D&D 5E Subclass feature vs. feat -- Which is "worth" more?

[FrogReaver]

I’d pit a feat like GWM up against most (maybe all) level 3 subclass features for martials. Heck, maybe against most martial subclass features of any level.

Casters often get a lot of spell options from their subclass so not as clear cut for them.

That said, most feats aren’t GWM, so most feats I wouldn’t rate higher than subclass features. Thus I answered the question that subclass features were worth more. But the reality is it really depends on the specific subclass and specific feat in question.

 

[Kurotowa]

Depends on the class. Different classes split their power budget between base class and subclass differently. So some subclass feature are stronger than a feat and some are weaker.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I voted for Feats being worth more because at least you get to pick whatever is the best for your build (and +2 to a stat is always a good backup). There are Subclass features that are far better than any Feat, but there are also a bunch of crappy ones that result in underwhelming leveling up (or more likely, multiclassing away)

It's not really a question that has an answer, they are too difficult to compare. Either answer can be completely correct depending on how you interpret the question

 

[CleverNickName]

Subclass features tend to be more thematic than feats, but about the same in power or versatility. And I think thematic characters are more interesting than generic ones, so I voted Subclass Features > Feats.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

Low level subclass features > Feats > high level subclass features

This is so true and such a terrible failure of game design

 

[Distracted DM]

According to MM, certain classes have more power in their core class, so their subclass features are weaker. I believe he listed fighter and paladin among them. Obviously some of these features are still pretty good though! So yeah it seems like a mixed bag.

 

[Distracted DM]

This is so true and such a terrible failure of game design

I think the failure is how multiclassing is handled in 5e.

 

[Horwath]

This is so true and such a terrible failure of game design

How it should it be?

I mean, even feats that in theory should work about the same, are not on same power level.
Situation is much better than 2014 and there is probably no really big outliers in feats, on either side.

OK, +2 HP per level origin feat might be little on the strong side, especially on lower HD classes or barbarian as it is +4 HP per level most of the time.

personally I would like that all feats scale with level or proficiency bonus somehow, so they are valuable to take at 1st level and at 16th level.
Fey/shadow touched is great at 4th level, not so much at 16th level. Maybe if you get extra use of 1st level spell at 8th level and extra use of 2nd level spell at 12th level it would be a good option even at 16th level.

Also, if every class gets equal power budget for subclasses, which they do not, that would open up space as I mentioned for few universal subclasses.
But, then some people would say we are getting too close to 4E in design philosophy and we can't have that. Even if we do have lots of base 4E features in 5E already.
Disclaimer; overall not a fan of 4E, but it did have some good solutions.

 

[Horwath]

I think the failure is how multiclassing is handled in 5e.

multiclassing is bad, I agree.

but what is solution?

force even split classes?

6/6 character is almost universally weaker than 12th level character in a single class.

I made a house rule that forces even split, but it gives bonus levels at character levels 5,8,11,14,17 and 20, so you end up at 20th level with HP, HDs and prof bonus of 10/10 split as normal, but have features of 13/13 split.

 

[Clint_L]

What if you give your players an option to either take a subclass or to just stick with the base class and get a feat for every level where they would otherwise get a subclass feature? I feel like it would be fairly balanced.