Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Million Dollar TTRPG Crowdfunders
Most Anticipated Tabletop RPGs Of The Year
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Path of Feats: a Superior Design than Subclasses
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Silam" data-source="post: 9890761" data-attributes="member: 7055898"><p>These below are all valid arguments, but they’re also not absolutely true. Feats can be designed either as cohesive or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let’s say we wanted to give Fighters more options, but by following a feat-based approach rather than a subclass approach. We could achieve this by setting a feat’s prereq as one of the Fighter class features. Here’s an example, below:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is there any reason why you wouldn’t let both a Champion and a Battlemaster have this feature? Then it’s better as a feat than as a subclass feature. Is it cohesive? I think so…</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think that’s an artificial constraint. If it were true, feats like War Caster would not exist, but clearly they do. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with making a feat have a prereq that’s even more restrictive than War Caster (as in the example above). Elven Accuracy is another example of a fairly restrictive prereq. Of course, it’s fine to make feats that are more accessible as well (e.g., having Weapon Mastery as a prereq which can be gotten from many classes and even from another feat). There is really no requirement that a feat needs to be accessible to all characters, neither in existing feats nor in future feats that have not been printed yet.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, but I don’t know why that’s a problem. Any class or subclass feature of level 11 or above is by definition a feature you can only ever get from a single class/subclass. So the whole bottom half of every class table is made up of very very expensive currency. But it’s fine right? I don’t think anyone is seriously complaining that they can’t be a Monk 10 / Fighter 11 (to get 3 attacks per action and 3 per bonus action). It’s just accepted as a fact of life. Getting somewhere between 4 and 7 feats is par for the course.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unless the other required feat is an origin feat, but yeah, some could take a while to get. Just like Epic Boons also take a while to get and most games never get them at all. But is it a design issue that Epic Boons exist at all? I don’t think so…</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Silam, post: 9890761, member: 7055898"] These below are all valid arguments, but they’re also not absolutely true. Feats can be designed either as cohesive or not. Let’s say we wanted to give Fighters more options, but by following a feat-based approach rather than a subclass approach. We could achieve this by setting a feat’s prereq as one of the Fighter class features. Here’s an example, below: Is there any reason why you wouldn’t let both a Champion and a Battlemaster have this feature? Then it’s better as a feat than as a subclass feature. Is it cohesive? I think so… I think that’s an artificial constraint. If it were true, feats like War Caster would not exist, but clearly they do. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently wrong with making a feat have a prereq that’s even more restrictive than War Caster (as in the example above). Elven Accuracy is another example of a fairly restrictive prereq. Of course, it’s fine to make feats that are more accessible as well (e.g., having Weapon Mastery as a prereq which can be gotten from many classes and even from another feat). There is really no requirement that a feat needs to be accessible to all characters, neither in existing feats nor in future feats that have not been printed yet. Agreed, but I don’t know why that’s a problem. Any class or subclass feature of level 11 or above is by definition a feature you can only ever get from a single class/subclass. So the whole bottom half of every class table is made up of very very expensive currency. But it’s fine right? I don’t think anyone is seriously complaining that they can’t be a Monk 10 / Fighter 11 (to get 3 attacks per action and 3 per bonus action). It’s just accepted as a fact of life. Getting somewhere between 4 and 7 feats is par for the course. Unless the other required feat is an origin feat, but yeah, some could take a while to get. Just like Epic Boons also take a while to get and most games never get them at all. But is it a design issue that Epic Boons exist at all? I don’t think so… [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Path of Feats: a Superior Design than Subclasses
Top