Houserules for Martials in a No Feats Game

[Amechra]

So, one of the big arguments against games sans feats that I've seen around these parts is that martial characters would need some help with regards to damage/weapon differentiation.

How would you address that without just going "you can use these feats, I guess" or "everyone can do the -5/+10 thing"? The obvious thing, to me, would be to just add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls when making weapon attacks.

[Kane0]

So, one of the big arguments against games sans feats that I've seen around these parts is that martial characters would need some help with regards to damage/weapon differentiation.


Sorry, could you elaborate?

[Leon]

Outside of people with certain mindsets needing certain things to play, there is no need for feats (or any of the optional rules) to play well in 5e. If someone is feeling "left behind" because the spellcaster done X thats more a player problem than a rules one.

[Witty Username]

I would say no issue if multiclassing is also unavailable.
The martials do well compared to each other sans feats.
Spellcasters have tradeoffs for their cool effects. The problems come in when the tradeoffs are done away with multiclassing.

That being said, I don't find lack of differentiation an issue in of itself. A Warhammer and longsword not playing differently doesn’t worry me. Oh, maybe shift weapons up 1 dice size so martials can keep up nicely with warlocks.

[Sigreid]

I dont think you need one. Remember, without feats a fighter is going to have 14 more attribute points at 20. So doesnt have to have any real weaknesses.

[Amechra]

Sorry, could you elaborate?

Sorry, I posted this on minimal sleep.

Basically, I've seen a lot of people on these boards say something to the effect of "martial characters in games without feats deal subpar damage with same-y weapons, and are just generally kinda boring" as an argument against playing without feats.

What I'm curious about is what exactly would need to change about the base game for those folks to be willing to play without feats.

(Also, I find it really amusing that I got the attention of the "martial characters are fine without feats" crowd with this one, and not the "martial characters need feats" crowd. Vagaries of the forums, I guess?)

[Mastikator]

I don't think feats are a deal breaker, even if you make certain feat taxes free I'd still like the option for feats. Especially half feats to round out odd ability scores. If I happen to have a single odd ability score then a feat is always better than an ASI.

[Rukelnikov]

Basically, I've seen a lot of people on these boards say something to the effect of "martial characters in games without feats deal subpar damage with same-y weapons, and are just generally kinda boring" as an argument against playing without feats.

Martial damage is fine, there are scenarios where caster will vastly outdamage them, like at lvl 5 when the evoker gets to catch 3+ foes in a fireball, which is desirable really, as in general, an expendable resource should be more powerful than an at will one (there can be exceptions of course). But overall, I never felt like they are lacking.

I do think martial gameplay gets kinda boring, but I don't think the usual suspect feats fix that. BM should've been the base fighter yada yada yada...


What I'm curious about is what exactly would need to change about the base game for those folks to be willing to play without feats.

Nothing NEEDs to change for me to play martials at least, and if DnD beyond numbers are to be believed (those old ones at least), then martials are extremely popular and need nothing more to be played by a large percentage of the playerbase. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't use some more variety in their routines.

As far as simple solutions go (ie: without introducing new systems, or reworking every class), you could do some of the following:

Make use of the many "other rewards" options presented in the DMG, I give my players stuff like charms and blessings all the time from stuff that happens in game, you helped a Unicorn heal its glade? It grants you the ability to cast lesser restoration or cure wounds on yourself a couple times (then its power is spent, like how charms work). You helped an ex Teflamar Shadowlord escape pursuit from his former order? He teachs you how to shadow jump a couple times a day (closer to how blessings work).

If this feels like a cop out because "they are not martials anymore", fine, then you could do stuff like:

Give maneuvers to all martials. Maybe whenever you gain a Fighting Style or EA you get a Superiority Die and learn 1 maneuver. This gives all combat focused classes more stuff to do. If this seems like few maneuvers or dice, you could tie maneuvers known to PB, use your criteria in how many of them would be fine at your table (remember its always easier to give your players more stuff than it is to take away stuff already given).

Let players be creative. There are no rules for using a whip to grab someones leg and trip them, yet its one of the most commonly seen combat usages of whips. If a player attempts that, decide how you are gonna model it, but try not to default to "that can't be done in-game". Maybe just allow a 10 ft shove, or a grapple if you prefer. If players notice they can get creative during combat and are not constrained to "I attack", they will start doing so (some players at least).

If you allow MC, getting EA for a second time instead gives you a Fighting Style, so MC martials is not as punishing.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I would say no issue if multiclassing is also unavailable.
The martials do well compared to each other sans feats.
Spellcasters have tradeoffs for their cool effects. The problems come in when the tradeoffs are done away with multiclassing.

That being said, I don't find lack of differentiation an issue in of itself. A Warhammer and longsword not playing differently doesn’t worry me. Oh, maybe shift weapons up 1 dice size so martials can keep up nicely with warlocks.

We've never tried a game without feats, but I'd agree with the point on multiclassing. In our games casters tend to use less feats than martials, but the feats they are using are probably more important: Res Con and/ or Warcaster. Without these most casting classes are going to feel the loss of feats, but this can be mitigated bigtime in a game that still allows multiclassing by simply starting with a single level in a class that gets Con saves.
That said, single classed Sorc seems like a much more attractive option under these rules.

[Keravath]

Sorry, I posted this on minimal sleep.

Basically, I've seen a lot of people on these boards say something to the effect of "martial characters in games without feats deal subpar damage with same-y weapons, and are just generally kinda boring" as an argument against playing without feats.

What I'm curious about is what exactly would need to change about the base game for those folks to be willing to play without feats.

(Also, I find it really amusing that I got the attention of the "martial characters are fine without feats" crowd with this one, and not the "martial characters need feats" crowd. Vagaries of the forums, I guess?)

It may just be that "I've seen a lot of people on these boards" is just a vocal minority that you happened to read for some reason.

There are also folks who want to play with feats and wouldn't want their DM to get the idea that the characters might be ok without them.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion. Theory crafting, I think it would mostly be fine. It also depends on the type of players in the game and how much min/maxing they really want to do. I've seen a lot of "non-optimal" characters in play and although they might have been able to do better damage with some tweaks - the folks playing them were having a good time and that is what really matters.

[Kane0]

Sorry, I posted this on minimal sleep.

Basically, I've seen a lot of people on these boards say something to the effect of "martial characters in games without feats deal subpar damage with same-y weapons, and are just generally kinda boring" as an argument against playing without feats.

What I'm curious about is what exactly would need to change about the base game for those folks to be willing to play without feats.


Oh right, I suppose its pretty simple then. Feats allow for an extra layer of options and customization that martials tend to lack compared to casters. Of course casters get them too but because martials dont have spells to choose and use each level it is noticed and felt that much more, especially since the bulk of character decisions are made at levels 1 and 3 with nothing else barring some exceptions.
Maybe the damage part is just an easy way to experience and express that? Damage is easily measured and compared and also easy to see the impacts of increasing.

[Naanomi]

At low/mid levels, probably it is fine. It is at higher levels... once the Attack stat and CON are maxed... that you really feal like you are just throwing ASIs into extremely marginal bonuses that are not worth it. Casters have this as well, of course, but not usually until level 19 or so (and can usually benefit from STR or DEX to some degree so it isn't quite as wasted); whereas rogues and (especially) fighters get a bonus ASI that feels especially punishing without Feats

I have seen games where Feats exist, but only for the Rogue/Fighter bonus feats

[5eNeedsDarksun]

At low/mid levels, probably it is fine. It is at higher levels... once the Attack stat and CON are maxed... that you really feal like you are just throwing ASIs into extremely marginal bonuses that are not worth it. Casters have this as well, of course, but not usually until level 19 or so (and can usually benefit from STR or DEX to some degree so it isn't quite as wasted); whereas rogues and (especially) fighters get a bonus ASI that feels especially punishing without Feats

I have seen games where Feats exist, but only for the Rogue/Fighter bonus feats

I hadn't thought of just allowing Feats for Rogue/ Fighter bonus ASIs, but that's a pretty good solution to 2 classes who would quickly run out of good places to put ASIs.

[Pex]

I prefer games with feats. That said, feats or not, no one needs great weapon master or sharpshooter. They are good feats but not a requirement to be a warrior. Warriors are competent enough on their own for combat.

[dafrca]

While I like Feats, I have never thought of them as "needed" but rather fun to have.

I also like Witty Username's idea to remove feats and restrict multi-classing at the same time.

I would be willing to play in that game for a while. :smallbiggrin:

[ShadeRaven]

How would you address that without just going "you can use these feats, I guess" or "everyone can do the -5/+10 thing"?
I would give all martials the combat superiority feature of the battlemaster scaling with their level or with 1/2 of their level in case of partial casters, War domain cleric (instead of his War Priest feature), and Blade pact warlocks.
I would also make two handed melee weapons roll damage with advantage, change the the duelist fighting style to give bonus equal to proficiency, the two-handed fighting style to increase threat range by 1, and the two-weapon fighting style to also give a free superiority die for the same maneuver on the off-hand attack as the one used on any of the the main-hand ones (once per turn).

[Psyren]

How would you address that without just going "you can use these feats, I guess" or "everyone can do the -5/+10 thing"?

What's wrong with that second one? Seems to buff martials just fine to me, especially in a game with only ASIs where they will hit 20 faster (especially Fighter) and thus be more likely to make use of it.

[Tanarii]

I would say no issue if multiclassing is also unavailable.Having run games without feats or Multiclassing and with feats but no one chose to multiclass and with both, I agree that a DM should add feats before they add Multiclassing. And possibly leave out Resilient (Con) when including feats. Multiclassing dips for armor and Resilient (Con) are two the biggest spellcaster power ups in Tier 1 through 3.


(Also, I find it really amusing that I got the attention of the "martial characters are fine without feats" crowd with this one, and not the "martial characters need feats" crowd. Vagaries of the forums, I guess?)Agreed. When I've posted in the past about running a no feats campaign, I've gotten many responses from folks that they wouldn't want to play a Fighter (in particular) in a no feats game.

[Pex]

Having run games without feats or Multiclassing and with feats but no one chose to multiclass and with both, I agree that a DM should add feats before they add Multiclassing. And possibly leave out Resilient (Con) when including feats. Multiclassing dips for armor and Resilient (Con) are two the biggest spellcaster power ups in Tier 1 through 3.

Agreed. When I've posted in the past about running a no feats campaign, I've gotten many responses from folks that they wouldn't want to play a Fighter (in particular) in a no feats game.

Do not leave out Resilient Con. The PC Fighter wants the Concentration spell on as much as the Wizard does. Spellcasters are entitled to cast spells. Spellcasters are entitled to cast powerful spells. Spellcasters are entitled to cast powerful spells that work.

[Tanarii]

Do not leave out Resilient Con. The PC Fighter wants the Concentration spell on as much as the Wizard does. Spellcasters are entitled to cast spells. Spellcasters are entitled to cast powerful spells. Spellcasters are entitled to cast powerful spells that work.All of those entitlements exist already in the base game.

Alternative is to make Resilient (Con) apply to all Con saves except concentration checks. That brings its value back into balance for non-casters and casters. And keeps the value of Sorcerer (and EKs) getting Con saves as part of the class as an intended bonus to balance their concentration casting vs other casters per the base game. (Ie they spend an ASI to raise all Con, instead of just saves by typically +3-+4 for normal ranges of play.)

[Kane0]

Taking concentration away from Resilient Con also makes Sorcerer look a lot better.

[Gtdead]

Plan martial progression on magic weapons. d6 damage riders and speed weapons fully compensate for the loss of feats.

Instead of PAM -> GWM -> ASI -> ASI, the progression instead will be ASI -> ASI -> Magic Weapon. Nothing is lost really and it will give an incentive to players to plan around more interesting subclasses than just dpr maximization cookie cutter builds.

[KorvinStarmast]

Taking concentration away from Resilient Con also makes Sorcerer look a lot better. Yes, and it makes the shorter spell list a bit easier to swallow since "sorc has this and nobody else does" is a thing.

[Pex]

All of those entitlements exist already in the base game.

Alternative is to make Resilient (Con) apply to all Con saves except concentration checks. That brings its value back into balance for non-casters and casters. And keeps the value of Sorcerer (and EKs) getting Con saves as part of the class as an intended bonus to balance their concentration casting vs other casters per the base game. (Ie they spend an ASI to raise all Con, instead of just saves by typically +3-+4 for normal ranges of play.)

Don't single out spellcasters for scorn. They are also allowed to have cool stuff that is not spells.

[Tanarii]

Don't single out spellcasters for scorn. They are also allowed to have cool stuff that is not spells.
The game is balanced without feats and Multiclassing. Feats and Multiclassing can be perceived to break the game in various ways.

It is commonly perceived that they introduce imbalance between martials and casters, the latter commonly perceived as already having plenty of cool stuff in their spells. There are ways to address that, and one way is to allow all the cool stuff of feats to everyone except this particular feat, or at least modify it so it doesn't affect concentration. Keeping in mind that feats are a variant the DM chooses to introduce as they see fit, not a player entitlement.

If a DM doesn't see casters as imbalanced in a feats and Multiclassing games, and thinks that casters don't already have enough cool stuff in their spells and all the other feats except this particular one, they can run with it as written. /shrug

[Trask]

Don't single out spellcasters for scorn. They are also allowed to have cool stuff that is not spells.

Cool stuff, yeah. Circumventing a core limitation of their class to alleviate one of their baked-in weaknesses, no. One of the most tedious results of charop is the desire to make a character that has no weaknesses whatsoever.

[Kane0]

There's also eldritch mind now too, plus abjurer ward avoids concentration checks, plus bless works on concentration saves, plus artificers can share concentratiom to someone else with SSI... there are options outside of feats and multiclassing for maintaining concentratiom.

[Coidzor]

So, one of the big arguments against games sans feats that I've seen around these parts is that martial characters would need some help with regards to damage/weapon differentiation.

How would you address that without just going "you can use these feats, I guess" or "everyone can do the -5/+10 thing"? The obvious thing, to me, would be to just add your proficiency bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls when making weapon attacks.

Well, why do I want to ban feats and what am I trying to accomplish by doing so?

What other rules one makes will flow from that.

[Tanarii]

Feats aren't banned. The default is no feats. They are a variant rule that's optionally permitted.

[Pex]

Cool stuff, yeah. Circumventing a core limitation of their class to alleviate one of their baked-in weaknesses, no. One of the most tedious results of charop is the desire to make a character that has no weaknesses whatsoever.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Pildion]

If your playing with no feats then its fine early game, even up towards end of mid game, but when 6th level spells come online and definitely by 7th level spells the spell casters are going to be more powerful then any martial, by a lot. I would just give all the martials -5/+10 at like level 10 or something, come up with a store element for it maybe?

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think you need one. Remember, without feats a fighter is going to have 14 more attribute points at 20. So doesnt have to have any real weaknesses. That's the base game, which was played by no few people before PHB came out.

While I like Feats, I have never thought of them as "needed" but rather fun to have. Concur. I like them also.

There's also eldritch mind now too, plus abjurer ward avoids concentration checks, plus bless works on concentration saves, plus artificers can share concentration to someone else with SSI... there are options outside of feats and multiclassing for maintaining concentration. True. Teamwork helps.
Feats aren't banned. The default is no feats. They are a variant rule that's optionally permitted. +1

[da newt]

I like some of the optional attack stuff from the DMG pg 271/2 to add a little to the martial's kit. It allows for a bit more than "I hit it (again)" and allows the martial fight to include more granularity.

In my mind the only real difference between a game with MC and Feats vs a game without both is that the balance point changes a little (assuming the same player proficiency). For me, either game can be just as enjoyable - it's much more important who I play w/ (DM and Players). I'd much rather play with great Players and DM and no optional rules than with iffy people and carte blanche wrt PC gen (races, feats, MC, dragon marks, guilds, lineages, dark gifts, homebrew owl based arakocra w/ blindsight and flyby who can take EA even though they aren't an elf, etc.)

As long as there is balance in combat and a good story does it really matter if it's 137 damage / round or 12?

[HPisBS]

BM should've been the base fighter yada yada yada...

Should've been the base Monk.

-Well, mostly. Options like Rally don't fit, but Riposte, Disarming Strike, etc definitely belong on the "martial artist's" kit.


Edit:

Feats aren't banned. The default is no feats. They are a variant rule that's optionally permitted.

Semantics. In practice, people tend to assume all official character options will be available unless a DM specifically says otherwise.



...One of the most tedious results of charop is the desire to make a character that has no weaknesses whatsoever.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

I know, right?

[MrStabby]

Depending on the game, I am either for or against feats, I guess.

No feats makes for a great game and can help ensure characters have interesting weaknesses and lowers the power gap between those who make choices based on character power and those that make choices on what character they want to RP. It enables players with different priorities to play more harmoniously at the same table.

On the other hand, feats are.kind of needed for martials - not for raw relative power, but for a feeling of progression. Casters do fine on this as the characters pick up new abilities every couple of levels - they grow and develop and do new things rather than just bigger numbers. Your barbarian quickly runs out of new proactive things to do, they just play the same but with more resources or more damage (vs more HP). Some classes like the Paladin are fine and continue to get qualtively different abilities for some time, but mostly what happens post level 10 for martial classes without feats is more of the same with no new or different decisions.

Feats allow martials to do more out of combat through things like ritual caster but also enable different things in combat as well. Even the power feats like great weapon master let's you make additional choices that enrich the game.

If you take out feats, then I think you also want to take out leveling up - no feats is great for a 1-shot adventure but not good for a longer campaign.

[Trask]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I think it is a bad thing. One of the core conceits of a class based game is that the classes have different strengths and weaknesses, and classes shouldn't be able too wave away their designed limitations. Casters shouldn't be able to take a feat that makes succeeding on concentration checks a near certitude, otherwise why does that part of the game even exist?

[HPisBS]

I think it is a bad thing. One of the core conceits of a class based game is that the classes have different strengths and weaknesses, and classes shouldn't be able too wave away their designed limitations. Casters shouldn't be able to take a feat that makes succeeding on concentration checks a near certitude, otherwise why does that part of the game even exist?

Tell that to lvl 20 Artificers.

[Yakk]

Bloodied: When a creature is reduced to 1/2 of max HP (before any max HP reduction) or suffers a critical hit, they are bloodied. One bloodied, a creature remains bloodied until healed to full HP (and remove any max HP reduction).

Block: You can expend your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC against an attack if you have a shield equipped.

Shields: You can push a bloodied creature as a bonus action with a Shield. You add your Shield AC bonus to your Dex saves.

Grapple: You can grab a bloodied creature as a bonus action. If the creature is too large to grapple, you can still hold on, moving as they do.

Riposte: If you are using a one-handed weapon and are hit with a melee attack, you can expend your reaction to make a riposte melee weapon attack with it. If this attack beats the triggering attack roll, you can choose to parry, making both attack miss. If this attack crits, you both parry and score a crit.

Two-Weapon Fighting: When you have advantage, if you have two light weapons equipped and you make a melee attack with advantage, you can use the lower die to make an attack with the other light weapon.

Two-Handed Weapons: You can sacrifice your proficiency bonus to attack rolls when making a two-handed melee weapon attack to add twice your proficiency bonus to damage. If you a creature you hit with two-handed melee weapon is or becomes bloodied by the attack, you can cleave and make an additional attack as a bonus action, including on the same creature.

Flanking: You become Flanked until the end of your next turn if you end your turn surrounded by enemies. If you are attacked while Flanked the attack has advantage. If the creatures surrounding you are smaller than you, they need 1 additional creature for every size smaller the largest is (so a large creature can be surrounded by a medium, a small and a tiny creature).

---

The intention is to add some tactical differences between melee fighting setups. All of S+B, 2WF, 2HF and even 1 handed hybrid are given a distinct set of abilities by this.

S+B can block any attack, attempt to riposte a melee attack, BA push bloodied foes.
1 handed hybrid (empty offhand) can BA grab bloodied foes, riposte off turn, power attack. (Note you cannot cleave)
2HF can power attack and BA followup on bloodied foes.
2WF can riposte, and when has advantage gets more attacks.

Bloodied and Flanked interact with the setups. Advantage boosts riposte and twf, bloodied unlocks grabs, cleaves and grapples.

[stoutstien]

Tell that to lvl 20 Artificers.
They still lack Nova or spike damage potential and are still half casters. They are strong defensively and are amazing at providing support but they won't just completely make someone else's choices redundant. Artificer is sort of the gold standard for the right mix of personal growth with party growth IMO. They are good alone but better within a party.

[Trask]

Tell that to lvl 20 Artificers.

That doesn't refute my point. Artificers pay for that in other ways, they don't have the same power or versatility as other classes. Sorcerers get proficiency in constitution saves and pay for it by having an inferior spell selection to wizards. I think that's implicit in the OP's point, feats make the balance between the classes wonky by basically giving away the strengths of other classes, and its not really a choice because once you've maxed our your main ability score feats become a no brainer in comparison to an ASI, so every wizard, druid, and cleric is going to have resilient constitution eventually if they want to call themself optimized.

[HPisBS]

Artificers pay for that in other ways, they don't have the same power or versatility as other classes. Sorcerers get proficiency in constitution saves and pay for it by having an inferior spell selection to wizards.

Right, they have different power and versatility. Instead of crazy nova capability or vast, interchangeable spell selection, they get to, say, give a Tiny Servant a Shatter-storing item.

I don't see Con save proficiency as being that significant. Sorcerers' inferior spell list isn't the price of better concentration so much as it is the price of metamagic. Inferior Wisdom saves is the price of their superior Con saves.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Right, they have different power and versatility. Instead of crazy nova capability or vast, interchangeable spell selection, they get to, say, give a Tiny Servant a Shatter-storing item.

I don't see Con save proficiency as being that significant. Sorcerers' inferior spell list isn't the price of better concentration so much as it is the price of metamagic. Inferior Wisdom saves is the price of their superior Con saves.

In fairness I've never played a featless, multiclassless game... but Con saves, and Warcaster if available, are absolutely significant for casters. The strongest character I've ever DMed was a Shepherd Druid who had both and didn't even bother bumping Wisdom until after he got both feats. That character would have been a shadow of himself without them.
Every caster I've ever played or DMed is going to cast some sort of concentration spell before a significant fight, even ones that focus on blasting or other tactics. If those spells are getting knocked down with regularity that absolutely impacts character and party power.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Every caster I've ever played or DMed is going to cast some sort of concentration spell before a significant fight, even ones that focus on blasting or other tactics. If those spells are getting knocked down with regularity that absolutely impacts character and party power.

Yeah. And I'll say that it radically alters the "meta" if concentration can't be assumed to always last the duration.

For example, hex and hunter's mark become way less of a "must have" if you expect them to only last a couple rounds instead of hours and hours (at higher levels).

Generally, I find that it's too hard to knock down PC concentration, leading to those powerhouse spells being even better. Especially things like hypnotic pattern, wall of force, etc. I don't have any current plans of altering that, but I'd be tempted (but not more than that) to make concentration a flat d20 check and alter the DCs appropriately. The sort of thing that nothing and no feature can add bonuses to. Might be able to reroll with Lucky, but that's about it. Ie not a saving throw, an ability check, or an attack roll at all. Just a flat out straight roll.

Or alternatively say that every additional hit past the first one in a round imposes a stacking malus to the roll--get hit once and it's straight, hit a second time and that concentration check is now -N (or the DC goes up by N).

[stoutstien]

I like the idea of difficulty growing as more concentration checks are made but avoidance based mitigation is already probably a hint too good and that would further empower it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I like the idea of difficulty growing as more concentration checks are made but avoidance based mitigation is already probably a hint too good and that would further empower it.

In a no-feats game, it's a lot harder already. But yeah. I'm just looking at games where the usual "best tactic" for breaking concentration (ie forcing lots and lots of checks via things like massed archers) are unusable because they can't break 20 damage in a hit and the person auto-passes a DC 10.

So you could do the "it's a straight roll, no modifiers by default" route and then add in specific class features to allow adding X bonus or letting you roll at advantage or whatever. So sorcerers could get "you're harder to break your concentration" as a feature at higher levels.

I figure moving the base DC down to 8 (since most casters start with a +2 CON) would compensate; it also lowers the threshold at which you start increasing the DC (from 20 damage to 16 damage).

[stoutstien]

In a no-feats game, it's a lot harder already. But yeah. I'm just looking at games where the usual "best tactic" for breaking concentration (ie forcing lots and lots of checks via things like massed archers) are unusable because they can't break 20 damage in a hit and the person auto-passes a DC 10.

So you could do the "it's a straight roll, no modifiers by default" route and then add in specific class features to allow adding X bonus or letting you roll at advantage or whatever. So sorcerers could get "you're harder to break your concentration" as a feature at higher levels.

I figure moving the base DC down to 8 (since most casters start with a +2 CON) would compensate; it also lowers the threshold at which you start increasing the DC (from 20 damage to 16 damage).

Aye. I'd probably give artificer and EK some form of booster at some point as well.
I've played with War Castsr only having adv on the first check per round and it still was a highly effective feat.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aye. I'd probably give artificer and EK some form of booster at some point as well.
I've played with War Castsr only having adv on the first check per round and it still was a highly effective feat.

Yeah. Make it a class feature of the "you're casting spells in melee and expecting to take hits" group rather than the "if you're in melee, something's gone wrong or you're building weird" glass cannons. I'm much more fine with limited-casters (1/2 or 1/3) getting bonuses to concentration than I am with full-casters getting them.

[Rukelnikov]

Should've been the base Monk.

-Well, mostly. Options like Rally don't fit, but Riposte, Disarming Strike, etc definitely belong on the "martial artist's" kit.

Yeah, actually maneuvers should've been standard among martials. Kind of like Fighting style, your class would determinate which maneuvers you have access to, Commander's Strike could be Fighter/Paladin only, Ambush Fighter/Ranger/Monk, etc. Even Barbarians could reasonably get, Menacing, Pushing and Sweeping Attack, and Grappling Strike.

If that had been baked in all martials, more maneuvers could have been designed with more specificity in mind.

The amount of superiority dice and maneuvers known, plus the list of available maneuvers for each class would have also been a balancing factor, and could have streamlined some classes a bit more. Indomitable, Brutal Critical, Stunning Strike, and maybe some others could have been rolled into maneuvers, and extra support could have been given for other features, like Favored Enemy which feels sad most of the time, and with a maneuver that essentially gave Foe Slayer effect + the standard superiority die damage, would have made it really feel like you are good at hunting a specific kind of target than it does currently.

But... That's a much more complex game, and 5e veers towards simplicity. So while that's the kind of 5e I'd like to play, and probably many more in an online dnd forum, I understand that's not new player friendly, or as friendly as the current design. Would have been awesome to have it as an optional rule, like feats, which are probably the most supported "optional" rule.

[HPisBS]

Yeah, actually maneuvers should've been standard among martials. Kind of like Fighting style, your class would determinate which maneuvers you have access to, Commander's Strike could be Fighter/Paladin only, Ambush Fighter/Ranger/Monk, etc. Even Barbarians could reasonably get, Menacing, Pushing and Sweeping Attack, and Grappling Strike.

If that had been baked in all martials, more maneuvers could have been designed with more specificity in mind.

The amount of superiority dice and maneuvers known, plus the list of available maneuvers for each class would have also been a balancing factor, and could have streamlined some classes a bit more. Indomitable, Brutal Critical, Stunning Strike, and maybe some others could have been rolled into maneuvers, and extra support could have been given for other features, like Favored Enemy which feels sad most of the time, and with a maneuver that essentially gave Foe Slayer effect + the standard superiority die damage, would have made it really feel like you are good at hunting a specific kind of target than it does currently.

But... That's a much more complex game, and 5e veers towards simplicity. So while that's the kind of 5e I'd like to play, and probably many more in an online dnd forum, I understand that's not new player friendly, or as friendly as the current design. Would have been awesome to have it as an optional rule, like feats, which are probably the most supported "optional" rule.

I like it! Theoretically, at least.

The maneuvers we have now are resource-based, and while that provide a degree of balance, it doesn't really fit with the concept of mundane martials. There's no limit to the number of times an experienced martial artist can judo throw people, after all.

Idk how you'd balance additional at-will options, though. Unless it came with a steeper action-economy cost or something. ("Properly performing these maneuvers requires exceptional focus. Before using one as part of an attack, you must first use a bonus action to watch for or create an opening." Or somesuch.)

If there were to be some more magical options exclusive to higher levels, that could be a neat way to help martials feel as extraordinary as casters. Maybe a honed body option at lvl 11 or so, letting Archers get better perception / range, Protection style an ability to "project bloodlust" and pull aggro, GWFs could be allowed to wield large weapons or one-hand a greatsword without penalty, etc.

But what I really want is some kind of a way to represent a Way of the Intercepting Fist (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625830-What-is-a-high-level-monk-like&p=24893312#post24893312) Monk!

[Tanarii]

The maneuvers we have now are resource-based, and while that provide a degree of balance, it doesn't really fit with the concept of mundane martials. There's no limit to the number of times an experienced martial artist can judo throw people, after all.
Yes there is. Martial artists can't or won't attempt judo throws over and over again for a variety of reasons.

Martial maneuvers do not need to be at-will to be mundane. If you're going for cinematic, it's often the case that the most powerful maneuvers are only used once per scene (or less). If you're going for 'realistic', limiting special maneuvers to a few times per short rest reflects requirements in a combination of opportunity, difficulty in executing, and fatigue.

[Leon]

In practice,[/I] people tend to assume all official character options will be available unless a DM specifically says otherwise.


Its better to assume that everything isn't allowed until clarified what is. What sessions Zero's are for to find out what makes this Game different from any other you may or may not have been part of.

[KorvinStarmast]

Generally, I find that it's too hard to knock down PC concentration, leading to those powerhouse spells being even better. Especially things like hypnotic pattern, wall of force, etc.
When the caster has resilient CON and Warcaster, that might skew your impression

My first two clerics had neither feat: played through level 7 saw a lot of spells fall useless before round 3 was over. And that's why I pursue those feats with a vengeance when they are available.


I don't have any current plans of altering that, but I'd be tempted (but not more than that) to make concentration a flat d20 check and alter the DCs appropriately. That kinda hoses Sorcerers. If you play a featless game, sorcerers have that limited spell selection but that Con proficiency makes for a more concentration checks being made. My shadow sorcerer, at level 3, was + 4 to conc checks and +5 at level 5. Given the number of conc spells I used it was very nice even without warcaster. Didn't pass all checks, to be sure, but I passed most of them.

Or alternatively say that every additional hit past the first one in a round imposes a stacking malus to the roll--get hit once and it's straight, hit a second time and that concentration check is now -N (or the DC goes up by N). Not a bad idea, in terms of verisimilitude.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That kinda hoses Sorcerers. If you play a featless game, sorcerers have that limited spell selection but that Con proficiency makes for a more concentration checks being made. My shadow sorcerer, at level 3, was + 4 to conc checks and +5 at level 5. Given the number of conc spells I used it was very nice even without warcaster. Didn't pass all checks, to be sure, but I passed most of them.

The idea was then to selectively and as class features give back some protection to various classes. More than just "I have proficiency in Constitution saves". But you can't really do that in the current model because
1) multiclassing means everyone can have it with a little dip
2) if it stacks with feats, then concentration becomes even more impossible to break

[KorvinStarmast]

2) if it stacks with feats, then concentration becomes even more impossible to break More difficult, yes. Those feats cost foregoing another choice to implement.
(No ASI, no Alert, no boost to X stat, and so on).

If you lay 60-ish HP of dragon breath (or other substantial AoE or damage source) on the caster, they need to pass a DC of 30+ to maintain concentration. There is only so far advantage will take you.
(Only reason I managed it twice was that tattoo that cut damage in half and a decent roll-and that tattoo cost an attunement slot).

[PhoenixPhyre]

More difficult, yes. Those feats cost foregoing another choice to implement.
(No ASI, no Alert, no boost to X stat, and so on).

If you lay 60-ish HP of dragon breath (or other substantial AoE or damage source) on the caster, they need to pass a DC of 30+ to maintain concentration. There is only so far advantage will take you.
(Only reason I managed it twice was that tattoo that cut damage in half and a decent roll-and that tattoo cost an attunement slot).

But that means that anything not a dragon (or a crit from a giant) is unlikely to ever break it. Damage scales mostly by number of attacks, not by raw damage per attack. Which means even most powerful creatures aren't doing 60 damage in a hit. Or even 20. And ramping up the raw damage just means that it's more rocket tag.

In my opinion, concentration spells are powerful because they're supposed to be easy to break. If the norm is that only rare occasions can even hope to break concentration, then the spells need to have an axe taken to them. Or more abilities that unilaterally, with no save, break concentration. Get grappled? Concentration breaks, no save. Etc.

And yes, this goes for the baddies too. Except they don't have nearly the opportunity to optimize, and people tend to cry foul when you give them specialized "no, you can't break my concentration" features. Imagine if every spell-casting monster had proficiency in CON saves and advantage on concentration checks. And then threw around hypnotic pattern, wall of force, banishment, etc. with abandon. Not tons of fun, right? Concentration is designed to be broken more often than not. Getting 3 rounds out of it is working as expected. Expecting that you can have hex up all day routinely is not working as expected, unless you take strong measures to avoid taking damage.

[ZRN]

Basically, I've seen a lot of people on these boards say something to the effect of "martial characters in games without feats deal subpar damage with same-y weapons, and are just generally kinda boring" as an argument against playing without feats.

What I'm curious about is what exactly would need to change about the base game for those folks to be willing to play without feats.

Feats are basically designed to fix exactly the issues you're talking about - they add variety and complexity, and with it the opportunity to maximize effectiveness. If you're taking them out and replacing them with something that does the same thing, what's the point?

If the idea is just to answer, "what's the bare minimum adjustment you'd need to be willing to play a martial character in a no-feats game," I'd personally be willing to play a no-feats game without further adjustments, but maybe martials (or just everyone) could get a few extra skill and save proficiencies as they level?

[HPisBS]

... Get grappled? Concentration breaks, no save. Etc.

How the heck is grappling, of all things, supposed to auto-break concentration? Grappling is just being grabbed and held on to. That's not exactly the most distracting thing that can happen to you lol. If you want to make concentration harder, then maybe add a roll to see which body part gets hit; if the caster gets hit in the head, their concentration takes a penalty (for the rest of the round, if need be). AoEs could have better odds of applying that penalty, or even just always apply it.


... Expecting that you can have hex up all day routinely is not working as expected, unless you take strong measures to avoid taking damage.

Don't your casters normally do that anyways, just as a matter of course? Seeing as they tend to be all squishy, and whatnot...?

[PhoenixPhyre]

How the heck is grappling, of all things, supposed to auto-break concentration? Grappling is just being grabbed and held on to. That's not exactly the most distracting thing that can happen to you lol. If you want to make concentration harder, then maybe add a roll to see which body part gets hit; if the caster gets hit in the head, their concentration takes a penalty (for the rest of the round, if need be). AoEs could have better odds of applying that penalty, or even just always apply it.



Don't your casters normally do that anyways, just as a matter of course? Seeing as they tend to be all squishy, and whatnot...?

It was a random example, not a strongly proofed thing. So substitute it with something else monsters do frequently.

And I'm talking more extreme measures. IMO, the base normal chance of losing concentration should be 50% per round. And casters should assume that their concentration spells will last generally 2 (1-4) rounds.

[HPisBS]

Oh these poor DMs who have players do something more than I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage. Oh the horror a player paralyses a monster. Oh the horror a player can kill more than one monster with one attack. Oh noes a player does an extra 1d6 damage to attacks for 5 hours.

Rule of Cool? What a terrible idea! Real players like the Rule of Lame!



And I'm talking more extreme measures. IMO, the base normal chance of losing concentration should be 50% per round. And casters should assume that their concentration spells will last generally 2 (1-4) rounds.

That honestly sounds kinda gross.

Caster PCs already have to deal with intelligent enemies knowing to gimp the mage. Extra mechanical pressure like you describe just incentivizes those extreme defensive measures that much more.

[KorvinStarmast]

Concentration is designed to be broken more often than not. Getting 3 rounds out of it is working as expected. Expecting that you can have hex up all day routinely is not working as expected, unless you take strong measures to avoid taking damage. It is designed to be broken some times. More often than not I am not sure of.
(If we look at the basic rules, the suggestion that something like the pitching deck of a ship or a rogue wave induces a concentration check seems to point to your idea on its fragility).

Getting 3 rounds of out conc in combat is goodness, yes, agree, beyond that it's gravy.
On the flip side, there are for most conc spells "end of turn saves" that render them moot before the three rounds are indeed over (Until the Spell Save DC goes into the stratosphere, at which point those saves are rarer).

Concentrating on a level 4 Hold person as a level 7 warlock is great in round 1: three enemies stop. When two of the three save at the end of turn, slowing 1 down is nice but those un held enemies have a chance to break conc. :smallyuk: It only takes 3 points of damage and a result of 9 or less to do that. :smallwink: (You guessed it, my 'lock took Warcaster at 8 ~ but I am obsessed with not losing conc. Our wizard is far more casual about it...).

Hex and hunters mark are, to me, edge cases.
They could both be re fabricated into class abilities with limited duration.
But I will say this.
On more than one occasion in our ToA campaign, Hunters Mark was more worthwhile to our party in terms of tracking down some enemy that we'd had to disengage with (or they threw mooks at us and fled) than for the nominal damage boost.

All of this takes me back to the Sorcerer getting Conc saves as proficiency: it makes the sorcerer special, to a certain extent, in the basic game.
Their magic is inborn, so it's harder for their concentration to be disrupted.
Makes a certain thematic sense in terms of how the class is described.

[Sindeloke]

The maneuvers we have now are resource-based, and while that provide a degree of balance, it doesn't really fit with the concept of mundane martials. There's no limit to the number of times an experienced martial artist can judo throw people, after all.

As already mentioned, this isn't necessarily true for cinematic reasons, but it's also pretty straightforward to create a resource that feels more immediate and less gamey than short rests, if you feel they're still an issue. Manuevers are purchased with Momentum Points. You get a point every time you start a turn, make a successful attack, or make a successful save. You get two points for a crit. Maybe there's a level-based cap on how many you can have total. Set the prices such that, at low levels, you can do about one cool thing per turn, and at high levels, you can do one cool high-level thing per turn or one of those low-level things with every single attack.

It's still a resource, but the justifying fluff is obvious and intuitive (in order to do something interesting, you have to set up for it first), and the refresh is fast enough that it doesn't feel limited, while still being slow enough that you can't just spam the optimal maneuver with every action you take.

[HPisBS]

As already mentioned, this isn't necessarily true for cinematic reasons, but it's also pretty straightforward to create a resource that feels more immediate and less gamey than short rests, if you feel they're still an issue. Manuevers are purchased with Momentum Points. You get a point every time you start a turn, make a successful attack, or make a successful save. You get two points for a crit. Maybe there's a level-based cap on how many you can have total. Set the prices such that, at low levels, you can do about one cool thing per turn, and at high levels, you can do one cool high-level thing per turn or one of those low-level things with every single attack.

It's still a resource, but the justifying fluff is obvious and intuitive (in order to do something interesting, you have to set up for it first), and the refresh is fast enough that it doesn't feel limited, while still being slow enough that you can't just spam the optimal maneuver with every action you take.

I like it.

Unlike the basic "once per turn" model, that would lend itself to scaling as you level, and could even limit multiclassing shenanigans by different sources not stacking. :smallsmile: (So, even though your 10 lvls of Fighter would get you 2 "momentum points" and your 3 lvls of Rogue would also get you 1 point, you'd still only have 2 to use on a turn, and a max of 1 for Rogue abilities.)

[Pex]

Yeah. And I'll say that it radically alters the "meta" if concentration can't be assumed to always last the duration.

For example, hex and hunter's mark become way less of a "must have" if you expect them to only last a couple rounds instead of hours and hours (at higher levels).

Generally, I find that it's too hard to knock down PC concentration, leading to those powerhouse spells being even better. Especially things like hypnotic pattern, wall of force, etc. I don't have any current plans of altering that, but I'd be tempted (but not more than that) to make concentration a flat d20 check and alter the DCs appropriately. The sort of thing that nothing and no feature can add bonuses to. Might be able to reroll with Lucky, but that's about it. Ie not a saving throw, an ability check, or an attack roll at all. Just a flat out straight roll.

Or alternatively say that every additional hit past the first one in a round imposes a stacking malus to the roll--get hit once and it's straight, hit a second time and that concentration check is now -N (or the DC goes up by N).

No, I'm calling shenanigans on this. Explain to me how you're upset how easy it is for a warlock or ranger to maintain +1d6 damage to his attacks for 8 hours, but you yell at me for wanting a defined DC for climbing a tree.

Spellcasters are not ruining the game. The PC fighter wants the bard to maintain concentration on Hypnotic Pattern as much as the bard does. It keeps that many bad guys off him while he attacks the BBEG. The DM does not need to pack up and go home because a wall of force keeps away some monsters from the party.

[Tanarii]

And I'm talking more extreme measures. IMO, the base normal chance of losing concentration should be 50% per round. And casters should assume that their concentration spells will last generally 2 (1-4) rounds.
Assuming 1 hit for a DC 10 check, and a +2 Constitution mod, that'd be a 35% chance of losing concentration after 1 hit, 58% within 2 hits, 73% within 3 hits, and 82% within 4 hits.

That's the typical expectation for a concentration result for Con 14 for non-Sorcs/EKs, which is probably a good average Con across all levels in a no-feats game for casters in general.

Adding +3 changes that to 20%/36%/49%/59%
Adding +4 changes that to 15%/28%/38%/48%

In short, yeah, it's a huge boost for a feat that's otherwise just protecting against generic saves. It's not just incidental, it's a paradigm changer for concentration spells, when it's very unlikely that was the intent for the feat.

[Rukelnikov]

Assuming 1 hit for a DC 10 check, and a +2 Constitution mod, that'd be a 35% chance of losing concentration after 1 hit, 58% within 2 hits, 73% within 3 hits, and 82% within 4 hits.

That's the typical expectation for a concentration result for Con 14 for non-Sorcs/EKs, which is probably a good average Con across all levels in a no-feats game for casters in general.

Adding +3 changes that to 20%/36%/49%/59%
Adding +4 changes that to 15%/28%/38%/48%

In short, yeah, it's a huge boost for a feat that's otherwise just protecting against generic saves. It's not just incidental, it's a paradigm changer for concentration spells, when it's very unlikely that was the intent for the feat.

In a no feats game, I'm pretty sure casters would end up maxing Con after casting Stat, I'd assume a +3 Mod

[Naanomi]

In a no feats game, I'm pretty sure casters would end up maxing Con after casting Stat, I'd assume a +3 Mod
Eh I might go for Dex first for many casters

[Tanarii]

In a no feats game, I'm pretty sure casters would end up maxing Con after casting Stat, I'd assume a +3 Mod

Eh, assume those are numbers for a starting Con 14 caster who bumps casting stat at 4th and 8th then, since my follow-up numbers for the feat were 5th and 9th proficiency.


Eh I might go for Dex first for many castersPersonally I think Con is more valuable, but yes plenty of Wizard / Sorc / Lore Bard / Warlock players will take extra Dex before extra Con.

[Naanomi]

Personally I think Con is more valuable, but yes plenty of Wizard / Sorc / Lore Bard / Warlock players will take extra Dex before extra Con.
The initiative entices me to DEX for many casters, more than the AC or anything else

[MrStabby]

No, I'm calling shenanigans on this. Explain to me how you're upset how easy it is for a warlock or ranger to maintain +1d6 damage to his attacks for 8 hours, but you yell at me for wanting a defined DC for climbing a tree.

Spellcasters are not ruining the game. The PC fighter wants the bard to maintain concentration on Hypnotic Pattern as much as the bard does. It keeps that many bad guys off him while he attacks the BBEG. The DM does not need to pack up and go home because a wall of force keeps away some monsters from the party.

I think it depends what the fighter is. If its a sword and board fighter, whose cool thing is tanking lots of enemies, then this spell stops them doing their cool thing... so yeah, it sucks for the fighter. If the fighter is a great weapon master great-sword wielder, then yeah they probably like it as it means there was no cost to them chosing to have a lower armour class.