Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9889315" data-attributes="member: 6795602">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.That's feats in general. 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?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.The 5e implementation leaves very few feat slots.  That's one major limitation of trying to force too much heavy lifting into feats.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.</blockquote>