Class Abilities as Feats [Archive] - Wizards Community

Class Abilities as Feats [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lord Karsus
12-21-07, 04:09 AM -I've been mulling over the idea of converting specific class abilities, such as a Rogue's 'Sneak Attack', and the Barbarian's 'Rage' into feats. I like the idea because it makes characters more versatile- a Bard with Sneak Attack, for example. On the other hand, I feel that it "cheapens" the abilties themselves. I mean, if anyone can go into a Rage, why is a Barbarian special?

-Basically, I'm just looking for other opinions on the matter...
joshmvii
12-21-07, 04:29 AM I don't like this type of idea, for the reason you mentioned above. If a fighter can just give himself sneak attack through feats, rogues are useless. This kind of thing is precisely what multiclassing is for. If somebody wants to rage, 1 level in Barbarian lets them do it. One level in rogue gives a 1d6 sneak attack, etc.
BigGus
12-21-07, 07:18 AM I've thought about this, and decided against it for the reason you state. If you were going to do it, make sure the abilities you give are not as good as the class features themselves. Eg a rage feat should only give +2 Str/Con and +1 will (and should not be able to be taken multiple times and stacked), and sneak attack should only give +1d4 damage. Of course, if you do that 9 times out of 10 you'd be better off taking a level of the relevant class instead.
goawayugh
12-21-07, 09:01 AM You may find Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) to your liking.
Lord Karsus
12-21-07, 12:04 PM If you were going to do it, make sure the abilities you give are not as good as the class features themselves.

-Interesting idea.

Of course, if you do that 9 times out of 10 you'd be better off taking a level of the relevant class instead.

-Not necessarily. If you were a spellcaster, it'd pay off big time to take the feat, rather than multiclassing, so that you'd get an increased capacity to cast spells.

You may find Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) to your liking.

-That certainly gives me a starting point if I decide to turn these abilities into feats.
Red_Wizard
12-21-07, 03:47 PM The other option is to simply require a storyline reason for having the ability in question, and then restricting the players to only one such ability, so you don't begin getting silly munchkin combinations.

If everyone opts to do such, then there is no one losing out, however the problem arises when one player, who by their classes nature already acquires many feats, begins using the option to steal the others time in the spotlight

-RW
aelryinth
12-21-07, 05:46 PM Feats as class abilities is one reason that people dislike fighters - "But anyone can do what the fighter can do!"

That's why you get the kneejerk reaction of "Noooooo, don't take away my precious class abilities and make them into feats!!!!!"

Grow up already.

The barbarian as a class shouldn't even exist, really. It should be a feat chain within the fighter spec trees. They've already taken class abilities and feats and combined them into worthwhile feats, tacitly admitting that feats should be MORE powerful then class abilities (for example, they posted a 4E feat that combines Uncanny Dodge and Alertness into ONE feat...when people have screamed for years for a feat that granted uncanny dodge, and others screamed against allowing it because it would devalue the barbarian.)

No Melee PrC should exist with the Fighter around. Every single Melee PrC should basically devolve down into 5 feats for a 10 level class, with Pre-Reqs. That's it. Mechanicially, its absolutely no different then taking ten levels in a PrC...you can set up the requirements exactly the same way. The only difference is that instead fo getting, say, a bunch of free armor and weapon proficiencies, and a hefty save bonus, for entering a new class, you continue on the same old system.

I'm extremely convinced that if you just take the way they are redoing feats for 4e, You'd fix a huge amount of what is wrong with the 3E system, particularly for fighters. all feats, always viable, at all levels, and balanced for the levels you take them at.

None of this Greater weapon focus/spec nonsense. Just look at those feats...level 10 and 12 requirements for a piddling +1/+2 with ONE weapon? Weapon Mastery ALONE is better then both...and for a VARIETY of weapons.

Improved Critical is effectively equal to a +1/+1 boost. Level 8 minimum. Again, blown out of the water by a balanced feat...Melee Weapon Mastery.

Feats are and should be worth MORE then class special abilities, they should be appropriate for the levels you take them at, and they should be viable and useful for all levels.

Go right ahead and yoink and adjust. Just keep balance and pre-reqs in mind.

===Aelryinth
Obsidianjaerc
12-22-07, 12:29 AM I basically go allow the entrance to class abilities such as you mention, via feats. But allowing them to progress much beyond the first or second tier, does then cheapen the class you are "taking" them from.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lord Karsus 12-21-07, 04:09 AM	-I've been mulling over the idea of converting specific class abilities, such as a Rogue's 'Sneak Attack', and the Barbarian's 'Rage' into feats. I like the idea because it makes characters more versatile- a Bard with Sneak Attack, for example. On the other hand, I feel that it "cheapens" the abilties themselves. I mean, if anyone can go into a Rage, why is a Barbarian special? -Basically, I'm just looking for other opinions on the matter...
joshmvii 12-21-07, 04:29 AM	I don't like this type of idea, for the reason you mentioned above. If a fighter can just give himself sneak attack through feats, rogues are useless. This kind of thing is precisely what multiclassing is for. If somebody wants to rage, 1 level in Barbarian lets them do it. One level in rogue gives a 1d6 sneak attack, etc.
BigGus 12-21-07, 07:18 AM	I've thought about this, and decided against it for the reason you state. If you were going to do it, make sure the abilities you give are not as good as the class features themselves. Eg a rage feat should only give +2 Str/Con and +1 will (and should not be able to be taken multiple times and stacked), and sneak attack should only give +1d4 damage. Of course, if you do that 9 times out of 10 you'd be better off taking a level of the relevant class instead.
goawayugh 12-21-07, 09:01 AM	You may find Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) to your liking.
Lord Karsus 12-21-07, 12:04 PM	If you were going to do it, make sure the abilities you give are not as good as the class features themselves. -Interesting idea. Of course, if you do that 9 times out of 10 you'd be better off taking a level of the relevant class instead. -Not necessarily. If you were a spellcaster, it'd pay off big time to take the feat, rather than multiclassing, so that you'd get an increased capacity to cast spells. You may find Generic Classes (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm) to your liking. -That certainly gives me a starting point if I decide to turn these abilities into feats.
Red_Wizard 12-21-07, 03:47 PM	The other option is to simply require a storyline reason for having the ability in question, and then restricting the players to only one such ability, so you don't begin getting silly munchkin combinations. If everyone opts to do such, then there is no one losing out, however the problem arises when one player, who by their classes nature already acquires many feats, begins using the option to steal the others time in the spotlight -RW
aelryinth 12-21-07, 05:46 PM	Feats as class abilities is one reason that people dislike fighters - "But anyone can do what the fighter can do!" That's why you get the kneejerk reaction of "Noooooo, don't take away my precious class abilities and make them into feats!!!!!" Grow up already. The barbarian as a class shouldn't even exist, really. It should be a feat chain within the fighter spec trees. They've already taken class abilities and feats and combined them into worthwhile feats, tacitly admitting that feats should be MORE powerful then class abilities (for example, they posted a 4E feat that combines Uncanny Dodge and Alertness into ONE feat...when people have screamed for years for a feat that granted uncanny dodge, and others screamed against allowing it because it would devalue the barbarian.) No Melee PrC should exist with the Fighter around. Every single Melee PrC should basically devolve down into 5 feats for a 10 level class, with Pre-Reqs. That's it. Mechanicially, its absolutely no different then taking ten levels in a PrC...you can set up the requirements exactly the same way. The only difference is that instead fo getting, say, a bunch of free armor and weapon proficiencies, and a hefty save bonus, for entering a new class, you continue on the same old system. I'm extremely convinced that if you just take the way they are redoing feats for 4e, You'd fix a huge amount of what is wrong with the 3E system, particularly for fighters. all feats, always viable, at all levels, and balanced for the levels you take them at. None of this Greater weapon focus/spec nonsense. Just look at those feats...level 10 and 12 requirements for a piddling +1/+2 with ONE weapon? Weapon Mastery ALONE is better then both...and for a VARIETY of weapons. Improved Critical is effectively equal to a +1/+1 boost. Level 8 minimum. Again, blown out of the water by a balanced feat...Melee Weapon Mastery. Feats are and should be worth MORE then class special abilities, they should be appropriate for the levels you take them at, and they should be viable and useful for all levels. Go right ahead and yoink and adjust. Just keep balance and pre-reqs in mind. ===Aelryinth
Obsidianjaerc 12-22-07, 12:29 AM	I basically go allow the entrance to class abilities such as you mention, via feats. But allowing them to progress much beyond the first or second tier, does then cheapen the class you are "taking" them from.