D&D 5E Feats and Backgrounds: Should you be able to take a feat and or background and gain certain class abilities?

[ForeverSlayer]

One thing I want Next to do is keep all class abilities class specific. I don't want to be able to take certain feats and backgrounds and gain certain class abilities because I think that takes away from the classes. If you want what a certain class has then pay the price and multi-class. I like the idea of backgrounds but I feel like we are going to get too much cross class contamination.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I agree -- you shouldn't be able to duplicate a class by using other mechanics. Class abilities should be one closed set of options, Feats/Backgrounds another different set.

I haven't seen that there's significant overlap in the playtest documents, though. What have I missed?

 

[Obryn]

I'd rather have it the other way around, because I really hate multiclassing, but since multiclassing is in Next already, then it should be one or the other, yeah.

 

[the Jester]

I think allowing limited access to certain class abilities (e.g. superiority dice) via feats is a good thing. It allows a pc to splash a minor bit of multiclassing into their build without actually multiclassing. As long as the cost (a feat) is balanced against what you gain, I'm cool with it.

 

[hafrogman]

I disagree vehemently.

One of my greatest peeves about 3.X and Pathfinder was the fixation of trapfinding as a class-only ability. Every thief had to be a rogue and every rogue was automatically a thief. It defeated the point of dividing the skill system from classes if in order to be any good at this one particular (and particularly vital, depending on your DM) skill, you HAD to have a level in a specific class to do so. I realize this is one hyper specific example, but it was one that Next was very much going down the road of again, with Thieves' Tools proficiency being something that every rogue and only rogues could get. Then they added backgrounds and feats that could also provide it. An option. Another path.

Multiclassing is not always an appropriate answer, as classes include a lot of baggage and assumptions that the player may not want. A wizard who grew up as a criminal is very different than a Mage X/Rogue 1. I like the idea that your history or training can shape you in smaller, more incremental ways than taking a full level of something.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I disagree vehemently.

One of my greatest peeves about 3.X and Pathfinder was the fixation of trapfinding as a class-only ability. Every thief had to be a rogue and every rogue was automatically a thief. It defeated the point of dividing the skill system from classes if in order to be any good at this one particular (and particularly vital, depending on your DM) skill, you HAD to have a level in a specific class to do so. I realize this is one hyper specific example, but it was one that Next was very much going down the road of again, with Thieves' Tools proficiency being something that every rogue and only rogues could get. Then they added backgrounds and feats that could also provide it. An option. Another path.

Multiclassing is not always an appropriate answer, as classes include a lot of baggage and assumptions that the player may not want. A wizard who grew up as a criminal is very different than a Mage X/Rogue 1. I like the idea that your history or training can shape you in smaller, more incremental ways than taking a full level of something.

You need to go back and check out Pathfinder then because the only difference between a class skill and someone outside the class taking the same skill is + 3. Now trapfinding allows the rogue to half her level to certain skills but that has nothing to do with being a thief. The specific skills that are affected are Perception and Disable Device, has nothing to do with being a thief. D&D has always identified a rogue as someone who is good at disabling traps, pick pocketing, back stabbing etc.. I think you are wanting to the rogue to be something else.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

we should have a poll

I disagree, I loved the idea of the 4e multi class feats as "dabblers"

a feat for basic spell casting, a feat for basic sneak attack...

I love the idea of my rogue being a rogue but taking 2 feats, one for cantrips, and one for a 1st level spell.
I love the idea of my wizard being a wizard but taking a feat to gain +1d6 sneak attack
I love the idea of my fighter being a fighter and grabing 2 feats, one for +1d6 sneak attack and one for casting cantrips...

Heck with the revile of the 'eldritch knight' sub class imagine being able to mix and match to make any concept with or without multi classing...


heck, maybe my bladsinger will be an eldritch knight fighter and a invoker wizard AND take a feat to have sneak attack


or I can play a 'sage' ranger who picks up a feat or two to gain some rogue abilities...

 

[Minigiant]

I think you should be able to get certain class features with feats.
But it at the dabbler level or at extreme cost.

For example I am fine with getting a cantrip as a feat or a 3rd level spell once a rest from 3 feats.
I'd even be okay with a character getting a single superiority dice and maneuver via multiple feats. Or +2d6 sneak attack via feat.

A class feature from a feat would have to be clearly weaker than one from a class level and be simply supplementary to the characters true classes. For a example a fighter with poor dexterity but good intelligence could snag a cantrip for a ranged attack. Something like giving a character tracking or Jack of all trades would be bad as it is not granular.

A D&D system that went with a class level needed to get features would have to be built from the ground up that way like 2e and 4e. The current model is closer to 3e and forcing class features to require would require design focus to do so or it will have many many unwanted and unintended consequences.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like archetypes and favor nice protection (I suspect I was the only one in 3e who ever defended class-restricted skills!), but mostly as a tool for defining the campaign setting being used.

But then, I do not want to get stuck with the same campaign setting forever On the long term, anything that introduces flexibility expands the game possibilities, which is positive, and backgrounds and multiclassing feats are like that.

The problem is, when they are available by default, the lead to the kitchen sink, i.e. every campaign setting using the default rules has too much ingredients and no distinct flavor.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What I don't want to see is cherry picking to the point where your multi-talented character ends up being more effective than a single focused one.