Class Feature vs. Feat [3.PF]

[Tanuki Tales]

General consesus is that it's bad design if a class grants bonus feats over the majority of it's life, especially if these bonus feats are expected to take the place of actual class features (let's call this "The Fighter Problem").

This brings up the question in my mind, "Does this mean that a Class feature, no matter how minor, should always be superior to a feat?"

Then what about feats that mimic class features or give something very close to what a class feature gives? Sure, these are most likely few enough that they can be considered outliers and not evidence to disprove "The Fighter Problem".

But then I remember that Fax made a table not too long ago that brought up an attempt to measure equivilancies gleaned from ACFs, alternate class rules and racial substitution levels. On this list were such things as trading Bonus feats for Sneak Attack progression or Bardic Knowledge (or Bardic Music, can't remember off the top of my head) and vice versa.

So, is a bonus feat progression truly subpar and creates "The Fighter Problem"? Are class features really supposed to be that much more? Or are they closer than assumed?

Discuss. :smallsmile:

[Particle_Man]

Well class features can build on themselves in a chain, and 3.5 generally doesn't have feats that chain that far, so when you reach the end of one chain you have to start all over again at another. So while the wizard is getting access to a new and better level of spells every two levels, the fighter gets a cool feat and then has to go back to an average feat for some levels.

Maybe if they had a 19 feat chain where each feat was even more awesome than the last . . .

And a fighter with sneak attack progression is pretty cool!

[Quirken]

I think it's mostly that a class with too many bonus feats is more of a feat-dip class than a flavor class. For balance/gameplay (non-RP) reasons, I don't really see much of a difference, other than feats don't scale with level as frequently (though they can)

I see the "Fighter Problem" being that people like to take dips in Fighter because they don't lose out on BAB and they have a broad choice of feats. People who dip in fighter usually aren't doing so for flavor reasons, but just for min-maxing.

I think a good way to combat this is to limit the feat choices, or have some kind of multiclassing penalty (like Paladin's, though maybe less harsh)

[Ernir]

Functionally, I've found that there isn't much (any?) difference between a feat that has a class level prerequisite and a class feature that allows you to take a feat in its place.

We actually have both, just in core 3.5.

The Fighter gets bonus feats. In the book, there are feats that have Fighter levels as bonus feats (the fact that these feats suck ass is not relevant here).
Now, if the Fighter had a 4th level class feature called "Weapon Specialization", and an ACF that replaced the Weapon Specialization feature with a bonus feat, would the class be different?
And the Rogue gets "special abilities". One of these special abilities is the miraculous one of a bonus feat. Would the class be worse designed if it offered generic bonus feats in place of its higher level class features, and instead we had a feat called "Crippling Strike" that had a prerequisite of Rogue level 10th, and so on?

So, I don't think it's bad design to give feats "in place" of class features (sorry Fax! :smalltongue:). Printing the class features in the feat section is weird organization, but I'm not really frothing over that.

Which again leads me to say that the "Fighter Problem" isn't that all it gets is feats, but that the class features they printed in the feat sections of the PHB and PHB2 don't do anything more interesting or versatile than giving him more to-hit and damage. And that those are the only Fighter-specific features.

If just giving out bonus feats over the entire career were a problem, we'd see people whining about psychic warriors on that front too. We don't. The Fighter's problem isn't just that his "special" column is full of bonus feats.

[Arbitrarious]

The fighter issue is that few feats offer a truly diverse set of options that scale well without more feat investment. In pathfinder to really benefit from tripping you are looking at 3 feats (combat expertise, improved trip, and greater trip). You can improve you tripping ability more in a lot of interesting ways, but each small improvement requires another feat or two depending on prerequisites. Trip is certainly a powerful option, but it's only 1 option and may not work. Other combat tricks have similar investments. So in effect you end of with only 1 or 2 more tricks then another similar class. You will be good at those tricks, but what happens when you can't use them?

In contrast classes like bard, magus, and inquisitor have many options in the form of their spells that cover a wide base of possible issues and can be applied in many ways in addition to generous skill point access. They will seldom feel useless.

The issue with fighter was never raw power. It was the ability to apply it. You can make fighters that do their shtick well, but you are often competing with classes that are good enough in melee and have more answers when combat throws them curve balls. The bonus feats simply don't do enough to give fighters answers to problems that need to be addressed, because then you are potentially giving everyone access to more solutions in the form of feats.

PS. I don't consider feats with an actual class (not class feature) requirement feats so much as selectable ACFs.

[Quirken]

In contrast classes like bard, magus, and inquisitor have many options in the form of their spells that cover a wide base of possible issues and can be applied in many ways in addition to generous skill point access. They will seldom feel useless.

For the most part, that's just another way of saying that spellcasters scale quadratically while melee is linear. Yeah, most of the inquisitor stuff is class abilities and not spells, but it's still essentially magic based.

I'm all for flexibility in classes - pathfinder's Archetype system is great because it's more than a single level ACF substitution. There needs to be encouragement to stay with a class, and if most of what you're getting is bonus feats, then it feels more like a shell than a full class. Sure, you can put some fancy feats in there, some of which are great... but most feats aren't as powerful as class abilities, and the ones that are often get nerfed or banned by DMs.

[Coidzor]

Usually, unless the class feature can also be obtained as a feat, then it's basically up to preference and how much the feature offers as to whether to make the feat version inferior.

[willpell]

General consesus is that it's bad design if a class grants bonus feats over the majority of it's life, especially if these bonus feats are expected to take the place of actual class features (let's call this "The Fighter Problem").

How exactly is this bad? I for one would consider it much better design for things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and the "special abilities" from which the Rogue chooses at high level (which can be replaced with feats anyway) were just feats with tough prerequisites that are reduced or obviated in the case of the proper class. It would be far more consistent and create more character options, making the class less stereotypical and ensuring that people don't take that class JUST to get a feature if they want it badly enough to take it as a normal feat instead.

[Coidzor]

How exactly is this bad? I for one would consider it much better design for things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and the "special abilities" from which the Rogue chooses at high level (which can be replaced with feats anyway) were just feats with tough prerequisites that are reduced or obviated in the case of the proper class. It would be far more consistent and create more character options, making the class less stereotypical and ensuring that people don't take that class JUST to get a feature if they want it badly enough to take it as a normal feat instead.

Bonus feats, especially from restrictive lists, are not enough for a class on their own. That's part of why fighters are terribad as mentioned and are one-trick ponies. Now if they had a class feature that let them re-allocate a suite of bonus feats every day, they'd be more viable, still not good, but more viable.

[tyckspoon]

Bonus feats, especially from restrictive lists, are not enough for a class on their own.

This didn't have to be true. There is nothing in the system that necessarily determines that feats are not/can not be as good as class features, and the build-your-own-class concept represented by a huge stack of bonus feats actually is pretty appealing. (I'd say it is somewhat lazy design, but that's a different issue.)

The downfall comes from what the developers decided feats were going to represent, IMO; Class levels and associated features represent a unique kind of training/nature/whatever, something that you can only do if you are that class and have X levels of it. Ergo, class features are often more powerful and are permitted to *be* more powerful in design because they're your unique benefit for being that class. Feats, on the other hand, are Things Anybody Can (theoretically) Do, and so are limited to a weaker design space.

Taking those two ideas, you come to the Fighter.. which is a Class (and so should possess unique and powerful abilities as you level further in it) whose class features are Feats (which are generic and relatively weak.) It shouldn't be a surprise that such a class design doesn't work the way it's supposed to. It's further hampered by the fact that a lot of the Melee Warrior Dude feats that are available as Fighter Bonus Feats are.. kind of lame. There *are* enough good feats in the 3.5 library that having nothing but unrestricted bonus feats would make a pretty decent class, although rather extremely subject to the player's optimization knowledge.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I see the "Fighter Problem" being that people like to take dips in Fighter because they don't lose out on BAB and they have a broad choice of feats. People who dip in fighter usually aren't doing so for flavor reasons, but just for min-maxing.

Pathfinder at least has a slew of archetypes, which each have their own bits of flavor, but looking at the PSRD, the Fighter's flavor amounts to:
Trained Fightin'


Sure, he could be a "knight, overlord, foot soldier, or bandit king" - and your using the fighter class for one reason or another, but in and of itself, it's just sort of... there. In general, part of the problem with d20 is that melee classes are incredibly dip-able. Any game where I can go Warblade X/Fighter Y, I'm more than happy two.[/tangent]

As others have stated, bonus feats aren't too terribly good as a shtick. Having some is nice (e.g., 3.5 Wizard vs. Sorcerer), but most don't scale with level or, worse, become obsolete as your opponents start becoming bigger and badder, literally or otherwise.

Overall, having bonus feats as class features is lazy design. Sure, each level can't be "You gain super awesome secret powers," but having twenty levels of "Gain a feat (or another +1 to-hit, damage, AC)" is incredibly underwhelming. After a certain point, I have just about every feat I could possibly want. When that happens varies on the character and what I'm trying to do, but eventually I either load up on various metamagic feats, other feats that enhance my class features that are available (bardic performance, grit, etc.) or other things that are just nice to have (Master Craftsman, Improved Initiative).

EDIT: Most of what I said, tyckspoon covered. This is what I get for browsing the PSRD for an hour.

[candycorn]

The bottom line is contribution.

If a feat contributed the same as a class feature, it's a good swap. Typically, however, it doesn't. And for those happy exceptions that DO (power attack, for instance), they're easily attainable by anyone, from barbarian to fighter.

Which means that you're not judging the best seven feats the fighter chose; he got those for leveling to 20. You're looking at the 11 feats after that. Those feats are the ones that have to equal the abilities found in a class.

You want to go a long way towards balancing it?

New feats:Mystic Fortification
Prerequisite: Fighter 2+
Benefit: Choose a spell from the sorceror/wizard or cleric list with a single target or a target of personal, and a spell level no greater than (1/2 your fighter level - 1). You may use that spell as a spell-like ability, 3 times per day. When used, this spell-like ability must target yourself. Your caster level for this ability is equal to your fighter level.
Special: You may take this feat more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time you select it, you may select a new spell.

Infused Mysticism
Prerequisite: Fighter 10+
Benefit: Choose a spell-like ability gained by Mystic Fortification, with a spell level no more than (1/2 your fighter level -5). You may use this spell-like ability at will, as a swift action.

Mystic Channeling
Prerequisite: Fighter 10+
Benefit: Choose a spell from the sorceror/wizard or cleric list with a spell level no higher than (1/2 your fighter level -4) which targets a single creature or is a ray effect. Whenever you hit a creature with a melee or ranged weapon you are wielding, that creature may be affected as if you had cast that spell upon them.
Special: You may take this feat more than once. Its effects do not stack. Each time you select this feat, choose a different spell. Each time you hit with a melee attack, you may only apply the effects of one spell-like ability granted by the Mystic Channeling feat to the strike (though you may choose a different option each time, if you have taken the feat more than once). The save DC for this ability is 10 + the spell level + your constitution modifier

Granted, it would give the class a more duskblade feel, but it would actually make the class features useful.

So, let's look at a fighter 14.
He's taken, at level 6, the spell Cure Moderate Wounds, from Mystic Fortification.
At level 8, he took Arcane Sight.
At level 10, he takes Mystic Channeling, choosing Ray of Enfeeblement
At level 12, he takes Mystic Channeling, gaining Blindness/Deafness
At level 14, he takes Infused Mysticism, gaining Cure Moderate Wounds at will, as a swift action (self only).

Now, we have a fighter, at level 14, that can heal 2d8+10 to himself as a swift action, every round. He can see magic auras if he needs to. Whenever he hits with a melee or ranged weapon, the target is affected by Ray of Enfeeblement (1d6+5 Str Penalty) or Blindness/Deafness (save DC 12 + Fighter's Con modifier), at the fighter's option.

That's one option. The flexibility for this kind of setup is crazy, and would actually put fighter in high tier 3.

For a capstone, Fighter 20 can take Mystic Fortification to gain the Shapechange spell 3/day, or Infused Mysticism to use his Antimagic Field as a swift action, at will.

[willpell]

Bonus feats, especially from restrictive lists, are not enough for a class on their own.

Seems you're contradicting yourself here; the entire reason for the restricted list is to make the class feel distinct. Those feats are tricks that fighters learn in a formal (to some extent) combat education; other classes can go out of their way to learn them, but have other priorities that keep them from focusing to the same extent. Maybe the feats could be stronger (Weapon Focus certainly doesn't seem like much use, and having Dodge as a prerequite for Mobility and Spring Attack is painful), but the basic idea of using feats to build a class is as solid as the existence of feats in the first place.


That's part of why fighters are terribad as mentioned and are one-trick ponies.

Considering that one trick is the primary activity in a typical D&D campaign, combat, this doesn't seem so bad. The "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem does exist and is annoying, but I'd rather see wizards nerfed than fighters overcomplected to resemble wizards (hence I'm in no big hurry to read Tome of Battle).


Now if they had a class feature that let them re-allocate a suite of bonus feats every day, they'd be more viable, still not good, but more viable.

That would make no sense; why would they forget yesterday's combat tricks in order to figure out a new set for today? (It doesn't make sense for wizards either, which is why the idea of wizards having infinitely usable at-will powers is one of the few decent things they did in creating 4E, IMO of course.)

[candycorn]

Considering that one trick is the primary activity in a typical D&D campaign, combat, this doesn't seem so bad. The "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem does exist and is annoying, but I'd rather see wizards nerfed than fighters overcomplected to resemble wizards (hence I'm in no big hurry to read Tome of Battle).So, your idea of a great campaign is 4 one trick ponies, one tricking their way to victory?

Sounds very... predictable.


That would make no sense; why would they forget yesterday's combat tricks in order to figure out a new set for today? (It doesn't make sense for wizards either, which is why the idea of wizards having infinitely usable at-will powers is one of the few decent things they did in creating 4E, IMO of course.)It does make sense. People tend to favor things they recently study, and forget things they don't. We call it "getting rusty".

If you spend your morning stretching and practicing takedown exercises, you're gonna favor tripping someone. If you spent it practicing your heavy swings, you may favor sundering or cleaving.

Also, what wizards do isn't "memorizing". It's preparing. They may know how to finish off a prepared spell all day long, but what they don't have is an abundance of spells prepared, right at that point where all that must be done to unleash them is a few gestures a couple words, and a bit of bat poop on the forehead.

[Killer Angel]

This brings up the question in my mind, "Does this mean that a Class feature, no matter how minor, should always be superior to a feat?"


The obvious answer is: not all the feats are equally powerful, not all the class features are equally powerful.
But all of them should be somehow worthwhile.



So, is a bonus feat progression truly subpar and creates "The Fighter Problem"? Are class features really supposed to be that much more? Or are they closer than assumed?


The fact is: a feat is something everybody (or many) can take. A class feature should be something peculiar and unique, so it's superior by fluff default.

[Quirken]

The fact is: a feat is something everybody (or many) can take. A class feature should be something peculiar and unique, so it's superior by fluff default.

Barring, of course, feats that require a specific class feature (or level). Which is probably the best way IMO to address the "fighter problem" in other classes that want bonus feats.

[Killer Angel]

Barring, of course, feats that require a specific class feature (or level). Which is probably the best way IMO to address the "fighter problem" in other classes that want bonus feats.

Fair enough, I suppose.
Of course, feats with the "class feature requirement", means the fighter won't take 'em...

[Quirken]

Fair enough, I suppose.
Of course, feats with the "class feature requirement", means the fighter won't take 'em...

Well, yeah :smallbiggrin: but other classes could be modelled on that idea. There are some awesome feats that require sneak attack, etc.

And since this is a "3.PF" discussion, there are some unique Fighter abilities.

At a glance:
Bravery, Armor Training, Weapon Training, Armor Mastery, Weapon Mastery.

Granted, they're a bit plain. But it wouldn't be too hard to homebrew some feats that expanded on those in interesting ways. (Thematically, there is SO much that can be done with Bravery)

[kardar233]

The main problem is that the designers restrict feats to very limited effects, meaning that class features are generally considerably better. Pathfinder does a better job of this, but it's still a big problem.

Let's say you're playing a Grapple fighter. Awful choice, but you've got feats to burn on things like Scorpion's Grasp and similar.

But look at the Justiciar class. Their Hogtie ability (and its improved version) are some of the nastier grapple effects in the game, because you can pin-'em-and-leave-'em (or not even have to pin them, if you're 8th-level Justiciar).

There is no way for a Fighter to replicate that with feats.

Or take Champion of Corellon Lathien's Dex-to-Damage ability. You can't get that with a feat. You want to play a Dex-based Fighter? Too bad. Pathfinder has Dervish Dance, which is okay, but it only works for scimitars. If you want to have Dex-to-damage with an Elven Courtblade? Sucks to be you.

Being able to modularly construct class features is useless when your choices are restricted to boring numbers buffs.

Or, put another way:

Lots of feats does not equal class features because class features give options, and feats make you better at options. Thus, feats are superfluous without class features.

[Quirken]

Came up with an example of the kind of homebrew feat I meant.

Intimidating Bravado [Fighter]
Even your enemies are in awe of your courage.
Prerequisite: Bravery class ability
Benefit: As a swift action, you can attempt to intimidate any enemies within 15ft who can see you. Make a single intimidate check, and add an untyped bonus equal to your bravado bonus against fear. If an enemy becomes intimidated, they are panicked for 1d4 rounds. If an enemy is not intimidated, they are immune to such shows of bravado for 24 hours. You may use this ability a number of times per day equal to 1/4 your fighter level (minimum 1).

A fighter could take this at 4th level as a bonus feat (or 3rd as a regular feat), and it would scale up with them. Sure, it's not gamebreaking, but it's pretty distinctive and quite handy. And since it's fighter-exclusive, it's closer to a class feature than a feat. Sure, someone could multiclass into fighter for it, but they'd get less of an intimidate bonus and fewer uses.



There is no way for a Fighter to replicate that with feats.
There are examples beyond count of stuff like this. I agree, bonus feats in general are somewhat inadequate for making a class worthwhile. But this is not a fault with the bonus feats so much as the design, as you mentioned. Creating a set of feats along the lines of what I came up with up there would allow flexibility while granting unique and potentially more-powerful-than-typical-feats abilities.


Or take Champion of Corellon Lathien's Dex-to-Damage ability. You can't get that with a feat. You want to play a Dex-based Fighter?
Actually, there is a feat that's better than that. Bo9S, Shadow Blade: http://dndtools.eu/feats/tome-of-battle-the-book-of-nine-swords--88/shadow-blade--2556/

Add BOTH str and dex to damage. Plus it qualifies as Weapon Finnesse for prereqs. (Granted, you'd likely want to grab Weapon Finesse anyway in such a build)


Lots of feats does not equal class features because class features give options, and feats make you better at options. Thus, feats are superfluous without class features.

No, they don't inherently equal class features, but they CAN. It's not the system that's the problem here so much as lack of worthwhile choices that fit the flavor.

[kardar233]

If we're talking about design, then there are two ways to play it:

Keep class features and feats separate, where class features give you options and feats improve them (like in 3.5). This isn't a bad thing except in the Fighter's case, but if they were taking this option then Fighter is just bad design.

or

Blend class features and feats together, allowing players a limited amount of modularity past class levels and turning the Fighter into a build-your-own-warrior class.

Now, I'm a big fan of the Iron Heroes system. In it, feats are broken down into "Masteries", which are basically feat trees that you can cherrypick from. Each class has a Mastery progression (which vary based on the specialization, so Archers get fast Archery mastery progression but slow in others), and the Mastery progression determines how high up the Mastery trees you can cherrypick from.

The important point is that the Mastery trees are far more expansive and versatile than 3.5 trees. With certain Mastery trees, you can get things that in 3.5 would be class features; like token pools that you can spend for tactical advantage.

The point of classes in Iron Heroes is to essentially give you a core feat progression (class features, as they're very similar to the feats you can get) and then you can use your basic feats (that you get at 1, 2, 4, 6 etc.) to tack pieces onto your core progression. The only class that gives bonus feats is the Man-at-Arms, who gets modular bonus feats that you can swap daily. Due to the increased effectiveness and options you can get from Iron Heroes feats, this actually does help.

So it seems to me that both ways of resolving feats and class features are valid. 3.5 and Iron Heroes are my favourite systems, and they take complete opposite directions on how to deal with feats and class features. The only problems come when you try to overlap them like the 3.5 Fighter.

[willpell]

So, your idea of a great campaign is 4 one trick ponies, one tricking their way to victory?

Sounds very... predictable.

With five monster manuals and my fondness for brewing up interesting NPCs, I doubt I'll run shy of interesting challenges to throw at a party of four swords and boards any time soon, should I be so lucky as to ever find players willing to make my life easier by playing a class that doesn't have 1200 different ways of going off the rails.

[Arbitrarious]

For the most part, that's just another way of saying that spellcasters scale quadratically while melee is linear. Yeah, most of the inquisitor stuff is class abilities and not spells, but it's still essentially magic based.

True, but is not simply the scaling of power being exponential. It's the scaling of options. A spell caster gets 1-2 new spells per level. Fighters get 10 feats more then other classes. Sorcerers get over 30 spells known, even a bard will know that many. No core melee class consistently gets 2 unique, selectable options per level. In addition, fighters are going to have weaker feats that they took at lower level, just as the sorcerer will have their level 1 spells. At least the sorcerer can take the absolute best spells for low level and then begin to phase them out with spells that are more consistently useful in mid to high levels.

Even you say retraining is an easy thing in the game world, fighters are often forced to keep those weaker feats to fulfill prerequisites for their higher level feats. It would be much like saying to learn Dominate Monster you would need to know charm person, charm monster, dominate person, and have a Cha score of 17+ regardless of primary casting stat. If you lose access to one of the required spells you would lose access to anything higher then it on the chain.

The power difference between a feat and a spell is another issue entirely that just compounds the scaling problems. It's one of the reasons I love tome of battle. It finally puts a more reasonable cost on feat-like abilities. If you hate the idea of ToB there was a set of classes posted here that gave you tons of feats that you changed daily. It was pretty awesome and an excellent alternative if you don't want to learn a new system. I'll post the link if I find it.

[Tanuki Tales]

With five monster manuals and my fondness for brewing up interesting NPCs, I doubt I'll run shy of interesting challenges to throw at a party of four swords and boards any time soon, should I be so lucky as to ever find players willing to make my life easier by playing a class that doesn't have 1200 different ways of going off the rails.

Anecdotal evidence and tailoring the game doesn't disprove the mechanical fact that Fighters are poorly designed and subpar. Not saying folks don't find them fun to play and that games don't work when they make up the party's majority, but it is the plain truth of the matter when you get to the bare bones.

And as much as I love this discussion so far, I wish another class suffered "The Fighter Problem" as glaringly as the Fighter so we could prevent this devolving into another "Fighters are Subpar" thread. :smalltongue:

[Coidzor]

Seems you're contradicting yourself here; the entire reason for the restricted list is to make the class feel distinct.

No, because the Fighter gets **** for feats. If the bonus feats came from a restricted list that wasn't scared of letting them have good feats it'd be different. So perhaps I should have chosen some more words in addition to restrictive, but hopefully you get me now.

But this is basic stuff you should already know. :smallconfused:


Considering that one trick is the primary activity in a typical D&D campaign, combat, this doesn't seem so bad.

Being OK-to-Good at a single aspect of combat and mediocre or worse at all other areas of combat and the game is the primary activity in a typical D&D campaign? That's too depressing for me to believe.


The "linear fighters, quadratic wizards" problem does exist and is annoying, but I'd rather see wizards nerfed than fighters overcomplected to resemble wizards (hence I'm in no big hurry to read Tome of Battle).

Overcomplicated, you mean. And if that's your objection to reading Tome of Battle at all, then you really need to take the lies that people spout off with a bigger portion of salt.


That would make no sense; why would they forget yesterday's combat tricks in order to figure out a new set for today?

That sounds like a personal problem of imagination and the trap of requiring that mundanes be completely like regular people while affording leeway to obviously magical rather than simply extraordinary individuals.

Edit: And a point that too often gets overlooked is this.

Because the Fighter got so many feats, the designers felt they had to make the feats weaker and require feat chains in order to grab them in order to limit the fighter. And while this works to a certain extent at low levels, they lack relevant high level abilities and have to choose to start up a new chain of 1st-level abilities once they hit about 12th or continue marginally increasing a trick they already have or committing to the uber-charger which just does ridiculous damage and is otherwise trivial.

All this while being an active blight on the feat system that harms every other martial character.

Imagine for a moment a Fighter ACF that trades out two feats for the ability to take Incarnum feats as their bonus feats.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Some feats are better than most class features.
Especially tactical feats. There are awesome feats out there.