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

[Pauln6]

There are many ways to distinguish sub-classes, including the existing feats but the key is to build to a concept rather than to build for optimisation.

I played in a group that had two warlock-rogues (fey/arcane trickster; fiendish (re-skinned as a shadow mage by mixing subclass features)/arcane trickster; and a shadow monk with eldritch blast from Arcane Initiate feat). Because Eldritch blast is so useful it did feel like all three of us spent a lot of time just blasting stuff every round and it made us feel very samey in combat, despite different spells, flavour, and abilities. Admittedly, the monk had a lot of awesome tricks instead of a wide array of spells and my tome warlock rules outside of combat, with at-will levitation, mage hand.

In the end, I re-tooled my warlock, went Swashbuckler rogue in place of Arcane Trickster and picked up some wizard spells from Arcane Initiate as compensation. I ditched Eldritch Blast completely. I know it's amazing but I just had to make my PC more distinct so my go-to ranged spell is now Firebolt.

The point is that player choices can help to make the sub-classes more distinct but there are rarely multiple optimal choices. Build the concept IMO. Obviously, more feats generally will help with this! I hope the new book has a few.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Wow...I haven't had a chance to check the thread in a while and in the interim the question has been misinterpreted so many different ways. Some people think the problem is that I'm bad at roleplaying. Others think I'm just a min-maxer who wants MOAR POWAH. Others think I can't build a specific concept I want. And others thought I was asking how mechanically "class feats" could be accomplished.

No, none of the above. (Well, maybe I'm bad at roleplaying. I'm sure that 80% of us think we're in the top quintile, and I'm self-aware enough to realize I may not be as good as I think.)

It's really much simpler than any of that: if I had my druthers I would have designed more room for sub-class abilities in all of the classes. In general I prefer more sub-classes instead of expanding base classes, but I do wish there were more room for weaving in nifty abilities. Four sub-class abilities spread over 20 levels just feels sparse to me.

Maybe others disagree. That's fine. You're allowed to.

 

[hastur_nz]

You need to compare what sub-classes get, in relation to what the core classes get, and you'll see that it's a fairly even split - the whole idea of a 5e PC is that every level, you tend to get one new thing. As other's have noted, I think from my experience over the years in playing 5e, as DM and Player, you've invented a problem that doesn't exist - how it reads on paper, and how it plays at the table, are usually different.

 

[Imaro]

Wow...I haven't had a chance to check the thread in a while and in the interim the question has been misinterpreted so many different ways. Some people think the problem is that I'm bad at roleplaying. Others think I'm just a min-maxer who wants MOAR POWAH. Others think I can't build a specific concept I want. And others thought I was asking how mechanically "class feats" could be accomplished.

No, none of the above. (Well, maybe I'm bad at roleplaying. I'm sure that 80% of us think we're in the top quintile, and I'm self-aware enough to realize I may not be as good as I think.)

It's really much simpler than any of that: if I had my druthers I would have designed more room for sub-class abilities in all of the classes. In general I prefer more sub-classes instead of expanding base classes, but I do wish there were more room for weaving in nifty abilities. Four sub-class abilities spread over 20 levels just feels sparse to me.

Maybe others disagree. That's fine. You're allowed to.

I think part of the issue may be that you are quantifying it purely by # of abilities when for many it's more nuanced than that. As an example.... IMO and IME spellcasting vs. maneuvers provide a wide gulf of differentiation for an Eldritch Knight vs. a Battlemaster. But if we compare using just your metric of # of abilities... they are each just one ability. That's why earlier in the thread I asked for examples of what exactly you meant. Show us some subclassess you feel aren't differentiated and explain why as opposed to just comparing number of different abilities.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's really much simpler than any of that: if I had my druthers I would have designed more room for sub-class abilities in all of the classes. In general I prefer more sub-classes instead of expanding base classes, but I do wish there were more room for weaving in nifty abilities. Four sub-class abilities spread over 20 levels just feels sparse to me.

Maybe others disagree. That's fine. You're allowed to.

At what number of unique abilities do you give a sub-class before it basically turns into a new base class?

Aren't you just splitting hairs at that point? If you get unique sub-class abilities at say every-other-level... you basically have turned it *into* a new base class. I mean, there are classes in the game right now that share some mechanics (all the spellcaster classes share the casting slot mechanic, rogues and bards share Expertise, fighters/pallys/rangers share the Fighting Styles mechanic). Thus the differentiation between a "class" and a "sub-class" is just the numbers of unique mechanics.

If you're going to give the Thief more unique mechanics and the Assassin more unique mechanics, and then end up sharing the same say 5 mechanics... whether you call them "base classes" or "sub-classes" is pretty much academic at that point.

But again... none of this changes the fact that if you are looking for "distinctiveness" in a sub-class compared to another sub-class in the same base class... mechanics are the poorer way of doing it compared to actually roleplaying the differences. I mean heck... how did people make their Fighters distinctive back in 1E when the only difference between two fighters was the weapon they used? It was entirely on how they roleplayed them. And the case is the same today. If (general) you find no distinction between playing a Thief versus playing a Mastermind versus playing a Swashbuckler... it's because you aren't playing a Thief versus playing a Mastermind versus playing a Swashbuckler. You're instead just looking at the numbers on your character sheet and saying "Hrm. I keep rolling the same type of dice at the same time for the same reasons each time I play a different type of Rogue, except for these couple specific times when I don't." And unfortunately for you... just adding in a couple MORE specific times where you'll roll different dice for different reasons is not going to solve your problem over the long-term. Because you're going to roll THOSE dice enough times over the course of your gaming life that their distinctiveness is going to wash away just like your current sub-classes have washed away their distinctiveness in dice rolling.

 

[manduck]

A sub-class isn't really meant to be a lot, when it comes to what it adds to a character. It's like adding spices to a meal. It's not the main course or the bulk of the meal, it just changes the flavor a little. Comparing features between sub-classes, as to the number of features they get, also looks at sub-classes in a vacuum. Some sub-classes aren't meant to have an additional number of customizable options, as the base class already does that. Take the paladin for example. They may only get one set feature at certain levels from a sub-class, as opposed to a choice from several options. That's because the base class has other customizable options already built in, like fighting styles and spell selection. Other classes, like the barbarian or fighter, have set features in the base class and some sub-classes that add a level of feature selection. Barbarians can make different selections with their Totem sub-class. Fighters can add maneuvers or spells with the Battle Master and EK. So you have to look at the bigger picture. It's the combination of the class and sub-class that makes the total of available features and ways to be distinct. So I don't think that adding in sub-class specific feats is really necessary. Besides, giving out free sub-class feats isn't really any different than say selecting a maneuver, a totem animal or a Hunter feature. You're just re-labeling a sub-class feature as a feat. If you give those feats to every sub class, it throws off the balance of classes that already have features for customization. Look at the fighter. The fighter is designed to get more feats as part of the base class. Is giving more feat selection to fighter sub-classes really adding features and giving a fighter a unique feel?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes, the points about one new toy per level and a finite amount of room are all perfectly valid. Which is why I proposed Sub-class Feats: you give up an ASI or general Feat for a sub-class specific Feat. You don't take anything away from the base class.

Maybe my question should really be: if one were to design a bunch of new Feats with specific sub-classes in mind, would it be better/cooler/more interesting to restrict them to that sub-class, or just add new Feats to the game?

Personally I kind of like the idea of restricting them. There's already too much a la carte in 5e for my taste.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Maybe my question should really be: if one were to design a bunch of new Feats with specific sub-classes in mind, would it be better/cooler/more interesting to restrict them to that sub-class, or just add new Feats to the game?

Personally I kind of like the idea of restricting them. There's already too much a la carte in 5e for my taste.

It would be more interesting to just add new feats, it'd be cooler to restrict them to the sub-class. It might be better to (give the player the option to) replace the ASI/Feat with a specific sub-class ability, rather than labeling it a feat, because then you can make it accessible even if you don't otherwise want to use feats...

 

[Satyrn]

Maybe my question should really be: if one were to design a bunch of new Feats with specific sub-classes in mind, would it be better/cooler/more interesting to restrict them to that sub-class, or just add new Feats to the game?.

Sure, sounds cool. I've kinda selected one of those for my gnome battlemaster when I took Martial Adept.

But it looks like an idea that would tread very close to that "Feat Tax" line. I'd think you'd havd to focus on versatility and flavour in the benefits over power. Like, nearly no increase in power at all.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it looks like an idea that would tread very close to that "Feat Tax" line. I'd think you'd havd to focus on versatility and flavour in the benefits over power. Like, nearly no increase in power at all.

Could you elaborate on that? Why not "roughly equivalent power to other Feats?" Seems to me if you under-power them then you are forcing players to gimp themselves for flavor. Which many of us do, with varying frequency, but isn't it better to at least try to avoid that trade-off?