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

[Tigris]

Subclasses dont have Tier Bump Power Spikes.

You get Extra Attack from class.
Subclasses that give Extra Attack are the OP ones.

EDIT: Sry to late this was already discussed...

Well some do. Ranger level 11 does. While Monk level 11 does not and instead has the power spike level 10.

5.5 for some reason mixed this a bit up and is inconsistent making subclasses for some characters way stronger (higher power budget) than for others.


Still overall I flly agree with what you said, and I think one problem is also that power spikes are in uneven levels, instead of level 5, 10, 15 and 20. That would make some things like prestige classes a lot easier.

 

[Minigiant]

Well some do. Ranger level 11 does. While Monk level 11 does not and instead has the power spike level 10.

5.5 for some reason mixed this a bit up and is inconsistent making subclasses for some characters way stronger (higher power budget) than for others.


Still overall I flly agree with what you said, and I think one problem is also that power spikes are in uneven levels, instead of level 5, 10, 15 and 20. That would make some things like prestige classes a lot easier.

Thats initially the problem.

Lack of uniformity means PrC's cant work evenly among classes.

If Tier Bump Power Spike was 5, 10,15, 20 for every class. Then you could

For 1 class PrCs

• 5 levels of Base Class for Tier 2 Power Spike at level 5.
• 10 levels of Prestige Class for Tier 3 Power Spike at Prc5.
• 5 levels of Base Class when 10th level Tier 3 Power Spike is you Tier 4 Power Spike.

2 class PrCs

• 5 levels of a combination of 2 Base Classes
• 10 levels of Prestige Class for Tier 2 Power Spike at Prc1 and Tier 3 Power Spike at Prc5.
• 5 levels of Whatever. Build your own you Tier 4 Power Spike via a 2nd Epic Boon.

 

[Tigris]

Thats initially the problem.

Lack of uniformity means PrC's cant work evenly among classes.

If Tier Bump Power Spike was 5, 10,15, 20 for every class. Then you could

For 1 class PrCs

• 5 levels of Base Class for Tier 2 Power Spike at level 5.
• 10 levels of Prestige Class for Tier 3 Power Spike at Prc5.
• 5 levels of Base Class when 10th level Tier 3 Power Spike is you Tier 4 Power Spike.

2 class PrCs

• 5 levels of a combination of 2 Base Classes
• 10 levels of Prestige Class for Tier 2 Power Spike at Prc1 and Tier 3 Power Spike at Prc5.
• 5 levels of Whatever. Build your own you Tier 4 Power Spike via a 2nd Epic Boon.

I think lack of uniformity in 5e is in general a problem.

Subclasses in different levels with different classes means you cant have an universal subclass shared between several classes.


And even with classes sharing the levels they gain subclass features (like monk and ranger), the power budget between class and subclass is soo widely different that you cant do it as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Subclasses in different levels with different classes means you cant have an universal subclass shared between several classes.

This is true, but many subclasses reference abilities that the base class itself gives, barbarian and rage, paladin and channel divinity. It would be hard to make a generalized subclass that could work for barbarians and fighters, or paladins and rangers at least given the current implementation of the class designs. Not to mention the potential for synergizing well with some base classes and poorly with others.

To me I think it's one of those conceptual ideas that sounds easy, but is actually extremely difficult to get right. What typically happens is it pushes the overall class design toward sameness (not just in feature levels, but also in actual mechanics, in the power budget of class vs subclass and in many other ways). To enable general subclasses, the rest of the design has to be warped around that paradigm and I really don't think the tradeoffs to enable that would ultimately be desirable.

 

[Minigiant]

This is true, but many subclasses reference abilities that the base class itself gives, barbarian and rage, paladin and channel divinity. It would be hard to make a generalized subclass that could work for barbarians and fighters, or paladins and rangers at least given the current implementation of the class designs. Not to mention the potential for synergizing well with some base classes and poorly with others.

Universe classes would require universal expectations from subclass of classes.

Like how Hunter give 4.5 DPR. All offensive subclasses would have to give 4-8 DPR.

Too restricting unless you have certain types of designers.

 

[FrogReaver]

Universe classes would require universal expectations from subclass of classes.

Like how Hunter give 4.5 DPR. All offensive subclasses would have to give 4-8 DPR.

Too restricting unless you have certain types of designers.

yep. And would have to do so in very tightly controlled ways. To much disparity between number of attacks to reach that value limits the kinds of universal subclass abilities you can grant to stay in that range. Etc.

With design it's usually not that some singular idea cannot be achieved, it's whether after all the tradeoffs to achieve it whether it's really worth achieving anymore.

 

[Remathilis]

I think lack of uniformity in 5e is in general a problem.

Subclasses in different levels with different classes means you cant have an universal subclass shared between several classes.


And even with classes sharing the levels they gain subclass features (like monk and ranger), the power budget between class and subclass is soo widely different that you cant do it as well.

I'm of two minds on this:

I was a big proponent of subclasses having universal levels (3, 6, 10, 14) if for nothing more than the fact too many classes get subs too late or too few. But universal subclasses that could swap would require uniform classes and that is really only achievable if everything is tightly buttoned down and that leads to D&D 4e/PF 2e style systems of powers or feats doing everything. So I don't know that kind of mixing and matching is possible without rebuilding classes to function like a 4e/2e collection of individual pieces you assemble a character with.

 

[Tigris]

I'm of two minds on this:

I was a big proponent of subclasses having universal levels (3, 6, 10, 14) if for nothing more than the fact too many classes get subs too late or too few. But universal subclasses that could swap would require uniform classes and that is really only achievable if everything is tightly buttoned down and that leads to D&D 4e/PF 2e style systems of powers or feats doing everything. So I don't know that kind of mixing and matching is possible without rebuilding classes to function like a 4e/2e collection of individual pieces you assemble a character with.

I am not sure if its necessary to this extreme. The only thing necessarily is to have the power budget split roughly in the same ratio between class and subclass for all classes.

Also I think I worded it not ideal: I do not think that all/most subclasses should be universal. Or rather I meant more subclasses which could be used for several classes. Not sure if there could be even a real universal one (maybe some rare ones), but it should be possible to share some subclasses between several classes.

Like the "half caster" subclass could be used by all pure martials. Getting casting level 3, getting cantrip as extra attack level 6 etc.


Just having the opportunity to have some subclasses shared between several classes in an easy way.

 

[Silam]

I think lack of uniformity in 5e is in general a problem.

Subclasses in different levels with different classes means you cant have an universal subclass shared between several classes.


And even with classes sharing the levels they gain subclass features (like monk and ranger), the power budget between class and subclass is soo widely different that you cant do it as well.

I strongly agree with this and the next few posts.

Universal subclasses are in theory possible but retroffiting that on top of 5.Xe would require so much work that the end result might be unrecognizable, and all the tradeoffs made along the way may be a bitter pill to swallow. It would basically be 6e (and D&D doesn’t have it easy with even numbered editions…).

Rather than building 6e, I think there is a 5.75e within reach, and it takes us full circle back to the OP… "prestige feat paths" can be tacked on in a compatible way, that doesn’t require redesigning everything, and is fully optional. Those who don’t care for it can safely ignore it.

Subclasses are well-designed for extending the classes and hooking into class-specific mechanics. The EK can have Arcane Charge because the Fighter has Action Surge. It makes no sense as a generic or univeral thing, but it fits perfectly as a subclass feature.

The alternative, "prestige feat paths", can be for things that are intended to be more universal. The Mage Slayer feat is useful for many different builds, and that’s why it’s great to have it as a feat and not as a subclass feature. It could become the entry point of a "Mage Slayer Path" by being the prereq for a handful of other feats. Those other feats should either be based off of a class-free mechanic (e.g., Proficiency Bonus) or else have some sort of scaling factor that relates to the feats themselves (e.g., "you can use this ability N+1 times per short rest, where N is the number of feats you have with Mage Slayer as a prereq" or something like that).

Feats are the flexible mechanic that is most decoupled from classes, and that is why I view them as a logical choice for building on top off.

Doesn’t mean there needs to be 300 new feats. But the subclasses that don’t really fit as subclasses, because they are not hooked into their parent class’ features, or because they are relevant to many classes, could be converted into feats and available via either mechanism. But more interestingly, rather than bloating the subclass catalog, future subclasses should be considered for designing as prestige feat paths instead.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rather than building 6e, I think there is a 5.75e within reach, and it takes us full circle back to the OP… "prestige feat paths" can be tacked on in a compatible way, that doesn’t require redesigning everything, and is fully optional. Those who don’t care for it can safely ignore it.

A bit of pushback here. Why won't 'prestige feat paths' have the same kinds of issues we just talked about with universal subclasses? I guess i should clarify, issues other than the needing to redesign all 5e class bits, because i agree that isn't related. But the same kinds of issues that not redesigning all the 5e class bits would cause with universal subclasses in 5e.

The alternative, "prestige feat paths", can be for things that are intended to be more universal.

That's feats in general.

The Mage Slayer feat is useful for many different builds, and that’s why it’s great to have it as a feat and not as a subclass feature. It could become the entry point of a "Mage Slayer Path" by being the prereq for a handful of other feats. Those other feats should either be based off of a class-free mechanic (e.g., Proficiency Bonus)

But why not just have any other similar feats listed separately? What is the desire to have another feat as a prereq there at all based on?

or else have some sort of scaling factor that relates to the feats themselves (e.g., "you can use this ability N+1 times per short rest, where N is the number of feats you have with Mage Slayer as a prereq" or something like that).

This particular idea sounds absolutely terrible to me. Feats where they only improve if you take others in a sublist. There's no real way to balance this around anything other than a player taking all those feats, which means either your remaining feat slots get loaded up with them or you don't bother with that kind of feat at all. It's one of those, suck for a few levels to be really good later ideas. I'm solidly against that.

Feats are the flexible mechanic that is most decoupled from classes, and that is why I view them as a logical choice for building on top off.

The 5e implementation leaves very few feat slots. That's one major limitation of trying to force too much heavy lifting into feats.

Doesn’t mean there needs to be 300 new feats. But the subclasses that don’t really fit as subclasses, because they are not hooked into their parent class’ features, or because they are relevant to many classes, could be converted into feats and available via either mechanism. But more interestingly, rather than bloating the subclass catalog, future subclasses should be considered for designing as prestige feat paths instead.

I'm not against some specific use case for the idea, but I don't think it's a good thing to proliferate even to a moderate degree, or to suggest outside of some very specific use case as opposed to the general design direction you are suggesting.