are feats better then a base class? [Archive] - Wizards Community

are feats better then a base class? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
benstundze
08-04-06, 02:49 PM i mean there at like a trillion feats out there. so this thread is about base classes that can also be feats.

is it really better to have a feat out there instead of a base class? I mean if that’s the way we are making feats then we can have a fighter that is like 15 classis in 1 and do we relly need more feats? I just think it should be the opposite (if you can make a feat into a class shouldn’t it be a class?)

so thats whut i have to say
thx
ben
heretic888
08-04-06, 03:11 PM It depends on which specific class feature you are attempting to emulate, I suppose.

Let's take the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike as an example. I can see no good reason why this couldn't be a feat, provided the appropriate prerequisites are in place. However, the Swashbuckler still has a lot of individual abilities (including class skills and skill points) that differentiate it from the Fighter.

That being said, the soon-to-be-released Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords effectively gives us over a HUNDRED new feats (via maneuvers and stances) to customize our melee-oriented characters with. This material will undoubtedly make several existing base classes superfluous. The Shadow Hand discipline, for example, basically makes the CV Ninja a pointless artifice in the game (which it always was when compared to the Rogue, but still).

Laterz.
Zagreen
08-04-06, 03:43 PM Well, some things are better as feats and some things are better as classes. Typically abilities that progress with level and/or really define a large part of a character's abilities are often best left as class features. Sure, you can make feat progressions by using a chain of feats with lots of prerequisites, too, but that's not what they're really best used for. Class levels are a fairly constant resource compared to feats--two equal level characters can have widely different numbers of feats, making it a lot easier to balance their relative abilities based on class level than balancing it based on feats.

For example, I would say that the swashbuckler's insightful strike actually works better as a class feature than a feat. It's pretty powerful compared to an awful lot of feats, but it's balanced by the fact that it costs 3 class levels. Want a duskblade with insightful strike? Then you'd better be prepared to sacrifice duskblade levels for it. If you wanted to make it possible to emulate the swashbuckler class via feats (thereby eliminating the need for the CWar swashbuckler), you could make a feat version of insightful strike with prereqs of +3 BAB and Weapon Finesse; then a 3rd-level fighter taking insightful strike would end up pretty much equivalent to a 3rd-level swashbuckler. But you'd also end up giving a huge boost to any Dex- and Int-based characters who want to have any melee ability, since now their offense gets a huge boost without needing to spend anything more than 2 feats (one of which they probably would've taken anyway). If you add more prereqs to stop rogues, wizard gish, etc. from getting it too easily, then that also stops low-level fighters from getting it. You could add a prereq of "Fighter level 3rd"... but then if you're going to be tying it back into a specific class, why not just leave it tied to the swashbuckler?
benstundze
08-04-06, 04:49 PM Yes and why do some people hate classes that can be a feat progression? If you do that then the fighter can be 10 classes in 1 with all the feats and that’s not overpowering?
LordPendragon
08-04-06, 05:54 PM Yes and why do some people hate classes that can be a feat progression? If you do that then the fighter can be 10 classes in 1 with all the feats and that’s not overpowering?10 classes in one, but only one at a time. Let's not forget that the Fighter does have a finite number of feats; just because something is available as a feat doesn't mean a Fighter necessarily has the resources to take it.
Servant_of_Metal
08-04-06, 05:59 PM hm, one could use the generic classes from UA[slightly modified] and make a 'Class Feature Progression' (e.g. every 2nd level a new class feature is agined) and a new Feat group called Class Feats. Then work all existing class features in class feats with appropiate prerequisites and say hello to total character customization.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
benstundze 08-04-06, 02:49 PM	i mean there at like a trillion feats out there. so this thread is about base classes that can also be feats. is it really better to have a feat out there instead of a base class? I mean if that’s the way we are making feats then we can have a fighter that is like 15 classis in 1 and do we relly need more feats? I just think it should be the opposite (if you can make a feat into a class shouldn’t it be a class?) so thats whut i have to say thx ben
heretic888 08-04-06, 03:11 PM	It depends on which specific class feature you are attempting to emulate, I suppose. Let's take the Swashbuckler's Insightful Strike as an example. I can see no good reason why this couldn't be a feat, provided the appropriate prerequisites are in place. However, the Swashbuckler still has a lot of individual abilities (including class skills and skill points) that differentiate it from the Fighter. That being said, the soon-to-be-released Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords effectively gives us over a HUNDRED new feats (via maneuvers and stances) to customize our melee-oriented characters with. This material will undoubtedly make several existing base classes superfluous. The Shadow Hand discipline, for example, basically makes the CV Ninja a pointless artifice in the game (which it always was when compared to the Rogue, but still). Laterz.
Zagreen 08-04-06, 03:43 PM	Well, some things are better as feats and some things are better as classes. Typically abilities that progress with level and/or really define a large part of a character's abilities are often best left as class features. Sure, you can make feat progressions by using a chain of feats with lots of prerequisites, too, but that's not what they're really best used for. Class levels are a fairly constant resource compared to feats--two equal level characters can have widely different numbers of feats, making it a lot easier to balance their relative abilities based on class level than balancing it based on feats. For example, I would say that the swashbuckler's insightful strike actually works better as a class feature than a feat. It's pretty powerful compared to an awful lot of feats, but it's balanced by the fact that it costs 3 class levels. Want a duskblade with insightful strike? Then you'd better be prepared to sacrifice duskblade levels for it. If you wanted to make it possible to emulate the swashbuckler class via feats (thereby eliminating the need for the CWar swashbuckler), you could make a feat version of insightful strike with prereqs of +3 BAB and Weapon Finesse; then a 3rd-level fighter taking insightful strike would end up pretty much equivalent to a 3rd-level swashbuckler. But you'd also end up giving a huge boost to any Dex- and Int-based characters who want to have any melee ability, since now their offense gets a huge boost without needing to spend anything more than 2 feats (one of which they probably would've taken anyway). If you add more prereqs to stop rogues, wizard gish, etc. from getting it too easily, then that also stops low-level fighters from getting it. You could add a prereq of "Fighter level 3rd"... but then if you're going to be tying it back into a specific class, why not just leave it tied to the swashbuckler?
benstundze 08-04-06, 04:49 PM	Yes and why do some people hate classes that can be a feat progression? If you do that then the fighter can be 10 classes in 1 with all the feats and that’s not overpowering?
LordPendragon 08-04-06, 05:54 PM	Yes and why do some people hate classes that can be a feat progression? If you do that then the fighter can be 10 classes in 1 with all the feats and that’s not overpowering?10 classes in one, but only one at a time. Let's not forget that the Fighter does have a finite number of feats; just because something is available as a feat doesn't mean a Fighter necessarily has the resources to take it.
Servant_of_Metal 08-04-06, 05:59 PM	hm, one could use the generic classes from UA[slightly modified] and make a 'Class Feature Progression' (e.g. every 2nd level a new class feature is agined) and a new Feat group called Class Feats. Then work all existing class features in class feats with appropiate prerequisites and say hello to total character customization.