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

[Satyrn]

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?

To start, I do mean roughly equivalent to other feats.

It's just I think that if they are roughly equivalent because of their raw power that they will become more like a Feat Tax. Bonuses to damage, especially, but numeric bonuses in general will be apt to make them feel like must haves. And since these feats will be designed with the subclass in mind, thus bonuses are likely to synergize well, perhaps exceptionally well, so that the power increases that much more.

So, I'm advising - if you are actually going through with this - to focus such feats on power through versatility, not bonuses.

As I said above, I took Martial Adept for my battlemaster to make him even more of a battlemaster. It's got a small increase in raw power - the extra superiority die, but it's the extra maneuvers that made me want it. That's that kind of feat that I'd use as your model.

In contrast, I'm suggesting staying away from making feats like Dual Wielder which are all about raw power - bonuses to AC and Damage.

(And I just remembered that's the next feat I need to take for my gnome battlemaster so I can mention he's dual wielding rapiers every time I bring him up . . . Now if only he had a 20 Strength I could be trolling half of EnWorld with my favorite character I'm playing right now instead of just [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION]. )

 

[Guest 6801328]

To start, I do mean roughly equivalent to other feats.

It's just I think that if they are roughly equivalent because of their raw power that they will become more like a Feat Tax. Bonuses to damage, especially, but numeric bonuses in general will be apt to make them feel like must haves. And since these feats will be designed with the subclass in mind, thus bonuses are likely to synergize well, perhaps exceptionally well, so that the power increases that much more.

I don't know if I agree they are more likely to synergize so well they increase power. I mean, I suppose if you let your typical forum munchkin design them. (Wait...what? Why is everybody looking at me like that?) I would say the much larger danger is that they accidentally syngergize too well with other classes, which is all the more reason to restrict them to sub-classes.

(Caveat: multiclassing could still pose a danger, design-wise.)

So, I'm advising - if you are actually going through with this - to focus such feats on power through versatility, not bonuses.

I think it could work fine with either, but in germs of personal preference I agree with you 100% about versatility. My favorite feats are Mage Slayer, Shield Master, and Dungeon Delver. I loathe Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and to some extent Great Weapon Master (I like the second attack, hate the -5/+10 thing.) So, yeah, if I were designing them they would be all about situational versatility and increased decision-making.

In contrast, I'm suggesting staying away from making feats like Dual Wielder which are all about raw power - bonuses to AC and Damage.

Totally agree.

 

[Ninja-radish]

I totally agree that Subclasses just don't do enough to distinguish themselves from each other. I don't believe feats are the answer though, because of the bizarre way the system firewalls them off (they're optional AND you have to give up an ASI? Ugh) and severely restricts access to them.

Honestly I don't know the answer. The class/subclass system was very poorly designed and the terrible way feats were handled really exacerbates the problem.

 

[Ninja-radish]

I'm trying to think of an example where two sub-classes of a class feel the same and am drawing a blank. Could you give an example of two you feel aren't differentiated well?

I don't think the issue is that subclasses are similar to each other, I think the issue is that subclasses don't give the parent class a different feel for the most part. Every Fighter feels the same, ditto for Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, etc.

Some subclasses are different enough (Moon and Land Druid) to change the feel of the parent class, but most aren't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I totally agree that Subclasses just don't do enough to distinguish themselves from each other. I don't believe feats are the answer though, because of the bizarre way the system firewalls them off (they're optional AND you have to give up an ASI? Ugh) and severely restricts access to them.

Honestly I don't know the answer. The class/subclass system was very poorly designed and the terrible way feats were handled really exacerbates the problem.

The fact that you have to give up an ASI is why I thought there would be more support for the idea: since usually ASIs are more powerful than Feats it's not like you're just making sub-classes more powerful. It would be giving players a chance to sacrifice some boring, passive bonuses for sub-class flavor.

But I do agree with you that I don't like the way feats were handled. If anything I would have made ASIs optional, and worked harder to balance the Feats so that there weren't a few OP ones. I don't like that I have to choose between the statistically "best" choice and the fun, flavorful abilities I want. Those should be two different choices from two different resources. The bad compromise we ended up with was simply to appease the anti-Feat people (who somehow are pro-ASI...I think it's a lot more reasonable that you learn new skills than it is that you suddenly get more Intelligent or Dextrous.)

Maybe Feats could have come in 3 tiers: 0 point, 1 point, and 2 point. Each ASI you get to select a single 0 point Feat (Flavor or "Ribbon" feats) and then you have 1 point to spend on either ASIs or Feats. If you want one of the 2-pointers you'll have to save your points.

 

[Ninja-radish]

For me personally, subclasses are one of the most frustrating parts of the 5E system because they don't really offer any choice. All they offer is the illusion of choice, because for the most part they don't change much about the class at all.

The few times I've played rather than DM, people ask me what subclass I'm picking and my thoughts were "Who cares? It doesn't actually matter". I don't answer the question that way, but those were my thoughts. Part of the reason I prefer being a DM; I have major issues with the entire character creation system in 5E.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think the issue is that subclasses are similar to each other, I think the issue is that subclasses don't give the parent class a different feel for the most part. Every Fighter feels the same, ditto for Barbarian, Paladin, Wizard, etc.

Some subclasses are different enough (Moon and Land Druid) to change the feel of the parent class, but most aren't.

Should they though... if a subclass turns my fighter into a non-fighter... well then its not really a subclass. On the other hand if it allows my fighter to cast spells or perform tactical maneuvers.... while still essentially keeping my fighter a fighter, it would appear its doing exactly what a subcclass is meant to do... mainly add individual flavor to a base class.

Again I'd like an actual example of two subclasses that aren't differentiated by subclass... im trying to get a picture of the actual issue and a concrete example would help.

 

[Ninja-radish]

Should they though... if a subclass turns my fighter into a non-fighter... well then its not really a subclass. On the other hand if it allows my fighter to cast spells or perform tactical maneuvers.... while still essentially keeping my fighter it would appear its doing exactly what a subcclass is meant to do... mainly add individual flavor to a base class.

You bring up a good question: how different should a subclass make the parent class feel? See, I personally believe subclasses should do more to transform the base class. I don't even see the point in choosing a subclass most of the time. I just don't see a difference.

Personally I think Pathfinder did a better job with their base class/archetype system than 5E did with the class/subclass mechanic.

 

[Imaro]

You bring up a good question: how different should a subclass make the parent class feel? See, I personally believe subclasses should do more to transform the base class. I don't even see the point in choosing a subclass most of the time. I just don't see a difference.

Personally I think Pathfinder did a better job with their base class/archetype system than 5E did with the class/subclass mechanic.

So you see no difference in the choice between being an Eldritch Knight vs. A Battlemaster... really?

 

[Ninja-radish]

So you see no difference in the choice between being an Eldritch Knight vs. A Battlemaster... really?

Not particularly. What's an EK? Just a Fighter that casts the Shield spell a couple times a day. Big deal. What's a Battlemaster? A Fighter with some extremely underwhelming special maneuvers. These subclasses would be transformative if the EK actually had access to a decent spell list, or if Battlemaster maneuvers were more impressive.

The subclasses don't go far enough in my personal opinion, so what's left is a character that does one thing different than the base class. Meh, I don't see the point.