D&D General Path of Feats: a Superior Design than Subclasses

[SkidAce]

I dislike feats in general and would certainly not deem them as "superior design" than sublcasses. Chains of feats are as old as 3E if not older (I'm sure we could find some in other games, video games especially) and they tend to skew the games towards character building and optimization, a trend I personnaly dislike. I like my class-based games to be class-based. Subclass was the right tool for the right job, IMO. Well, at least these "paths of feats" seem to avoid the ivory tower design of old. Still, the more you add that kind of stuff in the game, the more conversations around the game will be about the "best build", which I found super tiresome.

That said, I'm happy for those who like that kind of stuff. They could work as prestige classes of a kind, for the few games that go beyond level 11+.

I certainly try to keep them of theme and optional, like the original (?) vision of Prestige Classes.

 

[SkidAce]

I don't see how three or four choices between ~ 50 feats can be more complex than 20 choices between five or six times that, frankly. (And that's not even speaking about the fact you can simply build your character only with ASIs, and that was the default in 5e14.)

I get that very invested people want very involved systems with lot of choices and customisation, but I, even as a really invested person myself, would rather play not only with other very invested people like me, but also with players well less concerned with that kind of minutia, who are many, and vastly more varied, and who like to put their creative minds elsewhere. Character mechanics are one aspect of TTRPGs, among many. I like TTRPGs that accept players interested in all kind of aspects, not just this one.

You are correct in that people can get obsessed with chains and choices. Here's why we normally dont run into that problem (and it colors our way of thinking about stuff that would be bloat to other folks

People gain Prestige Classes/Feat Chains organically, or conceptually.

"Hey that BBG uses something called rune magic? I want to learn that so we can combat his tricks, or beat him at hs own game"
"I found Master Katate's explanation of combat very inspiring, and would like to learn Kung-Fu"
"I'm making a new character, you said you have something called blademasters?"

 

[SkidAce]

...

These Feat paths/chains seem like they could be a nice alternative approach to that. And while I sound like a dead record, they make FANTASTIC faction rewards for high renown. If your a Dragonborn/Lizardfolk/Kobold and were a member of the Cult of Dragons, you can qualify for the Path of The Lich feats the more you ingrained yourself in the faction.

You don't lose out on being able to choose other feats, you fulfill narrative requirements, and you start adding some crunch spice while still keeping 5E KISSING.

I concur and should have read the thread ahead of time.

 

[SkidAce]

I’d like to have prestige classes but i think it would be beneficial to ban multiclassing first cutting out that whole kind of barb1/fighter2/rogue3 nonsense.

Your class and subclass would form the spine of your character’s build and while branching out into a specific theme.
Feats provide a wide selection of specific points of customisation, including short 2-feat chains.
While prestige classes help fill in the niche multiclassing currently does but in a neater way, letting you explore concepts outside your original class.
Also you would have a species that is fleshed out enough mechanically so that it would actually mean something to your character’s build.

We only allow two class multiclassing as a general rule.

 

[Remathilis]

I mean, you could get rid of MC and keep PC, you just tie prestige class qualifications to prerequisites that aren’t multiclassed based, give them all a minimum level threshold and something like ‘you need to be able to cast 3rd level divine spells’ ‘you need to be proficient in martial weapons and have extra attack’ ‘you need to have a class pet-companion’

Give them lockstep level progression to your main class like an extra subclass from the point you take them, and done, it’s easy, prestige classes without needing frankenstein class builds.

And feats help you branch out to meet requirements your baseclass isn’t directly inclined towards.

You just created subclasses. Congratulations

 

[CreamCloud0]

You just created subclasses. Congratulations

That’s not the big whammy you think it is, Prestige classes were always just another form of subclasses, or vice-versa, whichever way you want to look at it, but as it is, subclasses currently are not applicable across multiple classes nor have prerequisites to taking them, not to mention these prestige classes would exist in addition to subclasses.

 

[Minigiant]

3e prestige classes are maybe 75% redundant in 5e.

The main types of PrCs were

1. A multiclass fixer. You are leveling the main aspects of 2 classes at once (3e Mystic Thuerge)
2. An upgrading feat. You more or less get 1 or 2 featlike features that scale or you scale removal of the restrictions of a feat like feature. A feat chains in a class system (3e Thaumaturgist)
3. A sack of feats. You are swapping class features for feats. (3e Hierophant)
4. A subclass. You are doing a twist on a class (3e Arcane Archer)
5. A variant class. You are doing a twist of the class. (3e Assassin)
6. A sneak variant class. You are doing a twist of the class that doesnt stack with the class well. (3e Blackguard)
7. A whole class. You are basically playing a class that didnt have its first 5 levels designed (3e Dragon Disciple)
8. A whole class with a core feature too strong for level 1. You are basically playing a class that can't have its first 5 levels designed (3e Shadowdancer)
9. A whole class with the same start as another. You are basically playing a class that first 5 levels are the same as multiple others (3e Duelist)

Of those, 5e has no need for Prcs of #1-6. 7 is straight up a new class. So PRCs we could only be good for 8 or 9. Like Shadowdancer as rogues, rangers, and bards play Very differently.

 

[tetrasodium]

More like Anti-hero IMHO. How many heroes are that willing to become an undead being? Further still, how many of those that do that take path stay heroic?

Why is it assumed the answer is none?

Spoiler: here are 3

Even ainz from overlord is a generally positive force in the world who could be considered an example of one if you sidestep the fact that he's deliberately written as more of a beyond epic tier guild master NPC type then PC

 

[Corinnguard]

Why is it assumed the answer is none?

Because the undead in D&D have been given the short end of a stick when it comes to alignment.

 

[Tigris]

If only somebody had done that already!

Well there is soo much 5e homebrew that almost everything was done already by someone. (Especially things (like feat chains) which was present in earlier editions).


The difference is that with official content you have a way way higher probability a GM allows it (and good chance not even needing big discussions) and it will be always (mostly nicely) included in D&D beyond and there its enough when 1 person buys it for 2-3 groups.


This has nothing to do with the quality even. Just with general trust to what one knows (official D&D) vs other company gm has never heard of it.