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

[Tonguez]

Are there no crazy builds in 5e?

Is there something inherent about feats being prereqs for other feats which exacerbates this?

Not trying to pull your leg or anything. I’m genuinely curious. I’ve played 3.5e quite a bit so feel free to point out anything in particular that you feel is relevant, and I might remember…

One of the issues that people cite regarding 3.5e is the proliforation of feats, especially 3rd party splatbook feats which were sometimes pointless, unbalance or not well considered. Feat chains in particular could lock you into rigid lines that ended up being traps - though personally I think the same is true of some subclass abilities too.
Having come from GURPS, I personally loved the customisability, but do agree that the bloat did make things more complex and tended to add to the bonus stacking problem. (I stopped playing GURPs due to complexity too)

 

[Li Shenron]

Feat chains were in 5e before the start i.e. in the 2012-2014 playtest at some point. I don't remember if they were called "themes".

And yes, they are a great concept. They don’t compete with subclasses though. Subclasses are class-specific augmentations of the base class concept, and feats are open to all. If any spellcaster can become a Lich, then making a Lich subclass just wouldn't work.

 

[Corinnguard]

Maybe WotC took inspiration from A5E!

The Synergy Feats in A5e weren't the only thing that WoTC took inspiration from. It also looks like they were inspired by A5e's Exploration and Social Interaction pillars. There is mention of these pillars in the 5.5 PHB. They just need to take the next step with them. Actual class features.

 

[Marandahir]

The Synergy Feats in A5e weren't the only thing that WoTC took inspiration from. It also looks like they were inspired by A5e's Exploration and Social Interaction pillars. There is mention of these pillars in the 5.5 PHB. They just need to take the next step with them. Actual class features.

All three pillars were introduced by WotC during D&D Next. A5E just did more with the Exploration and Social Pillars than D&D 5E had. D&D 5.5E are almost certainly not taking inspiration from A5E on this point, as these are ideas that arise naturally from a study of past editions of the game, and WotC explicitely doesn't read emails with suggested game ideas in case they do something similar by coincidence later (it's a legal nightmare).

 

[Silam]

Feat chains were in 5e before the start i.e. in the 2012-2014 playtest at some point. I don't remember if they were called "themes".

I didn’t know. I think I played the playtest just once or maybe not at all. But in any case, I didn’t read it in-depth.

And yes, they are a great concept. They don’t compete with subclasses though. Subclasses are class-specific augmentations of the base class concept, and feats are open to all. If any spellcaster can become a Lich, then making a Lich subclass just wouldn't work.

Exactly, though I think there are many concepts that would have benefitted (and can still benefit in the future!) from being a bundle of feats rather than a subclass. For example, my favorite of all time, the Bladesinger. To me, it’s not quite right to make it into a subclass of the Wizard. It would have been better as feats. A5E did that with their Bladechanter synergy feats, though they made it a TWF thing which is not quite right either flavor-wise, IMHO.

But in any case, these problematic subclasses could be converted fully or partially into feats in the future, thus giving additional options. Just like we have Magic Initiate, Metamagic Adept, etc…

The Synergy Feats in A5e weren't the only thing that WoTC took inspiration from. It also looks like they were inspired by A5e's Exploration and Social Interaction pillars. There is mention of these pillars in the 5.5 PHB. They just need to take the next step with them. Actual class features.

Didn’t Crawford say that RP was no longer part of the rules by design? Like Paladins no longer actually needing to adhere to their oath nor pay the tithe, and still retain their powers. To me, this is all the same trend of "Social is Optional (and up to the DM if it’s there at all)".

 

[Morrus]

Maybe WotC took inspiration from A5E!

I very much doubt that! But if they did, that's fine--it's not like A5E didn't take inspiration from D&D!

 

[Remathilis]

More than the chains themselves, I'm happy they are experimenting with feats that require level 8+ and 12+. Having every feat be Appropriate for a level 4 PC made them less attractive as you progressed.

 

[BenjaminPey]

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+.

 

[Silam]

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+.

To each their own, and no system can be appreciated by all, but that being said…

I think there is common knee jerk reaction in this conversation to label this as "feat chains" and automatically ascribe all of the issues of that mechanic.

But these are not really chains. They have a starting point and an ending point, but many paths to get from one to the other. They are more flexible than a fully linear chain. Subclasses are much more like chains than these paths are…

 

[BenjaminPey]

To each their own, and no system can be appreciated by all, but that being said…

I think there is common knee jerk reaction in this conversation to label this as "feat chains" and automatically ascribe all of the issues of that mechanic.

But these are not really chains. They have a starting point and an ending point, but many paths to get from one to the other. They are more flexible than a fully linear chain. Subclasses are much more like chains than these paths are…

Let's not get bogged down in semantics, shall we? These are feats and you choose among many at different points on a path,
so some interactions will work better than others, as in they'll give you more power, more screen time, more ressources, and they're so many and so many potential interactions that it gets increasingly difficult to correctly balanced them all. That's the thing I've almost no interest in. I love the 5e architecture where there's not really a good option, at least theoretically (errors are still possible, obviously), only roughly equivalent ones. The more you add feats and decision points around feats, the more you'll drift from this theoretical equilibrium, IMO, and the more you have a game where system mastery is needed rather than a game every kid around could play as well.