Hypothetical: feats as a martial signature feature

[PhoenixPhyre]

What if, instead of feats being generally available (either on for everyone or off for everyone), you could only pick up feats in proportion to your martial side.

Specifically:
- any class that gets 9ths on their table cannot use their ASI from that class on feats.
- any class that caps at 5th level spells stays as normal. They get either a feat or an asi at each opportunity.
- any class that does not grant spellcasting as a base class feature gets BOTH a feat and an ASI at each opportunity.

So a level 20 wizard would need to be a variant human (or custom lineage) to have a feat at all, and they can only ever get one (at level 1) but a non human fighter would have 7 ASIs and feats (a v human one would have 8 feats).

Thematically, studying and focusing on magic makes you less capable at other things due to opportunity cost. Your versatility is your spells (and class features for everyone except wizards). Martials get theirs from feat access.

Does that change the playing field any?

I'm not actually proposing this, just had the idea and looking at consequences.

[Kane0]

I can dig it.

It'd be funny if they have a level-by-level table with relative feat strengths and everything, so you could have a 'full martial' and 'half martial' progression for discussion and debate the same way casters do.

Edit: you'd probably have to change most feats to not be all about combat though, or perhaps if most are three bullet points have one for each pillar of play in each feat so even those optimizing for combat still pick up noncombat capabilities.

[Witty Username]

I don't see why a wizard shouldn't be allowed to take feats like elemental adept or spell sniper.
Like why is an EK better at spellcasting than a wizard?
--
Martials are already mildly oppesive with GWM type nonsense, I don't think them geting the full setup and 20 in primary stat at the same time is the right direction.

[SharkForce]

It might help somewhat with balance (depending on how you feel about caster/martial balance), but mostly I feel like it'll give more power to early-game non-spellcasters, while not giving much to high-level non-spellcasters (getting your most desired feat is a big deal. getting your fifth-most desired feat, less so... likewise with getting +2 to your main attribute vs +2 to your secondary or tertiary attribute).

Meanwhile, it will provide less variation between everyone... that is, warriors will be more similar to each other regardless of class because they 5 levels where they get the same options out of them and probably most of them will focus to some extent on the same feats, while spellcasters will be more similar to each other (though differentiated by class) because they don't have feats to customize their builds at all.

I'm not too interested in starting a discussion on whether there's a need for better balance in the game (I think there is, lots of people are out there who will gladly tell me I'm wrong and give very lengthy explanations why, and I don't think we need another thread of that).

With that out of the way, if you want to adjust the balance between spellcasters and non-spellcasters, I don't think this is a great way to do it, and if we're going to do it in spite of a lot of people saying it isn't needed... I think we can do better than this.

[stoutstien]

It could work. I'm working on angle that <martials> have inherently more rugged souls because they channel magic directly so they get an extra feat at lv 1 that is related to their theme. I should say my feats are looking like they are relatively 2x as powerful as they are now but also much more infrequent.

[KorvinStarmast]

What if, instead of feats being generally available (either on for everyone or off for everyone), you could only pick up feats in proportion to your martial side.

Specifically:
- any class that gets 9ths on their table cannot use their ASI from that class on feats.
- any class that caps at 5th level spells stays as normal. They get either a feat or an asi at each opportunity.
- any class that does not grant spellcasting as a base class feature gets BOTH a feat and an ASI at each opportunity.
This is an interesting idea, but what will you do with Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, and the Tasha's feats that give 1/rest spells?

So a level 20 wizard would need to be a variant human (or custom lineage) to have a feat at all, and they can only ever get one (at level 1) but a non human fighter would have 7 ASIs and feats (a v human one would have 8 feats). Works for me. But at that point, do the Fighters have 7 feat/ASI levels?

Thematically, studying and focusing on magic makes you less capable at other things due to opportunity cost. Your versatility is your spells (and class features for everyone except wizards). Martials get theirs from feat access.

Does that change the playing field any?

I'm not actually proposing this, just had the idea and looking at consequences.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is an interesting idea, but what will you do with Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, and the Tasha's feats that give 1/rest spells?
Works for me. But at that point, do the Fighters have 7 feat/ASI levels?

Those are fine. The only thing that restricts a class is the class table. Pick up spells from somewhere else? No issue. I'd probably just remove the prerequisite on ritual caster.

And yes, by level 20 a pure fighter has 7 ASIs: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 19.

[GeneralVryth]

I kind of doubt this would change much. Outside of a couple feats (Warcaster and Resilient standing out), how often is a feat better for a caster than trying to maximize their primary ability score?

It also doesn't really address the classic disparity between them. Casters tend to have more room be clever because they have more mechanical tools to leverage, and those tools are explicitly magical (so unbound by the presumed laws of physics). I am not sure if that is a disparity that can ever be solved while still maintaining the feel of D&D you see discussed. Better high level abilities is probably the real starting point for fixing the disparity (or some other way of having narrative leverage).

However, if we are just talking about feats, personally I think every "ASI/Feat" level should grant you a +1 to one ability score and a feat, with no option to +3 across ability scores. And then I would probably give every pure martial (I am thinking Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, and Monk here) 1 more of those. Of course for this to work you need more feats than what is in the core book. But by getting more feats (especially if everyone gets 1 at level 1 as well) you allow more classes to get their "needed" feats out of the way which should result is more interesting and diversity beyond that point because you are now talking about 3rd/4th/5th best/character appropriate options.

[Bosh]

Wouldn't hurt but the best simple fix that doesn't change how casters work would be to give martials better saves at higher levels and/or legendary resistance instead of the sad crap that is indomitable.

Stuff like that to bring other martials up to the level of paladins is about the best you can do without overhauling 5e.

[Witty Username]

Wouldn't hurt but the best simple fix that doesn't change how casters work would be to give martials better saves at higher levels and/or legendary resistance instead of the sad crap that is indomitable.

Stuff like that to bring other martials up to the level of paladins is about the best you can do without overhauling 5e.

We can't give martials features past 9th level, that would make higher levels interesting and worth playing... 😉

That is a though I had, giving fighter legendary resistance at higher levels and using some rogue and monk design giving martials additional save proficiencies as they level.
Paladin need not apply, for obvious reasons.

[Mastikator]

Feats that have level and class prerequisites that enable cool martial combat options or enhance existing martial combat options. Like in 1dnd playtest?

I like it.

[Kane0]

Can check through UA and D&DNext playtests for stuff. I remember (only) the Fighter getting a parry ability, and there are smatterings of other neat things to pinch

[Bosh]

We can't give martials features past 9th level, that would make higher levels interesting and worth playing... 😉

That is a though I had, giving fighter legendary resistance at higher levels and using some rogue and monk design giving martials additional save proficiencies as they level.
Paladin need not apply, for obvious reasons.

I remember in TSR D&D fighter damage dropped off compared to casters and monsters as they levelled up, at higher levels the main thing they had going for them was being very good at saving throws, for example in 1e a very high level fighter just needed to roll a 3 to save vs. poison, paralyzation or death magic while magic-users needed and 8.

Spit-balling bringing that back:

Fighter: swap out Indomitable for Legendary Resistance

Monk: shift Diamond Soul down to 9th level, give monks expertise in all saving throws at 14th level. Yeah that might be a bit much but this is the weakest 5e class we're talking about, they could really use a high level boost.

Rogue: give rogues a "disrupting strike" class feature. Anyone who has been hit with that rogue's Sneak Attack in the last round has all of their save DCs set down to 1 (rogue stabbing you in the throat makes it hard to cast properly).

Ranger: at 9th level give rangers a "what does not kill me makes me stronger" class feature so that if they're hit by something that gives you a chance to make a saving throw every round (hold person etc.) they automatically make the second save.

Barbarian: double down on making barbarians the HP tank not the saving throw tank, at 9th level give all barbarian resistance to all damage (save psychic) when they rage. Give bear barbarians immunity to one bludgeoning/piercing/slashing attack per round when they rage.

Some pretty big boosts, but I think the martials could really use that at higher levels. If anything fighters could probably use a bit more than that...