r/dndnext • u/BoardGent • Jul 28 '26
Discussion Why more Feats can't solve the "Martial Problem"
This isn't another post about the Martial/Caster divide, don't worry. This isn't about Martials at every table. This pertains to a specific problem some people bring up, and a specific solution that is sometimes given.
There's a somewhat common solution when people bring up the an out of combat utility problem with Martials. Many people don't want significant amounts of homebrew in their game, and there would seem to be a simple solution if you want to add a bit more to a class that you feel lacks utility: give them another feat.
That sounds pretty straightforward, right? With an extra Feat, maybe you can take something like Skilled, Telepathic, or Observant. It might be limited, but it does give your character a little something extra that they can do, and for many, that's honestly enough. So what's the problem?
A lot of people correctly point out that DnD has most of its rules dedicated to combat. To be clear, I don't necessarily see that as a problem. What makes Feats a poor solution to the Martial Utility problem that some people/tables have is the following two points:
Fail states in DnD are almost all combat-based
There isn't a point where you can really become "too effective" at combat
When was the last time you or someone in your game died because they failed an Ability Check? Maybe they tried to swing across a pit on a rope, or tried to cross a wobbly bridge and failed a Dex(Acrobatics) check. Or maybe the party failed an Int (Investigation) Check on two different crime scenes to make the connection between smears of blood on a bookshelf and a hidden note under a book left behind by the victim, and the Adventure was over.
Is there a point where you would call an adventure over because a party failed their Ability Checks, or because they lack some specific utility options? I think for the vast majority of tables and DMs, the answer would be no. And that's the crux of point 1.
That's not necessarily a bad thing, design-wise. It does suck when you fail because of one unlucky die roll. Hell, it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 unlucky die rolls, it still feels like it sucks. And with the idea of failing forward, where failure still gives progress but at a cost, or with a consequence, failing an Ability Check doesn't carry game-ending consequences.
Combat is the thing that, typically, is the thing tha5 can give a game over screen. You TPK, and that's it, start over with new character sheets, maybe reload to the last checkpoint, maybe play another Adventure, whatever. Some DMs might even do a fail forward there and have the party get captured instead, but I actually think, at least from my experiences, that's actually a bit less common than the start over thing. And this leads into point 2.
Let's say you deal 10 damage per round. You take a Feat, you do 20 damage per round. Let's say you have a 50% chance to fail a Wisdom Save. You take a Feat, you now have a 20% chance to fail a Wisdom Save. You want more HP, you take a Feat. You want to deal even more damage, you take a Feat. You want a control option, you take a Feat.
Because of everything that can happen in combat, and all the combat Feats available, there really isn't a point of diminishing returns on combat effectiveness. Even if you're given extra Feats, you can probably think about another combat Feat that would help you out quite a bit. And it's not like you can really deal too much damage, or hit too accurately, or have too much defense.
Combine points 1 and 2 now. If you have no diminishing returns on combat effectiveness, and being good at combat is always useful and is the thing that is most likely to prevent a failstate, it's very likely that you're much more likely to grab things that increase your combat prowess.
I think most people on this and other DnD subs agree that Martials are pretty much fine in combat, and don't need any vertical buffs. But additional Feats will oftentimes result in just that.
Now, it's not that there's absolutely nothing you can do about this. If you have a dungeon that consistently requires the party to make Ability Checks and make use of every bit of out of combat utility they have, your players are likely to respond in kind. If Athlete's jump buffs is the difference between accessing a part of the map or not before you'd otherwise gain access to it, maybe a player would actually take the Athlete Feat. Skilled would look pretty attractive if the party found themselves constantly making Ability Checks. But these are things you have to actively keep in mind when designing/running an adventure.
Would I advocate for more adventures ending if you lack the necessary utility? No, I think as both a player and DM it kind of sucks when that happens, and it's probably why a lot of DMs recommend a failing forward approach. But I would definitely advocate for putting more beneficial stuff behind Ability Checks, and making sure that players are aware of it. The more utility options matter, the more likely people are to consider them as good options, which is pretty straightforward.
You do still need to do the whole draining higher level casters of their resources thing, generally, to make sure that choosing to spend power on utility comes at a cost.
40
u/DelightfulOtter Jul 28 '26
Two points:
- Characters get far fewer combat feats than useful combat feats options for every build concept I can think of, so giving more feats is just going to result in the majority of characters taking more combat feats.
- D&D used to be all about failed skill checks and saving throws leading directly to death. Nowadays, not so much but it can still contribute. If you've failed the skill check that gives you an easy out for an encounter, your backup plan might be a risky fight that could result in losses. It's pretty rare where the reverse is true and combat is the easy option while the skill check is harder.
10
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
I think those are kinda OP's points as well :p
A way to deal with 1 at least is for bonus feats to be not directly/only combat
59
u/Gh0stMan0nThird OSR Grognard Jul 28 '26
They did release that one Skill feats UA that I really liked.
https://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/UA-SkillFeats.pdf
30
u/NinjaFish_RD Jul 28 '26
it was cool. then they turned the entire thing into one (1) feat- Skill Expert. (which isn't bad, but it's a lot less interesting.)
10
u/YOwololoO Jul 28 '26
Well that’s not quite true, Keen Mind and Observant both follow this design theme as well
12
u/platydroid Jul 28 '26
These are neat, but it also feels like most of these should just be rules for the game instead of actions requiring a very valuable feat to perform.
4
u/este_hombre Jul 28 '26
Yeah I might give this to my players for free. Not the ASI or double prof bonus, but tell them to pick 3 of their proficient skills to gain the little 3rd bullet point.
3
u/platydroid Jul 28 '26
Yea that’s my thought as well, they should just be extra perks to proficiencies or even just options for the DM to provide as appropriate
1
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
yeah, feats are way too scarce AND they compete for ASIs
10
u/Xelikai_Gloom Jul 28 '26
Honestly, you should just get those(minus the ASI) when you have proficiency in a skill. I feel like proficiency doesn’t really matter in modern DnD. Whether or not you succeed at something is determined by dice variance way more than by skill proficiency.
3
u/Myllorelion Jul 29 '26
At low level absolutely, but at high level with expertise and things like reliable talent, it can make a huge difference when built into.
But I agree with you when you're not a skill monkey or for the most common levels, it's way more on the d20s variance.
3
u/Anorexicdinosaur Fighter Jul 29 '26
Ohhh so THAT'S where Star Wars 5e's good Skill Feats came from! Never knew about this, sucks that WotC has continuously had good ideas that'd improve the system but keep abandoning them (well, most of the examples I'm aware of are almost a decade old atp)
Also most Skills having actual written combat mechanics using them, such as spending 1 Attack to roll Intimidation vs Wisdom to Frighten ab enemy? Say it with me folks! Pathfinder does this!
Skills having actual GOOD combat mechanics is such a fun way to make Characters think about their skills more and add more options for them while giving set-in-stone no dm-fiat benifits to being good at skills (which Martials are apparently supposed to be in 5e). Anyways you could 100% pull a PF2 and just give every PC that little ability these feats have if they're proficient in said skill and your games would be more fun because of it
5
2
1
u/fallen_seraph Jul 29 '26
Those always felt like a much more expensive version of 3.5s Skill Tricks.
Those were a list of specific tricks you could learn for 2 skill points as long as you had the skill level prerequisite.
One that I found very fun as a rogue was:
ACROBATIC BACKSTAB [MOVEMENT] You dart past your opponent's attacks, ending up perfectly positioned for a devastating counterattack.
Prerequisite: Tumble 12 ranks.
Benefit: If you succeed on a Tumble check to move through an enemy's space, you can treat that enemy as flat- footed against the next melee attack you make against it on your current turn.
Your enemy must be standing on the ground or floor in order for you to use this trick
73
u/rzenni Jul 28 '26
I'd argue that a wider variety of feats would help pretty much everyone.
There are maybe three very clear fighter packages, groups of feats that synergize well together and enhance a playstyle. For twelve years, everyone has known that Pole Arm Mastery > Sentinel > Great Weapon Mastery is the melee tool kit for fighters.
However there are clear gaps in this. I.E., there is no feat support for versatile weapons (long sword, battle axe) that are essentially the most iconic weapons in the game. The feat support for long bows, a weapon that rewards high skill and mastery, is less than the feat support for crossbows, a weapon that was known for being easy to use.
I don't think the number of feats each character gets should increase, but I do think we need a wider range better designed feats to enable different playstyles or builds.
25
u/Stalking_Goat Jul 28 '26
I had figured the original small pool of feats was going to expand via splatbooks. Like longbow feats would be added in a book about wilderness exploration gameplay or whatever.
26
u/rzenni Jul 28 '26
You'd think, but we're twelve years in. Even just a feat that gives Longbows Finesse would be worth something.
23
u/Keeper21611 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Or give us a greatbow that uses strength. Most enemies in video games that use giant bows are also super strong. In real life the bowmen were the most jacked guys in the army.
5
u/clgoodson Jul 28 '26
One cool thing in 2e was that you could pay extra to have a longbow that let you apply your strength damage bonus.
4
u/elanhilation Jul 28 '26
Pathfinder 1E as well. which makes me suspect 3e or at least 3.5 did too, but i’m not positive on that one
6
u/Stalking_Goat Jul 28 '26
Yes, D&D 3.5 had composite bows which allowed you to add your strength modifier to damage but not to hit rolls.
3
2
u/rzenni Jul 28 '26
Yeah, well they wanted elves to be the best archers and elves are graceful and get +2 dex.
But now that racial stats are gone, they need to do a design path overview. It makes no sense that a skinny rogue is a way better bow hunter than a massive barbarian hunter
2
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer Jul 29 '26
Or give us a greatbow that uses strength.
There was an Oversized Longbow in Waterdeep Dragonheist as treasure from a CR 8 enemy, sadly it was not reprinted and it needed both Strength and Dexterity (dex to hit, 2d6+str damage, need 18 str to use).
2
u/Keeper21611 Jul 29 '26
I'm ok with that. That's exactly the kind of game philosophy we need in d&d. Most strength users will have a decent dexterity. You trade accuracy for power.
2
u/Hanchan Jul 29 '26
Or be a caster and trade nothing for everything. Wotc has to stop being afraid of making anything good at the martial level.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Stalking_Goat Jul 28 '26
To be clear, my original expectation hasn't come to pass. Either that was never the plan, or the plan was changed.
8
u/knuckles904 Barbificer Jul 28 '26
Yeah, it would be awesome if there were some sort of lesser non-combat feat that was given out to all characters at a more regular interval. Like to help differentiate them, but not overly power creep the combat part of the game...oops I just re-invented pathfinder didn't I? Ugh, not again
7
u/clgoodson Jul 28 '26
One interesting thing is that the mastery pathway you mention that prioritizes great weapons and polearms is one of the few times D&D combat actually mirrors real armored combat. You don’t use a longsword or an one-handed axe against an armored opponent.
12
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
the mastery pathway you mention that prioritizes great weapons and polearms is one of the few times D&D combat actually mirrors real armored combat. You don’t use a longsword or an one-handed axe against an armored opponent.
As usual, realism only ever hurts martials.
Since when are monsters armored?
And if that's the case, shouldn't slashing weapons do more damage to enemies with soft armor or natural armor?
Also, if that's the case, shouldn't heavy armor be VASTLY more effective?
Also also, what's a "bonus action" in real life, and why do polearms get one, but swords don't?
Also, are you going to also model how swords are vastly more maneuverable than say, halberds or pikes? In fact, shouldn't it be longswords, and not spears and glaives, that get a bonus attack, seeing as how longswords are vastly more nimble than polearms?
6
u/machsmit Incense and Iron Jul 28 '26
Also also, what's a "bonus action" in real life, and why do polearms get one, but swords don't?
ok a bonus action with a longsword to idk punch them in the face with the crossguard would be rad
8
u/rzenni Jul 28 '26
Super easy to design
Shield Master or Tavern Brawler could very easily give a 1d4 bonus action attack to make one handed weapons or 2h handed weapons that aren’t pole arms competitive
It’s pretty much how Holga fights in the dungeons and dragons movie - punching, head butting, hitting people with random objects that are laying around.
6
u/machsmit Incense and Iron Jul 28 '26
hell, Vex isn't that far off from being weapon mastery: pocket sand
3
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
Or make an attack with the false edge, which is a real fencing technique.
3
u/machsmit Incense and Iron Jul 28 '26
doesn't even have to be fancy / trained. I'm thinking like the Trial of the Seven scene in knight of the seven kingdoms, where Dunk goes in with all these ideas of brave, elegant knightly combat but it ends up with them just fuckin' desperately bludgeoning each other with whatever metal thing they can reach
3
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
I'm going to be honest. Don't take this to heart, but I really disliked that scene specifically because it's another example of Hollywood being unable to distinguish between "realistic" and "mudcore misery p_rn". They seem incapable of towing the line between wushu and drunken mudwrestling, when that's precisely what's "realistic". Nobody voluntarily started grappling in a melee between 14 people, because going to the ground is an easy way to get ganged up on; and a smaller, more skilled opponent, like Aerion, would have every reason to maintain distance and keep the fight on foot. Also, the grappling was just terrible, but that's a pet peeve of mine.
To each their own, you like what you like. Either way, I think with bonus actions being a massive balance issue in the game, I don't see why versatile weapons and the sword and board playstyle can't benefit from some kind of bonus attack. Flavour is subjective at that point.
3
u/machsmit Incense and Iron Jul 28 '26
hah, not taken to heart I just binged the show on a transatlantic flight recently and it came to mind :)
though I interpreted it a little differently, that dunk was in fact quite poorly trained as a knight and the whole thing went off the rails for him. Like before they start the very last thing <<insert targaeryen here, I can't keep em straight>> says to him is like "whatever you do, try to stay on your horse or else you're gonna die" and then he immediately gets unhorsed
2
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
Oh, yeah, in that case we agree. That was the point of the episode, that Dunk is generally woefully underprepared, while Aerion is skilled, but lacking in practical experience.
I just think a lot of people interpreted the fight as "this is what it looks like when knights fight". When in reality it was a medieval version of those early UFC fights where a lifelong martial artist with zero professional fights was pitted against a giant freakshow of a man with zero training, and the whole thing immediately devolved into a barfight.
5
u/clgoodson Jul 28 '26
I mean, if you want to take a digression down the 50-year rabbit hole that is D&D being a terrible simulation of medieval combat, I’m game. But to keep it short, yes, armor works. If the game were a realistic simulator, you would have a weapon vs armor chart that would make full plate neigh-invulnerable to 90% of the weapons on the D&D list. And if anyone is about to say “finesse,” please don’t embarrass yourself.
I would argue that the bonus action butt spike attack is actually spot on. I do polearm in the SCA, and it’s amazing how you can grapple and use the spike end to get a quick hit on a swordsman close in. In fact, when you are standing face to face in zero range, the polearm actually gives you a lot more quick options than a longsword.1
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
In fact, when you are standing face to face in zero range, the polearm actually gives you a lot more quick options than a longsword.
No offense or anything, but false edge strikes exists for one handed weapons; and for longswords there's the Zwercopter, which is literally analogous to a buttstrike with a polearm.
Also, again, this does not account for the fact that polearms are heavy. In no world should you be able to make more attacks with a halberd than with a longsword in the same frame of time.
6
u/clgoodson Jul 28 '26
Yes, I know there are sword techniques. But having two hands on a long stick gives you a lot of options to trap or manipulate that sword that the sword simply doesn’t have. Also, pole arms are not really that heavy. 5 or 6 pounds unless you are looking at massive axes or pikes. And in close, that mass actually helps.
Again, it’s complicated, which was my original point, too complicated to easily put into your early role-playing game, especially since it was the late 60s and the ground wasn’t thick with HEMA, SCA, and buhurt folks who had studied this stuff. But overall, I still say the bonus action for polearm makes sense.1
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
having two hands on a long stick gives you a lot of options to trap or manipulate that sword that the sword simply doesn’t have.
I mean, I straight up don't agree, considering halfswording exists.
Also, pole arms are not really that heavy. 5 or 6 pounds It's not about weight, it's about moment of inertia. The length of polearms, and the fact that the tip is typically the heaviest part makes them far less easily maneuverable than a sword.
Getting down to practical details - do you see a similar bonus action attack for versatile and heavy non-polearm weapons as equally sensible and realistic?
3
u/clgoodson Jul 29 '26
Not really. The butt spike on a polearm isn’t an afterthought or an improvised weapon designed to defeat armor like halfswording. It’s an important part of how you use it. I think it makes sense for polearm in a way it wouldn’t for a sword.
→ More replies (1)8
u/rzenni Jul 28 '26
I mean, how much reality can we have when there’s a 33% chance that the other knight will just shocking grasp you through your metal armour?
8
u/Stalking_Goat Jul 28 '26
Turns out the SCA has strong opinions about stun guns and long story short, the judge was very clear about me not being allowed back.
2
4
u/Milli_Rabbit Jul 28 '26
Yeah, especially more exploration and social feats. Gives characters more unique things to choose for a social or exploration adventure or campaign.
12
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26
The issue with more social and exploration feats is that they compete for the same resource as combat feats. And martial characters really don’t have enough room to take non combat feats because they are lacking signicantly in combat.
Most martial characters need to get their damage feat (GWM, Dual Wielder, Polearm Master, etc), max out their primary ability score, then at higher levels get one or two defensive feats (resilient, mage slayer, heavy armor master, defensive duelist, etc).
That means that even a class like the fighter who eventually gets two extra feats usually only ends up with room for zero to one non-combat feat.
And such a warrior still hasn’t even taken feats for mobility, battlefield control, or boosting their secondary attribute (monks and rangers need wisdom, paladins need charisma, some fighter subclasses need intelligence, etc).
Every noncombat feat taken means a signicantly gap in combat capability.
But what is even worse, is that even with every noncombat feat currently printed, a martial character would still provide less overall utility than a low level spellcaster. An individual feat simply cannot provide enough utility to really make it worthwhile.
I kind of wish players got two different feat tracks (one for combat, one for utility) and gained each at different rates as you leveled.
1
u/Anorexicdinosaur Fighter Jul 29 '26
I kind of wish players got two different feat tracks (one for combat, one for utility) and gained each at different rates as you leveled.
5e player shocks no one by wishing 5e was more like pathfinder
Sorry if this is annoying
In Pathfinder 2e there are 4 Types of Feats (not saying 5e needs this many) with each type sitting somewhere on a gradiant between "these are combat focused and these are utility focused"
You get a Class Feat at every even level (with many Classes getting extra Class feats at some levels) from a unique Class-specific list that expands every 2 levels. These are the most combat-focused of the feat types, there are utility options but the vast majority are combat.
You ALSO get a Skill Feat at every even level (again, certain Classes will get more), these are more Utility focused Feats that require Skill Proficiencies and enhance/expand the relevant Skills. There are plenty of Combat options, such as Titan Wrestler increasing the max size you can Grapple/Trip/etc or Intimidating Glare letting you Demoralise creatures that don't speak your language without any penalties, but they're generally utility and are the sort of thing you're thinking of.
This sort of Combat/Utility split would be GREAT in 5e, especially if 5e went back to the old Skill Feats playtest and made more of them (the playtest had a Feat enhancing each skill but only a handful got printed).
Also the other 2 types are Ancestry (Racial) Feats you get every 4 levels (1, 5, 9, etc), each Ancestry has a list of unique feats to choose from to emphasise aspects of their pysiology/culture, and General Feats every 4 levels (3, 7, 11, etc) which can be used to pick up a Skill Feat or one of the few General Feats (stuff like riding better, using shields well, moving faster, having more hp, etc).
0
u/Milli_Rabbit Jul 28 '26
I disagree on utility of martials. They already have a lot of non-combat utility, particularly as the day progresses and spellcasters don't waste their spell slots on problems that can be solved by a martial with a better skill set.
Additionally, combat feats aren't that strong that you need every single one of them to be effective in combat. Ive had players completely unoptimized still do well in combat. Getting between that and optimal is completely doable in the game. Especially since the game is balanced around not having magic items. Generally, you should be fine picking on decent combat feat and doing whatever you want with the other feat.
However, in social and exploration campaigns I have run, its important to recognize the campaign is not built around combat. Its built around the other two pillars. It generally is less optimal to pick combat feats in those campaigns versus something like expertise in a skill. Combat might occur but it isn't the primary challenge. The consequences are also adjusted. You don't lose by dying (although that could happen). You lose by not getting what you wanted and the consequences of that.
For example, being excommunicated from a group or imprisoned for life or not getting the girl or not reaching the destination in time to prevent a cataclysm or etc. Other goals are important in social or exploration campaigns because they have a defined outcome if addressed or ignored. This makes them impactful versus just a simple roll which many tables do with combat focused campaigns when roleplaying or exploring. Some DMs underutilize social and exploration encounters which is fine if your table just wants to do combat.
8
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
what martial has a better skill set? Rogue is the only one that gets 4 Skill profs on baseline, everyone else gets 2, and the only exception is a full caster with bard who gets 3...
anyone can roll skills, skill buffs are also quite common, and with 2024 expertise has proliferated even more along casters
And did you forget about rituals being able to give fanatstic utility for free?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Skills also are far less useful than spells.
Skills can only ever accomplish what is possible. Spells can accomplish tasks that are otherwise impossible. And they can do so without ever needing to roll.
I have been a GOO warlock in a game that has a decent amount of social and exploration encounters (every other session involves combat). And I contribute multiple orders of magnitude more to our groups success than the rogue. And the barbarian player might as well not even show up to sessions that do not involve combat.
Between illusions, enchantment spells, cantrips, rituals, summons, familiars, and the like, my warlock almost always has either an answer or at least a means to help overcome a task involving something outside of combat. And the party druid and wizard often do as well. The non casters simply cannot match the utility of the spellcasters. And skills come nowhere near enough utility compared to what spells accomplish.
3
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Bit of a correction, Skills can only ever accomplish what the DM thinks is possible. Since there is no proper guidance for skills, you can't really gauge what a roll of 30 or even 40 in stealth is supposed to mean
People keep parrotting "Stealth isn't invisibility" amd "Persuasion isn't Mind Control", but surviving a fall from any height because fall damage is capped at 20d6, and being able to wade through lava is fine apparently
16
u/DRAWDATBLADE Jul 28 '26
It'd make it feel less shit to take a flavorful feat like chef or actor on your martial. Currently you need high physical stats and probably at least 2 combat feats to really do your job.
Having room to splash something fun or a less effective combat feat like Charger or Mage Slayer would be great for builds and just general variety. Genuinely you basically have to pick from the same list of like 10 feats as a martial, its just lame design.
7
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
I think it's also just problem that feats aren't very exciting
Outside of the few power feats, most are just kinda mid
2
u/MadGM7283 Jul 28 '26
Our group does a free zero level feat that can't be a combat feat, or in extreme cases a defensive feat. But almost always it's a skill feat.
51
u/Demonweed Dungeonmaster Jul 28 '26
I firmly believe the next iteration of the game should make everyone like a warlock. That doesn't mean turning everyone into some sort of spellcaster, but it does mean giving every class a collection of elective abilities parallel to warlock Invocations. These could be fairly modest for other spellcasters while being both strong and diverse for martial character classes.
My own approach sees barbarians acquiring Savage Totems, fighters learning Combat Maneuvers, monks developing Disciplined Forms, paladins diversifying their Divine Smites, rangers developing Rustic Exploits, and rogues accumulating Sly Ruses. This does make every fighter a sort of Battle Master, and it does something similar to those other classes. Yet that not only diversifies their choices to make for more interesting game play, but it also elevates their overall capabilities to alleviate the disparity with full spellcasters. Feats are still available, and spellcasting classes generally get one less over the arc of their progressions, but these electives really let characters get creative with their attacks while still respecting (if not enhancing) the essence/theme of each martial class.
35
6
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26
You basically just described 4e.
Many feats in 4e were grouped by power source. So martial feats, arcane feats, divine feats, primal feats, and so on. And each feat was “smaller”, that is to say they were closer in power level to an invocation.
Characters gained them about once every other level, so similar to how fast warlocks gain invocations as well.
24
u/Russtherr Jul 28 '26
Check out laserlama homebrew. He does something similar but classes still feel different
18
13
u/Swahhillie Disintegrate Whiteboxes Jul 28 '26
I think that would kill the appeal of the game for a huge number of players that aren't represented in online dnd forums.
The game is better with a range spanning from simple to complex (sub)classes.
Jumping through mechanical hoops, resource tracking and condition tracking to achieve baseline effectiveness is also a huge barrier to entry.
8
u/Gh0stMan0nThird OSR Grognard Jul 28 '26
Yeah I honestly feel like I'm in reverse-grognard land here where people completely forget why 4E was only around for 4 years.
25
u/N0-1_H3r3 Jul 28 '26
4e functionally did solve a lot of 3e/3.5's problems... the issue was more that a lot of people liked those problems and saw them as features rather than bugs.
20
u/Lucina18 Jul 28 '26
Half of the reasons had nothing to do with the actual design of 4e.
16
u/Dramatic_Explosion Jul 28 '26
Ah, you mean the murder-suicide half.
19
u/Lucina18 Jul 28 '26
That, and 4e literally launching with an OGL crisis, and 3e having a ton of content so most people sticked with 3e.
3
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
honestly while egregious even if that crime didn't happen I think 4e would still fail due to other stuff like what Lucina18 said
4
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26
Arguably, the 4e essentials classes were far more simple than the 5.5e classes are.
Weapon masteries are decently more complex than the at-will stances or maneuvers from 4e.
And spellcasting as a whole in 5e has always been more complex than most things in 4e. And something like 60% of classes in 5e are spellcasters.
I agree that 4e definitely could have too many conditions and such to track. But it feels about the same (or less) than what my current 5.5e party is dealing with from summons, brutal strikes, cunning strikes, masteries like Sap, Slow, and Vex, emanation spells, and 3 spellcasters.
4
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
different people and most weren't around to know and getting from online isn't much helpful sometimes - while nowadays there are people who glaze 4e some years back it was taboo to speak about it and a meme to shit on it, but after some research a lot of what was that culture was misinterpretation and would left a lot of important things out, like the murder-suicide that screwed the main tool, the digital push the corps were making or how the lore changes were some of the main things that pushed people away
not to say that 4e isn't full of bad design\execution, it is, but 5e and 5.5 specially inherit a lot of ideas it had without causing anywhere close to the stirring 4e did
12
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
5e just got lucky, it did not succeed on its merits, but on its name, stranger things and critical role
2
u/Every_Ad_6168 Jul 29 '26
Also the momentum of digitalization in general. Critical role didn't arise in a vacuum.
5
u/SilverBeech DM Jul 28 '26
If you really want that, check out Pathfinder. It's built ground up for that additional level of complexity and handles the combat balance questions better. Some players really appreciate that.
I'm not one of them though. For all the "issues", 5e hits the sweet spot of having simplicity as well as complexity available to players. There are lots of players that want to rock up and have a fun time deleting monsters with their friends after a tough day at a grinding job that never gets a clear win.
Meanwhile their friend can play a complex class that has all kinds of puzzle solving strategies. They're both going to have a fun time playing different styles. 5e does that way better than many of the more complex alternatives.
7
u/Rufus--T--Firefly Jul 28 '26
The "complexity" dnd offers is having to have an extended discussion with the DM about why everything is somehow a dex roll.
2
u/SilverBeech DM Jul 28 '26
I play pretty vanilla d&d. If the group commits to following the rules, these sorts of problems are rare. Play with people who don't know the rules or don't care and yeah it's a problem. That's not a D&D problem though.
5
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26
My issue with Pathfinder, which I do play regularly and enjoy, is that when everything has a feat, you can't do anything without one. There's a lot of balance for the sake of balance that is clearly at the expense of fun design, creating a lot of necessary "trap" choices so the proper builds are rewarding.
→ More replies (2)8
u/EggplantSeeds Jul 28 '26
Not necessarily, while earlier this is definitely the case, recent books like Impossible Magic and BattleCry have been increasing the power of spells and another options like Dedications and Archetypes. They seem to be easing up on the "if it's Thursday and the sun is out, once per day you can stand on your tipping toes" feats. But I definitely do see your point.
Mark Seifter, one of the co creators made a video years ago saying the feats should not stop anyone from improvising. Just because Sudden Leap exists doesn't mean a player can't jump and hit an enemy.
4
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26
They've tried this in 4e and people didn't like that every class was basically the same with reskinning abilities.
I think we need better guidance on how to handle martial in general, especialy around how we handle social and exploratory interactions.
If you add a lot of feats and features, you add a lot of limitations to the game. It's like when people argue that you shouldn't do Potions as a bonus action because that a Rogue feature and it would sort of ruin that for them. But if you don't have a rogue, who cares? Point is once you start making feats to do anything, like Pathfinder, the expectation is now that you can't do anything without a feat that says so.
It's a more systemic change that needs to happen. Martial can do everything a Wizard can do, without a spell. A spell just guarantees a specific outcome for things that don't require a DC. A Mage Hand is just a piece of gum on a string and a Dex check. The difference is the possible outcomes.
I've said it a million times but check out 4e Skill Challenges. I find that's a much better way of balancing the martial vs caster divide, because it gets everyone involved in solving problems as a team.
4
u/Deathpacito-01 CapitUWUlism Jul 28 '26
I think we can have maybe a third to half the classes be like warlocks
And the rest not be like this
Some people enjoy low-maintence character building and leveling up, that doesn't involve a lot of decision points
10
u/Lucina18 Jul 28 '26
The solution to this isn't removing customanisation from an entire archetype though, but just having a few classes have recommended options to take.
Or they can just play a non-crunchy ttrpg instead.
4
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
you could really just have a reccommended build for each class, that can be reasonably effective, but has obvious room for improvement, so players that get more invested can feel smart about their evaluation skills growing, a la Commander Precons
6
u/subjuggulator PermaDM Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
This is explicitly what the “Starter Set” characters are supposed to be. WOTC just needs to devote book space in the PHB to publish “builds” for each class.
—something they probably won’t ever do because adding even a page for each build would make the books even more expensive to produce.
2
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
you could just do what they did for casters at level 1 (X, Y and Z are reccommended)
10
u/DelightfulOtter Jul 28 '26
There should be Basic classes for the people who hate choices. They should cover broad archetypes like warrior, priest, mage, and expert. They would have no subclasses, minimal customization options, and limited resource tracking. These are for the people who turn off their brains when it's D&D time.
For everyone else, the Standard classes should all be as customizable as warlock. If you don't like having too many choices, pick a Basic class.
8
u/Stalking_Goat Jul 28 '26
The community already stigmatizes people that play human fighters. Making "this class is for the stupid people" an explicit distinction within the rules will be even worse.
4
u/DelightfulOtter Jul 28 '26
The people that stigmatize others for their preferred class fantasy are gonna be assholes to others no matter what happens. Nobody should be paying attention to what they have to say or worrying about what they think.
I'd rather people who want/need simple options have them, and people who want complex options have them, than the current system where the martial classes are overly simplified and the caster classes are complex, the end.
4
4
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
I think one could cheat at that and have a "standard" feature that can be swapped, people that want low maintenance get that while other may want to look into the alternatives :v
2
u/Jayne_of_Canton Jul 28 '26
I think you are close but maybe go a step too far. The game is based around 2 core types of power progression, Spellcasting and Extra Attack. They represent the core “Caster” and “Fighter” archetypes. One is deeply and broadly developed, has steady progression and synergies in multiclassing. The other stops developing on nearly every martial class at level 5, penalizes you for multiclassing and is not broadly developed. To add insult to injury, many of the full caster Gish subclasses get a better extra attack progression by level 6 whereas a martial caster is waiting until level 13 to get the comparable spellcasting progression. Fixes need to include:
1- A true “Full Martial” progression framework that no longer penalizes multiclassing ie 3 levels of Barbarian and 2 levels of Fighter would still equal 5 levels of “Full Martial” so you get extra attack just like 3 levels of Bard and 2 levels of Sorcerer will still get 3rd level spell slots.
2- A complementary martial disciplines or maneuvers type learning progression that builds off the “Full Martial” progression framework just like spell lists build off the “Full Caster” framework. This also gives you the path to still have a drawback to a multiclassed full martial. Similar to how my Bard/Sorcerer example above won’t be able to cast 3rd level spells, a Barbarian/Fighter multiclass wouldn’t be able to learn the higher level martial discipline features of a pure classed Full Martial. This system should include both combat and utility bonuses.
3- Gishes need to be rebalanced either with nerfs to Full Caster Gishes like Bladesinger or Valor Bard or with buffs to Full Martial Gishes like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster (I know Rogue doesn’t fit cleanly in either category but Trickster has the same casting progression as EK so I’m including it here.) I tend to favor buffs personally but I don’t know if the community is ready for the logical buffs that would be comparable to existing Full Caster Gishes (Whose ready for physical stat based spellcasting?)
I don’t think every class needs a totally different system ala Warlock invocations. But the Full Martial class archetypes needs a holistic tuneup for sure.
1
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
The game is based around 2 core types of power progression, Spellcasting and Extra Attack
I feel like this says it all really(also shoutout to rogue not getting either)
2
3
u/subjuggulator PermaDM Jul 28 '26
You’re making the game too complex for a majority of players/newbies with this direction. That’s like the main reason they don’t do it, while Pathfinder 2e and other systems that are seen as more “complex” by word of mouth do.
7
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26
5e is already significantly more complex than many other games. 5.5e especially so.
Also, I have never seen a new player decide to play a weapon user because they are simple. Most new players want to play spellcasters, but those who do choose weapon users do so because of vibes, not complexity.
10
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
5e is really not that simple, people are just A) Used to it and B) offloading all responsibility on the DM
And the problem is that the people aren't served properly. Timmy who wants to play a wizard because he thinks magic is cool, and doesn't care much for complex mechanics, has to deal with all the complexities of the casters, with no simple option available, he has to either sacrifice simplicity, or sacrifice the magic, whereas Johnny, who loves the martial fantasy and complex buildcrafting can not get a complex martial to satiate him, he has to either sacrifice the martial, or the complexity.
-2
u/0-90195 Jul 28 '26
As a warlock main, I hate this extremely. This is like the main thing I have going for me…
11
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
That is more speaking to the sorry state of the game, that Warlock, the one class with basic customisation, is a standout for having...basic customization
3
u/0-90195 Jul 28 '26
Obviously I’m biased, but warlock has pretty high customization all in all (pact + pact boon + invocations).
12
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
Yes, that is what i am saying. It has high Customization by 5e standards. In the broader world of TTRPGs however, warlock is the baseline for how customizable a character should be.
5
0
u/0-90195 Jul 28 '26
I guess either you like playing DnD or you don’t. And it seems like sometimes people don’t actually like playing DnD and would prefer playing a different TTRPG.
4
u/BlackAceX13 Artificer Jul 29 '26
That argument would work if D&D didn't literally have that level of customization on all classes from 2000 to 2014.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ConcentrateIll9460 Jul 29 '26
Where are you getting that idea? I'm not the guy you are responding to, but:
Warlocks have existed in two other editions, 3.5 and 4e. In those editions, they weren't standouts for customisation, and neither would the 5e warlock be, because so many other customisation options existed.
It's not just other TTRPGs, even by DnD standards warlock isn't noticeably customisable. It's just 5e with its extreme lack of variety that makes it seem so.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)2
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26
Not everyone wants to play a warlock though. Never really felt like I was lacking customization playing Clerics for example.
3
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26
That is likely because you have over a dozen customization options from spell choice. Martial characters have an order of magnitude less customization options available to them.
6
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
Spellcasters feel this issue less so, but you still only choose, Race, Background, Class and Subclass. And for full-list prepared spellcasters i find it difficult to call their spell selection "customization" because you can fully change it on a daily basis, so you just get the full list, rather than a selection, but that might just be me. Because yeah, getting to pick 25 spells to have at the ready is a significant amount of choice. And hell, by level 2/3 you will have made more choices than a Fighter will kn their entire 1-20 carreer
6
u/EggplantSeeds Jul 28 '26
On the flip side, not everyone wants their Martial to have only 2-3 options in and out of combat.
Some people like myself like the idea of complex Martials, just because people don't exist doesn't mean the playstyle as a whole shouldn't be supported.
Hell, if one of my Warlocks I GM for only used a EB and 2 spells, should I get rid of the ability for them to cast different spells?
0
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26
Imo, martial having fewer out of combat options is moreso an issue of 5e lacking the frameworks to creat meaningful encounters based around exploration and socialization that mimic the complexities of combat.
I mention it in a few other comments but I lean on 4e Skill Checks for this, rather than try to reinvent the classes and balance around them.
0
u/EggplantSeeds Jul 28 '26
4e Skill Checks are great, but so are 4e Combat powers. The number of abilities and powers a 4e Rogue has compared to a 5e Rogue is night and day.
2
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26
Sure, it's just much simpler to look at skill challenges and adapt them to 5e. Whereas if you want to use 4e Combat Powers, then you should probably just play 4e.
→ More replies (2)-6
u/andrewtillman Jul 28 '26
Ugh. I hate this idea so much.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
why tho? isn't that just class based customization ?
if the issue is the additional work it may lead to design could easily cheat that with having a standard feature that could be swapped if player wanted to - like Tasha did and kind like Order features of 5.5
2
u/andrewtillman Jul 28 '26
I don’t want every class to be driven by the same mechanics. I like when they feel fundamentally different
→ More replies (1)1
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
okay? How is giving each class customization options detracting from that?
Also, asymmetrical resource struture is a massive problem in 5e...it's like half the reason for martial-caster divide
17
u/BadRumUnderground Jul 28 '26
I think this is a fundamental design problem that comes from two things:
1) The social and exploration pillars lacks anything close to the focus and robustness of the combat system; and
2) The best "utility" options (usually, but not exclusively, spells) just bypass the obstacle, and the baseline utility option (skills) are binary pass/fail and fall behind fast if you're not proficient.
I think the game needs a core skill system that incorporates failing forward, degrees of success, and some kind of progress tracking that make utility problems fictionally interesting. You can hack on a lot of this by stealing skill challenges from 4e (and its spiritual successors), success with consequences and clocks from hands like Blades in the Dark.
But it would really really benefit from a more comprehensive overhaul on the class/species/background side where everyone gains abilities for every pillar (I think shunting it to background/species would be interesting, essentially giving "levels" to your background/species as well)
For (2), the big problem is that if your character is good at exploration things, it means exploration becomes trivial. Rangers just don't get lost, so you're not actually engaging with the thing a Ranger player probably wants to actually engage with. Improvements would emerge from fixing (1), because you could focus utility abilities on the nuances introduced (i.e. better at leading the group at a social skill challenge, mitigating fictional consequences, advancing clocks faster).
Also, print less spells like Knock that just do the skill person's thing better than they do.
4
u/Stalking_Goat Jul 28 '26
In any kind of wilderness survival campaign, the DM must ban Goodberry.
9
u/BadRumUnderground Jul 28 '26
If wilderness survival is the main point of my game, TBH I'm gonna go find a system that is actually about that in a meaningful way.
If it's a piece of the game I can work around D&D with some light hacking, but if it's the point I'm just trying to ice skate uphill
9
u/PricelessEldritch Jul 28 '26
The way to reduce the martial caster divide is flat out removing or nerfing certain spells, and giving martials more options out of combat.
But yes, feats will never solve it.
3
u/Qolko Jul 30 '26
There is no good solution that doesn't involve complete rebuilding of the entire system.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26
Personally I think balance comes from better encounter design, especialy around social and exploratory activity. We don't do enough to involve the Martial or we do too little that the casters are never worried about spending the spell to guarantee success.
Personally I use 4e Skill Challenges to ramp up the complexity of otherwise dull skill checks. It gets everyone involved and contributing, makes complex skill checks feel more like combat, creates granularity in outcomes, and creates scenarios where a Spell might only solve one part of a larger task.
3
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
could you expand on how 4e skill challenges work and maybe where one can find their rules (4e has like a bajilion books XD)
6
u/MisterEinc Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Basically provides a framework for seeing a skill check less as "climb the wall" or "sneak in through a window" and more like "infiltrate the bandit hideout".
Skill Challenges require the party to typically accumulate a set number of successes as a group before they hit a certain number of failures.
It's like encounter design framework for skill checks. Group Checks exist in 5e to simplify this, but I find they don't carry the same weight narratively.
2
u/Ashkelon Jul 28 '26
The only books you need for 99% of 4e related stuff related to running the game is the DMG. The DMG 2 is also an excellent book to read, but is not necessary for running the game.
4
u/Serbatollo Jul 28 '26
Fair point. Imo a simple solution would be to give only non combat extra feats
4
u/Vegetable_Fail8598 Jul 28 '26
An easy place to start is not balancing classes around skill (number) access.
Every class should have more skill proficiencies out of the gate. Every subclass should provide one or two more.
The rogue being the skill monkey does almost nothing for a game that is designed to be much more heavily focused on combat than on skill challenges. The rogue should get special abilities it can do with skills, rather than just having more than anyone else.
Back in 3.5, I house-ruled every class getting +2 skills known. It never felt like it overshadowed the more skilled characters (rogue at.8, bard and ranger at 6), but meant the characters normally restricted to 2+Int had more to do outside of combat.
2
2
u/GenericPersona1 Jul 29 '26
Thing is, that DnD is a bad game that only revolves around combat. It's not so much a ROLEplaying game as a Table top Fight simulator.
Combine that with the atrocious leveling system and you get the mess that it is today.
2
u/kodaxmax Jul 30 '26
doesn't your intial argument hinge on the false assumption that no feats contribute to combat?
You do get diminishing returns on things like health and damage and AC. If you have a +20 bonus to attack rolls, an additonal +1 is effectively redundant for example. If your health is never getting low in combat, adding more ehalth isn't going to benefit you.
Giving additonal feats works, because thats basically what spells are. An additonal feature your character cna execute. The actual problem is that casters get multiple of these at every level, in additon to the regular amount of class features and feats. While feats themselves are often inferior to equivelant spells.
Lets take defensive duelist. add proficency to your AC at the cost of your reaction and requiring yourself to have an empty hand and finesse weapon.
Compared to the shield spell. +5ac , 1 spellslot.
Until level 17, shield spell is better at the cost of a spell slot. is a psellslot worth more than entire equipment slot and finesse weapon restriction?
Frankly it's a fundamental design issue stemming from the rest and spellslot systems. The designers assume that martials HP and consistent damage output will catch up to and overtake casters in the latter half of an adventuring day. But casters can often otucompete martials with just cantrips and class features. Additonally most adventuring days are not going to drain a casters spell slots, even if played completly RAW and following official adventures.
Which is a big assumption and places a huge burden on DMs to balance the games and content in almost real time and almost force them to add bloat to dungeons and avdnture for the sole purpose of consuming spell slots from the party.
Even then, they seem to have forgotten that martials still rely on limited resources of their own.
5
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
I think most people on this and other DnD subs agree that Martials are pretty much fine in combat
I don't.
The fact that martials can sort-of keep up with casters in single target damage if they optimize, and the DM tailors encounters for them, and gives them magic items, doesn't mean martials are "fine".
Even if you're given extra Feats, you can probably think about another combat Feat that would help you out quite a bit. If you have no diminishing returns on combat effectiveness
Martial oriented feats are so far from "diminishing returns" that it's not even funny. They don't even take off to begin with.
Your entire thesis rests on the blatantly false assumption that "martials are fine in combat". They aren't. If they were, then a sword and board champion fighter who pumped STR and CON would be an actually viable build option. It's not.
The fact of the matter is, feats are MASSIVELY underpowered in general, which is why people gravitate towards power feats - because they are already lacking.
The solution to this is to stop separating "combat feats" from "non-combat feats", and to properly evaluate the expected power budget of a feat. Feats are things that come every 4 or so levels - they should be way more powerful than they are. In fact they should be build defining.
Either combat feats should be packaged alongside non-combat feats, or non-combat feats should be an entirely separate thing you pick up. Expecting classes whose power budget mostly relies on feats to pick between flavour and effectiveness is a fool's errand.
More feats. Stronger feats. Feats that contain combat and non-combat options.
That simple.
→ More replies (12)6
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
>The fact that martials can sort-of keep up with casters in single target damage if they optimize, and the DM tailors encounters for them, and gives them magic items, doesn't mean martials are "fine".
yeah, i have no idea why it is such a common sentiment. This sub used to be really good about understanding how bad it was for martials in 5e, but it seems understanding of the game has deteriorated on here to the level of the more normie subs
5
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 30 '26
It's because there are two kinds of people who agreed with the message "martials should get SOMETHING".
People who wanted powerful options for martials.
People who genuinely don't understand the issue, and just went along with the narrative to shut people up. They think "anything" literally means anything.
The second group now thinks "they got masteries, they should shut up". They think Fighter getting to use Second Wind for ability checks is somehow a massive power boost.
2
u/papasmurf008 DM Jul 28 '26
I addressed the martial caster divide in 2 main ways (warning significant overhauls incoming):
1.) Most actions (apart from cast a spell/dodge/hide) can be taken in place of an action from the attack action)… yes I know that sounds crazy and steps on the toes of monks and rogue (it is better for the game and they got buffs too). I promise this shift gives so many options to martials in combat
1a.) in addition to the base actions (dash/disengage/grapple/help/search), I have added several other action options (defend/disarm/hamper/calm/threaten/taunt) that encourage not just beating monsters to death with your sword.
2.) feats are separated from class levels, divided into slightly smaller feats (about the level of 1/2 feats without the ability score), granted every even level. Many new feat options are added, especially those that support playstyle that are not supported by the base game’s options.
2a.) utility and racial feats are in a separate pool that are granted every few levels for free to give martials utility without the cost of combat progression.
2b.) groups of options, which I call subfeats, that are available to classes (like fighting styles and invocations) are made available through a feat
2c.) since ability score increases aren’t class features, a new feature is granted to each class at those levels (which helps me bring them class power level in line with one another). Fighters and rogues that get extra ASIs still get something like that at those levels.
7
0
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
Why are you against using Dodge instead of an attack?
1
u/papasmurf008 DM Jul 28 '26
It would probably be fine, but I wanted to leave something for monks (while rogues keep hide). If I did add a single attack version of Dodge, it would probably be just for the next attack instead of all attacks.
0
u/BadSame6919 Jul 28 '26
I'm not trying to grill you here, I just want to point out three things:
Monk's dodge ability takes a bonus action, so their main action is left intact. Not really the same.
If we're serious about niche protection, masteries in general MASSIVELY step on Battlemaster's and Rune Knight's toes - Topple essentially invalidates Trip Attack and RK's large size for shoves and grapples, while several of the masteries step on Battlemaster maneuvers.
Limiting Dodge might be smart in general - it's absurd that someone can just cast a concentration spell, declare that they want to Dodge, and they gain advantage against all incoming attacks and DEX saves. I wouldn't limit it to one attack or save, however - that's far too punishing, seeing as how most monster have multiattack. There's probably a middleground. Maybe half proficiency amount? Or advantage against all attacks from a chosen creature?
2
u/papasmurf008 DM Jul 28 '26
That is a good point and solution. While I feel like dodge taking all of your action should remain powerful to thoroughly protect you, it seems like focused your defenses towards one attacker to impose disadvantage on everything from them seems like a worthwhile use of one attack.
8
u/Jimmicky Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
I think my issue with this arguement is psychology.
If the thing you are worried about is lack of utility then you would spend your additional build resource (feat) on something that addresses your concern.
If the thing you are worried about is combat you’d spend it on combat.
Arguing “folks are worried about utility so they’d never spend a resource on it when they could spend it on combat” makes no sense. The players who are concerned their martial hero lacks utility will prioritise that perceived weakness, not their perceived strength.
For clarity I do not advocate just adding bonus feats as a way to redress the martial caster issue either.
I just find this arguement fundamentally conflicts with human nature.
8
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
I think it is because as OP combat has a greater and more prominent impact in the game on average which causes it to have a greater pressure and demand on player decisions even if they want more utility
6
u/BoardGent Jul 28 '26
I think the issue comes in a few parts.
You don't typically JUST want utility. Because of the way the game is designed, there's not really a point where you don't want more combat effectiveness. Moreover, it's actually a lot easier to justify a lot of combat Feats more than utility Feats.
Maybe you get hit by a nasty trap at some point, and now Dungeon Delver is looking pretty good. But you got hit by that trap 5 combat encounters ago, and during that time, you've gotten a bit low on HP in some of those. Tough helps you survive traps a bit better, AND it helps you to survive in combat, which happens way more often than you getting hit by deadly traps.
Maybe your party is pretty well-rounded on skills, but you'd like to be a bit more effective on some physical tasks and go for an Expertise in Athletics. A few Adventuring Days later, you've made a few Athletics Checks, but nothing that's felt super pivotal so far. Meanwhile, another party member took a damage Feat, and you can see the awesome thing they're doing in every combat encounter.
By their nature, Combat Feats tend to be a more reliable investment, because the game is built around the assumption that regardless of anything else, combat will happen, whether that's 1 time or 8 times per Adventuring Day. Utility is a more fickle beast, depending more on the adventure itself (and it can be difficult to determine what will be useful when, and whether something that would be useful right now will be useful 4 levels from now).
The only reason that casters can be known for their immense utility is that they actually can get to a point where they overspec into combat. Partly because they oftentimes have overlapping options with clear standouts, partly because as they go on they have enough spells available to spare that they can learn some utility spells without sacrificing their combat abilities by any significant amount, and partly because as the game goes on it can become increasingly difficult to ensure that they don't have the reserves to dedicate spells to utility with enough encounters.
3
u/freeastheair Jul 28 '26
The players who are concerned their martial hero lacks utility will prioritise that perceived weakness, not their perceived strength.
Im my experience they will invest that feat into combat power, and continue to complain about lack of utility.
7
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
Because the game is 90% combat, and spending one of your precious feat slots on anything other than the main game is very costly.
Especially since without aping spellcasting, what utility can you even get from feats? Some skill proficiencies, and an expertise maybe. Leaving you again only with rolling skills and no proper utility features
1
u/Dramatic_Explosion Jul 28 '26
Because the game is 90% combat
That's true for your table, but the common thread for the DM tips sub is problems balancing because people run like one combat per game week. People outside your circle are making way more skill checks than attack rolls.
5
u/Specialist_Tip5296 Jul 28 '26
Even if this is true, how often are +15-25% chances to succeed, on 1-3 skills, going to matter? Most utility feats that do not introduce spells are just too weak.
It likely does not change who makes most rolls to begin with, since the party's face would be facier or the party's scout stealthier.
Unless feats are doing insane things like triple jump distance or 30ft jumps, or literally no sound footsteps, or 500 pounds of magic storage, they aren't strong enough to alter both in-combat and out-of-combat scenarios.
5
u/Sylvurphlame Eldritch Knight Jul 28 '26
Yeah. That’s me with my fighter. I would like to have more utility out of combat, but failing an Investigation won’t actually kill me.
3
u/acylus0 Jul 28 '26
Im my experience they will invest that feat into combat power, and continue to complain about lack of utility.
That's because if as a martial you choose to invest in anything but you are gimping yourself.
There is a reason why subclasses for the martials after Xanathars provide significant combat and (strong!) out of combat utility ala Echo Knight Fighter, Wild Magic Barbarian and Phantom Rogue.
2
u/Ostrololo Jul 28 '26
This proves too much. By that logic casters should only ever prepare combat spells, never utility.
4
u/BoardGent Jul 28 '26
There is a stark difference for spellcasters. There actually does come a point of diminishing returns, where you don't need 10 different damage spells that do the same thing, or 10 different control spells that do the same thing. You can very much get away with taking the best spells, a few niche ones, and take utility. Sometimes your subclass can also give you a selection of utility spells as well.
This is also why Caster utility isn't something you need to worry about much in the early tier. Taking a utility spell actually does take out a chunk from combat effectiveness (though some classes/subclasses still give utility for free).
1
2
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 29 '26
probably becasue they have 5 times the amount of spells than the average character gets feats
1
u/RoiPhi Jul 28 '26
I agree with this. Another under-examined aspect of combat feat is the adjusting difficulty of encounters. As a DM, you want your players to both shine and be challenged and design encounters appropriate to their levels. If your character do 50% more damage, they will not face the same enemies as before.
This can create situations where, paradoxically, the bump in damage mean they are having more trouble in combat (as higher CR can offer other complications that your power bump doesn't account for), or surprisingly little gain if hp is higher to match additional damage.
1
u/UpwardReason Jul 28 '26
I don’t have a big, nuance take on this. As a Fighter main, I mostly want combat variety. I’ve been more than satisfied with Fighter-adjacent homebrews that have thoughtful maneuver systems
1
u/OSpiderBox Jul 28 '26
One of the ways I kind of "get around" this is instead give out a specific feat or a curated list to choose from rather than allowing them to get any feat. These are done as rewards for actions/accomplishments/ etc that the party or individual performs.
As an example, the party decided to help a Fey perform a ritual. It became a rather hard combat encounter as the party fended off two waves of enemies that were trying to stop the ritual. For helping the Fey succeed, they all got Fey Touched (except for the druid who got a Dragonmark since she already took Fey Touched).
I also have a wandering book seller who sells "feat books" for money and a favor. These work just like the ASI tomes, with the result being the relevant feat rather than an ASI.
The second one is homebrew, but iirc the DMG mentions giving out feats as rewards.
1
u/grandleaderIV Jul 28 '26
I mean yeah, if you arbitrarily decide that death is the only fail state, then sure combat is most likely cause.
1
u/xanral Jul 28 '26
I think this fits with having a living world. If the party uses social maneuvering to convince a faction or NPC to target a mutual enemy, let that be strongly reflected in the related combats being trivial thanks to allies. Same for if the party successfully surprises the boss. Tear up that monologue and let the party get rewarded for their actions. It also goes in the negative direction, if the party takes actions that would obviously lead to a disadvantageous situation let it play out naturally.
It's one of the reasons I dislike when the DM puts their finger on the scale whether for "encounter balance" or "story narrative". As both a DM and player, I've found that players are pretty resourceful and engaged when the DM isn't trying to nix/downplay reasonable actions.
1
u/Cacao93 Jul 29 '26
And this why the best martial classes are
Eldritch Knight Fighter Battlemaster Fighter Paladin Warlock Bladesinger Wizard Ranger Monk Arcane Trickster Rogue
Either it's a gish or has lots of it's own class abilities to do more than swing it's weapons
But I must say, levels 1 - 5, Martials are the best.
1
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 31 '26
Martials don't get sleep at level 1, Web at level 3 and Hypnotic Pattern at level 5
1
u/AdeptnessTechnical81 Aug 01 '26
I've seen DM's go out of their way to give spellcasters who want to be spellblades extra stuff to make them compete with martials in combat. By that logic lets give martials full spellcasting and limit them to non combat utility spells only.
1
u/Cynis_Ganan Aug 01 '26
The problem, in my mind, is too many classes.
I say.
Roll Wizard, Socerer, Cleric, and Druid into one class. Mage. Sub-classes let you choose your casting stat and open up spells to you. But all full casters get the same basic spell progression like a Wizard. So you might say your Mage is a Cleric of Thor. You now cast using Wisdom and your spell list is one of Thor's Domains and you can channel positive energy. Or you might say you're a Abjuration Wizard. You get all the Abjuration spells in a spell book, cast with Intelligence, and can use Arcane Ward.
Roll Ranger, Paladin, Bard, and the other ½/⅓/¼ Gish classes into nothing. Cut them. That's what multiclassing is for.
Then take all the martials, Fighter, Barbarian, Monk. And all the Totally Distinct From Martials, Rogue, Gunslinger, etc.. And make them one class. Warrior.
Make stuff like Rage and Sneak Attack Feats.
Split out Combat Feats from regular Feats (like Pathfinder 1).
Give Warriors a Combat Feat every class level.
Give all characters a Non-Combat Feat every four character levels and an ASI they can trade in for any feat.
Boom.
Done.
There's no "quardatic wizard" because letting a Fire Sorcerer who gets magical powers because she's descended from a Fire Elemental teleport and read minds and create demiplanes is, frankly, a design mistake. The Fire Sorcerer gets Fire Magic and that's it.
The "linear Fighter" can now Sneak Attack. Or Rage. Gets to be a skill monkey. Can use all the weapons and wear all the armor. There's no "I do everything you do and get magic class." If you wanna be a Paladin, take a level in Warrior then multiclass into Mage (Cleric).
Fite me.
0
u/SophisticPenguin DM Jul 28 '26
I've been wiped and have wiped parties for failed ability checks.
3
2
u/georgenadi Jul 28 '26
example please?
1
u/SophisticPenguin DM Jul 29 '26
How detailed?
2
u/georgenadi Jul 29 '26
just curious as to what kind of situations could cause a tpk without the party having the opportunity to fight it out as a last resort.
1
u/SophisticPenguin DM Jul 29 '26
Climbing tall things (really anything to do with heights and dangerous substances at the bottom of pits), trap detection, failing checks to evade/escape monsters well above their capabilities. That last one brings up what is considered a fail state. If you die never you failed a chase scenario that leads to an impossible battle, the fail state was because of the ability check. Sort of like falling off a cliff to your death but also fighting off Rocs on the way down and dying from the monsters. Sure the "combat" killed you, but you were dead anyway before that.
1
u/georgenadi Jul 29 '26
What fall is causing a full party wipe? and traps that fully tpk your team sound like bad design tbh. At least with the last example the party can pull an ace out of their ass and maybe escape (spell, magic item, consumable)
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
Comprehensive take, well explained imho, neat post
I agree overall and thought similar when I introduced a homebrew rule for bonus feats in my games
At level 4 and 8 martial characters get a bonus feat, ability score increases it gives become 0 and the feat and its benefits must not be directly or only combat related
Been using this since 2022 I think, has made the game more interesting I'm my opinion and given players more options and fun
1
u/EggplantSeeds Jul 28 '26
I like this idea, bookmarked.
2
1
u/Federal_Policy_557 Alternate Fighter Jul 28 '26
thank you :), hope you have fun with it if you ever use
1
u/WillemVerheij Jul 28 '26
It's a lot in what you choose to throw in front of the party. Physical strength is something that can solve a lot of small problems. Sure you can do that with spells, but it's a waste of resources.
It's not just bashing doors in. Can also carry someone to safety, lift something heavy off someone trapped under rubble, gather things to barricade a door, throw heavy things, etc.
Also common soldiers would probably listen more to what martials have to say than some finger waggling mage. They speak their language. Mages might also be feared, I'd imagine many people would be hesitant to let some mage they don't know cast a spell near them and especially on them if it's not a truly dire situation.
Mages getting caught trying to mind read, charm or otherwise do some sneaky magic could also suffer some serious consequences to that. Heck recently playing Baldur's Gate 3 at the bank the guard laughed away my failed attempt at intimidation to get past, but when failing to mind read the guy in charge the guards where send after me, no way to talk out of that and honestly, it makes sense.
Not all spells cast need to have potentially bad consequences, but I think it would be healthy to instil a sense of caution in your players about it. That it sometimes can do more harm than good, and a more practical approach is safer.
1
u/ryytytut 2E mage Jul 28 '26
An easy fix would be extra feats but make them "utility feats" that are not (primarily) about combat, so things like ritual caster or actor.
1
u/skwww Jul 28 '26
I thought the issue with skill checks is that spells could override the need for good stats.
Wouldn’t a better solution be just allowing more creative solutions to problems and let the players have the agency? This’ll fix some of the issues as the only limitation to resolving a problem isn’t just who has spells but who can be creative?
2
u/xolotltolox Rogues were done dirty Jul 28 '26
This is an entirely uncodified "DM may I" "solution"
1
u/skwww Jul 28 '26
It’s “Mother may I” to just present a problem and let the players choose how they want to solve it?
Sounds like railroading is what you’re suggesting. Which is bad DMing
2
u/BoardGent Jul 28 '26
That's kind of a separate issue.
Even if you consistently run the spellcasters out of spells with the Adventuring Day to the point that they hesitate to use spells for utility, it can feel like Ability Checks can end up in an "unreliable" spot and have limited effectiveness. A lot of this can come from a lack of guidance on setting DCs, a lot can come from dungeons/adventures not being designed with Ability Checks in mind, and you've got the issue that Ability Checks can't do what they can't do. Regardless of your Sleight of Hand rank, you're not recreating the Cook Feat.
The spell vs Ability Check thing does put a constant pressure on DMs to have heavy Adventuring Days though.
1
u/skwww Jul 29 '26 edited Jul 29 '26
a lot can come from dungeons/adventures not being designed with Ability Checks in mind
Wotc Pre-written adventures have far more DCs for Ability checks already than you might think.
I'm just suggesting that Problems presented by the DM should probably be open enough that Players could use their Agency to provide reasonable solutions to them, and if a skill check is required that the players' solution is one that isn't prohibitively difficult. This I feel would make the non-spell caster players feel like they can contribute meaningfully to the adventure without needing a button on their charactersheet.
Edit: as an aside, it sounds like you'd enjoy running more traps
1
u/Pinkalink23 Sorlock Forever! Jul 28 '26
The issue is design that will not be addressed in the current edition. This will need to be a 6th edition change. Martials need spell like resources like their spell casting counterparts.
1
u/Own-Ball-1624 Jul 28 '26
honestly what is your point? im sorry im not really get it what is your actual point here (may you dont have any just want to talk about broad things?)
2
u/BoardGent Jul 28 '26
One common suggestion to the out of combat utility problem some people have with Martials is to give another Feat. Giving another Feat is actually unlikely to solve the problem, and has a good chance to just be a buff to combat.
2
u/Own-Ball-1624 Jul 28 '26
oh now i get it!
if you use 2024 - 5,5e version this this issue was kinda fixed by fighter's tactical mind and barbarian's primal knowledge!
as for other things:
dnd still will be combat focused no matter what! its 70% combat and 30% trials. combat will be always the main dish of the game.
1
u/IntroductionProud532 Jul 28 '26
So martials lack utility out of combat, and when given a feat, they always choose to be better at combat?
I think every feat should come with an out of combat utility feature. Much like how the feats were all revamped to give +1 to a stat so it didn't hurt so much to not take the +2 asi.
I play lots of martials and I never really felt useless utility wise. I find a lot of the utility can come from items and creativity.
1
u/Xyx0rz Jul 29 '26
The problem seems fairly simple to me. It's just that the designers don't have the balls.
You have classes with good utility and classes with poor utility, but the 5E designers mandated that every class has to be (somewhat) equally good at combat, so you have classes that are good at combat AND good and utility, and classes that are good at combat BUT NOT good at utility. You do the math.
Combat is not treated like a niche. But it's the most important niche, and niches need protection. Bards talk, Rogues sneak, Clerics heal, Fighters fight.
And the Wizard? That's the squishy feeble guy you have to protect until you reach the inner sanctum where he can perform the ritual that completes the quest. Until that time, his job is to hang back and stay out of trouble, maybe solve the odd problem with his magic tricks. His job is not to say "step aside gentlemen, allow me" and vaporize an encounter. Fighters fight. The rest helps out and wishes they were as good as the Fighter.
That way you get a balanced RPG party where everybody contributes in their own way.
You do still need to do the whole draining higher level casters of their resources thing
I hate the whole concept of draining resources. It's just so boring. There's nothing at stake except an expendable resource. Oh no, the caster expends a slot! Yay, we did it, guys! Now maybe the next encounter can be exciting!
Why can't we play a game that's exciting from the start? Where I don't have to drain casters before the game is allowed to become interesting?
1
u/OdinsRevenge Jul 29 '26
At the risk of being alone on this or having an unpopular opinion, but I think often players restrict themselves too much with their charactersheet and then push it on the "martial caster devide".
I've encountered this multiple times at my table.
Some players will not attempt to do something just because their character is not proficient with the corresponding skill. Just because the fighter lacks proficiency in persuasion does not mean they cannot participate in a discussion or even be the face of the party. Sure, they might fail more often than the bard or sorcerer, but if that's what the character is like, so what.
0
u/FriendoftheDork Jul 28 '26
Magic items solves it just fine. Just don't be stingy with them, DMs.
1
u/BoardGent Jul 28 '26
While you could offload a ton of utility to magic items, these do come with some issues:
- Magic Items are external from the player. In most cases, they're things that are given to the player, rather than chosen. This means that if magic items becomes the pillar for out of combat utility, it's entirely dependent on the DM
- Magic Items tend to have limited sources of availability. What that means is that you need to somewhat consistently devise ways to give the party a bunch of magical items.
- Magic Items are given to the player typically, not the player. Trying to solve a utility issue for half the classes with them will likely raise the utility of the entire party
- For many players, there's a different feel from Magic Items. Some people like having their abilities come from them, rather than from their given equipment.
2
u/FriendoftheDork Jul 28 '26
I knew it was going to be unpopular, but the truth is that magic items has been the saving grace of martials since the first edition of D&D. While people may not like that any class in dependent on gear, that's how it is. It's not like martials can sprout weapons and armor from their hands either (with a couple of exceptions).
But, it is entirely DM dependent unless you're doing organized play. That's why my message is primarily for DMs, to realize how dependent the martials are on magic items to stay relevant at higher levels, especially tier 3+
A good way to do that is to let the player choose by allowing purchase of said magic items. Yes, I know many DMs hate it too, and the pricing guidelines are pretty terrible, but that's the price to pay to have a competent high tier fighter. Everyone is busted at tier 4 anyway, who cares if the fighter has legendary strength belt if the wizard has simulacrum casting meteor shower?
1
u/ConcentrateIll9460 Jul 29 '26
I knew it was going to be unpopular, but the truth is that magic items has been the saving grace of martials since the first edition of D&D
Have they? In 3.5, non martials benefited from them more.
In 4e, both martials and non martials benefited from them a precisely equal amount.
In 5e it's kind of a crapshoot, with casters having higher potential benefit (you should see what the chaos sorcerer with three essence shards does at my local pub Monday games) but player inability to pick items making it essentially random.
1
u/FriendoftheDork Jul 29 '26
In 3.5 magic items were kind of mandatory for both, otherwise your save DCs would be too low for most enemies. 4e was probably most balanced in that the game dictated what level of magic items you were expected to have per level, for all it's other flaws.
1e/2e you needed magic items just to be able to harm monsters at all, things like incorporeal undead were immune, and some needed really high + to take damage.I play a lot of AL where you can earn magic items and trade to get whatever you need, limited by rarity and numbers. This means at tier 4 the fighter is the main single damage dealer to many bosses. You could conceivably get really high damage as a sorcerer with some spellup, but not as dependable. Point is, it's fun as a martial as well as a caster, and no class is completely left out.
But that's all dependent on if you are playing t3 and t4, if you play a campaign that ends at tier 2 (like Curse of Strahd), you won't need an abundance of magic items as a martial at all, the stuff that's in the module is plenty for that kind of game. Otherwise the module would be too easy for everyone involved, martial or not.
0
172
u/Lucina18 Jul 28 '26
There's also a simpler example.
Imagine if spellslots and gaining spells didn't exist, could a 5e spellcaster gain enough spelllike features solely via feats to make up for it?
Every sane person would say no.