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

[CreamCloud0]

i do agree that 5e probably needs more customization opportunities in character progression but i don't think a primarily feat-based progression is the ideal solution, i think the class-subclass structure is a good base but that needs to be better supplemented with more feats that are also more impactful to how the character plays, including some features that are part of other subclass progressions but would not be as powerful or would more expensive as a feat than when given as part of subclass progression.

 

[Remathilis]

I will prefer a feat tree solution over bbn1/ftr2/rog3/prestige class X builds.

 

[Silam]

I agree with you about the basic problem even if I'd attribute it to levels not classes.

That's an intriguing distinction, which I don't think I'm fully able to grasp right now. What is a class without levels?

 

[FrogReaver]

I hear you… but the issues you describe are exactly the ones I have with the class system…

I mean sure, even without considering multiclassing the class system does tend incentivize deciding between the whole set of class abilities (or at least the partial set for the levels you usually play).

That's aligned with it's purpose of being a thematic package of abilities that they can balance the game around.

Each level of a class is a "unit of progress" which has the prereq of possessing the previous level of the class. Subclasses make this slightly more complex but ultimately it’s still mostly the same.

Multiclassing is optional even though often used. This particular view doesn't align with the base game, where once you've chosen your class their are no other decisions (except subclass and a few feat choices).

If we consider just the classes and ignore the subclasses, that’s 12 x 20 = 240 atomic units of progress, all but 12 of which (the 1st levels) are free of prepreqs (and even the 1st levels are not totally free of prereqs since you need 13 in one or two stats to have them in a multiclass build).

If I’m interested in one of those atomic units of progress, I need every single prereq (i.e., previous levels of that class), to get it.

To me, this sounds more like an argument against 5e style multiclassing than 5e style classes.

Those 240 class levels + 200-ish subclass levels are spread across >100 pages. Furthermore, all that stuff includes a fair bit of redundant info (i.e., how much boilerplate is there with all the spellcasting class features that are almost identical except very slight tweaks, and all the Extra Attack, and Weapon Mastery, and Fighting Style, etc which are redundant across classes?)…

I say thank goodness they included that redundancy. It makes actually reading and learning the rules so much easier.

To call this simpler is an opinion, and as far as opinions go it’s legitimate. But it’s not necessarily a fact that it’s actually simpler. Maybe if you just pick one of the 48 subclasses randomly and build a single class character with it, then yeah, it’s simple. But compared to reading a list of feats and working out the prereqs, it’s hard to make the case that reading a list of class features and trying to fit them into a build is actually simpler.

Making 1 single class choice out of 12 options is much simpler than making 20 choices out of 240 smaller options, especially when many have prereqs.

It's one reason I view 5e multiclassing as a necessary evil instead of ideal design.

 

[saviirkad]

Personally, I like the idea of the feat chains we got, they will be helpful.

But the ideal form of them is the two-feat chains we've been getting IMO. I don't mind if they branch out from "Origin - lvl 4" scope, like if they did an 8+ and 12+ twofer.

I'm fine with the idea of more than two feats as long as they are not linked in a chain, even loosely. Like having a handful of themed feats, like we got with Eberron or Astarion.

 

[Weiley31]

I always thought the 5E Prestige Class should have been an optional 5 class level range that you took at Levels 15-20 to charge up your class's ending path/features.

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.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's an intriguing distinction, which I don't think I'm fully able to grasp right now. What is a class without levels?

A PbtA style playbook is an example of a class without levels. Your starting character has a role and distinct abilities that can be silo'd away from other classes, but when you level up your advancement is picked from a list rather than lockstep (so in the Apocalypse World advancements below for the brainer you get one advancement each time you get 5XP - and the bottom half of the advancements only open up when someone has five in the top half). Although characters do grow there is nothing saying that they grow remotely in the same way. And Apocalypse World classes are IMO more distinct than D&D classes because their class is their role in the world so the Hardholder (town boss) is doing something you simply don't see in D&D.

Daggerheart does a decent hybrid where at each level you get three advances (two ticks and a domain card) and can e.g. choose never to get extra hit points while at levels 2, 5, and 8 you also go up a tier and everyone gets extra proficiency and extra options.

Your class dictates how you start, levels dictate how you advance. And I'm fully in favour of classes for worldbuilding and starting campaigns and consider "lockstep levels" harmful to character growth.

 

[Minigiant]

Feat Chains are not neccessarily bad.

But 5e feat system was not made to

1. Be chained
2. Be subclass replaceable
3. Be major Chains of how you play

Time for 6e.

Next time dont downvote every change that isnt backwards compatible if you want newness.

Edit: not

 

[Pamphylian]

Personally, I hope that 5e/D&D doesn't go in this direction - I'd be happy to leave feat chains to the Pathfinders. 5e occupies a nice middle zone of character build complexity between TSR/OSR type games and Pathfinder 2e etc. that it actually doesn't have much competition for, and I think it'd be a shame to move strongly out of that niche. I think feats as a once-every-few-levels-at-most choice fits well with this style. My experience with extensive feet trees is that it tempts both designers and players to think about a lot of gameplay as choices between feats - even if not the intention, they seem to move things out of in-world thinking and toward video-game like "which feat should I use now" thinking. Because so much of in game behavior gets defined by them, they also can become a sort of extended body of rules for adjudicating situations, which I don't think is ideal.

 

[Blue]

Feat chains vs. subclasses in terms of stopping undesirable behavior

• Cherry picking: Feat chains - not protected. Subclasses - protected.
• "Tax" ones that are too good: Feat chains: some protection of needing another feat first. Subclasses - opportunity cost of entry make taking a class just to pick up a higher level feature from a subclass is quite high.
• Providing variety across charactes: Feat chains - open to anyone, multiple characters of the same general category might double up, or we could see it multiple campaigns in a row. Subclasses - Unusual to have two PCs with the same class, even moreso also having the same subclass.

Now, stopping undesirable behavior is only one facet of character creations/advancement, but it is an important one.

The "Oh, yet another front-liner with the XX feat chain. Third campaign in a row. How.... novel." since we know that there is no such thing as perfectly balancing feats, and making it more accessible than requiring a specific class opens it up even more.