D&D 5E Subclass feature vs. feat -- Which is "worth" more?

[ezo]

Yep, we started looking to the the Adventurer Class a couple years ago IIRC. That's further than we're thinking.

 

[TwoSix]

Yep, we started looking to the the Adventurer Class a couple years ago IIRC. That's further than we're thinking.

I ran a similar game, although the focus was more the players and I coming up with ad-hoc "feats" as they leveled. I did use that class as a broad baseline for ideas, though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

UPDATE: (updated OP as well for new readers)

Given the current poll results for roughly 70% weighing subclass feature awards are worth more than feats, I was wondering if there was a ratio or balance point which would bring them on par.

For example, would subclass awards at a level be worth TWO feats? Or a feat AND a single ability score increase +1?

Well, see, here's the problem.

Warlock Pacts are a class feature, as one among many Invocations. There's a feat that lets you take one Invocation that lacks prerequisites. That "lacks prerequisites" pretty clearly indicates that ones that do have prerequisites are probably too powerful to just let any old person take with a feat. Yet there's another Invocation, which lets you take an Origin feat. So...how do we square this circle? Some Invocations are too powerful to be feats, but some feats are too powerful to be Invocations. (Though, of course, the irony is that Lucky is an Origin feat, and is probably the strongest feat in the whole game.)

Further, things like Extra Attack are always gated behind multiple levels of any class (even Warlock that has to opt in for it). A feat that simply granted 2x attacks per Attack would almost surely be too powerful unless saddled with prerequisites, which defeats the purpose of transmuting class features to feats.

Personally, I would say the ranking looks like this:

1. Superb/build-defining (sub)class features (e.g. Extra Attack, Wild Shape, Arcane Recovery, Pact of the Blade)
2. The best feats (e.g. Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, primary stat ASI, etc.)
3. Decent (sub)class features (e.g. Flurry of Blows, Metamagic, Tactical Mind*, Cutting Words)
4. Decent feats (e.g. Resilient: Con, Elemental Adept, War Caster, Healer)
5. Weak/niche (sub)class features (e.g. Countercharm, 1/day spell Invocations, Turn Undead, Land's Aid)
6. Weak/niche feats (e.g. Actor, Athlete, Observant, Mounted Combatant)

*Tactical Mind might move up to superb, if it didn't eat up your Second Wind in the doing, a design choice I absolutely hate.

Basically, within each broad category (good features/feats, okay ones, weak/niche ones), class features usually are better. Sometimes a LOT better, especially for the very best class features. Lucky is a great feat, but it doesn't hold a candle to Wild Shape, even for non-Moon Druids. But a weak or niche (sub)class feature is almost certainly worse than the best feats.

Taken as an absolute aggregate, and completely ignoring how significant the differences can be, I'd say class and subclass features are generally worth somewhere around 1.5-2 feats. But that's like saying that "a book" is typically worth $20-$40 when some of them are mondo expensive textbooks worth hundreds of dollars and others are flimsy pulp paper worth maybe $5.

 

[niklinna]

Well, see, here's the problem.

Warlock Pacts are a class feature, as one among many Invocations. There's a feat that lets you take one Invocation that lacks prerequisites. That "lacks prerequisites" pretty clearly indicates that ones that do have prerequisites are probably too powerful to just let any old person take with a feat. Yet there's another Invocation, which lets you take an Origin feat. So...how do we square this circle? Some Invocations are too powerful to be feats, but some feats are too powerful to be Invocations. (Though, of course, the irony is that Lucky is an Origin feat, and is probably the strongest feat in the whole game.)

Further, things like Extra Attack are always gated behind multiple levels of any class (even Warlock that has to opt in for it). A feat that simply granted 2x attacks per Attack would almost surely be too powerful unless saddled with prerequisites, which defeats the purpose of transmuting class features to feats.

Personally, I would say the ranking looks like this:

1. Superb/build-defining (sub)class features (e.g. Extra Attack, Wild Shape, Arcane Recovery, Pact of the Blade)
2. The best feats (e.g. Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, primary stat ASI, etc.)
3. Decent (sub)class features (e.g. Flurry of Blows, Metamagic, Tactical Mind*, Cutting Words)
4. Decent feats (e.g. Resilient: Con, Elemental Adept, War Caster, Healer)
5. Weak/niche (sub)class features (e.g. Countercharm, 1/day spell Invocations, Turn Undead, Land's Aid)
6. Weak/niche feats (e.g. Actor, Athlete, Observant, Mounted Combatant)

*Tactical Mind might move up to superb, if it didn't eat up your Second Wind in the doing, a design choice I absolutely hate.

Basically, within each broad category (good features/feats, okay ones, weak/niche ones), class features usually are better. Sometimes a LOT better, especially for the very best class features. Lucky is a great feat, but it doesn't hold a candle to Wild Shape, even for non-Moon Druids. But a weak or niche (sub)class feature is almost certainly worse than the best feats.

Taken as an absolute aggregate, and completely ignoring how significant the differences can be, I'd say class and subclass features are generally worth somewhere around 1.5-2 feats. But that's like saying that "a book" is typically worth $20-$40 when some of them are mondo expensive textbooks worth hundreds of dollars and others are flimsy pulp paper worth maybe $5.

So, what you're saying is that you can't boil down a complex and nuanced issue into a single blanket statement?

 

[Horwath]

Well, see, here's the problem.

Warlock Pacts are a class feature, as one among many Invocations. There's a feat that lets you take one Invocation that lacks prerequisites. That "lacks prerequisites" pretty clearly indicates that ones that do have prerequisites are probably too powerful to just let any old person take with a feat. Yet there's another Invocation, which lets you take an Origin feat. So...how do we square this circle? Some Invocations are too powerful to be feats, but some feats are too powerful to be Invocations. (Though, of course, the irony is that Lucky is an Origin feat, and is probably the strongest feat in the whole game.)

Further, things like Extra Attack are always gated behind multiple levels of any class (even Warlock that has to opt in for it). A feat that simply granted 2x attacks per Attack would almost surely be too powerful unless saddled with prerequisites, which defeats the purpose of transmuting class features to feats.

Personally, I would say the ranking looks like this:

1. Superb/build-defining (sub)class features (e.g. Extra Attack, Wild Shape, Arcane Recovery, Pact of the Blade)
2. The best feats (e.g. Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, primary stat ASI, etc.)
3. Decent (sub)class features (e.g. Flurry of Blows, Metamagic, Tactical Mind*, Cutting Words)
4. Decent feats (e.g. Resilient: Con, Elemental Adept, War Caster, Healer)
5. Weak/niche (sub)class features (e.g. Countercharm, 1/day spell Invocations, Turn Undead, Land's Aid)
6. Weak/niche feats (e.g. Actor, Athlete, Observant, Mounted Combatant)

*Tactical Mind might move up to superb, if it didn't eat up your Second Wind in the doing, a design choice I absolutely hate.

Basically, within each broad category (good features/feats, okay ones, weak/niche ones), class features usually are better. Sometimes a LOT better, especially for the very best class features. Lucky is a great feat, but it doesn't hold a candle to Wild Shape, even for non-Moon Druids. But a weak or niche (sub)class feature is almost certainly worse than the best feats.

Taken as an absolute aggregate, and completely ignoring how significant the differences can be, I'd say class and subclass features are generally worth somewhere around 1.5-2 feats. But that's like saying that "a book" is typically worth $20-$40 when some of them are mondo expensive textbooks worth hundreds of dollars and others are flimsy pulp paper worth maybe $5.

We tried to square that circle in 3.5 by giving every feat/feature "feat point" cost.
from 1 to 12.

maybe in 5E a tool/language would be 1pt, paladins aura would be 12pts(or more).

then you should go through every class and every feat in the game and try to put a point value on them.
sum each class and find average value over 20 levels.

maybe one day when I will have 2 week of free time...

ofc in the cost must me included level requirement and maybe other features requirement.

 

[ECMO3]

First, this is for 2014 5E (hence the D&D 5E prefix), not for 2024 5E.

Broad question: Is a subclass feature award(s) gained at the subclass levels worth more or less than a Feat?

So, lots of ways to look at this. Certain subclass features are awesome, some suck. Same with feats generally. Therefore, this is not an in-depth examination of all possible combinations, etc. it is more of a "go with your gut and first reaction" if you want to vote.

By "worth" more is also a bit subjective, "worth more" == more powerful? more important to theme? more fun? or whatever YOU want to judge it by.

No changes. No "other" option this time. You either consider subclass features as worth more, feats as worth more, or they are about the same.

As always, thanks for voting!

---

EDIT:
Given the current poll results for roughly 70% weighing subclass feature awards are worth more than feats, I was wondering if there was a ratio or balance point which would bring them on par.

For example, would subclass awards at a level be worth TWO feats? Or a feat AND a single ability score increase +1?

It depends which subclass feature and which feat. Something like the Bladesinger Extra Attack or the Twilight Cleric's Twilight sanctuary are better than any feats. On the other hand Fey Touched is probably better than most subclass features.