D&D 5E Would Sub-class Feats Solve a Problem? (Is there a problem?)

In my experience, this isn't a problem. With very few exceptions I can't think of a subclass that by level 3, doesn't feel substantially different from its other subclasses and then this difference grows over the following levels. Cleric and wizard to me seem to be the classes that are most similar to your assumption, however they both are very heavily defined by their spell selection. Feats are a very limited resource when considering 2-3 ABI are used to get to max primary stat leaving 3-2 (respectively) ABI for the career of your character to fill out con/secondary stats and then take a feat. furthermor a subclass feat would very likely have to wait until level 12 when competeing against increase of a main stat.. I understand where you are coming from but perhaps some example of this "sameness" might help me understand where you see this. I have played a lot of 5e in adventure league play and it's usually very evident what sublclass someone chose without any need to ask them because the effects of those sublasses are very dramatic.

Elfcrusher said:

Yes, exactly. I read the description and think, "Oooh...shiny! I love that concept." Then I read the abilities and think, "Hmm, ok. Is that it?"

Click to expand...

Yup, I'm exactly the same. I often like the flavor but find the implementation lacking, mainly because, having played the game a lot, I know that most characters won't get much past 5th to 8th level and, thus, will only ever get one or two of the listed features. Given that WotC has said that, according to their own surveys, groups capping at around the 6th level mark is really common, I have to assume that my experience is unexceptional. Add this to the fact that the first feature you get - sometimes, the only one you will ever get - varies wildly in terms of "flavor impact" between different archetypes (i.e. some are fairly heavily flavored, others much less so).

The problem is that, to really fix this, you need to have more "insertion points" in each class, to slot in the unique features (presumably, at the expense of standardized class features, if you don't want to change the power level). I've been puzzling over the least messy/work-intensive way to do this, but, to be honest, haven't come up with a really satisfying solution. Maybe PF did it best by having each archetype slot in, via replacement, only as many or as few changes are needed for each individual case. Harder to balance, but, ultimately, more effective in making each archetype as distinct as it needs to be.

'Course, in terms of UA archetypes, WotC has made the situation worse by sometimes trying to turn what used to be a full class into an archetype. Because of the low impact the archetype distinction has, due to the limited number of insertion points, the result inevitably feels watered down. But that's probably getting a bit beside the point, given that it could be argued that some of these shouldn't be archetypes, in the first place.

Anyway, having said all of this, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the feat idea, for several reasons. First, some groups don't use them, so, for them, that's kind of a non-starter. Second, you get feats so rarely that the impact may not be that noticeable, especially for players who want to get any ability score points. Third, because of the way 5th handles feats, finding a nice balance might be tricky. In previous versions (and in PF), there was a very rough correspondence between feats and class features, but, in 5th, that's not really true (feats are generally somewhat better). Now, in this case, I suppose that might be a good thing, since it could give the archetype a particularly noteworthy class feature, but, again, finding the right balance might be tricky. Possible, but tricky.

Pondering the last thought, maybe the feat could gain it's potency as much through synergy as through intrinsic power? In other words, the feat could do something that, in most hands would just be moderately useful, but, when paired with a particular class feature, would be more interesting/useful/flashy. Something that makes the archetype more distinct. Of course, none of this addresses the first two problems that I mentioned above.

Tony Vargas said:

PRO: Easy to implement: Add the feats with the preq: Must be _________ sub-class.

CON: Arguably a 'feat tax.' (If you are this sub-class, you need to take this feat to get the full benefit of your sub-class choice.)

Click to expand...

Yup, I hate to say it, but I would have to add this CON as problem number 4 to my list. Done properly, it would not, exactly, be a feat tax, but it sure might feel that way to some players, who are really just trying to crystallize a particular image.

cmad1977 said:

Meh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well... that was constructive...

How about alternative class features that can only be taken by a specific subclass, that way you can turn a class more towards the flavour of the subclass despite the small number of subclass abilities and any subclass feats will feel less of a feat tax as you have an other avenue to add the flavour.

I like the idea of both subclass specific alternative class features and feats as you can choose how deeply the character immerses themselves in the subclass. This now also brings to mind the idea of subclass specific backgrounds, you can take the background in question but you have to take the subclass in question when it comes time to picking your subclass. This gives another point of subclass immersion.

I'm not sure how much of a problem I think it is. On the one hand, more subclass abilities to help differentiate a class could be quite good, I know I have tried making some fighter subclasses and I've wanted there to be a bigger spread of abilities as I've had to pair down my subclass abilities because I can't fit them all in, but on the other-hand, what abilities the subclass do get I find differentiate them fairly well.

Something you could do is create paths within a subclass, similar to the warlock pact, maybe an open hand monk can choose one of 2 or 3 abilities at level 6 instead of gaining the heal self ability (is that open hand or is that just a monk ability?). I've done something similar to differentiate the Glantrian illusionist. They essentially have a couple of levels that are substitution levels while still gaining the regular illusionist abilities. In that case it was a straight substitution but there is no reason not to make the two abilities selectable with the regular illusionist abilities.

Feats could be a good way to add some more ability for a subclass but you might find that you need to come up with something for each subclass in your campaign so that each player has a choice and that also means you run the risk of creating something which the player's look at and end up ignoring for other options.

Now I'm thinking of Star Wars saga edition and their use of talent trees for the classes. Each subclass could essentially be a talent tree with some of the higher level abilities requiring certain lower level abilities. Of course then, you'd want there to be more levels at which you can choose a talent.

Kick me off this thread if this comes off poorly, but eff this stupid "Feat Tax" concept that is constantly bandied about! Unless the ghost of Gygax shows up at my table personally with a six-shooter to my cabeza I will NEVER feel beholden to take a Feat just because Mr. Min/Max says I "have" to...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eubani said:

How about alternative class features that can only be taken by a specific subclass, that way you can turn a class more towards the flavour of the subclass despite the small number of subclass abilities and any subclass feats will feel less of a feat tax as you have an other avenue to add the flavour.

Click to expand...

I liked the idea when I first saw it in Pathfinder, but then I grew to dislike it and all of the massive number of choics and fiddly bits.


(well, I remember it from 3e's Unearthed Arcana, but Pathfinder went all-in on the idea)

Arilyn said:

Yes, we've been noticing this too. I think that might explain the often "meh" response to new sub-classes on UA. People aren't sure why they feel disappointed.

Click to expand...

For me, it's that the sub-classes play it too safe. The class ideas are pretty awesome but the actual execution is conservative and underwhelming, especially in the upper levels.

Having said that, I'm not sure adding more feats is the answer. As Tony mentions below, you're potentially just adding a feat tax. Personally, I'd revamp the class abilitites, keyword: bonkers. We should be reading those 20th level capstone abilities thinking "OMG, that is so awesome I can't decide which class I want to play first!"

In my experience, what the OP describes is most true with spellcasting classes, since the "best" spells are always the "best" spells and are always available to every caster of that type. Your "Diviner" casts sleep and fireball just as well as your "Evoker" casts shield.

It's funny to me that people wanted a "generalist" mage a while back, since all wizards I have ever seen in a campaign played exactly the same. Druids and clerics have been a little better, but not much.

Ironically, I think the solution might lie with fewer choices, not more. If everybody has access to exactly the same tools, they will generally pick the same ones without even thinking about alternative ways to solve the problems. A great counterexample is the Rogue; the Thief, Assassin, Arcane Trickster, and Poisoner (subclass from Primeval Thule) all played very differently in the games I've seen.

I'm not sure the feat idea is the best solution to the situation, for reasons others have described. But I'm also wondering if others see the issues the OP describes in non-casters.