D&D General Subclass and Feat Path thoughts (+)

[SkidAce]

The other thread got me thinking, mainly about how I had already been using "feat paths" for things like martial arts, fighter schools, magic styles, etc. Things you could ADD onto an existing character.

Subclasses seem to be more of specialized class (hence sub-class) that takes a base character class in a different direction.

Of the two, subclasses seem to have more power/abilities assigned to them than a feat path would. Subclasses "lock you in", and a blood magic subclass for a wizard would have to be rebuilt for a cleric. (I did this with rune magic, made two separate but similar subclasses).

But what about a standard wizard, say an enchanter, who wanted to learn blood magic, they cant multiclass into it, but you would think they could learn it? So feat path.

So I am leaning towards "styles" and "traditions" being feat paths.

But I am curious about the power levels. Obviously if you have a subclass and add a feat path, you have more power. But anybody can take say any three feats they want as they level, so thats moot. So if my feat paths for elementalists, stay in line with the power of standard feats, beginner, 4th, epic boon etc, then I should be okay.

My big question to y'all is: At what point would a feat path concept be so powerful that you would have built a subclass instead? Or are they equivalent, and should be based on wether I want then limited to a certain class (subclass) or allow anyone to commit or dabble (feat path)?

 

[Maxperson]

But anybody can take say any three feats they want as they level, so thats moot. So if my feat paths for elementalists, stay in line with the power of standard feats, beginner, 4th, epic boon etc, then I should be okay.

This. It's really easy to make the comparison between feat paths and subclasses, because they both are a progression towards a themed end. However, I think it's better to compare the individual feats taken along a feat path against other good feats the character could have taken. The difference is........theme.

My big question to y'all is: At what point would a feat path concept be so powerful that you would have built a subclass instead?

When the feats are too powerful to be feats. Subclass abilities for the most part tend to be stronger than feats.

 

[el-remmen]

My big question to y'all is: At what point would a feat path concept be so powerful that you would have built a subclass instead? Or are they equivalent, and should be based on wether I want then limited to a certain class (subclass) or allow anyone to commit or dabble (feat path)?

When you want to divorce the feat's ability from the levels at which feats are gained might be one reason.

 

[SkidAce]

When you want to divorce the feat's ability from the levels at which feats are gained might be one reason.

Did not consider that. Thanks.

 

[SkidAce]

Another thought is that the feats in a themed path need to be at least good enough to contend with choosing an ASI (as all feats should) or the feat path becomes merely a ribbon.

 

[Silam]

My big question to y'all is: At what point would a feat path concept be so powerful that you would have built a subclass instead?

To me this sounds a bit fringe, but there could be some scenarios where it’s true.

Ultimately, we can consider that classes are feat chains where each feat is a class level with the prereq of having taken the previous class level. Subclasses are feat chains where each level requires having taken the previous class level, the previous subclass level, and NOT having taken any other subclass.

So coming back to your question… the costly prereqs of the feat chain we call a "subclass" can be viewed as a useful design tool: it limits interactions with other class features. If a feature comes from a 14th level subclass, then you are guaranteed that no character can ever have that feature and more than 6 levels worth of other classes. So if you spot a really bad interaction between your new feature and some 7th level subclass of another class, then assigning your feature to a subclass of 14th level or above guarantees that they’ll never collide, since 7 + 14 > 20.

When designing feats, if you want to be scrupulous about maintaining balance, then you need to take a defensive stance and envision the worst case scenario in terms of interactions with all features of every class…

Or are they equivalent, and should be based on wether I want then limited to a certain class (subclass) or allow anyone to commit or dabble (feat path)?

That is certainly a big consideration. The main one IMO.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

My basic issue with the "thematic feat path" concept is that feats come so rarely in 5e that it feels almost just as constrained as taking a subclass (and is battling with taking an often much needed ASI). I do think it has some value in the absence of subclasses that are available to multiple or all classes for thematic ideas that really belong to multiple classes (or at the very least that someone should be able to dip into without needing to commit to an underlying class), and in cases where it is something that lends itself to being an additional theme on top of subclass theming. It also allows a form of subclass that can theoretically advance on a deeply multiclassed character (but 5e makes feats come so slow when multiclassing that that is more relevant to theorycrafting than many people's actual play)

I also think if the first step in these feat chains were an origin feat in 5.5 then that could fill some of the void left by subclasses all being moved to level 3.

The major downside of the thematic feat chain approach is that it is both less newbie friendly and less evocative than a subclass. I mean, I think there's an argument to be made that a single feat chain could have covered both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster and done it in a more satisfying way mechanically (by giving some options in the intermediary feats of the chain, and perhaps by starting with an origin feat to have the characters be dabbling in magic from level 1). But a lot of the value in classes as a whole, as well as subclasses, is that they give players a clearly presented thematic path to encourage their roleplay (and, indeed, force them to choose one). A bunch of things buried alphabetically in the feats section which someone has to sort out by crossrefrencing prerequisites, etc. does not have the same impact. Which is all to say that feat chains are for players who want to put some work in, and that the most evocative or widely appealing ideas should probably not be buried in feat chains. Partly this is just an issue of presentation, of course.

 

[Corinnguard]

Your topic here makes me think Purple Martin Games' Single-Class Synergy series. Volumes 1 thru 5.

Synergy feats are one of the coolest new features in A5E, but what if you're playing a single-classed character and don't want to transform into a monster?

In Single-Classed Synergy, you will find chains of feats that reward dedicated characters by emphasizing their core class fantasies and flavor, making the class more like itself. Like the typical setup of synergy feats used for multiclassing, they come in groups of three and build upon each other, with each feat in the chain requiring and building upon the ones that precede it.

Each volume covers a couple of A5e's character classes. For instance, Volume 1-Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard.

At what point would a feat path concept be so powerful that you would have built a subclass instead?

Good question. I think the point where the concept of a feat path would lead to the creation of a subclass is during the playtesting phase. This is where the concept is rough around the edges and requires fine-tuning. With some concepts, you can only take so far before you realize it might not work well as a feat path. That it's too big or too cumbersome to squeeze down into three feats. Subclasses have more elbow room for you to work with.

 

[SkidAce]

My basic issue with the "thematic feat path" concept is that feats come so rarely in 5e that it feels almost just as constrained as taking a subclass (and is battling with taking an often much needed ASI). I do think it has some value in the absence of subclasses that are available to multiple or all classes for thematic ideas that really belong to multiple classes (or at the very least that someone should be able to dip into without needing to commit to an underlying class), and in cases where it is something that lends itself to being an additional theme on top of subclass theming. It also allows a form of subclass that can theoretically advance on a deeply multiclassed character (but 5e makes feats come so slow when multiclassing that that is more relevant to theorycrafting than many people's actual play)

I also think if the first step in these feat chains were an origin feat in 5.5 then that could fill some of the void left by subclasses all being moved to level 3.

The major downside of the thematic feat chain approach is that it is both less newbie friendly and less evocative than a subclass. I mean, I think there's an argument to be made that a single feat chain could have covered both Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster and done it in a more satisfying way mechanically (by giving some options in the intermediary feats of the chain, and perhaps by starting with an origin feat to have the characters be dabbling in magic from level 1). But a lot of the value in classes as a whole, as well as subclasses, is that they give players a clearly presented thematic path to encourage their roleplay (and, indeed, force them to choose one). A bunch of things buried alphabetically in the feats section which someone has to sort out by crossrefrencing prerequisites, etc. does not have the same impact. Which is all to say that feat chains are for players who want to put some work in, and that the most evocative or widely appealing ideas should probably not be buried in feat chains. Partly this is just an issue of presentation, of course.

Your assessment is spot on.

My intention is to have a way to do styles and traditions without committing to a subclass.

So "my" feat paths may be three or four feats, but the first one will give you the theme, i.e. a wizard or cleric can be a blood mage. Or any one could learn martial arts. Advanced feats in the path would make you better.

So it's for things that don't quite fit into a subclass, that characters can learn in play.

If it's really impactfull, then I will make it a subclass, and if they want they can commit to it, or take as many levels as needed to represent dabbling in a major concept.

 

[SkidAce]

Oh @Benjamin Olson , I give a free feat in game to represent stuff like starting a tradition or joining a group. I just make sure they really only get one free like this.