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 agree strongly with most of this: 5e's feats are really underwhelming, at least as they're implemented now. I actually like the idea of Fighter being the "feats class", but with the assortment of feats available that's just not a great thing to be. Plus, Fighter doesn't even get that many more feats than other classes (at least not in base 5e, I haven't looked too deeply into the proposed 5.5 changes)
Martials could certainly use more diverse combat options, but I think the broader issue is how few out-of-combat features most martials have. There's no reason every Fighter couldn't get the Battle Master's "Know Your Enemy" feature, for example. I'd just like to see martials differentiated by a bit more than their preferred style of murder.
Addendum: as kind of a synthesis of these points, I'd like to see non-combat feats expanded and made easier to fit onto a character. "Linguist" is actually a pretty cool feat, but I have never seen a character take it because like... Great Weapon Master exists.
Again, by definition a "Martial" is not going to emphasize out of combat utility. Barbarians and Monks already have features that give utility in certain areas, and they're adding a simple option or two for Fighter, but at the end of the day if you're taking a class that is explicitly oriented on being focused on weapon/unarmed combat, then by definition you should not expect to have a lot of out of combat features. And, regarding non-combat feats, the problem there is that your mileage on them is going to swing wildly depending on the in-game circumstance and your DM. I played in a campaign that was going for intrigue elements, and I can tell you that being able to write a cipher would never have changed anything we did. There's some room for them, but imo they're a niche feature, not something that needs a strong presence.
Again, by definition a "Martial" is not going to emphasize out of combat utility. Barbarians and Monks already have features that give utility in certain areas, and they're adding a simple option or two for Fighter, but at the end of the day if you're taking a class that is explicitly oriented on being focused on weapon/unarmed combat, then by definition you should not expect to have a lot of out of combat features. And, regarding non-combat feats, the problem there is that your mileage on them is going to swing wildly depending on the in-game circumstance and your DM. I played in a campaign that was going for intrigue elements, and I can tell you that being able to write a cipher would never have changed anything we did. There's some room for them, but imo they're a niche feature, not something that needs a strong presence.
The idea that someone who focuses their training on combat cannot be good at non-combat things is, of course, nonsense, disproven by several millennia of history and literature. The issue is less about some arbitrary "definitional" restriction and more about ensuring there is a mechanical differentiation between classes, with martial classes not stepping on the toes of classes which excel outside of combat. Even that, however, is a pretty limited issue--a lot of those "out of combat" classes have been stepping on the toes of combatant classes for years due to their ability to excel both on and off the battlefield, so giving martial classes some additional out of combat boons would likely not be too problematic.
Fourth Edition had a system called "Martial Practices" which could be a solid boon to Fifth Edition. These were non-combat "rituals" designed for martial users, reflecting the martial individual's ability to take some of their combat-oriented skills and applying them to non-combat uses. For example, Survivor's Preparation took your acquired knowledge from being on campaigns in harsh environments, and allowed you to help your party prepare and mitigate the effects of harsh environments. Or you might be able to spend some time to fix some broken items (taking longer than a Mending spell), using the knowledge you gained of repair work from maintaining your armor.
Introducing the Martial Practices, or a similar system, into 5e would be one way to flavorfully solve the "oops, got nothing to do" problem many martial players have.
Again, by definition a "Martial" is not going to emphasize out of combat utility. Barbarians and Monks already have features that give utility in certain areas, and they're adding a simple option or two for Fighter, but at the end of the day if you're taking a class that is explicitly oriented on being focused on weapon/unarmed combat, then by definition you should not expect to have a lot of out of combat features. And, regarding non-combat feats, the problem there is that your mileage on them is going to swing wildly depending on the in-game circumstance and your DM. I played in a campaign that was going for intrigue elements, and I can tell you that being able to write a cipher would never have changed anything we did. There's some room for them, but imo they're a niche feature, not something that needs a strong presence.
I disagree with that assessment. "Martials" is just an ad-hoc category of classes that don't primarily use magic, it's not a mission statement regarding what those classes should and shouldn't be able to do. I'm not saying Fighters should get Mage Hand or Message or other caster-type utility features; I'm just saying maybe they should be able to look at a guy and see if he fights good. Give them something to do out of combat other than sometimes make skill rolls they'll usually be worse at than classes who don't need three physical stats to do their job.
As for out of combat feats, I agree they're highly specialized. That's why I think there should be more of them and they should be easier to take; these weak-but-expressive feats could offer a way for characters like Fighters to be more than just a ball of stats.
Going by Unearthed Arcana's split on the classes, it means a character who primarily fights with weapons and isn't a skill monkey.
Usually, discussion of casters vs martials only includes two categories (casters and martials) and therefore everything that isn't a caster is a martial. UA has a 4-way split (which they seem to have mostly abandoned in later UAs).
To clarify my position, I was referring to the 3 classes that were initially grouped under the "Warrior" class type in the UA: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk. They are very strongly oriented on combat by design, and as a corollary if you're playing one it is implicit in the choice that you're going to have a notably smaller toolkit of out of combat features.
i still think they could get 1 extra feat and it wouldnt be busted and help them alot in the later levels to keep up with the wizard casting wish and just casually warping time and space to their will
To clarify my position, I was referring to the 3 classes that were initially grouped under the "Warrior" class type in the UA: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk. They are very strongly oriented on combat by design, and as a corollary if you're playing one it is implicit in the choice that you're going to have a notably smaller toolkit of out of combat features.
I would say "these classes serve no function in two of the three pillars of play" is problematic design. It's fine to have weak areas, but characters should be decently useful in at least two.
To clarify my position, I was referring to the 3 classes that were initially grouped under the "Warrior" class type in the UA: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk. They are very strongly oriented on combat by design, and as a corollary if you're playing one it is implicit in the choice that you're going to have a notably smaller toolkit of out of combat features.
I would say "these classes serve no function in two of the three pillars of play" is problematic design. It's fine to have weak areas, but characters should be decently useful in at least two.
You'll note I did not say "no function", I said "notably smaller toolkit"; Barbs are a go-to for STR checks, and they're getting a boost to that in the update from the look of things; Monks get strong traversal for some exploration options. Fighters were definitely the weakest in that area, but they're getting a decent boost in the UA.
Monks need more one ASI because they are default MAD class that mostly needs to stay in melee-ish range to be effective. Bumping two stats more ASIs. The Half-Casters, definitely not.
Monks need more one ASI because they are default MAD class that mostly needs to stay in melee-ish range to be effective. Bumping two stats more ASIs. The Half-Casters, definitely not.
Except they don't actually need more than a +2 or +3 in WIS, and you can easily hit that with +3 in DEX and a few points in CON as-is with point-buy at creation. Give them a +2 in WIS and their AC is already as good as studded; with +3 it's now +1 studded. There's exactly one thing in the core kit that uses DC, and it's something you fish with on top of your Attack Action, not an entire action in and of itself, thus creating less waste than a Wizard blowing a cast of Hold Person or a similar spell. And those subclasses that place a strong emphasis on saves are also the ones that shift you away from making regular attacks, so you just swap the priority of DEX and WIS and have the same effect. There's really no more need for Monks in general to max out WIS than there is for Rangers or Paladins to max out WIS or CHA respectively. Sure, it'd be nice in the same way it'd be nice to max CON on any melee character, but it's not critical to their performance.
Paladins actually get a bit more benefit from boosting CHA than monks get from WIS, since CHA improves both their spellcasting and their Aura of Protection, possibly more depending on their subclass.
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.
Nope. Most Monks need both their WIS and DEX contribute to Monk's AC, which is their main defense unless they want to keep pouring Ki down the drain to Patient Defense for 1 round. The "one feature" you refer to is Stunning Strike, which is one of the few control abilities they have that no other class gets. So you're saying that Monks can do better control than Fighters using their default kit, then NOT put additional points into WIS? How does is that congruent? Also, since Monks don't get WIS save proficiency, that's another reason players should not be leaving WIS stat alone.
EDIT: Paladins also have a good reason to elevate their CHA as well. I'm not attempting to compare half-casters to full casters here.
Nope. Most Monks need both their WIS and DEX contribute to Monk's AC, which is their main defense unless they want to keep pouring Ki down the drain to Patient Defense for 1 round. The "one feature" you refer to is Stunning Strike, which is one of the few control abilities they have that no other class gets. So you're saying that Monks can do better control than Fighters using their default kit, then NOT put additional points into WIS? How does is that congruent? Also, since Monks don't get WIS save proficiency, that's another reason players should not be leaving WIS stat alone.
EDIT: Paladins also have a good reason to elevate their CHA as well. I'm not attempting to compare half-casters to full casters here.
I didn't say they should ignore WIS, I said it only needs to be at secondary stat levels, not main stat levels. Stunning Strike is a nice option, but especially with the update it is not critical to your build that you get it off consistently the way it is for a Rogue to land Sneak Attack or a full caster to land their spells. It's the icing, not the cake. And I specifically addressed the AC balance; they can easily hit the same AC as a Rogue, and again especially in the update they'll have some additional mitigation features, meaning neither AC nor CON is so critical that they're suffering under the distribution you can get from point buy.
Until we see the actual updated rules in the new PHB, we don't actually know WHAT they are keeping or modifying from the last Monk UA. Why are you bringing in stuff from OneD&D when it's not even official? Always read the fine print.
Also, I checked the 2014 PHB again. Both the Open Hand and Five Elements Monk have several features that key off WIS. So in 2 of 3 cases in the core materials, a WIS score not adjusted up becomes a long term liability.
i still think they could get 1 extra feat and it wouldnt be busted and help them alot in the later levels to keep up with the wizard casting wish and just casually warping time and space to their will
Even 2-3 feats is not going to close that gap. As long as martials are constrained by physics and "realism" while magic is not, casters will always be flashier and possess way more utility while also being able to do everything the martials can with the right spell selection (except beat on enemies indefinitely).
Until we see the actual updated rules in the new PHB, we don't actually know WHAT they are keeping or modifying from the last Monk UA. Why are you bringing in stuff from OneD&D when it's not even official? Always read the fine print.
Also, I checked the 2014 PHB again. Both the Open Hand and Five Elements Monk have several features that key off WIS. So in 2 of 3 cases in the core materials, a WIS score not adjusted up becomes a long term liability.
Four Elements was a poorly executed design, and if you're really going in on the save spells as your bread and butter, you just do what I said WIS focused Monks should do and flip your stat priority and make DEX secondary. You can hit 16 in both stats at creation with point buy, so your to-hit will start out optimal and by the time it starts to seriously lag you'll have plenty of ki to spend on the elemental moves. As for Open Hand, Sanctuary is going to discourage aggro just by being in effect and is of very limited use to the player in any case, Open Hand Technique is in the same boat as Stunning Strike in that the effects are bonuses on an Action, except that these don't even cost the additional Ki that SS does and so you're literally just fishing for bonus effects on something you will typically choose to do anyways, and Quivering Palm does 10d10 damage for 3 ki on a passed save with instant death on a failed one. Given that FoB is worth 1d10+5 at that point, it is a ridiculously good effect either way.
The myth power gamers push is that anything less than the highest possible DC for a level is bad on any character. That is absolutely not true. If you're not a full caster who is sinking their entire action into a save and relying on the save or suck part of the effect to go through, you can afford to fish. A large portion of the DC effects on Monks, Paladins, and Rangers are riders to a successful attack, meaning you're getting your bread and butter in already just by landing the attack. Paladins of course can always default to a basic Divine Smite to avoid the risk, and with Rangers most of their offensive spells are AoE, so they're already getting more damage than they would from an unmodified hit just by using the spell. The 10% theoretical difference in the saving throws is not going to have nearly as much influence as the swing of the dice themselves.
I agree strongly with most of this: 5e's feats are really underwhelming, at least as they're implemented now. I actually like the idea of Fighter being the "feats class", but with the assortment of feats available that's just not a great thing to be. Plus, Fighter doesn't even get that many more feats than other classes (at least not in base 5e, I haven't looked too deeply into the proposed 5.5 changes)
Martials could certainly use more diverse combat options, but I think the broader issue is how few out-of-combat features most martials have. There's no reason every Fighter couldn't get the Battle Master's "Know Your Enemy" feature, for example. I'd just like to see martials differentiated by a bit more than their preferred style of murder.
Addendum: as kind of a synthesis of these points, I'd like to see non-combat feats expanded and made easier to fit onto a character. "Linguist" is actually a pretty cool feat, but I have never seen a character take it because like... Great Weapon Master exists.
Again, by definition a "Martial" is not going to emphasize out of combat utility. Barbarians and Monks already have features that give utility in certain areas, and they're adding a simple option or two for Fighter, but at the end of the day if you're taking a class that is explicitly oriented on being focused on weapon/unarmed combat, then by definition you should not expect to have a lot of out of combat features. And, regarding non-combat feats, the problem there is that your mileage on them is going to swing wildly depending on the in-game circumstance and your DM. I played in a campaign that was going for intrigue elements, and I can tell you that being able to write a cipher would never have changed anything we did. There's some room for them, but imo they're a niche feature, not something that needs a strong presence.
The idea that someone who focuses their training on combat cannot be good at non-combat things is, of course, nonsense, disproven by several millennia of history and literature. The issue is less about some arbitrary "definitional" restriction and more about ensuring there is a mechanical differentiation between classes, with martial classes not stepping on the toes of classes which excel outside of combat. Even that, however, is a pretty limited issue--a lot of those "out of combat" classes have been stepping on the toes of combatant classes for years due to their ability to excel both on and off the battlefield, so giving martial classes some additional out of combat boons would likely not be too problematic.
Fourth Edition had a system called "Martial Practices" which could be a solid boon to Fifth Edition. These were non-combat "rituals" designed for martial users, reflecting the martial individual's ability to take some of their combat-oriented skills and applying them to non-combat uses. For example, Survivor's Preparation took your acquired knowledge from being on campaigns in harsh environments, and allowed you to help your party prepare and mitigate the effects of harsh environments. Or you might be able to spend some time to fix some broken items (taking longer than a Mending spell), using the knowledge you gained of repair work from maintaining your armor.
Introducing the Martial Practices, or a similar system, into 5e would be one way to flavorfully solve the "oops, got nothing to do" problem many martial players have.
I disagree with that assessment. "Martials" is just an ad-hoc category of classes that don't primarily use magic, it's not a mission statement regarding what those classes should and shouldn't be able to do. I'm not saying Fighters should get Mage Hand or Message or other caster-type utility features; I'm just saying maybe they should be able to look at a guy and see if he fights good. Give them something to do out of combat other than sometimes make skill rolls they'll usually be worse at than classes who don't need three physical stats to do their job.
As for out of combat feats, I agree they're highly specialized. That's why I think there should be more of them and they should be easier to take; these weak-but-expressive feats could offer a way for characters like Fighters to be more than just a ball of stats.
A 'martial' in D&D parlance means 'not a spellcaster'.
Going by Unearthed Arcana's split on the classes, it means a character who primarily fights with weapons and isn't a skill monkey.
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.
Usually, discussion of casters vs martials only includes two categories (casters and martials) and therefore everything that isn't a caster is a martial. UA has a 4-way split (which they seem to have mostly abandoned in later UAs).
To clarify my position, I was referring to the 3 classes that were initially grouped under the "Warrior" class type in the UA: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk. They are very strongly oriented on combat by design, and as a corollary if you're playing one it is implicit in the choice that you're going to have a notably smaller toolkit of out of combat features.
i still think they could get 1 extra feat and it wouldnt be busted and help them alot in the later levels to keep up with the wizard casting wish and just casually warping time and space to their will
I would say "these classes serve no function in two of the three pillars of play" is problematic design. It's fine to have weak areas, but characters should be decently useful in at least two.
You'll note I did not say "no function", I said "notably smaller toolkit"; Barbs are a go-to for STR checks, and they're getting a boost to that in the update from the look of things; Monks get strong traversal for some exploration options. Fighters were definitely the weakest in that area, but they're getting a decent boost in the UA.
Monks need more one ASI because they are default MAD class that mostly needs to stay in melee-ish range to be effective. Bumping two stats more ASIs. The Half-Casters, definitely not.
Except they don't actually need more than a +2 or +3 in WIS, and you can easily hit that with +3 in DEX and a few points in CON as-is with point-buy at creation. Give them a +2 in WIS and their AC is already as good as studded; with +3 it's now +1 studded. There's exactly one thing in the core kit that uses DC, and it's something you fish with on top of your Attack Action, not an entire action in and of itself, thus creating less waste than a Wizard blowing a cast of Hold Person or a similar spell. And those subclasses that place a strong emphasis on saves are also the ones that shift you away from making regular attacks, so you just swap the priority of DEX and WIS and have the same effect. There's really no more need for Monks in general to max out WIS than there is for Rangers or Paladins to max out WIS or CHA respectively. Sure, it'd be nice in the same way it'd be nice to max CON on any melee character, but it's not critical to their performance.
Paladins actually get a bit more benefit from boosting CHA than monks get from WIS, since CHA improves both their spellcasting and their Aura of Protection, possibly more depending on their subclass.
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.
Nope. Most Monks need both their WIS and DEX contribute to Monk's AC, which is their main defense unless they want to keep pouring Ki down the drain to Patient Defense for 1 round. The "one feature" you refer to is Stunning Strike, which is one of the few control abilities they have that no other class gets. So you're saying that Monks can do better control than Fighters using their default kit, then NOT put additional points into WIS? How does is that congruent? Also, since Monks don't get WIS save proficiency, that's another reason players should not be leaving WIS stat alone.
EDIT: Paladins also have a good reason to elevate their CHA as well. I'm not attempting to compare half-casters to full casters here.
I didn't say they should ignore WIS, I said it only needs to be at secondary stat levels, not main stat levels. Stunning Strike is a nice option, but especially with the update it is not critical to your build that you get it off consistently the way it is for a Rogue to land Sneak Attack or a full caster to land their spells. It's the icing, not the cake. And I specifically addressed the AC balance; they can easily hit the same AC as a Rogue, and again especially in the update they'll have some additional mitigation features, meaning neither AC nor CON is so critical that they're suffering under the distribution you can get from point buy.
Until we see the actual updated rules in the new PHB, we don't actually know WHAT they are keeping or modifying from the last Monk UA. Why are you bringing in stuff from OneD&D when it's not even official? Always read the fine print.
Also, I checked the 2014 PHB again. Both the Open Hand and Five Elements Monk have several features that key off WIS. So in 2 of 3 cases in the core materials, a WIS score not adjusted up becomes a long term liability.
Even 2-3 feats is not going to close that gap. As long as martials are constrained by physics and "realism" while magic is not, casters will always be flashier and possess way more utility while also being able to do everything the martials can with the right spell selection (except beat on enemies indefinitely).
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Four Elements was a poorly executed design, and if you're really going in on the save spells as your bread and butter, you just do what I said WIS focused Monks should do and flip your stat priority and make DEX secondary. You can hit 16 in both stats at creation with point buy, so your to-hit will start out optimal and by the time it starts to seriously lag you'll have plenty of ki to spend on the elemental moves. As for Open Hand, Sanctuary is going to discourage aggro just by being in effect and is of very limited use to the player in any case, Open Hand Technique is in the same boat as Stunning Strike in that the effects are bonuses on an Action, except that these don't even cost the additional Ki that SS does and so you're literally just fishing for bonus effects on something you will typically choose to do anyways, and Quivering Palm does 10d10 damage for 3 ki on a passed save with instant death on a failed one. Given that FoB is worth 1d10+5 at that point, it is a ridiculously good effect either way.
The myth power gamers push is that anything less than the highest possible DC for a level is bad on any character. That is absolutely not true. If you're not a full caster who is sinking their entire action into a save and relying on the save or suck part of the effect to go through, you can afford to fish. A large portion of the DC effects on Monks, Paladins, and Rangers are riders to a successful attack, meaning you're getting your bread and butter in already just by landing the attack. Paladins of course can always default to a basic Divine Smite to avoid the risk, and with Rangers most of their offensive spells are AoE, so they're already getting more damage than they would from an unmodified hit just by using the spell. The 10% theoretical difference in the saving throws is not going to have nearly as much influence as the swing of the dice themselves.
Most of the damage-dealing ranger spells that aren't AoE are "damage and then save vs effect."
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.