DM Ruling Advice

[DracoKnight]

So one of my players has asked if they can take a class/subclass feature as one of their Feats, so long as they take it at a level after the home class gets it. Thoughts? I think it's fine, but there's the potential for broken combinations.

[zinycor]

what are we talking about exactly? It could be very broken or could be just nice

[EvanescentHero]

Yeah, you need to get or provide more details about which feature they want. Depending, it could be okay or way too strong.

[DracoKnight]

what are we talking about exactly? It could be very broken or could be just nice

Example: say someone is playing a wizard, but they want the wings that draconic sorcerers get at 14th level, so as their level 16 asi, they could take that class feature instead of a feat. Instead of sinking 14 levels into Sorcerer. Or a Fighter who has Evasion, or a Warlock with Assassinate. The only clause being that they have to take them after the class/subclass of origin gets them.

[zinycor]

Example: say someone is playing a wizard, but they want the wings that draconic sorcerers get at 14th level, so as their level 16 asi, they could take that class feature instead of a feat. Instead of sinking 14 levels into Sorcerer. Or a Fighter who has Evasion, or a Warlock with Assassinate. The only clause being that they have to take them after the class/subclass of origin gets them.

About the wings: I wouldn't allow it, draconic sorcerer have very strong flavor reasons for having those wings. Maybe it would make more sense if they didn't take their arcane tradition and made some kind of pact with a powerful dragon. And even the I would be doubtfull to allow it, but a feat would totally be out of the question

Warlock with assassinate: I wouldn't allow it, getting 3 levels of rogue is very easy and could prove very usefull as well, if you want to be ge tthe best thing an assasin gets, you take those levels.

Fighter with evasion: I would maybe allow the fighter take evasion instead of the lvl 15 "martial archetype feature", but fighters don't even have proficiency on dex Saving throws, so i don't think would be too much of an awesome idea

[DracoKnight]

About the wings: I wouldn't allow it, draconic sorcerer have very strong flavor reasons for having those wings. Maybe it would make more sense if they didn't take their arcane tradition and made some kind of pact with a powerful dragon. And even the I would be doubtfull to allow it, but a feat would totally be out of the question

Warlock with assassinate: I wouldn't allow it, getting 3 levels of rogue is very easy and could prove very usefull as well, if you want to be ge tthe best thing an assasin gets, you take those levels.

Fighter with evasion: I would maybe allow the fighter take evasion instead of the lvl 15 "martial archetype feature", but fighters don't even have proficiency on dex Saving throws, so i don't think would be too much of an awesome idea

Wouldn't that make the wizard a warlock? And a potential RP reason for giving them the wings is that a transmutation wizard experimented on themselves. And since wizards get Fly at 5th level, wouldn't this be less broken?

This is actually the one I was asked about, and they have very good RP reasons for it, and they've already taken 3 levels of Warlock (4th level party) and this fits in with their character perfectly (a fiend pact of the blade who kills people at her demon lord's command). I don't see a problem with it, but I'm usually willing to give my players what they want so long as they have a good reason. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being absolutely insane with this :P

[Naanomi]

I'd say no overall, if someone wants to make a custom feat to emulate a class feature go with it, in power level comparable to existing feats...

Assassinate on a warlock, crit range expansion on a barbarian, action surge on any caster, archery style on a rogue... To much unbalancing potential to leave open without individually looking at each case

[DracoKnight]

I'd say no overall, if someone wants to make a custom feat to emulate a class feature go with it, in power level comparable to existing feats...

Assassinate on a warlock, crit range expansion on a barbarian, action surge on any caster, archery style on a rogue... To much unbalancing potential to leave open without individually looking at each case

It would definitely be a case-by-case thing, and I wouldn't let them take just any feature on any character - they'd have to have a reason for wanting it, not just meta-gaming, but an actual in-world reason that isn't contradictory with the character they've built so far. I see this almost not as taking a feat, but as an alternative to multiclassing.

[zinycor]

Wouldn't that make the wizard a warlock? And a potential RP reason for giving them the wings is that a transmutation wizard experimented on themselves. And since wizards get Fly at 5th level, wouldn't this be less broken?

This is actually the one I was asked about, and they have very good RP reasons for it, and they've already taken 3 levels of Warlock (4th level party) and this fits in with their character perfectly (a fiend pact of the blade who kills people at her demon lord's command). I don't see a problem with it, but I'm usually willing to give my players what they want so long as they have a good reason. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being absolutely insane with this :P

First: No matter what I or others tell you, if you get to the conlusion that it is fine then do it and come later to tell us how good/bad was it.

second: having wings as a sorcerer is way moe powerfull than the flying spell since it doesn't drain resources, can appear with a bonus action, don't require concentration, and last until you want.

Third: As i said, I wouldn't do it as a feat but i would change it so the wings would replace the 14th level arcane tradition.

[Gurka]

To me, it all has to do with what the given ability offers the class in question. How much synergism it offers with their kit.

Now, flying is something that's hugely powerful, and while it's less so to a spellcaster who can usually get it as a spell, but to have it at will without expended resources is still really strong. In that case, I might give the option to spend an ASI to have weak wings, incapable of flight but which can be used to augment jumping and gliding, then spend a second ASI to make them strong enough for true flight. Thus he's spending two feats on it.

The folks in my group do stuff like this a lot, mostly because all of us have spent years playing non-class based RPG's, allowing you to truly build the character you want to play, as opposed to taking one of the very limited class chassis offered by D&D and shoehorning your concept in. This edition is better than most about that already though.

When one of the players wants to do something like that, I'm always open to it, though I find that I have to keep much closer of an eye on what I give the spellcasters than the martials. The former already have such an abundance of options and abilities via spells (particularly wizards) that giving them even more toys can really get out of hand. On the other hand, it's much easier to look down the road at what a fighter, rogue or barbarian will be able to accomplish with an unusual ability than a wizard. They won't hit you with any off the wall spell combinations.

[Dimcair]

I'd just save myself the trouble.

If you need to review something on a case by case basis it is obvious that there are potential problems already.

And it might create problems in the group itself. When the Wizard gets his wings but the barbarian does not get his (whateveritis), you can reason, but the player will still feel betrayed if he thought his option is just as balanced as the wizards. Even if he might not say it out loud. You are generating a environment where people see other people as DM's favorite.

[DracoKnight]

I'd just save myself the trouble.

If you need to review something on a case by case basis it is obvious that there are potential problems already.

And it might create problems in the group itself. When the Wizard gets his wings but the barbarian does not get his (whateveritis), you can reason, but the player will still feel betrayed if he thought his option is just as balanced as the wizards. Even if he might not say it out loud. You are generating a environment where people see other people as DM's favorite.

I can see your point, but I play with a very understanding group of people and I'm fairly lenient for the most part, the way I look at is this: the more toys the players have, the more difficult the challenges I can throw at them.

[DracoKnight]

So, I'm going to run with this for now. I'll let the forum know how it goes. I really hope that this can be an alternative to multiclassing, because I'm not a fan of how it works at the moment.

[Gurka]

So, I'm going to run with this for now. I'll let the forum know how it goes. I really hope that this can be an alternative to multiclassing, because I'm not a fan of how it works at the moment.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. It feels like multi-classing is still very much a system-mastery trap. Unless you know just how to do it, you're going to hurt yourself more than help. I'd like for them to come out with a supplement specifically dedicated to custom Archetypes and alternate class features.

For the most part, I find that any particular feature(s) a player wants to trade out for their class (as long as they're of similar power level) will have a pretty minimal impact on the game, from a DM standpoint. Particularly compared to (as some other posters have mentioned) a lot of the high level abilities that are already in the game. On the other side of the coin, it can make a tremendous difference to the player's enjoyment level, which enriches the game a lot for everybody involved.

In my old group, we had one particular player who... well, he played a different kind of game than anybody else at the table. He didn't really worry about the specifics of what the rules said he could and could not do, what his limitations were (or those of his character or abilities), or whether he was operating on the same scale as everybody else. Instead the DM at the time (who was not me) simply gave him essentially his own (higher scale) opponent to deal with each time there was a "boss fight", while the rest of the group dealt with the appropriately scaled badguy. This might seem like a bad scenario I'm painting (and definitely more work for the DM), and in most situations I'd agree.

As it turned out, it was quite the opposite though: He made nearly every session hilariously, unpredictably, and thoroughly enjoyable for everybody. He was great at making everybody at the table laugh, driving the story forward (often times in unforeseen directions), and just generally keeping everything lighthearted and fun. The way he liked to play, however, was to use his character sheet as a general guideline for his character, as opposed to a hard and fast set of rules for interacting with the world (like everybody else typically does). Take that bit away, constrain him to within the boundaries of that character sheet, and it took away a lot of his fun, and with it much of his social contribution to the game. He would be much quieter, less apt to jump in and take initiative with the narrative, and a whole lot less fun.

That certainly doesn't fit everybody who wants to change the rules, but I hope it illustrates why it's sometimes worth considering, even if you see some potential imbalance.

[Malifice]

Case by case basis, but not broken.

Runs the risk of poaching core abilities of other classes though.

[MrStabby]

So I think there is a lot of potential for flavour and versatility here, but some things need an eye kept on them.

I also see casters as being a problem with this - in general they are less good to multiclass as it delays their high level spell progression. With this there are a lot more openings for abuse. Some examples:

Evocation wizard can now use draconic sorcerer elemental boost at level 8 to get warlock level cantrip damage. A Necromancer might grab the death domain improved reaper at level 20 and the Oathbreaker aura of hate at 8th level. Bladelocks might take paladin smites from their base class.

Others are even more significant if you allow the class mentioned in the description to be replaced by the class that acquired the ability. Metamagic/font of magic, arcane renewal and magical secrets spring to mind. Likewise for martial characters if the sneak attack ability scaled off your own level rather than rogue level it could be very mean.

I am assuming you are ruling out some abilities like spellcasting - it is a class ability that many classes get at level 1/2/3 but it seems really big. Likewise there are some options for feats that are massively outclassed - why take a superiority die and one thing to use it on if you could take the battlemaster core feature.

There may be some grief that other people are stealing the core abilities of other classes - you may want some abilities to have prerequisite abilities in a class. Improved divine smite for example may need normal smites. Taking warlock mystic arcanum to get high level spells on a non caster etc..

Finally you have to decide how to handle scaling features. Wildshape - what CR could you have if you took it as a feature?

I think on the other hand, if done well it can add to the fun and happiness at the table. For example if I were in a party with a monk and a warlock people would want to take a lot of short rests - getting an ability with that mechanic would then mean at the table we would all be happier with it (say taking action surge or channel divinity). Also, this menu approach couples with loads of ASIs makes the fighter seem like a really fun class to play now. I would be interested to see how this turns out.

[ProphetSword]

I'm not even sure why the OP bothered to ask for DM advice, as it seems they had already made their mind up. Every response from a DM who wouldn't allow it explaining why they wouldn't allow it was responded to with justifications about why they would allow it. Seems the OP could have just saved time by doing what they wanted to do and just posting the results as a suggestion instead.

I'm interested to see how it turns out. I wouldn't allow it at my table, though.

[Gurka]

Likewise there are some options for feats that are massively outclassed - why take a superiority die and one thing to use it on if you could take the battlemaster core feature.

Part of the problem here is that not all feats are created equal. Martial Adept in particular seems incredibly low budget by comparison to a lot of others. I grant that there are some interesting gimmicks you can pull off, particularly as a support character, but an ASI to gain a single minor combat trick per short rest, which is not even guaranteed to succeed. That's not much bang for your buck.

The only way it scales, is if you take it as a Battlemaster or non-spellcasting hunter. Even for one of those, though, I have a hard time justifying an ASI for a single extra superiority die and a pair of maneuvers.

There are several other feats though, such as GWM or Sharpshooter that are easily comparable to or of greater value than most individual class features, where combat is concerned anyway. There are plenty of other feats that are of great utility, either in customizing your fighter or rogue to add utility or specialize in a less-common roll. Unlike the handful of grade A feats however, most of those are not the equal of common class features.

[DracoKnight]

I'm not even sure why the OP bothered to ask for DM advice, as it seems they had already made their mind up. Every response from a DM who wouldn't allow it explaining why they wouldn't allow it was responded to with justifications about why they would allow it. Seems the OP could have just saved time by doing what they wanted to do and just posting the results as a suggestion instead.

I'm interested to see how it turns out. I wouldn't allow it at my table, though.

I think that was my intention (putting it out there that I was testing this), but it was late enough that I wasn't getting out what I wanted to say :P

[ProphetSword]

I think that was my intention (putting it out there that I was testing this), but it was late enough that I wasn't getting out what I wanted to say :P

No worries. Just wasn't sure why the advice was needed when the answer was already decided upon.

Even still, I want to see the results of the experiments posted and general thoughts about it. At this point, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but I'm open minded enough to wait and see how it works out for someone else and then use that to update my thinking on the matter.

[DracoKnight]

No worries. Just wasn't sure why the advice was needed when the answer was already decided upon.

Even still, I want to see the results of the experiments posted and general thoughts about it. At this point, I wouldn't allow it at my table, but I'm open minded enough to wait and see how it works out for someone else and then use that to update my thinking on the matter.

I will post findings :D