don't like it as much.

But, as I said, this is needed only if we assume that MAD classes need a boost.

[da newt]

Nope.

Choose your rate - Chose your fate. If you want to pay a MAD PC there is a cost and a benefit. Make your choice and live with it.

If you do feel the need to change things - make all the PCs uber-talented from the start (extra stat points / feats for EVERYONE).

Don't start changing the rules unless you want to change all the rules for all the Players to make them feel like the most special powerful one, and then watch your snowball careen down the hill growing out of control until every PC is immortal and everyone gets a giant shiny participation trophy just for showing up sometimes.

Seriously - there is no 'right' opinion. Do what you and your players feel is best, just do it at session 0. It's a slippery slope once you start tweaking things, but if everyone is good with it, your world is your oyster - go for it.

[Ganryu]

What do barbarian, ranger, and monk all have in common?

They are MAD classes that are seen as weak. Paladin is exception, and I wouldn't mind redesigns to be more like them.

But as being MAD is a common theme of weak classes, I say throw them a bone. Not going to hurt to give them all an extra ASI. Rogue gets it, and it's SAD

[Amnestic]

I don't believe that an additional ASI would do much for barbs/rangers (at least, post-Tasha's Rangers).

In my eyes:
Barbs suffer from a lack of versatility and rage starvation assuming you're not doing more than 1 or 2 fights/day. A feat might help this (eg. Ritual Caster) but I'd rather see changes to class features.
Rangers suffer(ed) from lack of coherent vision and limited spells known, along with a weak set of tier 4 features (which they still do). An extra ASI doesn't really fix their "problems". They're not suffering from lack of stats really in my eyes.
Monks suffer from ki starvation and being behind-the-curve on AC, while not having the freedom to skirmish as easily as a rogue does.

An extra ASI for monks to dump into Dex/Wis to boost their AC would help, especially if combo'd with something like "WisMod to ki pool".

[Amechra]

I am warming up to the idea that Feats shouldn't exist, they seem to cause more problems then they provide solutions for.

I kinda agree, honestly, with a lot of the same caveats that JohnDeBarr brought up. I think you could get away with letting people learn new skills with Downtime and buffing weapons a little bit. For example, some of the benefits of Dual Wielder and Crossbow Expert should probably just be part of the default rules for two-weapon fighting.

[Saelethil]

I’m all about giving Monks and Barbarians additional ASIs.
Another option could be increasing ASIs from +2 to a split +3 with the following options
+1, +1, +1
+2, +1
+1, + feat
This would still be a power boost but it should result in more diverse abilities.

[OldTrees1]

I am warming up to the idea that Feats shouldn't exist, they seem to cause more problems then they provide solutions for.

I doubt that. Perhaps it is a sampling bias. How often do you hear people talk about what they are content or happy with?

Feats, as features that players can choose to add to their PC to give qualitative customization, are a great mechanic.

Could the feat system be improved further? Yes, however there is merit to allowing players to add qualitative features to their PC from a list regardless of class. You don't have to be a Bard/Rogue to be Observant.

[KorvinStarmast]

What do barbarian, ranger, and monk all have in common?

They are MAD classes that are seen as weak. Paladin is exception, and I wouldn't mind redesigns to be more like them.

But as being MAD is a common theme of weak classes, I say throw them a bone. Not going to hurt to give them all an extra ASI. Rogue gets it, and it's SAD Yep, extra ASI/Feat at level 10 (per the rogue) is the less difficult thing to implement. (Though I am not convinced a ranger needs it, the PHB ranger will surely benefit from it due to being MAD).

For the OP: overcomplicating the perceived solution to a minor problem. Barbarian and Ranger are only perceived as 'weak' by optimizers. A lot of players don't dig into the how the sausage is made, D&D wise.

[Ganryu]

I’m all about giving Monks and Barbarians additional ASIs.
Another option could be increasing ASIs from +2 to a split +3 with the following options
+1, +1, +1
+2, +1
+1, + feat
This would still be a power boost but it should result in more diverse abilities.
I honestly like this solution.

[Psyren]

Honestly I think Ranger is fine now thanks to Tasha's.

Monk should definitely get another ASI, at least one. They're the "physical perfection, body and mind" class for crying out loud. You want to tell me a Rogue is working on self-improvement more than a monk??

Artificer's bonus attunements fill a role similar to an ASI in my mind (and they're pretty SAD anyway except maybe Alchemist) so I think they're okay.

[strangebloke]

I think what this thread is showing is that people just shorthand MAD to mean "bad."

Barbarians aren't MAD. They don't particularly need anything except moderate amounts of strength and dexterity to function well. Their damage comes from rage and reckless, their durability comes from rage (and they can have 19 AC with just +2 DEX) and their giant hit die. Giving a barbarian more stats would make them slightly stronger, but wouldn't meaningfully fix the issues the barbarian has as a class.

[Ganryu]

I think what this thread is showing is that people just shorthand MAD to mean "bad."

Barbarians aren't MAD. They don't particularly need anything except moderate amounts of strength and dexterity to function well. Their damage comes from rage and reckless, their durability comes from rage (and they can have 19 AC with just +2 DEX) and their giant hit die. Giving a barbarian more stats would make them slightly stronger, but wouldn't meaningfully fix the issues the barbarian has as a class.

They work off of strength more than any other class. They get advantage on strength while raging, +4 to strength at lvl 20, only use strength weapons. So, strength's generally their primary to take full advantage of this.

Con - HP IS their resource, it's like spell caster's spell slots, if they aren't using most of it in a fight, they don't feel like they are contributing. It also goes towards their AC, and a few abilities in subclasses like beast. This is more important than any other class's con. Wizards shouldn't get hit, for example.

Dex - Least important, but they have several abilities that function off of this. Unarmored defense, and danger sense are both abilities that work better with more dex.

Barbarians want to max out 3 stats, how is that not dependent on multiple attributes? Their attributes depend on those three.

Also, MAD isn't always bad. Paladin. Everyone here agrees those are very powerful, but here's the thing, they can change their playstyle if they have more one or the other. More Charisma? You actually cast spells and protect more. More strength/dex? Smash.

Barbarian is going to play the exact same reguardless of which stat you wait to increase. Monk is the exact same, reguardless of which stat you wait to increase.

Ranger would like to try to be like paladin, but, they're spells are kinda bad, and nothing based off wisdom let's them do a job in combat.

[OldTrees1]

Barbarians want to max out 3 stats, how is that not dependent on multiple attributes? Their attributes depend on those three.

Also, MAD isn't always bad. Paladin. Everyone here agrees those are very powerful, but here's the thing, they can change their playstyle if they have more one or the other. More Charisma? You actually cast spells and protect more. More strength/dex? Smash.

Barbarian is going to play the exact same reguardless of which stat you wait to increase. Monk is the exact same, reguardless of which stat you wait to increase.

Ranger would like to try to be like paladin, but, they're spells are kinda bad, and nothing based off wisdom let's them do a job in combat.


I can make a Cha 20 Con 14 Dex 14 Paladin (without using Blessed Warrior from Tasha's). Considering how easy it is to get a 14, I don't think that counts as MAD. That could even be considered SAD later on when they switch to just casting and protecting.

Benefiting from multiple attributes is not the same as depending on multiple attributes. If MAD is about a problem with depending on too many abilities, then Paladin is not MAD and Paladin's model is the solution to MAD.

[Greywander]

I kinda agree, honestly, with a lot of the same caveats that JohnDeBarr brought up. I think you could get away with letting people learn new skills with Downtime and buffing weapons a little bit. For example, some of the benefits of Dual Wielder and Crossbow Expert should probably just be part of the default rules for two-weapon fighting.
What if feats were trained during downtime instead of purchased with an ASI?

We already have rules from Xanathar's for learning languages and tools during downtime. Tasha's gives us a hierarchy of which types of proficiencies outrank others. Using Tasha's rules, we can trade between tool proficiencies and simple weapon proficiencies, so learning a simple weapon should take the same amount of downtime as learning a language or tool. Martial weapons are a step up, taking, say, a base of 15 weeks instead of 10. Armor is a step up from that, and should take, say, 20 weeks to train. Skills are separate, but taking double the time of a tool sounds about right, so 20 weeks for a skill. Remember, you can reduce this time by a number of weeks equal to your INT mod; with 20 INT, the time to train a tool, language, or simple weapon is halved (10 weeks to 5 weeks), but for a martial weapon it's only cut by a third (15 weeks to 10 weeks), and for skills and armor it's only cut by a forth (20 weeks to 15 weeks). You also pay by the week, so longer training time means higher gold cost.

I could also see using different training times for armor based on the armor type, e.g. light armor is 10 weeks, medium armor is 20 weeks, shields are 25 weeks, and heavy armor is 30 weeks. Though if we can train feats then training armor proficiencies isn't really necessary.

For feats (and possibly for skills), we could use an escalating cost. Say your first feat only takes 10 weeks to train, but each subsequent feat takes 5 more weeks. This makes it relatively easy to pick up a couple feats early on, but the training time quickly becomes prohibitive.

Something like this already exists in the DMG as an optional rule. As an alternative quest reward, the DM can have an NPC offer training in a feat. I don't remember off the top of my head the specifics of how that was implemented, or if it even had any rules regarding how the training happens and how much it cost (if anything).

[Psyren]

Barbarians want to max out 3 stats, how is that not dependent on multiple attributes? Their attributes depend on those three.


Everyone wants maxed stats, because stats are useful for everyone. (Especially in this edition where all six of them have an associated saving throw.)

But strangebloke is highlighting the difference between an optimal want vs. an on-curve need. A Barbarian might want 20 Wis and Con, but they can survive even at high levels much lower numbers in these stats. A monk meanwhile, at high levels with low Wis and Con, is just dead (or at least a material burden on their team.)

If we define MAD as merely wanting multiple high stats, the term essentially loses its meaning, because every class wants that. So we need a definition with a bit more granularity than that.

[Ganryu]

Okay, multiple attribute, dependent. Do your abilities require several different stats?

Barbarian:

Danger sense: Dex
Unarmored Defense: Dex + Con
Rage: Str + Con {Your HP is a resource, more than near any other class.}
Feral Instinct: Dex
Relentless Rage: Con
Indomitable Might: Str
Primal Champion: Str + Con

Wisdom might be nice to have, but no more for barbarian than any other class. None of their abilities DEPEND on it, and that's what Mad means Multiple Attribute Dependency.

Your abilities work better with higher stats in the above.

[strangebloke]

They work off of strength more than any other class. They get advantage on strength while raging, +4 to strength at lvl 20, only use strength weapons. So, strength's generally their primary to take full advantage of this.

Con - HP IS their resource, it's like spell caster's spell slots, if they aren't using most of it in a fight, they don't feel like they are contributing. It also goes towards their AC, and a few abilities in subclasses like beast. This is more important than any other class's con. Wizards shouldn't get hit, for example.

Dex - Least important, but they have several abilities that function off of this. Unarmored defense, and danger sense are both abilities that work better with more dex.

Barbarians want to max out 3 stats, how is that not dependent on multiple attributes? Their attributes depend on those three.

Also, MAD isn't always bad. Paladin. Everyone here agrees those are very powerful, but here's the thing, they can change their playstyle if they have more one or the other. More Charisma? You actually cast spells and protect more. More strength/dex? Smash.

Barbarian is going to play the exact same reguardless of which stat you wait to increase. Monk is the exact same, reguardless of which stat you wait to increase.

Ranger would like to try to be like paladin, but, they're spells are kinda bad, and nothing based off wisdom let's them do a job in combat.

The problem you're running into here is confusing "benefits from" with "needs."

A barbarian with 12 STR will be mechanically less powerful than a barbarian with 20 strength. That's obviously true. But when compared to other classes they're able to function with lower key stats than other classes are. Consider a comparison between a monk with 12 DEX and a barbarian with 12 STR at level five, against a target with 13 AC. Both have +4 to hit, but the barbarian has advantage, so their hit rate is ~80% instead of ~45%. Assuming normal weapons (spear for monk, maul for barbarian) this gives us:

Barbarian: (2d6+1+2)*2*0.8=16
Monk: [(1d8+1)*2+(1d6+1)*2]*0.55=11

then with a +5

Barbarian: (2d6+5+2)*2*0.93=26.25 (60% increase)
Monk: [(1d8+5)*2+(1d6+5)*2]*0.75=27 (145% increase)

Just because the barbarians can use strength, doesn't mean its as important for them as it is for other classes. This trend continues with AC. Barbarians can wear medium armor and ignore dexterity and con, monks can't (or at least shouldn't.) Everyone wants some amount of CON, but comparing a monk to a barbarian here, the barbarian can have +1 or +2 AC relative to the monk and also have +2 hp per level without any additional investment of points in CON. Both of these are melee classes.

[Ganryu]

The problem you're running into here is confusing "benefits from" with "needs."

A barbarian with 12 STR will be mechanically less powerful than a barbarian with 20 strength. That's obviously true. But when compared to other classes they're able to function with lower key stats than other classes are. Consider a comparison between a monk with 12 DEX and a barbarian with 12 STR at level five, against a target with 13 AC. Both have +4 to hit, but the barbarian has advantage, so their hit rate is ~80% instead of ~45%. Assuming normal weapons (spear for monk, maul for barbarian) this gives us:

Barbarian: (2d6+1+2)*2*0.8=16
Monk: [(1d8+1)*2+(1d6+1)*2]*0.55=11

then with a +5

Barbarian: (2d6+5+2)*2*0.93=26.25 (60% increase)
Monk: [(1d8+5)*2+(1d6+5)*2]*0.75=27 (145% increase)

Just because the barbarians can use strength, doesn't mean its as important for them as it is for other classes. This trend continues with AC. Barbarians can wear medium armor and ignore dexterity and con, monks can't (or at least shouldn't.) Everyone wants some amount of CON, but comparing a monk to a barbarian here, the barbarian can have +1 or +2 AC relative to the monk and also have +2 hp per level without any additional investment of points in CON. Both of these are melee classes.

I mean, no one in the world is arguing monk isn't worse off in this. Barbarian CAN function with less stats, but, why are they considered MAD? Compare them with fighter. Fighter's maxed out their primary stat by lvl 6, can spend feats however they want, they can flavor their character. They can max out a secondary stat by lvl 12. They have space to spend ASI for feats instead of pumping more stats. A barbarian, it's a real choice. "Do I want my abilities to function better, or do I want feat X?" They aren't going to grab a fluff feat almost any point in time, because they have 3 different stats their abilities are already functioning off of, and failing because an ability just wasn't high enough feels bad. And you'll be using most of the barbarian's abilities.

I wouldn't compare barbarian's damage to monk, I'd compare it to fighter. Compare it grabbing +1 strength vs polearm master/sentinel/greatweapon mastery for fighter. Fighters like high stats, but none of their abilities depend on it, making them SAD. Strength/Dex good? Con decent? They're happy to jump in the fray.

Barbarian: Strength/dex/con good? They can get by with less, but now less of their abilities function. Again, Monk is worse. By far. Barbarians are weaker end, but not weak, they can compensate for a few abilities not working well, but monk is screwed. Barbarians can put on armor. Monks can't. Barbarians can get advantage if their attack is weak. Monks can't. Barbarians don't have many saving throws as a core class.

Honestly, I think monks are hands down worst class in the game due to this. They can't take flavorful feats without losing real power.

Most of the MAD Classes are bad. Paladin pulls it off by just plain having more resources than anyone else. They can do anything. There are different styles of play. They have resources {smite slots}, that don't really depend on any stat.

[strangebloke]

I mean, no one in the world is arguing monk isn't worse off in this. Barbarian CAN function with less stats, but, why are they considered MAD? Compare them with fighter. Fighter's maxed out their primary stat by lvl 6, can spend feats however they want, they can flavor their character. They can max out a secondary stat by lvl 12. They have space to spend ASI for feats instead of pumping more stats. A barbarian, it's a real choice. "Do I want my abilities to function better, or do I want feat X?" They aren't going to grab a fluff feat almost any point in time, because they have 3 different stats their abilities are already functioning off of, and failing because an ability just wasn't high enough feels bad. And you'll be using most of the barbarian's abilities.

I wouldn't compare barbarian's damage to monk, I'd compare it to fighter. Compare it grabbing +1 strength vs polearm master/sentinel/greatweapon mastery for fighter. Fighters like high stats, but none of their abilities depend on it, making them SAD. Strength/Dex good? Con decent? They're happy to jump in the fray.

Barbarian: Strength/dex/con good? They can get by with less, but now less of their abilities function. Again, Monk is worse. By far. Barbarians are weaker end, but not weak, they can compensate for a few abilities not working well, but monk is screwed. Barbarians can put on armor. Monks can't. Barbarians can get advantage if their attack is weak. Monks can't. Barbarians don't have many saving throws as a core class.

Honestly, I think monks are hands down worst class in the game due to this. They can't take flavorful feats without losing real power.

Most of the MAD Classes are bad. Paladin pulls it off by just plain having more resources than anyone else. They can do anything. There are different styles of play. They have resources {smite slots}, that don't really depend on any stat.
I don't understand what you're talking about tbh.

Barbarians don't need to use unarmored defense. That's purely an optional thing, and the class functions better if you ignore it. If you leave that aside, what stats besides strength do they actually care about? Why does a barbarian need higher CON or DEX than a fighter, aside from the fact that they tend to be a medium armor class? Why do they need CON more than a rogue? Barbarians are SAD, or close to it.

For another example here, look at rangers. Nominally they have three main stats, but in reality they're a ranged specialist with a d10 hit die and a load of spells that don't rely on WIS mod in any way. They don't actually need much other than dexterity.

Or sorcerers. Sure, their class features only rely on charisma, but if they don't also have good CON and DEX they're going to feel really bad.

[Amnestic]

Barbarians don't need to use unarmored defense. That's purely an optional thing, and the class functions better if you ignore it.

I do think that's pretty stupid personally - it's essentially a 'trap' feature, which 5e shouldn't have...so I made it Str+Con instead of Dex+Con.

[Ganryu]

Barbarians don't need to use unarmored defense. That's purely an optional thing, and the class functions better if you ignore it. If you leave that aside, what stats besides strength do they actually care about? Why does a barbarian need higher CON or DEX than a fighter, aside from the fact that they tend to be a medium armor class? Why do they need CON more than a rogue? Barbarians are SAD, or close to it.

For another example here, look at rangers. Nominally they have three main stats, but in reality they're a ranged specialist with a d10 hit die and a load of spells that don't rely on WIS mod in any way. They don't actually need much other than dexterity.

Or sorcerers. Sure, their class features only rely on charisma, but if they don't also have good CON and DEX they're going to feel really bad.

Unarmored defense hits 22 AC if maxed out, then +2 with shield. Which is better, AC of 19, or 24?

You'll never get there, but its theoretical, and therefore people want to go for it. I honestly think when building a barbarian that the ability is a trap, but that's almost worse than not having it!

People want to use the abilities they have!

Also:
Relentless Rage

Starting at 11th level, your rage can keep you fighting despite grievous wounds. If you drop to 0 hit points while you're raging and don't die outright, you can make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw. If you succeed, you drop to 1 hit point instead
Each time you use this feature after the first, the DC increases by 5. When you finish a short or long rest, the DC resets to 10.

----------------------

(Few subclasses also have several con based abilities). The Barbarian is supposed to have high Con.

8 vs 24 constitution is a difference between 45% chance of that going off first time, and a 90% chance.

Also, as you mentioned, medium armor class.

Sure, you can make it work with less stats, but it makes what you already have less efficient. You don't even need to be a power gamer to not like your things working. Why would I play a greatsword fighter when I have a dagger? I mean, a lot of the damage is off of my primary stat, right? 1d4+dex is fine. No need to compete with 2d6+str, right?



A sorcerer with bad con can stay out of melee range. It's not core to who they are. They lose absolutely no class features depending on their stats apart from charisma. That makes them SAD for the most part. Blade Singer might like it, but no sorcerer needs to be in melee range{Tangent, I miss stone sorcerer...} Blade singer is, in fact, MAD{Dex/int/con}. Most Sorcerers are not.

Ranger... is a different bag of worms. They are a half caster. They traded some martial prowess to cast spells. Their spells suck, and that's a different discussion, but now they can't use an entire class feature due to a feature being low. Ranger depends a lot more on subclasses though for wisdom mod. Hunter is never going to need it. The new Beast master would very much like it high.

There are different levels of madness.

[Leon]

No, because the MAD/SAD thing is only of a concern to people of certain mindsets who cant function without it being to their particular fixation of numbers. If it were needed you'd have classes designed to only function a specific way where as what we have is most classes can be played in a variety of ways with a variety of stat choices.


I am warming up to the idea that Feats shouldn't exist, they seem to cause more problems then they provide solutions for.
They are optional from the get go. So they are working as intended.

[strangebloke]

I do think that's pretty stupid personally - it's essentially a 'trap' feature, which 5e shouldn't have...so I made it Str+Con instead of Dex+Con.
It's only a trap in the sense that thinking that its the best or only thing a barbarian should fixate on. Its a very good feature for many barbarians, particularly if they shapeshift.


Unarmored defense hits 22 AC if maxed out, then +2 with shield. Which is better, AC of 19, or 24?
17-19 is, however, enough.

This is the difference between properly MAD and "can benefit from multiple stats." Barbarians don't need 24 AC. They don't need to invest very much at all to have 17-19.

Sure, you can make it work with less stats, but it makes what you already have less efficient. You don't even need to be a power gamer to not like your things working. Why would I play a greatsword fighter when I have a dagger? I mean, a lot of the damage is off of my primary stat, right? 1d4+dex is fine. No need to compete with 2d6+str, right? [/COLOR]

There are different levels of madness.

Sure, every class wants to be stronger and have better stats, that goes without saying, but some classes are more dependent on their stats than others. At the extreme end you have the druid, which can have flat 8s across the board and still be pretty effective, and on the other hand you have the monk, who really wants all their stats to get high as soon as possible. There's a sliding scale here of more-stat-dependent to less, and on that scale, barbarians are very much so on the "less" side of things. I've already shown this for monk, its also true for fighter. Consider:

Barbarian: (2d6+1+2)*2*0.8=16
Fighter: (2d6+1+1.4)*2*0.55=10.34

then with a +5

Barbarian: (2d6+5+2)*2*0.93=26.25 (60% increase)
Fighter: (2d6+5+1.4)*2*0.75=20.1 (94% increase)

This gets even more stark if you look at level 11+. As for relentless rage, the truth is that the difference between a 'normal' CON mod and a 'focused' CON mod is like 10%. Effects like a paladin aura or BI are going to be more relevant

[Pex]

I don't understand what you're talking about tbh.

Barbarians don't need to use unarmored defense. That's purely an optional thing, and the class functions better if you ignore it. If you leave that aside, what stats besides strength do they actually care about? Why does a barbarian need higher CON or DEX than a fighter, aside from the fact that they tend to be a medium armor class? Why do they need CON more than a rogue? Barbarians are SAD, or close to it.

For another example here, look at rangers. Nominally they have three main stats, but in reality they're a ranged specialist with a d10 hit die and a load of spells that don't rely on WIS mod in any way. They don't actually need much other than dexterity.

Or sorcerers. Sure, their class features only rely on charisma, but if they don't also have good CON and DEX they're going to feel really bad.

Because barbarian players want to be Arnold Schwarzenegger in a loin cloth. Not universally all players, but that is the power fantasy archetype. Conan, Dar, He-Man, Tarzan, Hercules. Let's not get into innuendo, but the shirtless hero is iconic. Wearing armor is not what they're going for. As great as resistance to damage is, damage does accumulate so the barbarian cares about his AC. He doesn't want to be hit all the time, accepting he'll have less AC than the platemail fighters and paladins. Barbarians would have been better served if their unarmored AC was 13 + DX or CO modifier.

[Psyren]

Yes of course, the barbarian who stepped right out of a Boris Vallejo painting is iconic, but the point is that they CAN wear medium armor if they need to. That's the difference between Multi Attribute Desired and Multi Attribute Dependent.

[Ganryu]

Yes of course, the barbarian who stepped right out of a Boris Vallejo painting is iconic, but the point is that they CAN wear medium armor if they need to. That's the difference between Multi Attribute Desired and Multi Attribute Dependent.

Okay. And I could play a wizard with 12-14 intelligence. That attribute is desired, but not needed, right? You could easily get to level 20 no problem. Nothing says I NEED intelligence.

It's a sliding scale. Barbarian can function with lower stats, but wants them higher in multiple stat departments. It's not the worst at it. But because it wants them, it doesn't have room for fluff feats that other classes can get easy.

Can a rogue or a fighter grab healer feat? Easily. Barbarian/Monk/Ranger is going to sweat bullets on it. THAT'S what the thread is about!

[Psyren]

Okay. And I could play a wizard with 12-14 intelligence. That attribute is desired, but not needed, right? You could easily get to level 20 no problem. Nothing says I NEED intelligence.

Holy false equivalency Batman. Dex is not a Barbarian's primary stat (and if it is, they wouldn't be wearing medium armor, obviously.)


Can a rogue or a fighter grab healer feat? Easily. Barbarian/Monk/Ranger is going to sweat bullets on it. THAT'S what the thread is about!

I am completely fine with Monk getting another ASI as I stated, but you don't need bad analogies to get there. Barb and Ranger, I'm less sold on.

[Ganryu]

Holy false equivalency Batman. Dex is not a Barbarian's primary stat (and if it is, they wouldn't be wearing medium armor, obviously.)



I am completely fine with Monk getting another ASI as I stated, but you don't need bad analogies to get there. Barb and Ranger, I'm less sold on.

Honestly, yeah, could deal with that. Monk deeeefinitely needs the love, it's the red headed step child of 5e. They're the worst off for Mad issues.

Ranger, I don't even feel it's MAD that's there issue, wizards of the coast has tried several things. They're better now, and no where near useless, but they don't feel like anything, and late game they don't get much.

Barb, they're MAD, that's all I was arguing for, but they can definitely substitue a few things, so they aren't hte worst off.

So yeah, can agree with "Of all the MAD classes, throw Monk a bone".

[Tanarii]

Can a rogue or a fighter grab healer feat? Easily. Barbarian/Monk/Ranger is going to sweat bullets on it. THAT'S what the thread is about!
And that's good. Barbarians and Monks are two of the more powerful classes. ASIs are literally a class feature for Fighters and Rogues. It's part of their power.

Decoupling feats from ASIs has multiple problems. First of all, it's an optional rule. Doing so can't be part of the base game, and have it balanced, and some feats are already out of balance in the first place (GWM, SS, CBE, Res (Con)). Second of all, giving free feats changes the relative class balance, and MAD classes hardly suffer compared to SAD classes. Giving them to only MAD classes would be even worse.

[strangebloke]

Because barbarian players want to be Arnold Schwarzenegger in a loin cloth. Not universally all players, but that is the power fantasy archetype. Conan, Dar, He-Man, Tarzan, Hercules. Let's not get into innuendo, but the shirtless hero is iconic. Wearing armor is not what they're going for. As great as resistance to damage is, damage does accumulate so the barbarian cares about his AC. He doesn't want to be hit all the time, accepting he'll have less AC than the platemail fighters and paladins. Barbarians would have been better served if their unarmored AC was 13 + DX or CO modifier.
I'm not talking about whatever things a player may feel their character 'needs' to fulfill the fiction they're working with. If you think that they should get stronger unarmored AC and that they could afford to not have medium armor proficiency... fine.

But the class as it exists does not require multiple high (16+) stats. It doesn't require one. A barbarian is going to feel very resilient, strong, and damaging even if you have no modifiers higher than a +2. I have already shown this with respect to dpr, but its true for strength checks and dexterity saves and hp as well. The barbarian is less dependent mechanically on their stats than almost every class in the game.

Okay. And I could play a wizard with 10 intelligence. That attribute is desired, but not needed, right? You could easily get to level 20 no problem. Nothing says I NEED intelligence.

It's a sliding scale. Barbarian can function with lower stats, but wants them higher in multiple stat departments. It's not the worst at it. But because it wants them, it doesn't have room for fluff feats that other classes can get easy.

Can a rogue or a fighter grab alert feat? Easily. Barbarian is going to sweat bullets on it. THAT'S what the thread is about!

The Barbarian shouldn't. If you have a 16 in STR and a 14 in DEX, you can put the rest of your stats where you please. Barbarian as a class has problems, but depending on high stats to raise melee DPR and/or AC isn't one of them.

[Ganryu]

And that's good. Barbarians and Monks are two of the more powerful classes. ASIs are literally a class feature for Fighters and Rogues. It's part of their power.

Decoupling feats from ASIs has multiple problems. First of all, it's an optional rule. Doing so can't be part of the base game, and have it balanced, and some feats are already out of balance in the first place (GWM, SS, CBE, Res (Con)). Second of all, giving free feats changes the relative class balance, and MAD classes hardly suffer compared to SAD classes. Giving them to only MAD classes would be even worse.


I legitimately have to ask. Do you think they are two of the more powerful classes? What do you think the weaker classes are? Like, I'm not even trying to debate that, I'm legitimately curious, and I promise not to start a whole tangent on that.

[Gtdead]

I legitimately have to ask. Do you think they are two of the more powerful classes? What do you think the weaker classes are? Like, I'm not even trying to debate that, I'm legitimately curious, and I promise not to start a whole tangent on that.

I don't speak for Tanarii and I'm not sure what he is getting at, but I can safely say that Fighter is one of the weakest combatants without their subclass features. Barbarian has a ton of synergy between his abilities. Highest health, effectively doubled through resistance, that lessens the negative part of reckless because it essentially makes him a HP meatshield and not an AC one. Fighter has action surge and the extra attacks but Barbarian actually beats him both offensively and defensively in the melee GWM build, even at lvl 11.

We take the Fighter SS/GWM builds for granted, but what we really mean is Battlemaster/Samurai SS/GWM builds. Base Fighter can't leverage these feats, just like non Vengeance/Devotion Paladins.
Rogues have similar problems. It's the subclasses that allow them to do the more impressive things.

I mean, entertain for a while the possibility of a new subclass that makes Barbs archers. Rage and reckless working on ranged weapons and DEX as they do for STR. I don't think that Fighter would be that popular if that was the case.

However I personally think that it's a stretch to call them one of the better classes because what matters is the complete package, and other classes when built right can surpass them. A similar logic can be applied to Monk because he has a lot of features as a base class.

I find the (base) Monk features weak and I'm not changing my mind no matter what anyone says. Everytime I am in an argument about monks I feel like arguing against a bad case of schrodinger's wizard, someone that has infinite Ki, who his abilities are magically more impactful than what they really are, in some cases he has multiple subclasses at the same time, diamond soul and empty body become relevant even when they come at high levels, that he has good AC and damage compared to the baseline. Sure if you compared it with the most basic and unoptimized builds possible, base monk can seem strong. The only reason I like Shadow monk is because it doesn't make use of the base monk features and brings tactical value faster than casters..

[Ugmaro]

I legitimately have to ask. Do you think they are two of the more powerful classes? What do you think the weaker classes are? Like, I'm not even trying to debate that, I'm legitimately curious, and I promise not to start a whole tangent on that.

Honestly this is one of the few cases where I 100% agree with Tanarii, even despite how unpopular this opinion is. Specifically comparing fighter to barb you'll notice the fighter will get outperformed by the barb in combat all the time, regardless if you view this through damage output or toughness. The ONLY reason fighters can pretend to keep up is due to the extra ASI they get.

Similarly everyone seems to say rogues are the absolute best class in the game yet for some reason love to forget that if you fail to hit as a rogue your turn is 100% wasted, meaning not having and offhand weapon makes you a liability. Now go ahead and grab that healer feat and see how much good it does when you have to drop your weapon every time you want to use it, hoping someone won't grab it between turns. Oh what's that, you also need to have both weapons magical to get through magic BPS resistance while the monk can get other items that boost their stats instead, maybe give them some sort of utility? No, lets just focus on how "my class is weak" and ignoring everyone else's problems.

The funniest thing here is that if you remove the extra ASI from the rogue you're not really hurting the rogue as he's got nothing good to use it on, his problems lie elsewhere, while the monk really wants to have it. (I've intentionally keept feats out of this because that becomes a whole new can of worms - Diamond Soul while coming on late is worth a bunch of Resilient feats while their movement, 3+ attacks per round coulpled with a Mobile feat means they don't need to use either dash or disengage and still skirmish just as well as a melee rogue (which is also a very thematic trap you should never go for, kinda like the unarmored barb)).

[Slider Eclipse]

I don't speak for Tanarii and I'm not sure what he is getting at, but I can safely say that Fighter is one of the weakest combatants without their subclass features. Barbarian has a ton of synergy between his abilities. Highest health, effectively doubled through resistance, that lessens the negative part of relentless because it essentially makes him a HP meatshield and not an AC one. Fighter has action surge and the extra attacks but Barbarian actually beats him both offensively and defensively in the melee GWM build, even at lvl 11.

We take the Fighter SS/GWM builds for granted, but what we really mean is Battlemaster/Samurai SS/GWM builds. Base Fighter can't leverage these feats, just like non Vengeance/Devotion Paladins.
Rogues have similar problems. It's the subclasses that allow them to do the more impressive things.

I mean, entertain for a while the possibility of a new subclass that makes Barbs archers. Rage and relentless working on ranged weapons and DEX as they do for STR. I don't think that Fighter would be that popular if that was the case.

Honestly I have similar thoughts about the Fighter, though for me it's because I feel like the Fighter without it's Subclasses just feels less like an actual class and more like "this is what Martial Characters should have By Default". Like, Imagine if Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue all got Second Wind, ASI's and Extra Attack like a Fighter does, and Monk had Flurry of Blows and Quickened Healing adjusted with these features in mind. Would they not feel a lot more balanced at every relevant level of play (I.E every level except T1 where the only difference would be Second Wind)? To me it just feels like in WotC's quest for simplification in 5e they cut away everything that made a Fighter special in previous editions and then cut away some basic functionality to give them some kind of nitch. This in turn also tumbles down to the problems Monk's, Rogue's and Ranger's all face. They all struggle to contribute in the upper half of the levels due to everything being dependent on very few attacks (or in the monk's case attacks that cost valuable resources to even attempt and just don't function with an entire half of there conceptual nitch)

[Gtdead]

Honestly I have similar thoughts about the Fighter, though for me it's because I feel like the Fighter without it's Subclasses just feels less like an actual class and more like "this is what Martial Characters should have By Default". Like, Imagine if Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue all got Second Wind, ASI's and Extra Attack like a Fighter does, and Monk had Flurry of Blows and Quickened Healing adjusted with these features in mind. Would they not feel a lot more balanced at every relevant level of play (I.E every level except T1 where the only difference would be Second Wind)? To me it just feels like in WotC's quest for simplification in 5e they cut away everything that made a Fighter special in previous editions and then cut away some basic functionality to give them some kind of nitch. This in turn also tumbles down to the problems Monk's, Rogue's and Ranger's all face. They all struggle to contribute in the upper half of the levels due to everything being dependent on very few attacks (or in the monk's case attacks that cost valuable resources to even attempt and just don't function with an entire half of there conceptual nitch)

I will agree that Fighter feels very vanilla. Hell, even the first 3 published subclasses feel like templates and not actual subclass because most of the features don't require the fighter to do fighter things (attacking isn't fightery thing :p), unlike let's say Thief/Arcane Trickster/Assassin who is a rogue through and through. However I believe that at least compared to 3.5e (haven't played 4e so I don't know what happened there), 5e Fighter is actually more interesting. 3.5e Fighter had the philosophy of being a blank canvas and get feats to differentiate itself from the other martials. The others got less feats and had more class features. But this didn't make him very interesting because the majority of feats were weapon focus/weapon specialization/dodge/powerattack and their greater versions. The usual suspects that every other martial wanted to get.

I also do have a problem with martial scaling past T3 but I really don't want to get into it because I will derail the thread. Suffice to say, the 5e design works well up to level 10 and we can easily notice the philosophy behind decisions. Past that, things start getting wonky.

[da newt]

So the issue at hand is that Monks have one stat for attack/damage (Dex) and a different stat for their save DC (Wis), right? I mean AC is OK, hp is OK, saves are OK, Ki is level dependent not stats, etc.

So why not just change their attack/damage stat to Wis and call it done? Think of it like at will shillelagh or monk hex warrior. Problem solved, right? Now monks are just as SAD as barbarians, rogues, fighters, casters, etc.

[strangebloke]

Honestly this is one of the few cases where I 100% agree with Tanarii, even despite how unpopular this opinion is. Specifically comparing fighter to barb you'll notice the fighter will get outperformed by the barb in combat all the time, regardless if you view this through damage output or toughness. The ONLY reason fighters can pretend to keep up is due to the extra ASI they get.

Similarly everyone seems to say rogues are the absolute best class in the game yet for some reason love to forget that if you fail to hit as a rogue your turn is 100% wasted, meaning not having and offhand weapon makes you a liability. Now go ahead and grab that healer feat and see how much good it does when you have to drop your weapon every time you want to use it, hoping someone won't grab it between turns. Oh what's that, you also need to have both weapons magical to get through magic BPS resistance while the monk can get other items that boost their stats instead, maybe give them some sort of utility? No, lets just focus on how "my class is weak" and ignoring everyone else's problems.

The funniest thing here is that if you remove the extra ASI from the rogue you're not really hurting the rogue as he's got nothing good to use it on, his problems lie elsewhere, while the monk really wants to have it. (I've intentionally keept feats out of this because that becomes a whole new can of worms - Diamond Soul while coming on late is worth a bunch of Resilient feats while their movement, 3+ attacks per round coulpled with a Mobile feat means they don't need to use either dash or disengage and still skirmish just as well as a melee rogue (which is also a very thematic trap you should never go for, kinda like the unarmored barb)).

I feel like if you're approaching this from the direction of melee optimization, then you're kind of ignoring the critiques people have. The argument against the barbarian has never been that they're bad in melee while they're raging, the argument is that they're bad everywhere else. They have nothing for out of combat challenges, nothing to do against enemies they can't reach, rage does little to protect you against non-bsp damage, and barbarians exploit magical weapons less effectively than monks and fighters. If they can't rage most of their class features simply don't function, and even the ones that do (like reckless attack) generally rely on rage to not be a liability.

Furthermore, I'd add that GTdead's point about subclasses is correct here. Battlemaster, EK, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, Samurai, Echo Knight... ALL of these are extremely powerful, and even the less powerful subclasses like Arcane Archer and Cavalier have more power than most barbarian subclasses. Something like the Champion is actually in line with most barbarian subclasses.


Honestly I have similar thoughts about the Fighter, though for me it's because I feel like the Fighter without it's Subclasses just feels less like an actual class and more like "this is what Martial Characters should have By Default". Like, Imagine if Ranger, Barbarian and Rogue all got Second Wind, ASI's and Extra Attack like a Fighter does, and Monk had Flurry of Blows and Quickened Healing adjusted with these features in mind. Would they not feel a lot more balanced at every relevant level of play (I.E every level except T1 where the only difference would be Second Wind)? To me it just feels like in WotC's quest for simplification in 5e they cut away everything that made a Fighter special in previous editions and then cut away some basic functionality to give them some kind of nitch. This in turn also tumbles down to the problems Monk's, Rogue's and Ranger's all face. They all struggle to contribute in the upper half of the levels due to everything being dependent on very few attacks (or in the monk's case attacks that cost valuable resources to even attempt and just don't function with an entire half of there conceptual nitch)

Fighter, like rogue, is intended as a blank canvas upon which you can insert your own flavor. I actually really appreciate that about the class, because often times I'll have a character concept that doesn't fit with the more narrow archetypes of classes like rangers, paladins, monks, and barbarians.

its a feature, not a bug.

With that said, every 'martial' class should have access to something like maneuvers and its a crying shame that the only way to access such things even now is superior technique as well as an awful feat.

[Ganryu]

So the issue at hand is that Monks have one stat for attack/damage (Dex) and a different stat for their save DC (Wis), right? I mean AC is OK, hp is OK, saves are OK, Ki is level dependent not stats, etc.

So why not just change their attack/damage stat to Wis and call it done? Think of it like at will shillelagh or monk hex warrior. Problem solved, right? Now monks are just as SAD as barbarians, rogues, fighters, casters, etc.

I'd be down for that.

[Bjarkmundur]

I do this in my games!

1. I pretty much removed ability scores from the game (which was pretty easy and a very minor change), and just use Ability Modifiers.
2. When you would get an ASI you gain a +1 to one Ability Modifier of your choice, up to a maximum of +5.
3. I added a downtime "gain a feat". It helps with the immersion, you actually have to spend 30 days learning the thing your feat allows you to do. The ability doesn't just "appear". It also adds a minor opportunity cost, so if you don't want a feat, or might want to take it later, you can do something else valuable with your time.
4. The maximum number of feat is determined by your level. You can have one feat starting at level 4, and can have an additional one at level 8, 12 etc. This means you can take your "4th level feat" later if you want to, but still have the same total number of feats as everyone else.
5. I tweaked all the feats with the design goal of having each feat contributing as little to the powerlevel of the character while stilling keeping the FEEL of the feat. It just means that most feats were toned down to something just below a half-feat. This was a bit tricky, but a lot of people have done similar things.

These are going into playtesting in just a few weeks. I'm really excited for it!


Beastmaster
You can cast Summon Beast once per long rest without expending a spell slot, even if you don't have the Spellcasting class feature.

Battlewise
When you roll for initiative, add your proficiency bonus to the result. In addition, you can choose to use either your Wisdom or Dexterity for your initiative.

Charger
As a part of taking the Dash action you can make a single melee attack or attempt to shove the target. If you move at least 10 feet, you do so with advantage.

Dirty Fighting
When you take this feat choose the Shove or Grapple action.
- On your turn, after you take the attack action, you can use your chosen action as a bonus action.
- When you make an Opportunity Attack, you can use your chosen action instead.
In addition, the number of rounds required for a Choke-Out is halved (minimum 1) and its duration is doubled.

Helping Hands
You can use a Healer’s Kit, administer a potion or use the Help action as a bonus action.
In addition, you can take 10 minutes to administer First Aid. You use one charge of a Healer's Kit to allow a single creature to regain a number of hit points equal to your level times your Proficiency Bonus. A creature that regains hit points in this way cannot do so until after a long rest.

Elemental Affinity
Choose one of the following damage types: acid, cold, fire, lightning or thunder.
You can permanently change one spell and one cantrip from your class' spell list to your chosen damage type.
In addition, once per long rest you can use a bonus action to ignore any resistances of the same type for 1 minute.

Inspire Allies
When you roll a critical hit on an attack roll, each ally within 60 feet of you that can hear and see you regains hit points equal to twice your level and has advantage on the first d20 roll they make on their next turn.
In addition, you can take 10 minutes to inspire your allies, granting them (and you) temporarily hit points equal to your level + your Charisma modifier once per short rest.

Heavy Armor Training
Prerequisite: Medium Armor Proficiency
You gain proficiency with heavy armor

Mage Slayer
You can make an Opportunity Attack against a creature that begins to cast a spell within your reach. If the attack hits, the target has to make a Concentration saving throw or lose the spell

Magic Initiate / Ritual Caster
You learn one cantrip of your choice from the Wizard's spell list. In addition, choose one of the following effects:

- Choose one 1st Level Spell with the Ritual tag. You can cast the spell as a ritual, even if you don't have the Ritual Casting class feature.
- Choose one 1st level spell from any class. You can cast the spell once per long rest without expending a spell slot.
- You can add one 1st Level spell from your class spell list to your list of known spells, or into your spellbook if you have one.
- You gain one first level spell slot that you regain, once expended, at the end of a long rest.

If you take this feat a second time you can instead choose a 2nd level spell or spell slot.

Master Cloaker
When you are hidden and a creature spots you, but succeeds on their perception check by less than 5, you can use your reaction to dive back into cover. Make a Dexterity saving throw with a DC equal to the triggering perception check. On a success, you remain hidden.

Medium Armor Master
You do not take a Disadvantage to Dexterity checks for wearing medium armor, and your AC increases by 1.

Petkeeper
As a part of a Downtime you can gain an animal companion, as shown on the table below. You can communicate with your companion as if you were under the effects of Speak With Animals. It is in no way compelled to put itself at risk for you, but loves doing favors for treats such as fetching and delivering messages.
You can choose a new Pet as a part of your downtime, but can only have one active at a time. Gaining a pet costs gold equal to its XP value. A complete list of available pets can be found here (https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Monsters%20List#content) and here (http://anemortalkid.github.io/all_monsters/monsters.html).




Level
Max CR
Example


1st
0
Cat, Eagle


3rd
1/8
Mastiff, Mule.


6th
1/4
Riding Horse, Wolf




Skill Training
When you take this feat you can choose to either gain two Skill proficiencies, or gain one proficiency and expertise in one skill you are already proficient in.

Quaff
You can imbibe a potion as a bonus action.

Fighting Style
You gain one fighting style of your choice from the following list:



Blind Fighting
Interception
Protection
Thrown Weapon
Unarmed
Sweeping


Ready Master
Reactions taken as a result of the Ready action do not count towards the maximum number of Reactions allowed per round. In addition, you can take the Ready action as a Bonus action, but only to ready spells or abilities that would otherwise use a Bonus.action, such as Misty Step, as long as all the requirements for taking that bones actions are met when the readied action is taken.

Battlerager
You gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls for each condition, injury, level of Distress or failed death saving throw affecting you. This includes the Bloodied condition.

Stamina Training
Your maximum hit points are increased by 7.

Warcaster
- When you cast a spell that requires your concentration you can decide to do it with a duration of 1d4 rounds. If you do so you automatically succeed on all Constitution saving throws made to maintain concentration for that spell.
- You do not have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature.

Double Shifts
You can choose two activities during downtime instead of one. (But living expenses have increased to 45gp?)

[Amechra]

So the issue at hand is that Monks have one stat for attack/damage (Dex) and a different stat for their save DC (Wis), right? I mean AC is OK, hp is OK, saves are OK, Ki is level dependent not stats, etc.

So why not just change their attack/damage stat to Wis and call it done? Think of it like at will shillelagh or monk hex warrior. Problem solved, right? Now monks are just as SAD as barbarians, rogues, fighters, casters, etc.

Nah, the (ability score related) issue with Monks is that they can only really get their AC from Unarmored Defense, and they need a Wisdom of 16+ to get better AC from it than someone in studded leather. Everyone else needs one decent ability score to have decent AC — Monks need two, which makes it harder for them to also have a good Constitution score (let alone a good Str/Int/Cha score). And, unlike Barbarians, Monks can't get around this by wearing medium armor or using a shield.

Changing up their attack stat doesn't do anything to resolve this issue — at best it makes you buy up Wisdom before Dexterity instead of Dexterity before Wisdom.

[Pex]

Nah, the (ability score related) issue with Monks is that they can only really get their AC from Unarmored Defense, and they need a Wisdom of 16+ to get better AC from it than someone in studded leather. Everyone else needs one decent ability score to have decent AC — Monks need two, which makes it harder for them to also have a good Constitution score (let alone a good Str/Int/Cha score). And, unlike Barbarians, Monks can't get around this by wearing medium armor or using a shield.

Changing up their attack stat doesn't do anything to resolve this issue — at best it makes you buy up Wisdom before Dexterity instead of Dexterity before Wisdom.

Monks can get 16 DX 16 WI 14 CO without much problem. Be like everyone else and dump IN and/or CH. I like my monk to have 10 ST, but others are willing to have 8. Monks are not alone in having a dump stat, so there's nothing to be ashamed of about it. AC 16 is not the greatest at 1st level, but it's doable and really the best monk can do anyway outside of dice rolling or racial feature with floating ASI. Player choice which to bump to 18 at 4th level then do the other one at 8th. I prefer DX first for the hit and damage since Stunning Strike doesn't happen until 2 levels later for saving throw DC to matter. The subclass may influence that choice if it relies heavily on one of those scores. If there's a feat a player really, really wants go Variant Human. By the time 12th level happens campaign circumstances will help the player to decide on DX, WI, or feat, and so on. Campaign circumstances and/or subclass may favor pumping one of the stats to 20 before touching the other one.

[strangebloke]

Nah, the (ability score related) issue with Monks is that they can only really get their AC from Unarmored Defense, and they need a Wisdom of 16+ to get better AC from it than someone in studded leather. Everyone else needs one decent ability score to have decent AC — Monks need two, which makes it harder for them to also have a good Constitution score (let alone a good Str/Int/Cha score). And, unlike Barbarians, Monks can't get around this by wearing medium armor or using a shield.

Changing up their attack stat doesn't do anything to resolve this issue — at best it makes you buy up Wisdom before Dexterity instead of Dexterity before Wisdom.

Relative to a barbarian, they also lack a large hit die and means of getting resistance. A barbarian with 14 AC isn't a particularly weak barbarian because they still have rage and they're probably going to use reckless attack anyway. Barbarians using reckless benefit from AC on average about half as much as other classes, but that's fine because they were already taking half damage and they have way more HP anyway.

[Ugmaro]

I feel like if you're approaching this from the direction of melee optimization, then you're kind of ignoring the critiques people have. The argument against the barbarian has never been that they're bad in melee while they're raging, the argument is that they're bad everywhere else. They have nothing for out of combat challenges, nothing to do against enemies they can't reach, rage does little to protect you against non-bsp damage, and barbarians exploit magical weapons less effectively than monks and fighters. If they can't rage most of their class features simply don't function, and even the ones that do (like reckless attack) generally rely on rage to not be a liability.

Furthermore, I'd add that GTdead's point about subclasses is correct here. Battlemaster, EK, Psi Warrior, Rune Knight, Samurai, Echo Knight... ALL of these are extremely powerful, and even the less powerful subclasses like Arcane Archer and Cavalier have more power than most barbarian subclasses. Something like the Champion is actually in line with most barbarian subclasses.

Show me 1 fighter that thinks he has any usefulness outside of combat (or as you so nicely put it "everywhere else"). Against non-bsp damage barbarians have the largest hit dice in the game and magical weapons aren't supposed to be super common in 5e. "If they can't rage" is like saying "If a battlemaster has no more superiority die" so that's a matter of resource management.

I completely disagree that fighter subclasses are better than barb subclasses, but if you take subclasses into account you could easily take zen archer for your monk and have him be really effective without needing to get high con - now the monk is no longer MAD and thus I've just made the same arguement you've made for other martial classes earlier.

The reason I've played devil's advocate here is to show that you can't just say "you can go for medium armor and become useful" for barbs while expecting whatever your favourite class is to not be limited to similar "do I become a minmax munchkin or do I actually have some flavour to my character and suck at combat" questions. Or you can just play a full caster and laugh at martials attempting to have it all.

So to sum up my unpopular opinion: monks are fine

[Amechra]

Monks can get 16 DX 16 WI 14 CO without much problem. Be like everyone else and dump IN and/or CH. I like my monk to have 10 ST, but others are willing to have 8. Monks are not alone in having a dump stat, so there's nothing to be ashamed of about it. AC 16 is not the greatest at 1st level, but it's doable and really the best monk can do anyway outside of dice rolling or racial feature with floating ASI. Player choice which to bump to 18 at 4th level then do the other one at 8th. I prefer DX first for the hit and damage since Stunning Strike doesn't happen until 2 levels later for saving throw DC to matter. The subclass may influence that choice if it relies heavily on one of those scores. If there's a feat a player really, really wants go Variant Human. By the time 12th level happens campaign circumstances will help the player to decide on DX, WI, or feat, and so on. Campaign circumstances and/or subclass may favor pumping one of the stats to 20 before touching the other one.

How are you getting there with the standard array?

Like, I've played a bunch of Monks in games using standard array, and I'm basically locked into Dex 16/Wis 16/Con 13 with a 12, 10, and 8 spread across the other three stats.

I also don't understand why you felt the need to give me a rather patronizing rundown of how to assign ASIs while playing a Monk? Seems a bit odd, honestly.

[Gurgeh]

Show me 1 fighter that thinks he has any usefulness outside of combat
In terms of concrete mechanics? Every Fighter subclass gives something, though some get significantly more than others.


The Samurai gets a bonus proficiency in a social skill at third level, and gets to add their wisdom modifier to persuasion rolls at seventh.
The Banneret gets a bonus social proficiency and expertise in persuasion at seventh level.
The Battle Master can learn manouevres that enhance a variety of skills, including persuasion, investigation, and stealth.
The Cavalier gets a bonus skill proficiency at third level.
The Eldritch Knight gets access to spellcasting. While most of their levelled spells are restricted to abjuration and evocation, they can take their pick of the Wizard cantrips.
The Rune Knight can enhance a wide variety of skill and tool proficiencies.
The Champion's Remarkable Athlete - weak as it is - provides a concrete numerical benefit to non-proficient ability checks.
The Echo Knight can use their duplicate for a staggeringly wide variety of tasks, especially once they reach seventh level and gain the ability to send it out at longer ranges.
The Psi Warrior gets access to limited telekinesis and flight.
The Arcane Archer gets a bonus skill proficiency and access to a minor-tricks cantrip.

[strangebloke]

Show me 1 fighter that thinks he has any usefulness outside of combat (or as you so nicely put it "everywhere else"). Against non-bsp damage barbarians have the largest hit dice in the game and magical weapons aren't supposed to be super common in 5e. "If they can't rage" is like saying "If a battlemaster has no more superiority die" so that's a matter of resource management.

I completely disagree that fighter subclasses are better than barb subclasses, but if you take subclasses into account you could easily take zen archer for your monk and have him be really effective without needing to get high con - now the monk is no longer MAD and thus I've just made the same arguement you've made for other martial classes earlier.

The reason I've played devil's advocate here is to show that you can't just say "you can go for medium armor and become useful" for barbs while expecting whatever your favourite class is to not be limited to similar "do I become a minmax munchkin or do I actually have some flavour to my character and suck at combat" questions. Or you can just play a full caster and laugh at martials attempting to have it all.

So to sum up my unpopular opinion: monks are fine

I don't think you understood my point, and I am sure I do not understand yours.

Mathmatically,

monks have few defenses other than AC and what defenses they have (patient defense, deflect missiles) scale really well with AC. So AC is important to them.
Barbarians have many defenses (high hp, rage) other than AC and because of reckless attack, AC doesn't reduce damage by as much.
Monks have to invest 2 +3's to have 16 AC at level 1.
Barbarians can start the game with 18-19 AC investing only a +2 in DEX.
A monk with a +2 in CON is 2 hp behind a barbarian with a +0 in CON at level 1.
monks get all their damage and accuracy from ability mods.
barbarians get most of their damage and accuracy from class features.


I'm not trying to say monks are weaker than barbarians. I actually think the reverse is true. But monks are much more dependent on multiple attributes than barbarians are. You give me a barbarian with two 14s and a load of 10s, you're like 75% of the way to the full potential power of a barbarian. They're still going to have most of their survivability and most of their DPR. You show me a monk with the same array and they're going to be missing most of their survivability and most of their DPR. It's just very simple math.

A barbarian can go unarmored and take a 2-3 point hit to their AC and it honestly won't cost them much. Depends on the enemy's attack mod but most of the time it will only result in them taking like 16% more damage proportionally, whereas a monk taking a comparable hit to their AC takes like 33% more damage.

[Pex]

How are you getting there with the standard array?

Like, I've played a bunch of Monks in games using standard array, and I'm basically locked into Dex 16/Wis 16/Con 13 with a 12, 10, and 8 spread across the other three stats.

I also don't understand why you felt the need to give me a rather patronizing rundown of how to assign ASIs while playing a Monk? Seems a bit odd, honestly.

One, I'm thinking Point Buy not Standard Array. Two, assume having a conversation before malice.

[Gurgeh]

Gentle reminder that point buy and standard arrays, despite their predominance in online discussions, are both variant rules. The game is designed with the assumption of rolled stats (specifically, using 4d6 drop lowest).

[Psyren]

Sounds like one of you is using Point Buy and the other Standard Array.


Gentle reminder that point buy and standard arrays, despite their predominance in online discussions, are both variant rules. The game is designed with the assumption of rolled stats (specifically, using 4d6 drop lowest).

Standard Array was actually brought to my attention as not being a variant. Point Buy is the only variant.

[Gurgeh]

Point well made! My research was lazy, it seems. ;)

[Ugmaro]

In terms of concrete mechanics? Every Fighter subclass gives something, though some get significantly more than others.


The Samurai gets a bonus proficiency in a social skill at third level, and gets to add their wisdom modifier to persuasion rolls at seventh.
The Banneret gets a bonus social proficiency and expertise in persuasion at seventh level.
The Battle Master can learn manouevres that enhance a variety of skills, including persuasion, investigation, and stealth.
The Cavalier gets a bonus skill proficiency at third level.
The Eldritch Knight gets access to spellcasting. While most of their levelled spells are restricted to abjuration and evocation, they can take their pick of the Wizard cantrips.
The Rune Knight can enhance a wide variety of skill and tool proficiencies.
The Champion's Remarkable Athlete - weak as it is - provides a concrete numerical benefit to non-proficient ability checks.
The Echo Knight can use their duplicate for a staggeringly wide variety of tasks, especially once they reach seventh level and gain the ability to send it out at longer ranges.
The Psi Warrior gets access to limited telekinesis and flight.
The Arcane Archer gets a bonus skill proficiency and access to a minor-tricks cantrip.


If we ignore the fact I asked for a fighter that believes he has uses outside of combat I can still rebuff your point:

According to the PHB there are no maneuvers that increase any of those skills - perhaps you'll enlighten me in regards to what book you're refering to.
If you're taking into account remarkable athlete and EK's wizard cantrips as something to be used outside of combat you could say the same for all barbarians: Danger Sense means you're useful in exploration since you're good with Dex saving throws. Additionally, totem warriors get the beast sense an speak with animals spells.


I don't think you understood my point, and I am sure I do not understand yours.

Mathmatically,

monks have few defenses other than AC and what defenses they have (patient defense, deflect missiles) scale really well with AC. So AC is important to them.
Barbarians have many defenses (high hp, rage) other than AC and because of reckless attack, AC doesn't reduce damage by as much.
Monks have to invest 2 +3's to have 16 AC at level 1.
Barbarians can start the game with 18-19 AC investing only a +2 in DEX.
A monk with a +2 in CON is 2 hp behind a barbarian with a +0 in CON at level 1.
monks get all their damage and accuracy from ability mods.
barbarians get most of their damage and accuracy from class features.


I'm not trying to say monks are weaker than barbarians. I actually think the reverse is true. But monks are much more dependent on multiple attributes than barbarians are. You give me a barbarian with two 14s and a load of 10s, you're like 75% of the way to the full potential power of a barbarian. They're still going to have most of their survivability and most of their DPR. You show me a monk with the same array and they're going to be missing most of their survivability and most of their DPR. It's just very simple math.

A barbarian can go unarmored and take a 2-3 point hit to their AC and it honestly won't cost them much. Depends on the enemy's attack mod but most of the time it will only result in them taking like 16% more damage proportionally, whereas a monk taking a comparable hit to their AC takes like 33% more damage.

I fully understood several of your points, and while mechanically what you're saying in regards to how each of the 2 classes work is entirely true (which I've not even attempted to refute) you agree with me that monks are no weaker than barbs.

What I'm saying is that you can't pidgeonhole a class into a playstyle (such as armored barbarian) and then compare that pidgeonholed playstyle with the basic monk. If you pidgeonhole the monk into a zen archer you suddenly have no need for high AC and since you're now a ranged character you don't need HP either while despite gaining less from those than the monk does the barb absolutely needs them - the entire point of playing a barbarian is being a frontline meatshield that does a bunch of damage. It's like me whining that a rogue can't have as high an AC as a monk can - after all, they're both skirmisher types so they should have the same AC. Now you can say that rogues should be ranged and you'd probably be correct but then you're also saying proficiency in rapiers etc. is pointless for rogues, as they should never be using them anyway.

The simple fact of the matter is that the classes function differently, which is completely fine. What I'm really saying is that if you make changes like "you gain a feat at character levels 4, 8, 12,.. along with your ASIs you're just making the extra ASIs of warriors that much weaker, meaning you're making the class even weaker than it already is (compared to other classes I'd argue SAD classes are actually the "weakest"). Naturally, you can do what you want at your table but these ideas seem like they'll just increase the divide between PC power levels which just increases resentment between players.

Just to make it clear I don't like the monk feats at all, it's supposed to be a combat oriented character and yet it doesn't do much more in combat than a rogue, which is a skill oriented character. I honestly wouldn't mind a small damage increase to monks and a reduction of bard powers (as a skill oriented class it shouldn't also be a full spellcaster) but these extra feats or ASIs won't help fix this, it'll just make bards even stronger than monks while fighters will become that much more useless in comparison.

I hope I've managed to make my points clearer with this.

Edit: Sorry, I've misremembered what you've said in this thread (mixed you up with someone else's thoughts) so most of the things I'm saying here aren't "directed" at you though some specifically are, so I'll leave it as is.

[Gurgeh]

If we ignore the fact I asked for a fighter that believes he has uses outside of combat I can still rebuff your point:

According to the PHB there are no maneuvers that increase any of those skills - perhaps you'll enlighten me in regards to what book you're refering to.
If you're taking into account remarkable athlete and EK's wizard cantrips as something to be used outside of combat you could say the same for all barbarians: Danger Sense means you're useful in exploration since you're good with Dex saving throws. Additionally, totem warriors get the beast sense an speak with animals spells.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your intitial point there at all - every one of the subclasses I listed are Fighter subclasses, and all of those features have uses outside of combat (some more than others - like, I'm not saying the Champion's noncombat benefits are good). Most of them offer significantly better noncombat options than you get from the Barbarian subclasses, half of which offer nothing but combat boosts.

If you're making a point of comparing the base classes without taking any of the subclasses into account, then I don't quite understand why. Subclasses aren't an optional rule or anything, they're part and parcel of how a class works. Even if you do that, I'd say that the hypothetical Fighter-with-no-subclass still gets similar noncombat utility from their wider choice of skill proficiencies to what the equally hypothetical Barbarian-with-no-subclass gets from Danger Sense (and both are comically marginal in noncombat applications - like, how often are you going to care about the consequences of a dexterity save outside of combat?), so it's a dead heat until you get all the way to level 18 and Indomitable Might turns up.

For reference, the relevant Battle Master manouevres are in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything:


Commanding Presence: add a superiority die to a persuasion, intimidation, or performance check
Tactical Assessment: add a superiority die to a history, insight, or investigation check
Ambush: add a superiority die to a stealth check or initiative roll

While they chew up a short rest resource, they can be very impactful (on average they give a bigger boost than Expertise, and drastically so at lower levels) and they stack with every other potential modifier.

EDIT:

Because barbarian players want to be Arnold Schwarzenegger in a loin cloth.
I don't disagree with the desire to offer something for the archetype - but, funnily enough, the specific case of Schwarzenegger-as-Conan is fully armoured for the climactic fight in the movie.

[Ugmaro]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your intitial point there at all - every one of the subclasses I listed are Fighter subclasses, and all of those features have uses outside of combat (some more than others - like, I'm not saying the Champion's noncombat benefits are good). Most of them offer significantly better noncombat options than you get from the Barbarian subclasses, half of which offer nothing but combat boosts.

If you're making a point of comparing the base classes without taking any of the subclasses into account, then I don't quite understand why. Subclasses aren't an optional rule or anything, they're part and parcel of how a class works. Even if you do that, I'd say that the hypothetical Fighter-with-no-subclass still gets similar noncombat utility from their wider choice of skill proficiencies to what the equally hypothetical Barbarian-with-no-subclass gets from Danger Sense (and both are comically marginal in noncombat applications - like, how often are you going to care about the consequences of a dexterity save outside of combat?), so it's a dead heat until you get all the way to level 18 and Indomitable Might turns up.

For reference, the relevant Battle Master manouevres are in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything:


Commanding Presence: add a superiority die to a persuasion, intimidation, or performance check
Tactical Assessment: add a superiority die to a history, insight, or investigation check
Ambush: add a superiority die to a stealth check or initiative roll

While they chew up a short rest resource, they can be very impactful (on average they give a bigger boost than Expertise, and drastically so at lower levels) and they stack with every other potential modifier.

Never read Tasha's so thanks for the elaboration.

Again to repeat my first point: I'm not asking about what a fighter could theoretically do, I asked what fighter (meaning the player) BELIEVES he can do something outside of combat. I've not met 1 in my life but as I said, it's not something I'll fight you over since these are anecdotal.

You seem to be hung up on subclasses and I'm saying neither fighters nor barbarians have anything to do outside of combat (or extremely little), where fighters are combat focused with a tiny bit of utility in social interactions barbarians are combat focused with a tiny bit of exploration utility.

Honestly, I don't see what subclasses have to do with it... some subclasses are simply better than others, some offer some things, some offer others and some offer both because the "balancing" in D&D is kinda stupid.

[strangebloke]

What I'm saying is that you can't pidgeonhole a class into a playstyle (such as armored barbarian) and then compare that pidgeonholed playstyle with the basic monk. If you pidgeonhole the monk into a zen archer you suddenly have no need for high AC and since you're now a ranged character you don't need HP either while despite gaining less from those than the monk does the barb absolutely needs them - the entire point of playing a barbarian is being a frontline meatshield that does a bunch of damage. It's like me whining that a rogue can't have as high an AC as a monk can - after all, they're both skirmisher types so they should have the same AC. Now you can say that rogues should be ranged and you'd probably be correct but then you're also saying proficiency in rapiers etc. is pointless for rogues, as they should never be using them anyway.


I don't think that "not wearing armor" is as key to the barbarian brand as "punching people" is to the monk, and furthermore zen archery builds require feats and often subclass support to really work well

[da newt]

Perhaps this would be much less of an issue (low AC on Monks unless they put all their point buy, racial modifiers, and ASI into DEX and WIS) if the Player of the Monk PC didn't BELIEVE they were a melee tank. I believe monks are much better skirmishers than front line melee types. With their superior mobility, they function well in the hit and run niche - move up to target, strike, move away (preferably to cover or behind a tanky PC). Sure you might eat an Opp Att, but that's much better than just standing and banging like a barbarian (unless you use patient defense, or step of the wind).

Most monk subclasses include features to facilitate hit and run tactics or ranged attack options: Open Hand Technique, Shadow Step, 4 Elements (everything), Drunken Technique, Kensei (everything), Sun Soul (everything), Arms of Astral Self.

In order to 'fix' this believed issue of low AC for Monks you could homebrew many measures. Perhaps in your world Monks can wear light armor and still qualify as 'unarmored'. Or maybe Monk's superior will power and focused inner strength grants them D12 hit die or the tough feat. Maybe you ensure they stumble upon a cloak of protection. Or if you wanted to emphasize their skirmisher ways you could give them the last bullet of the Mobile feat.

But overall, I agree that Monks don't have the damage mitigation to stand toe to toe and fight like a Barbarian or Fighter or Paladin or Moon Druid, but that's why they have so many other little tricks/feats to allow them to fight like a Monk - mobile.

[Pex]

I don't disagree with the desire to offer something for the archetype - but, funnily enough, the specific case of Schwarzenegger-as-Conan is fully armoured for the climactic fight in the movie.

Heh, still a stereotype. Admittedly I don't think such players would mind when near the end of the campaign they acquire a magical armor that's Cool and worth using. When I played a barbarian I went the shirtless route for most of the campaign, but I did eventually wear Dragonhide armor. I single handedly slew the red dragon it was made from defending a dwarven city. They made it out of gratitude. How could I not?

[Tanarii]

If you want to play a shirtless Barbarian, do it. Prioritize Con ASIs over Strength. Barbarians can skip prioritizing Str far more than Fighters or Paladins who want to be more tanky, due to Reckless Attack. Or Monks prioritizing Wis over Dex.

[strangebloke]

If you want to play a shirtless Barbarian, do it. Prioritize Con ASIs over Strength. Barbarians can skip prioritizing Str far more than Fighters or Paladins who want to be more tanky, due to Reckless Attack. Or Monks prioritizing Wis over Dex.

yeah, this is my point. Barbarians benefit from multiple stats, but not that much. A barbarian with 12/12/12 in physical stats would be weak but mostly still able to do barbarian things, even if you went unarmored. It just doesn't matter much how you alocate your stats compared to other classes.

Arguably rogue is even less stat dependent.

[Tanarii]

yeah, this is my point. Barbarians benefit from multiple stats, but not that much. A barbarian with 12/12/12 in physical stats would be weak but mostly still able to do barbarian things, even if you went unarmored. It just doesn't matter much how you alocate your stats compared to other classes.

Arguably rogue is even less stat dependent.I was thinking more of a Barbarian with Str 16 Dex 14 Con 14 (ie either human and standard array, many races and point buy) trying to decide where to put the first and second ASI. Go to Con 18. That works fine.

Now if you feel you're going to level 20 AND you feel you must have a 20 in your primary and secondary stats, MAD becomes an issue for any class that is built with the idea you must max both abilities. For barbarians in particular, lvl 20 builds often seem to come with the idea that the capstone is 'wasted' if you don't end up with Str 24 Con 24. Ditto for Monks, the assumption often seems to be that Dex 20 Wis 20 is required.

[Ganryu]

So... run down:

Monk, most people seem to agree, would not mind an extra ASI. Standard 'is monk a strong class' argument brewing.

Barbarian people think is fine, there is some discussion on it. {I say throw them a bone personally. But valid points raised all around.}

Paladin hasn't really been discussed, but tend to be one of the most powerful classes, so no one thinks they need one.

Ranger had little discussion, but consensus seems to be their problems are far different than their stats.

And I'm not sure any other class really hits MAD all that much. Casters tend to only need decent con/dex. Fighter has tons of ASI and can stick to a thing. Rogue needs Dex and is happy.

I... don't actually know what Artificer falls under, haven't played them enough.

[OldTrees1]

I... don't actually know what Artificer falls under, haven't played them enough.

Artificers are not MAD. Comparing them to Paladins is imperfect but works.
Battlesmith is Int SAD
Others are basically Paladins and can be casters or warriors.

[Psyren]

Artificers are quite SAD. Armorist and Battlesmith get to use Int (their casting stat) for their attack and damage rolls, and Artillerist buffs their spell attacks such that they're effectively doing the same thing. Meanwhile, Alchemist...

Uh, anyway, they also potentially get Int to all their saving throws!

[Tanarii]

Monk, most people seem to agree, would not mind an extra ASI. Standard 'is monk a strong class' argument brewing.
Personally I like Monks design encouraging lower Con but higher AC. And there aren't that many feats that are good for them, if you're playing in a feat game. Skulker is mostly it, although for some reason people like to blow an ASI on Mobile when they can already use Ki for the important part of it.

Really the only argument I can see would be from folks who feel they absolutely must have Dex/Wis 20 and a feat at 19th, who would feel they are forced to start with Dex/Wis 16 as a result.

[strangebloke]

Personally I like Monks design encouraging lower Con but higher AC. And there aren't that many feats that are good for them, if you're playing in a feat game. Skulker is mostly it, although for some reason people like to blow an ASI on Mobile when they can already use Ki for the important part of it.

Really the only argument I can see would be from folks who feel they absolutely must have Dex/Wis 20 and a feat at 19th, who would feel they are forced to start with Dex/Wis 16 as a result.

There aren't many feats that are better than an ASI for them, but I don't think that's the same thing as saying that there are no feats they'd want to take. Tavern brawler, crusher, piercer, elven accuracy, martial adept, skill expert, sharpshooter etc. Plus all the 'normal' good feats like inspiring leader or magic initiate. Mobile you scoff at, but being able to freely disengage without losing ki or the MA attack is a huge deal. I mean, obviously it is, it gets you an extra attack each round when you're trying to be evasive on top of making you faster.

Now, I'm not going to claim they need any one of these feats to compete. But I think when people complain about the monk being overly prescripted in build and playstyle, they're onto something.

Besides which, there's been a noted power spike at level 11 in most newly released monk subclasses, likely because of how badly monks do fall off in t3 (imo its less bad than some claim, but it is still there.). If we accept that monks are a little weak after t2 and also can feel too prescripted, I think its fine for them to have an ASI at level 10 like the rogue. Certainly, this won't make them anywhere near as powerful as something like a paladin.

[Tanarii]

If we accept that monks are a little weak after t2 and also can feel too prescripted,
Why would I accept that?

[Amnestic]

Personally I like Monks design encouraging lower Con but higher AC.

Maybe if they had a d10 hit dice, but personally I think "peak physical performance" monk shouldn't have a lower hit point number than the wizard.

[Tanarii]

Maybe if they had a d10 hit dice, but personally I think "peak physical performance" monk shouldn't have a lower hit point number than the wizard.
I thought Wizards were MAD and wants to max out Dex/Int?

Generally speaking, I've yet to see a Wizard invested significantly more than a Monk in Con. A few dwarves outliers for example.

OTOH that vast majority of my 5e experience is in Tier 1 and Tier 2 and low Tier 3. If the extra ASIs being granted to classes were coming to fix perceived Tier 4 issues for these classes by granting 2 instead of 1 at levels 16 and/or 19 ... whelp, I don't really have much input on that. That's far more theoretical white room for me.

[Pex]

Artificers are quite SAD. Armorist and Battlesmith get to use Int (their casting stat) for their attack and damage rolls, and Artillerist buffs their spell attacks such that they're effectively doing the same thing. Meanwhile, Alchemist...

Uh, anyway, they also potentially get Int to all their saving throws!

Alchemists buff their spells too, adding IN to healing and damage spells of certain types. Alchemists do well.


Personally I like Monks design encouraging lower Con but higher AC. And there aren't that many feats that are good for them, if you're playing in a feat game. Skulker is mostly it, although for some reason people like to blow an ASI on Mobile when they can already use Ki for the important part of it.

Really the only argument I can see would be from folks who feel they absolutely must have Dex/Wis 20 and a feat at 19th, who would feel they are forced to start with Dex/Wis 16 as a result.

I'd get around it playing Variant Human to have the feat I really want already and start with 16/16. I'm happy having 18/18 at 8th level, then figure out what I feel like from there, maybe depending on campaign circumstances. A couple of subclasses really care about one ability score, so 16/20 isn't out of the question for 8th level on those.

[Gtdead]

I thought Wizards were MAD and wants to max out Dex/Int?

Generally speaking, I've yet to see a Wizard invested significantly more than a Monk in Con. A few dwarves outliers for example.

OTOH that vast majority of my 5e experience is in Tier 1 and Tier 2 and low Tier 3. If the extra ASIs being granted to classes were coming to fix perceived Tier 4 issues for these classes by granting 2 instead of 1 at levels 16 and/or 19 ... whelp, I don't really have much input on that. That's far more theoretical white room for me.

I haven't seen a Wizard too, but I personally have played a 20 CON Cleric. Cleric is the only caster that wants to get hit, so it makes sense to forgo a stat that doesn't promote his main playstyle at all. SG is save for half and no save slow. It gains too little from WIS.

Since then I have changed my Cleric build philosophy so I'm not doing max CON anymore but it's not a bad option IMO.

[Quietus]

So... run down:

Monk, most people seem to agree, would not mind an extra ASI. Standard 'is monk a strong class' argument brewing.

Barbarian people think is fine, there is some discussion on it. {I say throw them a bone personally. But valid points raised all around.}

Paladin hasn't really been discussed, but tend to be one of the most powerful classes, so no one thinks they need one.

Ranger had little discussion, but consensus seems to be their problems are far different than their stats.

And I'm not sure any other class really hits MAD all that much. Casters tend to only need decent con/dex. Fighter has tons of ASI and can stick to a thing. Rogue needs Dex and is happy.

I... don't actually know what Artificer falls under, haven't played them enough.


I'd say, yes, Monk should absolutely have another ASI in there. It's the only class in the game where the base class really, REALLY wants you to have double 20's.

Barbarian is pretty solid, but its endgame stretch is so bad, I would be perfectly happy to see some Tier3/4 ASI action in there.

Paladin is fine. You've got builds that do more strength/less cha, more cha/less strength, and some that max both but go light on feats. That's balance.

Ranger as a base class is fine. Where I would be looking is the subclasses that really want you to max both. Beastmaster ranger, with the new primal beasts (and the Summon X spells), really wants you to max Wisdom since their attacks are based off of your spell attack. Taking the Primal Beast turns your level 7 subclass feature into "your beast's attacks count as magical", and nothing else; it'd be a great opportunity to drop an ASI in there to accommodate for not needing the other half of that feature. Just make it explicitly an ASI, with no option to replace it with a feat.

Everything else, I think, is pretty okay.

- Edit to add, I do think the Tasha's fighting styles for Paladin and Ranger that give you cantrips, should have also granted <casting stat> to damage with those cantrips. That would allow for a wis-SAD beastmaster ranger using cantrips and pet attacks, which would be incredibly fun.