Probably not. Making class features interchangeable with feats will make every class feel very similar to each other. And that was one of the major complaints about 4e.
Probably not. Make class features interchangeable with feats will make every class feel very similar to each other. And that was one of the major complaints about 4e.
Didn't ask if they should be interchangeable, do you think there is a balancing issue with class features in general and that feats do something right that class features are doing wrong?
No, they do not. Class features between classes vary wildly in their strength. They are not balanced the same as feats.
So do you think class features should be more balanced like feats?
Not necessarily. If one class gets fewer but very powerful abilities while another gets weaker abilities but makes up for it with more of them, that's fine. It gives the creators more space to work with to create innovative, varied and interesting classes, not bound by a fixed progression. Want to give the class and awesome ability? No problem, just tone down the other abilities or give fewer of them.
To give an example outside of D&D, Star Wars Battlefront (the original) had tweaks to each class according to their faction that made them different to their opponents. The droid sniper had an extra level of zoom compared to its clone counterpart, the classes were generally more. On the other hand, the Republic had their special units more finely tuned to dealing with droids - eg the jet trooper had a special weapon that was awesome at taking out droidekas. The result was that the factions played differently - the CIS had generally better and therefore beginner friendly units, while the Republic was more difficult, but for a skilled player was stronger than the CIS. The lack of requirement of equivalence allowed for more flavour and interesting interactions. For the sequel, they got rid of this design philosophy and while it had some much needed improvements, it lost this flavour. The only thing distinguishing the sides were the special units and skins, and it lost some of what made its predecessor interesting.
It's a lot harder to get balance when things aren't interchangeable (hence the problems with the CR system), but it's an important part of making things varied, interesting and flavourful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Is the only real difference between class features and feats that feats can be added to a character regardless of class?
No, they do not. Class features between classes vary wildly in their strength. They are not balanced the same as feats.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
So do you think class features should be more balanced like feats?
Probably not. Making class features interchangeable with feats will make every class feel very similar to each other. And that was one of the major complaints about 4e.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Didn't ask if they should be interchangeable, do you think there is a balancing issue with class features in general and that feats do something right that class features are doing wrong?
Not necessarily. If one class gets fewer but very powerful abilities while another gets weaker abilities but makes up for it with more of them, that's fine. It gives the creators more space to work with to create innovative, varied and interesting classes, not bound by a fixed progression. Want to give the class and awesome ability? No problem, just tone down the other abilities or give fewer of them.
To give an example outside of D&D, Star Wars Battlefront (the original) had tweaks to each class according to their faction that made them different to their opponents. The droid sniper had an extra level of zoom compared to its clone counterpart, the classes were generally more. On the other hand, the Republic had their special units more finely tuned to dealing with droids - eg the jet trooper had a special weapon that was awesome at taking out droidekas. The result was that the factions played differently - the CIS had generally better and therefore beginner friendly units, while the Republic was more difficult, but for a skilled player was stronger than the CIS. The lack of requirement of equivalence allowed for more flavour and interesting interactions. For the sequel, they got rid of this design philosophy and while it had some much needed improvements, it lost this flavour. The only thing distinguishing the sides were the special units and skins, and it lost some of what made its predecessor interesting.
It's a lot harder to get balance when things aren't interchangeable (hence the problems with the CR system), but it's an important part of making things varied, interesting and flavourful.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
No. Have you read the rules? You are asking a huge number of questions that are really easy to find the answers to in the PHB.