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

[Ruzak]

...
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.
...

I also like strong characters, so this dabbling approach sounds good at its face, but hard to pull off mechanically. If the spell or maneuver or whatever is much weaker than the full version it doesn't get used. The fighter cantrip only works for certain ability situations; most fighters should (IMHO) be more effective with a bow than even a wizard with an attack cantrip. The hard part seems to be giving abilities complementary to the regular class powers without stepping on the toes of the other class. In my past editions experience players who use dabbling multiclassing do so for flavor reasons, and unfortunately pay a mechanical price. (Not that this is really much of a problem for us.)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I also like strong characters, so this dabbling approach sounds good at its face, but hard to pull off mechanically. If the spell or maneuver or whatever is much weaker than the full version it doesn't get used. The fighter cantrip only works for certain ability situations; most fighters should (IMHO) be more effective with a bow than even a wizard with an attack cantrip. The hard part seems to be giving abilities complementary to the regular class powers without stepping on the toes of the other class. In my past editions experience players who use dabbling multiclassing do so for flavor reasons, and unfortunately pay a mechanical price. (Not that this is really much of a problem for us.)

If a rouge at level one got +1d6 sneak attack, and it increased until level 9 as +1d6 more every odd level, so
1 1d6
3 2d6
5 3d6
7 4d6
9 5d6
then starting at level 11 alternated between increased die code and extra dice

11 5d8
13 6d8
15 6d10
17 7d10
19 7d12

then having a feat that gave +1d4 sneak attack damage and a second feat that made it +2d6 (total replace d4) and a third giving you +3d8 that would be weaker but still a powerful string of feats...

giving fighter even +1d4 damage is awesome, and giving it to a mage would be very helpful...

 

[Minigiant]

I also like strong characters, so this dabbling approach sounds good at its face, but hard to pull off mechanically. If the spell or maneuver or whatever is much weaker than the full version it doesn't get used. The fighter cantrip only works for certain ability situations; most fighters should (IMHO) be more effective with a bow than even a wizard with an attack cantrip. The hard part seems to be giving abilities complementary to the regular class powers without stepping on the toes of the other class. In my past editions experience players who use dabbling multiclassing do so for flavor reasons, and unfortunately pay a mechanical price. (Not that this is really much of a problem for us.)

It is not too hard to do if the one designing it actually thinks about it and doesn't just toss it out as a morsel to playstyles they don't care for.

To me the best way would to do class features from feats in 2 ways.
1) A Lesser class feature at full strength. This is the cantrip as a feat. Cantrips are not major class features and would benefit mostly those who already have magic and a magic ability that lines up. A wizard could snag another cantrip if they really want one. A fighter does have extra attack for bow attack but is still very reliant on Dexterity to use them or switch to short ranged, Strength based throwing weapons. Picking up a cantrip would provide and option and would balance it around needing a high score in a nonfighter ability.

2) Major class feature at high cost and near full strength. This is the tricky one. This is giving out a true class feature like a levelled spell or sneak attack. The trick is keeping the cost high and the power under those of a true caster. I think a good measure is all your feats for 1/2 power. So a level 9 fighter could spend all their feats and ability adjustments to get the sneak attack of a 5th or 6th level rogue. Something like missing out on +4Str/+2Con or +4Str and Heavy Armor Mastery for +3d6 sneak attack is a fair trade.

The key is for the designers to actually care to do it and not force their biases in the game... again.

The only other method is to design classes with multiclassng in mind from day one. You usually sacrifice a the bas class a lot this way however unless you really want to put on work gloves.

 

[hafrogman]

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.

The specific sentence in question is the one you left off, a carry over from 3.X. "A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps." More explicitly spelled out in the disable device description is the point that nobody else can. For no value of character with any combination of feats, skills, training etc. With the sole exception of taking a level of basic rogue (and most archetypes give this up quickly, too) or ninja (I think that's the only other one) . . . nobody else can ever attempt this at all. Thus, after a certain point in the game, if your DM likes traps, you must have a rogue. And I'm sorry, but yes, I think disabling devices (i.e., breaking and entering) has a lot 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.

I absolutely want the rogue to be something else, yes. Because the lack of any character class that assumes an adventurer who gets by on training and skills as opposed to brute force or magic is always met with "well, play a rogue". So if that's the option, I want rogue to be as broad as possible, to fit as many archetypes and concepts within it as can fit in a player's mind.

And thus, I like a system that's broken open. I want feats that mimic class abilities. I want backgrounds that give you the ability to do something. I want classes that are broad and not tied down to specific concepts. I want thirty ways to come at the same goal, so that each one ends up the same, but different. That's real niche protection. Not so that people are forced to pick a specific build in order to fill needs, but that if two players decide that they want to play the same idea, their characters and mechanics can still end up different.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

I think what might suit you well in 5e is to go with the basic game, where feats and backgrounds are rolled into the class, and maybe allow some limited ability to swap on a case-by-case basis. Alternately, going at it from the other side, allow feats and backgrounds and just exclude those that are too "cross-classy" for you. The former would be safer, but the latter might allow more character variety (though if you're interested in strong class identity, that might not be a big attraction for you).

Personally, I'm a little psyched for "classless D&D" myself, where I can link powers to organizations in the world and have the PC's earn them as rewards, but that's just the kick I'm on. I'll probably swing back the other way in time. I'm kind of happy 5e will be able to do both!

 

[Kobold Stew]

If you want what a certain class has then pay the price and multi-class.

I disagree: If you want what a certain class has then pay the price and buy the feat.

Multiclassing is easy, and (based on what we've seen) easily broken; working through feats (especially when they are as rare as they seem to be in Next) operates within a much more constricted set of design parameters.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Even in a class-based game, I think there's room for something that says "I learned a little arcane magic, but I'm not like a wizard or anything." The multiclass system is still sufficiently flawed that we need a patch for characters that just want to dabble.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The specific sentence in question is the one you left off, a carry over from 3.X. "A rogue can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps." More explicitly spelled out in the disable device description is the point that nobody else can. For no value of character with any combination of feats, skills, training etc. With the sole exception of taking a level of basic rogue (and most archetypes give this up quickly, too) or ninja (I think that's the only other one) . . . nobody else can ever attempt this at all. Thus, after a certain point in the game, if your DM likes traps, you must have a rogue. And I'm sorry, but yes, I think disabling devices (i.e., breaking and entering) has a lot to do with being a thief.I absolutely want the rogue to be something else, yes. Because the lack of any character class that assumes an adventurer who gets by on training and skills as opposed to brute force or magic is always met with "well, play a rogue". So if that's the option, I want rogue to be as broad as possible, to fit as many archetypes and concepts within it as can fit in a player's mind.

And thus, I like a system that's broken open. I want feats that mimic class abilities. I want backgrounds that give you the ability to do something. I want classes that are broad and not tied down to specific concepts. I want thirty ways to come at the same goal, so that each one ends up the same, but different. That's real niche protection. Not so that people are forced to pick a specific build in order to fill needs, but that if two players decide that they want to play the same idea, their characters and mechanics can still end up different.

But rogues are the only ones who can backstab so that there is stereotyping the rogue as a sneaky opportunist, do you want that to change as well? Why not play a light armored fighter in Pathfinder or even a Lore Warden if you want all the skills. What is it exactly you want to create using the rogue but not have roguish abilities?

 

[Rhenny]

Next needs both, and both need to be optional. Those who want full multi-classing should use it. Those that don't want full multi-classing should use feats. Those that don't want any cross breeding can ignore both multi-classing and feats that grant class abilities.

This is a win - win for the game, modular design.