D&D 5E Would Sub-class Feats Solve a Problem? (Is there a problem?)

[schnee]

Yeah, I think they work much better as class features, rather than 'feats' that are limited by class.

Feats are limited by prerequisites that aren't class related, but more class feature related at worst. Like, 'can cast spells' is one of the most restrictive. So, the aesthetics of it feel wrong for 5E.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As is usually the case... if you want differentiated characters, you need players willing to play their character differently.

If you find yourself with a bunch of PCs that are all similar, it's because the PLAYERS are not actually putting personality into their PCs, they are really just playing game mechanics. A Barbarian and a Fighter aren't all that mechanically different-- they both have similar armor classes, they both have similar hit point totals, they both often use the same types of weapons, the Barbarian gets an extra +2 damage when they've "raged"... exactly like the +2 to damage the Fighter got by taking the Duelist fighting style. Where's the difference between these classes? At the table during play, mechanically there aren't much at all.

But it's only when the players ROLEPLAY the differences do we see how the Barbarian and Fighter are different. How the Barbarian talks, and walks, and fights, and behaves will be much different than how the Fighter talks and walks and fights and behaves. Mechanics be damned. After all... if your player of the Barbarian character says simply during their turn "I rage"... like it means absolutely nothing and has no emotional connection and is just simply flipping on a character mechanics switch... then what good are those different mechanics? There ARE NONE. A barbarian PC getting some new numbers because they used the "rage" mechanic just changes a couple numbers. That's it. And the fact the game used the term "rage" means nothing at all. The game could have called it a "hype" mechanic, or a "preen" mechanic for all it cares, if all that results are the same exact numbers being added the same exact way to a couple die rolls because the player doesn't actually care or act out what "raging", or "hyping" or "preening" is supposed to be in the story.

Game mechanics are just numbers. And you can move numbers around all you want, because they DON'T make characters different. It is only the STORY of the class or subclass that is different, and even then only if the player ROLEPLAYS that story. So focus on that at the table, and you'll begin to see a real difference.

 

[neogod22]

Couldn't have said it better myself

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Between multi-classing, sub-classes, ASI/Feats, race choices and magic items it's hard to call PCs in 5e cookie-cutters. There's a lot to say about keeping things streamlined for the sake of simplicity from the player's and DM's perspectives.

 

[Hillsy7]

I’m not sure I see the problem other than – as per usual – definitions and expectations. To me, the Class is what is important, and the Sub-classes should be there to provide a tweak on how those abilities are implemented/focused on. This doesn’t need a dozen abilities tied to it, or basically you’re just making a whole class. What they almost all do successfully is add in a new mechanic, or an adjustment on the existing mechanics that’s key to the class….

So Barbarian = Tanks while Raging, Berserker = Hits more while Raging, Totem = More flexible/defensive while raging
Bard = Cast Spells & Inspires, Lore Bard = Distract & get more spells, Valour Bard = Stabby Bard
Cleric = Cast spells & Destroy Undead, Domains = Access different Spells and do 1 other cool thing
Druid = Shapeshift & Cast, Land Durid = Cast More Spells, Moon Druid = Awesome Shapeshifter
Fighter = hit things with weapons, Champion = Hit things Better, Battlemaster = Hit things stylishly, Eldrich knight = Hit things and burn them
Monk = Move fast and makem attacks, Open Hand = Hit Things Well, Shadow = hit things & Hide, Four Elements = hit and burn things
Paladin = Smite stuff and be immune, Devotion = Smite & Immune better, Ancient = Tank and Control, Vengance = Smite one enemy
Ranger = Hit, track and Travel, Hunter = Fight better, Beast Master = Fight with a pet
Rogue = Sneak about, Thief = Sneak & Steal, Assassin = Alpha Strike, Arcane Trickster = sneaky mage
Sorceror = Cast powerful Spells, Draconic = Cast spells as a dragon, Wild = Random spell fun
Warlock = Blast stuff, Archfey = Blast & Confuse, Fiend = Burn & survive, Old One = Blasty hypnotist
Wizard = Cast all the Spells, Schools = Cast types of spells better and gain spell like benefit

Most of those rough (very very rough….and subjective) definitions each have an early mechanic that applies to the main class identity and twists it slightly. Personally, I’m not looking for anything wildly different within a class – as that would require a different class altogether.

To take the simplest of examples – the fighter – and compare Champion to Battle master. A Battlemaster gains flashy moves, a Champion just hits harder with more weapons. One adds a minor mechanic (Superiority Dice), the other tweaks the existing dice roll (Improved Crit). Very simple concept.

If you added, say, another layer to each (Champion gets additional rerolls, bonus attack damage, big resistances, skills to frighten and the Battlemaster gained support and buffing abilities, intimidation, targeting certain enemies), it’s starting to feel less like the core fighter, and more like a sort of fighter/barbarian or fighter Paladin, or fighter Cleric hybrid. The subclass has moved significantly away from the core class.

But as I said at the top, this is what my expectation is from a subclass. I would argue the starting point for this discussion would be sifting out people like me who want something from subclasses very different from what you want.

 

[Arilyn]

We were not saying that 5e is cookie cutter, but rather that there is not enough entry points in the sub-classes to make them truly feel like the particular niche they are trying to fill. And yes, mechanics in a class/level system are important. I am a very narrative player. FATE is my favourite system, but in F20 games the mechanics are very important in defining your character. Even 5e is pretty crunchy. This is the lure of these types of games, after all. Fun toys! Otherwise, why bother with levels? They don't make much sense realistically or narratively.

Anyway, my main point is this discussion is about mechanics, not whether people are or are not role playing their characters well. And as others have pointed out many of us feel there is something lacking in the sub-classes. They need a little extra zing.

 

[neogod22]

Then from,a,mechanics standpoint, stick with the formula so,you don't have balance issues. You have 10 abilities you like, cool pick your top 4, see how they compare to the abilities that the other subclasses have at those levels and adjust to fit the power scale, or change them. But try not to make it overpowered.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[DEFCON 1]

Anyway, my main point is this discussion is about mechanics, not whether people are or are not role playing their characters well. And as others have pointed out many of us feel there is something lacking in the sub-classes. They need a little extra zing.

Give a couple sub-classes the ability to get Advantage on a skill check.

There you go! A new mechanic for them! And just like that, your Tiger Totem Barbarian, Swamp Druid, and Storm Sorcerer feel completely different! Right?

Oh, hang on... let me complete it-- give them 'Eye of the Tiger', 'Muckraker', and 'Electroshock'. NOW these sub-classes feel completely different!

 

[CydKnight]

I think it's fine since you have other ways of character customization that aren't restricted to certain sub-classes. If you differentiate too much you end up with an entirely different class instead of merely a sub-class.

Another thought is that on paper sometimes it may not seem like a big difference but when you get it into game play it's feels much differently. Not always but I know it has happened for me as well as people I know who play the game. I thought a Way of the Fist Monk was going to be really exciting to play but after nearly 6 levels I find it a bit boring. Conversely I really thought I would get bored playing a Battlemaster just standing in the middle of combat hitting and getting hit but I now find myself most excited to play this character.

A few weekends ago I brought the Battlemaster to an AL one shot knowing he would level up afterwards so I was excited to play him. That is until 2 other players at the table declared after me that they would also be playing a Battlemaster. So much for standing out in this one right? The three of us played our characters completely different from one another and I felt my character did stand out. One of us was a 2 Weapon Fighter, one Defensive, one Great Weapon Fighter. We were all equipped differently and each of us had different enough skill proficiencies, languages, and backgrounds though we were all Human.

So, I guess it depends on the individual whether or not the sub-classes are distinct enough. It hasn't been an issue for me.

 

[thethain]

PRO: Easy to implement: Add the feats with the preq: Must be _________ sub-class.

CON: Arguably a 'feat tax.' (If you are this sub-class, you need to take this feat to get the full benefit of your sub-class choice.)

Agreed. That is a similar issue I have with the new warlock invocations, yes they are cool, but they really feel like some are mandatory if available for full potential, thus reducing the available number of invocations.