D&D 5E Here's why we want a Psion class

[Chaosmancer]

Try taking Telekinetic, Telepathic, Metabolic Control or Tower of Iron Will without the prerequisite feat or psionic subclass. If you want to take one of those as a Champion Fighter, you need the feat chain.

And how to propose to take elemental adept, Spell Sniper or Warcaster without a magical class/subclass or a the prerequisite feat

The armor feats work the same way.

They just feel different because we have the full caster classes as well, and they haven't made those for Psionics yet. Plus, there aren't a lot of psionic options, compared to magical options. But it is no different in design practice

 

[Ovinomancer]

Try taking Telekinetic, Telepathic, Metabolic Control or Tower of Iron Will without the prerequisite feat or psionic subclass. If you want to take one of those as a Champion Fighter, you need the feat chain.

As others have pointed out, having a prerequisite that can be filled by another feat, but not needed to be filled by another feat, does not make a feat chain. It just makes a prerequisite. HAVING to have feat 1 before taking feat 2 is a very different beast from having to have a prerequisite that could be met by taking feat 1.

 

[Maxperson]

As others have pointed out, having a prerequisite that can be filled by another feat, but not needed to be filled by another feat, does not make a feat chain. It just makes a prerequisite. HAVING to have feat 1 before taking feat 2 is a very different beast from having to have a prerequisite that could be met by taking feat 1.

It is in fact a feat chain if you don't take one of the exceptions on how to get there. For the vast majority of class/subclasses, it is a feat chain. You cannot get there without taking the prerequisite FEAT.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is in fact a feat chain if you don't take one of the exceptions on how to get there. For the vast majority of class/subclasses, it is a feat chain. You cannot get there without taking the prerequisite FEAT.

No, you cannot get there without the prerequisite. You can take a feat that gets you the prerequisite, but that doesn't make it a feat chain. You're confusing options with requirements.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you cannot get there without the prerequisite. You can take a feat that gets you the prerequisite, but that doesn't make it a feat chain. You're confusing options with requirements.

So a semantical argument. If you need it to get it, it's effectively a "feat chain."

 

[Chaosmancer]

So a semantical argument. If you need it to get it, it's effectively a "feat chain."

You need proficiency in heavy armor to get Heavy Armor Master. For nearly every class and subclass that requires a feat.

Is that effectively a feat chain?

Most of us don't think so, so we don't see the Psionics as being any different.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So a semantical argument. If you need it to get it, it's effectively a "feat chain."

No, it's not a semantic argument. There's a big difference between a feat chain that is "take feat 1 to take more powerful feat 2 to take more powerful feat 3, etc..," and, "you must have this prerequisite to take this feat. You can meet it via class feature or by taking this other feat. Either way, it's not more powerful a feat."

I really am not sure how I can explain this more simply to you. I get that you really want feat chains to be a thing so that you do not have to defend your introduction of a straight feat chain, but that's not how any of the current feats work. Even the armor masteries don't stack -- they require the having the prereq, but the abilities do not stack with each other. Sure, you could start with medium and go to heavy just using feats, but you're not getting any more powerful abilities -- you're just taking the feats because they provide a prereq for that another feat you want to take needs. Not a chain.

 

[Maxperson]

No, it's not a semantic argument. There's a big difference between a feat chain that is "take feat 1 to take more powerful feat 2 to take more powerful feat 3, etc..," and, "you must have this prerequisite to take this feat. You can meet it via class feature or by taking this other feat. Either way, it's not more powerful a feat."

That's not what I described. You CAN take a higher list as you go up in level, or you can take all the feats as rolls on chart 1. They aren't inherently more powerful than the last.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not what I described. You CAN take a higher list as you go up in level, or you can take all the feats as rolls on chart 1. They aren't inherently more powerful than the last.

If you can choose to roll on a higher power chart, but choose not to, the feat still offers greater power even if you choose to make a lesser choice. The balance isn't that you can choose to do lesser, but what the feat allows you to do.

Unless you're suggesting that there's no increase in power in the charts, in which case why there different charts?

 

[Maxperson]

If you can choose to roll on a higher power chart, but choose not to, the feat still offers greater power even if you choose to make a lesser choice. The balance isn't that you can choose to do lesser, but what the feat allows you to do.

Unless you're suggesting that there's no increase in power in the charts, in which case why there different charts?

It's not a feat chain, though. It's OPTIONS. Just like you can spend a feat on GWM or you can spend it on Actor another less powerful feat.