Yo! So simple question should all martials get extra feats/ASIs like the fighter? so classes like barb and monk and tbh the ranger (it just needs all the love it can get its so carried by its subclasses)
As things presently stand, I do not think the feat system is the best way to fix classes. 5e’s feat system is pretty darn limited, with very few options and even fewer good options - if you expand access to feats, you will start seeing a drastic decrease in differentiation between classes. That is not great game design, both from the standpoint of making each class feel unique and from ensuring players are not stepping on one another’s toes.
I think what martial classes really need is an overhaul of their base features, giving them more flexibility and options in combat. Fortunately, that is exactly what we are getting in September when the revised PHB releases.
I do feel like feats are more impactful on increasing a martial's capabilities. On a caster a mechanically good but boring feat like Resilient Constitution is nice because it's enhancing what already exists. (Allowing better use of their concentration spells.) Whereas on a martial a feat like Polearm Master opens up new options they didn't have before, bonus attack with butt-end and opportunity attacks.
So you might also consider giving players a free feat if you feel like there's more customization you want. It'll help the spellcasters too, but generally in a "do X but better" way or feel more free for flavor options while the martials can open up new opportunities.
The only martial type that needs a boost is Monk. Particularly at lower levels, they are underpowered. Barbarians are already a top martial person, equal to the fighter.
Giving the monk a free feat at first level could equalize things out. But giving Rangers, Barbarians or Paladins an extra feat would overpower some of the better classes.
Honestly, no. Barbarians and Monks both get a significantly more extensive base kit than Fighters do.
idk barbs base kit includes brutal critical and that feature IMO doesnt come up enough for it to be worth a level on its own at all and thats at levels 9,13,17 were your almost pointless feature gets better (ik onednd changes that still havent played with it any waiting on the full release) as for monk alot of their later features are things people get as race buffs or other classes get sooner in a better way.
The only martial type that needs a boost is Monk. Particularly at lower levels, they are underpowered. Barbarians are already a top martial person, equal to the fighter.
Giving the monk a free feat at first level could equalize things out. But giving Rangers, Barbarians or Paladins an extra feat would overpower some of the better classes.
im crazy but im not giving a paladin free feats lol thats just insane but you dont think the ranger needs a little bump?
The only martial type that needs a boost is Monk. Particularly at lower levels, they are underpowered. Barbarians are already a top martial person, equal to the fighter.
Giving the monk a free feat at first level could equalize things out. But giving Rangers, Barbarians or Paladins an extra feat would overpower some of the better classes.
im crazy but im not giving a paladin free feats lol thats just insane but you dont think the ranger needs a little bump?
The ranger's only actual problem is how bad all of the Beastmaster and some of the Hunter abilities are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A ranger archer can be very very effective. Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker are my preferred subclasses. In particular I like a crossbow expert Horizon Walker.
Yo! So simple question should all martials get extra feats/ASIs like the fighter? so classes like barb and monk and tbh the ranger (it just needs all the love it can get its so carried by its subclasses)
Yo! No because the Fighter the archetype for all of the other martials (except Monk which only became a Martial class under WoTC). They were all subclasses of the Fighter at one point. So the fighter gets to keep that prestige to himself.
The only martial type that needs a boost is Monk. Particularly at lower levels, they are underpowered. Barbarians are already a top martial person, equal to the fighter.
Giving the monk a free feat at first level could equalize things out. But giving Rangers, Barbarians or Paladins an extra feat would overpower some of the better classes.
im crazy but im not giving a paladin free feats lol thats just insane but you dont think the ranger needs a little bump?
Not particularly; their spells favor utility or augmenting weapon attacks with AoE, meaning they’ll be aimed at mobs more than boss monsters and much of their value comes simply from hitting multiple targets in one round, and mobs will naturally have weaker saves. Even Monks are not truly that hard pressed in the current format; it only takes 14 WIS to match light armor and they are not particularly reliant on DC features; there is of course Stunning Strike, but that’s a potentially very powerful attack rider with no cost to action economy at all in the 2014 version. It’s a bonus to a round of attacks, not the focus, and unlike most other debilitating actions, you haven’t blown an entire round of it misses.
Honestly, no. Barbarians and Monks both get a significantly more extensive base kit than Fighters do.
idk barbs base kit includes brutal critical and that feature IMO doesnt come up enough for it to be worth a level on its own at all and thats at levels 9,13,17 were your almost pointless feature gets better (ik onednd changes that still havent played with it any waiting on the full release) as for monk alot of their later features are things people get as race buffs or other classes get sooner in a better way.
I said “base kit”; what is the Fighter equivalent to Rage, Reckless Attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, or Stunning Strikes?
Doing that would mean that class features at the these new ASI levels would need to be removed. In some instances, the class feature is better than what the feats can offer.
I think a better strategy is to modify an existing class feature if the feeling is it is too weak or lacking value for the level it is being awarded at. This will keep the class having a unique power with its build.
Honestly, no. Barbarians and Monks both get a significantly more extensive base kit than Fighters do.
idk barbs base kit includes brutal critical and that feature IMO doesnt come up enough for it to be worth a level on its own at all and thats at levels 9,13,17 were your almost pointless feature gets better (ik onednd changes that still havent played with it any waiting on the full release) as for monk alot of their later features are things people get as race buffs or other classes get sooner in a better way.
I said “base kit”; what is the Fighter equivalent to Rage, Reckless Attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, or Stunning Strikes?
second wind, action surge, fighting style the fighting style isnt fully a fighter thing but its amazing and depending on what you picked always on/used
Honestly, no. Barbarians and Monks both get a significantly more extensive base kit than Fighters do.
idk barbs base kit includes brutal critical and that feature IMO doesnt come up enough for it to be worth a level on its own at all and thats at levels 9,13,17 were your almost pointless feature gets better (ik onednd changes that still havent played with it any waiting on the full release) as for monk alot of their later features are things people get as race buffs or other classes get sooner in a better way.
I said “base kit”; what is the Fighter equivalent to Rage, Reckless Attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, or Stunning Strikes?
second wind, action surge, fighting style the fighting style isnt fully a fighter thing but its amazing and depending on what you picked always on/used
You’re comparing two features that are one use per short rest for relatively low impact healing or an extra action for one turn or a low power passive to constantly scaling options to make additional attacks or give all attackers disadvantage, a damage bonus and damage resistance that while limited start at two combats per LR and gradually scale, and the ability to get advantage to attacks at will. That’s hardly an even comparison of power.
should all martials get extra feats like the fighter?
No. Barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, and rogues all get more built into their chassis than fighters, they get more pizzazz features than fighters, and they have more unique identities than fighters. None of them need the extra ASIs/Feats.
Martials in general should get better tier 3/4 features. This is particularly a problem for barbarians, monks, and rangers, which mostly flatline on damage after level 8, other than whatever benefits they get from better weapons and armor.
Pantagruel, your opinions are far outside what other think. The general consensus is Class Tier:
Barbarians are Class A Tanks through all levels and Class A or B Damage Dealers for all levels.
Rangers are Class A Damage Dealers through all levels and after a weak start quickly become Class A at stealth and social skills.
Barbarians are good purely on the strength of their early power set -- level 1-8 is excellent -- but levels 9-19 are terrible (level 20 is pretty good).
Rangers progression in the 9-19 range is entirely a function of them being spellcasters; their non-spellcasting features in that level range are lousy.
To the OP, No. And to be honest, if 1DD got rid of the Rogue’s 10th level ASI I wouldn’t have complained (it would have had to be replaced by something)
For me the fighter should be the one with the versatility with feats. It’s their thing that separates them from other martials that tend to get more stuff. Fighters as a class are the most vague so you can pretty much build anything you want with them.
Yo! So simple question should all martials get extra feats/ASIs like the fighter? so classes like barb and monk and tbh the ranger (it just needs all the love it can get its so carried by its subclasses)
As things presently stand, I do not think the feat system is the best way to fix classes. 5e’s feat system is pretty darn limited, with very few options and even fewer good options - if you expand access to feats, you will start seeing a drastic decrease in differentiation between classes. That is not great game design, both from the standpoint of making each class feel unique and from ensuring players are not stepping on one another’s toes.
I think what martial classes really need is an overhaul of their base features, giving them more flexibility and options in combat. Fortunately, that is exactly what we are getting in September when the revised PHB releases.
I do feel like feats are more impactful on increasing a martial's capabilities. On a caster a mechanically good but boring feat like Resilient Constitution is nice because it's enhancing what already exists. (Allowing better use of their concentration spells.) Whereas on a martial a feat like Polearm Master opens up new options they didn't have before, bonus attack with butt-end and opportunity attacks.
So you might also consider giving players a free feat if you feel like there's more customization you want. It'll help the spellcasters too, but generally in a "do X but better" way or feel more free for flavor options while the martials can open up new opportunities.
This is a signature. It was a simple signature. But it has been upgraded.
Belolonandalogalo, Sunny | Draíocht, Kholias | Eggo Lass, 100 Dungeons
Talorin Tebedi, Vecna: Eve | Cherry, Stormwreck | Chipper, Strahd
We Are Modron
Get rickrolled here. Awesome music here. Track 48, 5/23/25, Immaculate Mary
Honestly, no. Barbarians and Monks both get a significantly more extensive base kit than Fighters do.
The only martial type that needs a boost is Monk. Particularly at lower levels, they are underpowered. Barbarians are already a top martial person, equal to the fighter.
Giving the monk a free feat at first level could equalize things out. But giving Rangers, Barbarians or Paladins an extra feat would overpower some of the better classes.
idk barbs base kit includes brutal critical and that feature IMO doesnt come up enough for it to be worth a level on its own at all and thats at levels 9,13,17 were your almost pointless feature gets better (ik onednd changes that still havent played with it any waiting on the full release) as for monk alot of their later features are things people get as race buffs or other classes get sooner in a better way.
im crazy but im not giving a paladin free feats lol thats just insane but you dont think the ranger needs a little bump?
The ranger's only actual problem is how bad all of the Beastmaster and some of the Hunter abilities are.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A ranger archer can be very very effective. Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker are my preferred subclasses. In particular I like a crossbow expert Horizon Walker.
Yo! No because the Fighter the archetype for all of the other martials (except Monk which only became a Martial class under WoTC). They were all subclasses of the Fighter at one point. So the fighter gets to keep that prestige to himself.
Not particularly; their spells favor utility or augmenting weapon attacks with AoE, meaning they’ll be aimed at mobs more than boss monsters and much of their value comes simply from hitting multiple targets in one round, and mobs will naturally have weaker saves. Even Monks are not truly that hard pressed in the current format; it only takes 14 WIS to match light armor and they are not particularly reliant on DC features; there is of course Stunning Strike, but that’s a potentially very powerful attack rider with no cost to action economy at all in the 2014 version. It’s a bonus to a round of attacks, not the focus, and unlike most other debilitating actions, you haven’t blown an entire round of it misses.
I said “base kit”; what is the Fighter equivalent to Rage, Reckless Attack, Flurry of Blows, Patient Defense, or Stunning Strikes?
Doing that would mean that class features at the these new ASI levels would need to be removed. In some instances, the class feature is better than what the feats can offer.
I think a better strategy is to modify an existing class feature if the feeling is it is too weak or lacking value for the level it is being awarded at. This will keep the class having a unique power with its build.
second wind, action surge, fighting style
the fighting style isnt fully a fighter thing but its amazing and depending on what you picked always on/used
You’re comparing two features that are one use per short rest for relatively low impact healing or an extra action for one turn or a low power passive to constantly scaling options to make additional attacks or give all attackers disadvantage, a damage bonus and damage resistance that while limited start at two combats per LR and gradually scale, and the ability to get advantage to attacks at will. That’s hardly an even comparison of power.
No. Barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, and rogues all get more built into their chassis than fighters, they get more pizzazz features than fighters, and they have more unique identities than fighters. None of them need the extra ASIs/Feats.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Martials in general should get better tier 3/4 features. This is particularly a problem for barbarians, monks, and rangers, which mostly flatline on damage after level 8, other than whatever benefits they get from better weapons and armor.
Pantagruel, your opinions are far outside what other think. The general consensus is Class Tier:
Barbarians are Class A Tanks through all levels and Class A or B Damage Dealers for all levels.
Rangers are Class A Damage Dealers through all levels and after a weak start quickly become Class A at stealth and social skills.
Monks do suck.
Barbarians are good purely on the strength of their early power set -- level 1-8 is excellent -- but levels 9-19 are terrible (level 20 is pretty good).
Rangers progression in the 9-19 range is entirely a function of them being spellcasters; their non-spellcasting features in that level range are lousy.
To the OP, No. And to be honest, if 1DD got rid of the Rogue’s 10th level ASI I wouldn’t have complained (it would have had to be replaced by something)
For me the fighter should be the one with the versatility with feats. It’s their thing that separates them from other martials that tend to get more stuff. Fighters as a class are the most vague so you can pretty much build anything you want with them.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?