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

[FrogReaver]

It's not even just RP/Story. You are giving up one kind of power(max level spells, etc.) for greatly increased versatility, which is itself a different kind of power. The power equals out, just not with the same kind of power.

I don’t think it holds that they are equal power. Versatility is a kind of power but it’s not necessarily equal. It can be more, it can be less.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think it holds that they are equal power. Versatility is a kind of power but it’s not necessarily equal. It can be more, it can be less.

Roughly equal, then. Folks here seem to be saying "Combat power or you suck!" and that's just not how it goes. Combat is just one portion of the game, and for many games it's not even the biggest. Versatility is king in games where combat isn't outsized as a pillar.

 

[FrogReaver]

Roughly equal, then. Folks here seem to be saying "Combat power or you suck!" and that's just not how it goes. Combat is just one portion of the game, and for many games it's not even the biggest. Versatility is king in games where combat isn't outsized as a pillar.

I dunno about that either, most of the supposed versatility increases usually talked about are geared toward combat

 

[Maxperson]

I dunno about that either, most of the supposed versatility increases usually talked about are geared toward combat

I'm not, though. Take the fighter 3/bard 3 from several posts back. It will be far better at exploration, social, and utility than the barbarian, while still being good at combat. Not as good as the barbarian 6 at combat, but still good. And it has bardic inspiration to buff allies in and out of combat, including the barbarian!

 

[TwoSix]

Roughly equal, then. Folks here seem to be saying "Combat power or you suck!" and that's just not how it goes. Combat is just one portion of the game, and for many games it's not even the biggest. Versatility is king in games where combat isn't outsized as a pillar.

Yes, but it's the pillar in which your character is much more likely to die than any of the others; modern play in 5e rarely includes exploration or social challenges that would actually kill a character. And since character death is generally the only occurrence that players will register as a "loss condition", it makes sense that many players will prioritize it.

Plus, plenty of tables use player-DM negotiation and mediation for resolution of non-combat challenges, which makes spending limited character resources on improving resolution methods that won't (or rarely) be used a poor trade for those games.

So even in a game with a broad swathe of play in different "pillars", it often makes sense to evaluate mechanics primarily for their usefulness in combat.

The best designs, IMO, are the ones that marry strong concepts and narrative with a compelling mechanical differentiator. A hard target to hit, but worthwhile to chase.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not, though. Take the fighter 3/bard 3 from several posts back. It will be far better at exploration, social, and utility than the barbarian, while still being good at combat. Not as good as the barbarian 6 at combat, but still good.

I wouldn’t classify fighter 3 / bard 3 as anything but abysmal at combat.

And it has bardic inspiration to buff allies in and out of combat, including the barbarian!

Yea. All 3 uses of those a day…

 

[Silam]

I wouldn’t classify fighter 3 / bard 3 as anything but abysmal at combat.

"Abysmal" is harsh…

I forget if it’s in this thread or another, but it’s been mentioned that 5e in general is not that hard. I think that sentiment stems from very forgiving rest and healing mechanics, as well as a dirth of fatal mechanics in the game as a whole.

This, of course, is a matter of frame of reference. The people saying 5e is easy might have experience with 2e, which featured concepts such as saving throws against death, against disintegration, and metabolic shock. For those who don’t know or remember, all three are latin for "you die". Not a paltry 10d6+40 damage. You just die. Straight up. No appeal.

In 5e everything is negotiable. Saves, advantage, rerolls, and in the worst case you merely suffer a bit of HP damage, if it even depletes your temp HPs first, after having accounted for your damage resistance.

Anyway, the point is, you could have an imbalanced level party featuring a 6th level Barbarian and a 3rd level Fighter and they would probably both have a jolly time smashing orc skulls and adding notches to their axe handles.

Saying that the 3rd level Fighter would no longer hold their own if 3 levels of Bard are inflicted onto the build is mightily pessimistic (and this is coming from someone who is absolutely NOT a fan of 5e Bards).

If we’re talking about the one final boss fight of the adventure, ok then maybe it’ll rip a bit at the seams. But assuming the DM isn’t a psychopath, it’s probably all good regardless.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Abysmal" is harsh…

Yes and deserved. Notably i did restrict that abysmal to combat.

I forget if it’s in this thread or another, but it’s been mentioned that 5e in general is not that hard. I think that sentiment stems from very forgiving rest and healing mechanics, as well as a dirth of fatal mechanics in the game as a whole.

This, of course, is a matter of frame of reference. The people saying 5e is easy might have experience with 2e, which featured concepts such as saving throws against death, against disintegration, and metabolic shock. For those who don’t know or remember, all three are latin for "you die". Not a paltry 10d6+40 damage. You just die. Straight up. No appeal.

In 5e everything is negotiable. Saves, advantage, rerolls, and in the worst case you merely suffer a bit of HP damage, if it even depletes your temp HPs first, after having accounted for your damage resistance.

Anyway, the point is, you could have an imbalanced level party featuring a 6th level Barbarian and a 3rd level Fighter and they would probably both have a jolly time smashing orc skulls and adding notches to their axe handles.

Them having fun with an abysmal combat combination doesn’t mean the combination is not abysmal at combat. Maybe they want the challenge. Maybe all they care about is flavor.

Saying that the 3rd level Fighter would no longer hold their own if 3 levels of Bard are inflicted onto the build is mightily pessimistic (and this is coming from someone who is absolutely NOT a fan of 5e Bards).

Then actually show that.

 

[SkidAce]

"IF" you were to develop a subclass equivalent out of feats for (wait for it)...

Elemental specialized wizards*, how would you do it?

Obviously Elemental Adept is the 1st one.

*chose this concept to explore a feat path (chain is too negatively constrictive sounding) because you could take the Evocation subclass and this "path" with the same wizard character, but it could also be taken by a bard or an eldritch knight.

 

[CreamCloud0]

"IF" you were to develop a subclass equivalent out of feats for (wait for it)...

Elemental specialized wizards*, how would you do it?

Obviously Elemental Adept is the 1st one.

*chose this concept to explore a feat path (chain is too negatively constrictive sounding) because you could take the Evocation subclass and this "path" with the same wizard character, but it could also be taken by a bard or an eldritch knight.

you mean with existing 5e feats? or are we theorycrafting feats to fit the subclass here?

i think i've looked at feats to support an 'elemental specialist' concept before but i don't recall there being all that much of a selection...