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

[CreamCloud0]

For power games and optimizers, which are a small minority of players. For casual players and the rest of us who don't care about that sort of thing, terrible does not exist.

eeeh, i think it's quite a stretch to say that casuals and the rest of us 'don't care about that sort of thing', it might not be our first priority but i think it still registers as a notable factor for a vast majority of people, they don't like it and it doesn't feel good when their flavour pick isn't pulling it's weight, when they start dragging behind, you might feel otherwise, but from what i've read of your posting (i'm fairly sure it's you i'm thinking of) i think this may just be a point where your opinion on this not mattering err's slightly stronger than the average temperature here.

 

[CreamCloud0]

One of the interesting things about Paths leaning into Feats is that Fighters and Rogues both have more opportunity for Paths than spellcasters

i mean, technically true, but not by much.

 

[SkidAce]

One of the interesting things about Paths leaning into Feats is that Fighters and Rogues both have more opportunity for Paths than spellcasters

By design i think. Attempt to offset some of the various tricks spellcasters have.

Did it work? Not sure.

 

[Maxperson]

eeeh, i think it's quite a stretch to say that casuals and the rest of us 'don't care about that sort of thing', it might not be our first priority but i think it still registers as a notable factor for a vast majority of people, they don't like it and it doesn't feel good when their flavour pick isn't pulling it's weight, when they start dragging behind, you might feel otherwise, but from what i've read of your posting (i'm fairly sure it's you i'm thinking of) i think this may just be a point where your opinion on this not mattering err's slightly stronger than the average temperature here.

It was casual players.........and the rest of us who don't care about those things. I wasn't saying all casual players don't care, but casual players also don't track what level and tier power spikes, or DPR, or the other optimizer/power gamer stuff. Some will broadly pick something they perceive to be better than something else, but they might be wrong or it still might not be the absolute best thing for their class and level.

In 5e, virtually everything pulls its weight when compared to the game system. If you are playing with a power game it might not feel like your PC is pulling it's weight, but it is. The power gamer's PC is just pulling a whole lot more than its weight.

 

[Minigiant]

I understand your points, but the person I quoted was talking about homogeneity, so I was wondering about their viewpoint..

Well in games like D&D, people like to feel that their character is useful. And a way to make sure every character hits the group's threshold of usefulness is via homogeneity of structure.

D&D also has another aspect of character uniqueness within party. it isnt a shooter RPG where you can deal with 3 assault riflemen but only 1 sniper.

 

[Clint_L]

An honest question to gain perspective....

How much does "homogeneity" matter for you? It seems to matter on the internet, cause many of us read the class guides with letter ranks and color codes, and over time as you say they "home in" on certain builds.

I prefer greater diversity, but not so much that distinctiveness is lost. Right now, I think D&D has too many classes, let alone subclasses.

While they were doing that our group might be in the position to have created an additional character? Maybe not.

If you play with a constantly changing set of players, and a lot of them, I can see that repetitiveness could show up (if they online searched optimal builds) and become annoying.

I note that you play with a lot of beginners (at a school I think? Huzzah!).

Do a lot of those beginners fall into the optimal build trap?

I do play with a constantly changing set of players at D&D Club, but they are mostly newbies so they do better with distinct options that are not too complex. However, maybe a third have considerable experience, and they typically are much more interested in optimization.

Typically what happens is newbies start with D&D in Grade 9, and then if they get "the bug" they start their own groups, and by graduation are trying out all kind of different systems. We are called "D&D Club" because that's by far the most recognizable brand, and that's the introductory system I use on the reasoning that it will give kids the most opportunities to find other players (that's also why I always use the most current version). However, it's really a TTRPG club, and aside from running a beginner campaign, I mostly just facilitate finding times and spaces where the independent groups can play, plus occasional one-offs for students and staff who just want to know what D&D is about.

Edit: Though Dread is the system I use with groups who just want a really basic introduction to the concept of roleplaying, or for creative writing classes when I want to work on the concept of developing narrative tension. I've also used Fiasco as a means of learning act structure.

TLDR: A feats-based system would be very hard to do with many new players. It's usually the kind of thing players "graduate" to.

 

[SkidAce]

I prefer greater diversity, but not so much that distinctiveness is lost. Right now, I think D&D has too many classes, let alone subclasses.


I do play with a constantly changing set of players at D&D Club, but they are mostly newbies so they do better with distinct options that are not too complex. However, maybe a third have considerable experience, and they typically are much more interested in optimization.

Typically what happens is newbies start with D&D in Grade 9, and then if they get "the bug" they start their own groups, and by graduation are trying out all kind of different systems. We are called "D&D Club" because that's by far the most recognizable brand, and that's the introductory system I use on the reasoning that it will give kids the most opportunities to find other players (that's also why I always use the most current version). However, it's really a TTRPG club, and aside from running a beginnier campaign, I mostly just facilitate finding times and spaces where the independent groups can play, plus occasional one-offs for students and staff who just want to know what D&D is about.

TLDR: A feats-based system would be very hard to do with many new players. It's usually the kind of thing players "graduate" to.

Thank you.

 

[Silam]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

I feel like pushing subclasses to level 3 in 2024, outside of theory crafting level 20 characters has mostly put a stop to multiclassing based primarily on subclass abilities at actual tables.

Sure, that certainly happened to me. One of my 2014 builds relying on a Life Cleric dip was busted and converting it to 2024 was not super attractive. (Thankfully we kept that particular campaign in 2014 …)

IMO, Feats are very interesting, you just don't get enough of them as is, let alone if trying to add in using them for lightweight multiclassing, which due to the current design will ensure that at best this will be good for a few classes and bad for all the others.

I think very few feats are going to be attractive to all classes and that’s fine. In fact, it’s a bit of design smell if a feat is attractive to all builds. Maybe the feat is super carefully designed to appeal in a perfectly balanced way to all classes… but most likely the feat is simply overpowered and that’s why it’s useful to everyone.

We are already mostly there. For 2024, most characters in 1-10 level range (most played range) are choosing feats ahead of ASI's.

I think the big problem is looking to level 20. That's not where the game is played. Except as an intellectual exercise those levels really don't matter.

I guess that’s true… I have played very few characters all the way to 20 or epic levels. Though personally I still enjoy planning my builds to 20, even though I know full well the odds of getting there are low. It gives me a sense of direction. It may be a "shoot for the moon and if you miss you’ll still end up somewhere among the stars" kinda thing

But what this means for the current state is that all these feats you want to make aren't going to be used unless their similarly as useful (in which case you don't really need prereqs or feat chains), and they will only possibly be highly useful for a small subset of classes - striking down the primary purpose you wanted them for at the beginning (as universal prestige paths / feat chains).

I think there is a misunderstanding there. Universal is a bit too grandiose. There is a big space of opportunity between "such universality that every build could want it" and "it’s a subclass so too bad if you belong to another class, cuz it ain’t it for you, sucka!"…

Basically, any feat that appeals to more than one class but less than all classes is a win in my book.

There is a lot of arcane caster-type stuff that should be made compatible with both Wizards and Sorcerers (e.g., Elemental Adept). If that stuff lands in a subclass, then by definition it either cannot work for both, or it has to be redone for both parent classes, which means redundant bloat.

That’s why the Path of the Lich is attractive. It should be available to Sorcs and Wizards. I have grief about many details of the Lich Path just like everyone else (the main one being that it should not end at level 12, it should end with an Epic Boon), but I still like the general idea, if it could be polished.

I definitely do NOT want the Path of the Lich to be universally attractive. If it is, then that means it’s overpowered or otherwise badly designed.

I'm fine adding more feats, but there are pros and cons for the game design embracing feat chains/prestige paths using feats/mutliclassing using feats and for me those cons outweigh the few pros we might get.

That may be true. But when you say "for me", does it mean:

1. For my builds, I’m not interested in sinking 2+ feats into something, but I’m fine looking the other way if the option exists, or…
2. For my game, I’m concerned it’ll be utterly broken if that thing appears and even just a single player at my table picks it for their build?

Almost everything that you want to achieve can be acheived by making stand alone feats and allowing the player to freestyle pick them as they already do.

I’m a fan of prereq-free feats too.

It doesn't have to if you aren't trying to make universal prestige paths out of them. But since that's the justification for feat chains then

I'll try to address more later.

Hopefully, the above clarifies things regarding universality…

 

[Minigiant]

It was casual players.........and the rest of us who don't care about those things. I wasn't saying all casual players don't care, but casual players also don't track what level and tier power spikes, or DPR, or the other optimizer/power gamer stuff. Some will broadly pick something they perceive to be better than something else, but they might be wrong or it still might not be the absolute best thing for their class and level

Casuals dont track power spikes.

A causal might make a Fighter3/Bard3 for flavor. But when the Barbarian Player is attacking twice whereas they are still casting level 1 spells....

 

[CreamCloud0]

tangentially, i was thinking the other day, totem barbarian feels like something that could've ought to of been a ranger subclass, if you removed most of the reliance on the boons activating on the requirement of rage, bear totem would be busted further but it was always busted so like, it's not moving it to the ranger that's doing that.