Class Features vs. Feats

[zugschef]

Zugschef: That's the most arbitrary set of examples you could have provided. Here, let me show you:

-> don't make rage a class feature. make it a feat. if you think that a particular class should have it because it's part of its schtick then it gets it for free.
-> make evasion a class feature and not a feat. it defines the rogue, monk, whatever. other classes should not be able to get access to it.

ehm... no. by saying that rogue, monk and ranger should have evasion you do make a point for it being a feat. actually you're making the point.

and as for rage... if you have a berserker/barbarian class and you think that a ranger should be able to rage, too, then make it a feat. but make sure that the berserker still has stuff like "berserking" which is unique to him.

that's what i mean. it all depends on the actual classes which are in play and their respective class features.

class feature = unique
feat = more than one should have access to it

if there's a broken combo with some class and a certain feat, then there's where you need to step in after playtest and prevent class x from using feat y or alter class x or feat y so class x and feat y don't break the game anymore.

[phlapjackage]

you've just answered your own question. you don't play no fuckin "thief". there ought to be no fuckin "thief" in a class based system. as well as there shouldn't be a "fighter". there should be an "assassin" or a "berserker".

I don't think so. It doesn't matter what the classes are called. "Would a rose by any other name..."

To use a Class-based system, you're agreeing that there is such a thing as a Class, defining what your character is, what they can and can't do. Free-form picking of abilities introduces complexity, killing the point of playing a Class-based system in the first place.

This isn't to say that your Classes can't have overlapping abilities sometimes.

[zugschef]

you've just answered your own question. you don't play no fuckin "thief". there ought to be no fuckin "thief" in a class based system. as well as there shouldn't be a "fighter". there should be an "assassin" or a "berserker".

I don't think so. It doesn't matter what the classes are called. "Would a rose by any other name..."

To use a Class-based system, you're agreeing that there is such a thing as a Class, defining what your character is, what they can and can't do. Free-form picking of abilities introduces complexity, killing the point of playing a Class-based system in the first place.

This isn't to say that your Classes can't have overlapping abilities sometimes.

being a berserker tells me from the get go that this is a dude who fights in a frenzy and goes rrrRRRAAARRRGH!!!
being a fighter with the feat "berserk" doesn't. i'd have to look at your feats first.

being an assassin tells me that you kill people for money. [edit](although, i admit that any class without a specific restriction like paladin could do that. assassin probably sucks as a class after all. stalker and sniper would be better names.)[/edit]
being a thief doesn't tell me shit. i don't even know if you are a pickpocket, shoplifter or burglar. you can even steal words, so...

next point.

classes having overlapping abilities is totally a reason for not having classes at all. this would take you back into 3rd edition style non-distinction between class features and feats territory again. that's why: "it overlaps? then it's a feat."

[OgreBattle]

Here's my shot at it:

A CLASS gives you a set of powers linked thematically that (hopefully) scale from 1 to 20

ex: A Paladin becomes more and more holy

A FEAT gives you one power (hopefully) appropriate in power to the requirements it takes to reach it.

ex: Power Attack


of course this gets really muddled with feat chains (rage could turn into a similar chain) and that D&D3e wasn't made with very clear standards on what class and feats do, or if they have exclusivity.

If you do make your own game system (and 'fixing D&D3e' is enough work that it winds up your own) just pick something and stick with it.

[ishy]

What I really don't get is how monte cook thought it was a good idea to mix a class-based with a generic system, and why he didn't at least draw a recognizable destinction between what class features can do and what feats can do, such as class features can alter rules, feats cannot, or feats can only enhance stuff you can already do and not give you additional options, or even the opposite and feats only give additional options and nothing else.

So what do you think feats should do? Should they be able to modify rules? Should they just give minor +x to y bonusses? Should they all be activated options? Should the feat heading be a grab bag for possibly everything? etc?

[Schleiermacher]

I've thought about this a fair bit, but I haven't made much headway.
To a first approximation, I might say: Feats should be widgets that you want characters of any class to have access to, even if theoretically. Some of them will have prerequisites, and that's perfectly fine, but feats which are actually "stealth class features", because only a few classes can meet the prerequisites, are bullshit. Feats should mostly give out new options and abilities, but there are a very few "+x to y"-widgets I want to have in the system, like Toughness and Iron Will.

So Power Attack should be a feat, because in some circumstances, a figher, a rogue, a cleric or a Sorcerer might all want it and there's no reason to role-protect it. (Very few Sorcererers likely will, but some might want to pull True Strike shenanigans or fight on the front lines with buffs.)

Quicken Spell should not be a feat, because no Rogue or Fighter (or even Sorcerer, in the core rules) will ever want it. If you want to have it in the system, it should be a selectable class feature for Wizards and Clerics.

Rage should not be a feat, because while a variety of characters might want it, it's the Barbarian's signature trick. And if you start giving out signature tricks as feats, you'd be better served with a classless system.

Evasion probably shouldn't be a feat, but it could go either way. Conceptually it's not really an ability that makes you a Rogue just for having it, it's something that anyone could have without it creating an expectation of what class they are. (Unlike Rage or Quicken Spell). So it's up to you as a designer whether you think it's important enough for the Rogue (or Monk, or Ranger) that it should be exclusive, or that they have enough unique stuff of their own that they can afford to share Evasion.

[hogarth]

So Power Attack should be a feat...

Quicken Spell should not be a feat...

Rage should not be a feat...

Evasion probably shouldn't be a feat...

It's tricky, because for many feats that provide a new option, it's easy to argue that they shouldn't be a feat at all. Power Attack and Heighten Spell are prime examples: why shouldn't everyone be able to power attack or get a benefit from using a higher spell slot without having to pay a feat for the privilege? And then you have a bunch of feats that give a +1 or +2 bonus (e.g. Spell Focus, Weapon Focus, Iron Will) which are as flavourless as cardboard. That leaves a pretty small pool of feats to really argue that feats are worthwhile.

[Schleiermacher]

Well, that's true, but it boils down to designer preference. At some point you have to determine what combat (and other) options a character without specialized training has access to, and then you can have feats build from there. ("All of them" is an option, but not one I like.) I used existing examples mainly to communicate my reasoning.

And like I said, I think some (not all) of the "tiny numeric bonus" feats are worth keeping around, because they're a nice way to allow for customization. I think feats are the best place to put the character option that you pick to say "My Wizard is a notch tougher than your average spell-slinger."

[zugschef]

power attack should totally not be a feat because even i can power attack when chopping wood; no shit. it's a part of the core mechanic. weapon finesse shouldn't be a feat for the exact same reason.
[edit] and i pointed that out on the first page. no feat chains. no feats granting numerical bonuses. no feats which should be a unique class feature. that's why rage should be class feature, mounted combat should be a feat and power attack part of the core mechanic.

[Mask_De_H]

power attack should totally not be a feat because even i can power attack when chopping wood; no shit. it's a part of the core mechanic. weapon finesse shouldn't be a feat for the exact same reason.
[edit] and i pointed that out on the first page. no feat chains. no feats granting numerical bonuses. no feats which should be a unique class feature. that's why rage should be class feature, mounted combat should be a feat and power attack part of the core mechanic.

Your examples are still myopic, arbitrary, and stupid. How is learning to strike accurately and deftly less a part of the core mechanic than striking really hard and leaving yourself open?

[Aryxbez]

then there's the feats which obviously should just be in the core mechanics, such as power attack, weapon finesse, heighten spell and combat expertise.

I don't recall where he said that Weapon Finesse specifically, should be a feat. In fact, seems to be quite the opposite, and letting people use their dex for attack/damage, seems like a no brainer thing for me at this point (assuming the use of attributes).

Though the question as ishy pointed out, is what feats should do? Tome has at least shown, that ye can kinda give PC's abilities, with not all of them being +x types. Even for Saving throw line of feats, ye can make them limited rerolls for that specific save, instead of a +x bonus.

[Schleiermacher]

power attack should totally not be a feat because even i can power attack when chopping wood; no shit. it's a part of the core mechanic. weapon finesse shouldn't be a feat for the exact same reason.
[edit] and i pointed that out on the first page. no feat chains. no feats granting numerical bonuses. no feats which should be a unique class feature. that's why rage should be class feature, mounted combat should be a feat and power attack part of the core mechanic.

You know, I did read the thread before posting. Just because you say something, it doesn't follow that everyone will automatically agree.

Anyway, the spesific example used was not the point. If you think everyone should be able to Power Attack and Combat Expertise, that just means feats come in at Combat Brute and Allied Defense, or whatever.
Point being, I think the role of feats should be to grant combat (and other) options that untrained characters don't have access to, and to a lesser extent to customize features that are largely dictated by class, such as HP and saves.

[Josh_Kablack]

The difference between class features and feats is blindingly obvious:

Class features only appeal to people who are generating characters when they are selecting a class or which optional feature to take when leveling up one of the relevant classes.

For example, in 3e terms, Arcane spells are only useful to the MC and to people playing Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards (or expansion classes like Beguilers, Warmages, and Shujenka and edge cases like Rogues abusing UMD and Clerics high enough level to have Miracle)) and to the MC. Thus anyone playing a Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin Ranger, has zero interest in new arcane spells.

Thus a 3e splatbook full of just "feats" has roughly twice as many potential buyers as a splatbook full of just "arcane spells".

[Emerald]

Rage should not be a feat, because while a variety of characters might want it, it's the Barbarian's signature trick. And if you start giving out signature tricks as feats, you'd be better served with a classless system.

A given mechanic being a signature trick doesn't mean it should be protected, necessarily. The swashbuckler's and warmage's signature tricks are just Int to damage. The knight's signature trick is just taunting. The monk's signature trick is just extra unarmed damage. Just being a signature trick isn't enough to make something worthy of protection, it has to be more than that.

You can make a class out of "berserker" if you want because you can do a lot with that concept--look at all the barbarian ACFs and Frenzied Berserker--but the basic rage is nothing more than some stat boosts with a combat trance flavor, which is fairly generic and shows up in other places like the Combat Form feat chain. The paladin's special mount, the druid's animal companion, the wizard's familiar, and similar are nothing more than summoned creatures; it's only the extra benefits they gain that differentiate them, and they're similar enough anyway that you could probably write a generic Special Companion feat like Leadership or Wild Cohort and just restrict the type of companion available by class.

The dividing line is going to vary, of course, just like some want Power Attack to be a basic mechanic and some want it to be a feat, but in general no class feature has a special status preventing it from being turned into a feat if it would work better that way.

[zugschef]

power attack should totally not be a feat because even i can power attack when chopping wood; no shit. it's a part of the core mechanic. weapon finesse shouldn't be a feat for the exact same reason.
[edit] and i pointed that out on the first page. no feat chains. no feats granting numerical bonuses. no feats which should be a unique class feature. that's why rage should be class feature, mounted combat should be a feat and power attack part of the core mechanic.

Your examples are still myopic, arbitrary, and stupid. How is learning to strike accurately and deftly less a part of the core mechanic than striking really hard and leaving yourself open?

secondary analphabetism?

[zugschef]

The difference between class features and feats is blindingly obvious:

Class features only appeal to people who are generating characters when they are selecting a class or which optional feature to take when leveling up one of the relevant classes.

For example, in 3e terms, Arcane spells are only useful to the MC and to people playing Wizards, Sorcerers, and Bards (or expansion classes like Beguilers, Warmages, and Shujenka and edge cases like Rogues abusing UMD and Clerics high enough level to have Miracle)) and to the MC. Thus anyone playing a Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin Ranger, has zero interest in new arcane spells.

Thus a 3e splatbook full of just "feats" has roughly twice as many potential buyers as a splatbook full of just "arcane spells".

that's a good take on it from a practical standpoint.

i still think that the "familar" class feature and "obtain familiar" feat phenomenon is something which really should be avoided.

[BearsAreBrown]

power attack should totally not be a feat because even i can power attack when chopping wood; no shit. it's a part of the core mechanic. weapon finesse shouldn't be a feat for the exact same reason.
[edit] and i pointed that out on the first page. no feat chains. no feats granting numerical bonuses. no feats which should be a unique class feature. that's why rage should be class feature, mounted combat should be a feat and power attack part of the core mechanic.

Your examples are still myopic, arbitrary, and stupid. How is learning to strike accurately and deftly less a part of the core mechanic than striking really hard and leaving yourself open?

secondary analphabetism?

[getting mad and hitting harder but being more reckless](read: rage) should totally not be a feat because even i can power attack when chopping wood; no shit.

Make a point. What SHOULD a feat be? You say Mounted Combat is a feat but what does this feat grant you?

[zugschef]

Make a point. What SHOULD a feat be? You say Mounted Combat is a feat but what does this feat grant you?

i've already made my point; secondary analphabetism seems to be wide spread. since rage is the iconic feature of the barbarian in 3rd edition, i say it should be a class feature. power attack, combat expertise and weapon finesse should be part of the base mechanic since it takes no special training to "accomplish" these feats. mounted combat, finally, should be feat since anybody should be able to learn to fight sitting on a mount. every army's got a cavalry and these dudes sure as fuck don't need levels in pc classes. one level of warrior should be enough.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Unless rage is an explicitly supernatural thing that makes you catch on fire and fire lasers made of hate from your eyes, I don't think it should be a class feature. Anybody can learn to make themselves really angry so they approach problems in a different way. It's easier than learning to fight from horseback.

[BearsAreBrown]

You said that feats should not grant numeric bonuses. I ask again, what does the Mounted Combat feat grant the player?

We hear what you're saying but your arguments are bad.

[codeGlaze]

Unless rage is an explicitly supernatural thing that makes you catch on fire and fire lasers made of hate from your eyes, I don't think it should be a class feature. Anybody can learn to make themselves really angry so they approach problems in a different way. It's easier than learning to fight from horseback.

There are historical examples of warrior people feared specifically for their crazy berserk/rage fighting.

True , most warriors use some form of rage or anxiety to fuel themselves n a fight, but then there are thosd OTHER guys that take it a step beyond 'normal'. There are even a variety of ways you can flavor rage. Mindless vs focused is a prime example. Point is, there's a difference between normal fight anger and the rage of fearsome [insert culture] warriors.

[codeGlaze]

Make a point. What SHOULD a feat be? You say Mounted Combat is a feat but what does this feat grant you?

i've already made my point; secondary analphabetism seems to be wide spread. since rage is the iconic feature of the barbarian in 3rd edition, i say it should be a class feature. power attack, combat expertise and weapon finesse should be part of the base mechanic since it takes no special training to "accomplish" these feats. mounted combat, finally, should be feat since anybody should be able to learn to fight sitting on a mount. every army's got a cavalry and these dudes sure as fuck don't need levels in pc classes. one level of warrior should be enough.

They also shouldn't be wasting a limited resource on a schtick that is EXTREMELY niche in a game like DUNGEONS and Dragons.

Your argument seems to say that feats should be extraordinary [somethings] that anyone could, theoretically, attach to their hero for awesome points. Meanwhile class abilities shojld be specific, role protected, schticks. Which resonates to a degree.

Your overall point about how that line is very blurry also resonates. But your presentation is lacking coherency and FEELS like it's all over the place.

As an aside, I think feats would benefit from being broken up into several categories that each character picks from at generation and level up. Like combat style feats to determine your attack stats, general feats, skills, etc.

[OgreBattle]

Why not just make "fighting on horseback" part of the riding skill.

Riding skill + proficiency with cavalry weapons= you can participate in mounted combat.


..... or ditch skills and they all become feat/proficiencies.

[Voss]

Unless rage is an explicitly supernatural thing that makes you catch on fire and fire lasers made of hate from your eyes, I don't think it should be a class feature. Anybody can learn to make themselves really angry so they approach problems in a different way. It's easier than learning to fight from horseback.

There are historical examples of warrior people feared specifically for their crazy berserk/rage fighting.

True , most warriors use some form of rage or anxiety to fuel themselves n a fight, but then there are thosd OTHER guys that take it a step beyond 'normal'. There are even a variety of ways you can flavor rage. Mindless vs focused is a prime example. Point is, there's a difference between normal fight anger and the rage of fearsome [insert culture] warriors.

Yeah, but that [insert culture] is exactly it. There are a lot of angry guys doing rage things both in a variety of real-world fiction/history AND in the D&D source material. It isn't all tall, drunken norsemen [or pick a cultural group for your personal barbarian fetish] who are deemed 'uncivilized' by an unknown standard. Nor do they all move fast, wear light armor, and are mysteriously able to dodge traps and avoid backstabbing. Nor did they pre-cognitively reject reading as a skill because they knew they were going to grow up to be rage guys.


While Zugschef seems to think he's arguing for a differentiation between class features and feats, what he is really arguing is that they are indeed the exact same thing, but classes are stuck with some feats coming in a specific order that can't be changed (barring later supplements that let people dick around with that too, whether its PF archetypes or UA shit)

[codeGlaze]

Y'know Voss, despite reading and quoting what you wrote, I still processed your meaning wrong until now. You're right, I had initially thought 'anyone can learn it' meant it wasn't 'special' enough to deserve a feat or some other special service, and should just be allowed in the general combat rules.

As an aside I could see an 'untrained' berserker combat option that's activated though hero points or something when near death, with the explicit point that the character falls unconcious after it ends, regardless of where their hp stands. As some sort of coked out 'last hurrah' simulation.