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

[Remathilis]

Feat Chains are neccessarily bad.

Long chains are bad. This is at best three feats. We already have several two feat chains. This adds an additional feat for a specific outcome: a transformation into something not class restricted.

But 5e feat system was not made to

It has changed significantly since it's creation. It was not designed to have a level 1 feat tied to background either but the system has worked.

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

No, no and no. They didn't want complicated builds where you need to pick combat expertise and dodge to get whirlwind attack, but literally every book since they Strixhaven has has short chains. This takes it one step farther.

Time for 6e.

Lol no. If this is enough to break 5e, then 5e was broken from the start.

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

Now that I'll agree with you on, stupid pact magic surviving...

 

[Remathilis]

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

Undesirable to who? I don't imagine a wave of PCs all want to be liches. It's not even the most beneficial build considering you give up fey touched and resilient (con) which are important for a caster. I think people need to build a few liches and death knights to see if the price is worth it. I think it's going to be a rather niche option.

Of course, the alternative is a death knight fighter subclass and a lich wizard subclass. But I don't think that fits the feel of either.

 

[Minigiant]

Long chains are bad. This is at best three feats. We already have several two feat chains. This adds an additional feat for a specific outcome: a transformation into something not class restricted

You get too few feats and get them too slowly for this to work.

It has changed significantly since it's creation. It was not designed to have a level 1 feat tied to background either but the system has worked

It didnt change much.

Every feat was adjust to be a half feat or half as strong.

The problem is the frequency, progression, and scaling.

5.0 was designed to be feat optional and survey takers kept WOTC from rejiggering the system.

No, no and no. They didn't want complicated builds where you need to pick combat expertise and dodge to get whirlwind attack, but literally every book since they Strixhaven has has short chains. This takes it one step farther.

You could do that.

Im saying 5.5e feat system is stuck their the optional skeleton remains of 5.0.

Like I said over and over. There should be 5 or more types of feat

1. Origin
2. Specialization (level 4)
3. Flavor
4. Heroic (level 8)
5. Paragon Path (level 12)
6. Epic Boon (level 19)

At the different levels, the class tells you which kind of feat to take. And if you take a lower feat, you know, you're taking a weaker feat.

But this way, the type of feats are tied to a sermon power level. And thus you can now create paths and feet trees by having a basic origin feat for them. Which links to the heroic feat, The Paragon feat and then possibly an Epic feat.

But this would require a lot of new feats and redoing power levels.

 

[Blue]

Undesirable to who? I don't imagine a wave of PCs all want to be liches.

Yes, and the premise of this thread is about Feat Chains being a good design thing, encouraging them as a regular design element. In other words, a proliferation of them.

And undesirable to who? Well, considering that the three points I've listed are generally considered bad design, to just about anyone who understands game design and doesn't think feat taxes are a good idea.

The rest of your points are only focusing on what is in the UA, not focusing on the thread's "WotC leans into it more in the future" and all of the positive push for them, so it doesn't address the context my comments are made in.

 

[Minigiant]

Here is my hot take:

Neither Subclasses nor Feat Chains are better than each other. 5e just does both slightly incorrectly and lacks a 3rd option AND is too afraid to invest in additional subsystems like Manuevers, Runes, and this new Death Points.
basically, death points should be their own subsystem, where you get access to them. Via a subclass, by taking a feat, or both.

If it were me designing fifth edition, would be a death point system? And you would get access to the Death Point system by either

1. Death Domain Cleric Subclass
2. Shadow Sorcerer Subclass
3. Undying Warlock Subclass
4. Necromancer Wizard Subclass
5. Shadow Touched General Feat
6. Vampire Plaything Origin feat

You get Prof bonus Death Bonus and you can take the Death knight Ascension Feat or Lich Ascension feat or Vampiric Embrace to complete transformation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Long chains are bad. This is at best three feats. We already have several two feat chains. This adds an additional feat for a specific outcome: a transformation into something not class restricted.

Long is relative to opportunity cost. Chains of two feats are chains of eight entire levels of character customisation and chains of three are chains of twelve entire levels. This isn't Pathfinder or even 4e. These in reality are long chains.

Lol no. If this is enough to break 5e, then 5e was broken from the start.

I've said before and I'll say again 5e's lack of post-tier 1 advancement customisation except for charisma casters is a serious flaw. 5e was broken from the start (no game is perfect) and this makes things worse.

Now that I'll agree with you on, stupid pact magic surviving...

Is one of the few bright spots in 5e preventing everyone from being a bland cookie cutter caster or martial, all homogenised. And it's a good thing that the fanbase didn't let the reactionaries strip the variety out of the game.

 

[Minigiant]

Is one of the few bright spots in 5e preventing everyone from being a bland cookie cutter caster or martial, all homogenised. And it's a good thing that the fanbase didn't let the reactionaries strip the variety out of the game

It was good and it was bad.

The fanbase prevented both the good ideas and the bad ones.

Pact Magic isnt the worst.
But not unifying feats and subclasses allowed WOTC designers to not care about truly think about tiers and help reinforce old cookie cutters.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It was good and it was bad.

The fanbase prevented both the good ideas and the bad ones.

Pact Magic isnt the worst.
But not unifying feats and subclasses allowed WOTC designers to not care about truly think about tiers and help reinforce old cookie cutters.

I don't want feats and subclasses unified. Layers of choices and customisation are a good thing.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't want feats and subclasses unified. Layers of choices and customisation are a good thing.

Not unified together.

Just have subclasses use unified levels between classes and feats used unified* levels between classses.

Subclass could be 3rd, 6th, 10th...
Feat could be 1st, 4th, 8th, 12th...

*some classes could have bonus feats

 

[Remathilis]

Is one of the few bright spots in 5e preventing everyone from being a bland cookie cutter caster or martial, all homogenised. And it's a good thing that the fanbase didn't let the reactionaries strip the variety out of the game.

Ironically, the arcane restoration feat for the lich is useless for a Warlock, despite the fact you'd think the undead warlock would be the perfect candidate for this. But pact magic yet again fails to work with any other magic rules in the game and requires designers to develop complex workarounds to avoid breaking it.

I'd rather have homogenization than every time a new ability that affects spellcasting is released trying to figure out how pact magic breaks it.