Class features as Feats

[ZenBear]

Would it be a problem to add Expertise and Fighting Styles to be gained through Feats? How would you build the Feats to make them balanced against others? How about other features like Favored Enemy/Terrain?

[Sir cryosin]

Fighting styles my DM lets use when we have down time in game we can spend some time training to learn a new fighting style.

[Mith]

Fighting styles my DM lets use when we have down time in game we can spend some time training to learn a new fighting style.

Does that mean that you can acquire more Fighting Styles then you would get in regular class progression, without any cost except time and perhaps cash for teachers?

[Theodoxus]

Would it be a problem to add Expertise and Fighting Styles to be gained through Feats? How would you build the Feats to make them balanced against others? How about other features like Favored Enemy/Terrain?

I'd be ok with it, probably anything in the 1-3 level range of class abilities. I don't think I'd make any of them half feats, even if they're mechanically weak - not having to multiclass to grab a FS or Expertise (or a weak Smite, Sneak or Flurry) is a huge boon.

I would, as compromise, let all the feats to stack, so if you grabbed a FE/T or Sneak, for instance, you could take the feat again to get a second FE/T or 2d6 Sneak...

[MrStabby]

I'd be ok with it, probably anything in the 1-3 level range of class abilities. I don't think I'd make any of them half feats, even if they're mechanically weak - not having to multiclass to grab a FS or Expertise (or a weak Smite, Sneak or Flurry) is a huge boon.

I would, as compromise, let all the feats to stack, so if you grabbed a FE/T or Sneak, for instance, you could take the feat again to get a second FE/T or 2d6 Sneak...

I am not sure if this would be wise. Metamagic as a feat? Smite as a feat? Warlock Invocations as feats? Cunning action? Expanded Critical? Superiority dice? Action surge? Cherry picking the best class features without, say, sacrificing spell progression as a caster is very powerful.

[LordFluffy]

Being able to learn fighting styles weakens why one would become a fighter. A Champion gets a total of two, after all.

Expertise makes more sense, but at the same time, reduces one of the best reasons to go Rogue.

If you stripped them all out and tried to make some version of a classless 5e, I think there would be a way to balance but as suggested, it's diminishing other classes, I think.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Being able to learn fighting styles weakens why one would become a fighter. A Champion gets a total of two, after all.

Expertise makes more sense, but at the same time, reduces one of the best reasons to go Rogue.

If you stripped them all out and tried to make some version of a classless 5e, I think there would be a way to balance but as suggested, it's diminishing other classes, I think.

Why is that a bad thing?

Fighters already are mad basic, I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility for a war/tempest/other cleric to easily pick up a fighting style.

Fighters are just glorified NPCs. Might as well make their features as feats, if it takes three levels to complete a class I don't see a problem in getting rid of the class by making it a feat chain.

[Sir cryosin]

Does that mean that you can acquire more Fighting Styles then you would get in regular class progression, without any cost except time and perhaps cash for teachers?

When I'm talking about fighting styles like TWF archery gwf but if there is a class feature that we want first me must be that lv and we have to fine someone to teach us and it will take time to learn and some kind of cost it's not all ways money but it all up are DM we only had one play do this he wanted the rouge cunning action so he went looking for a rouge to train him he payed a lot of coin and then he had to survive a fight then the rouge trained him

[Cazero]

Why is that a bad thing?

Fighters already are mad basic, I don't think it would be out of the realm of possibility for a war/tempest/other cleric to easily pick up a fighting style.

Fighters are just glorified NPCs. Might as well make their features as feats, if it takes three levels to complete a class I don't see a problem in getting rid of the class by making it a feat chain.
So you think people should be forbidden to play as Gimli in D&D?

You can conceivably fit the themes of paladin, ranger, monk, rogue and barbarian as fighter subclasses. The reverse is not true.
The fighter class is mandatory to the game for it's flavor, not it's mechanics. Every single other class has a heavy baggage that many character concepts don't want. Even if the class suck/is badly designed/feels bland/etc, removing the class is not a solution because unlike the glorified subclasses that got their own class in core, that one class is damn too important.

[Talamare]

Unless you're designing a new system for choosing classes, it would kinda of just destroy major reasons for choosing those classes

[Dimolyth]

Unless you're designing a new system for choosing classes, it would kinda of just destroy major reasons for choosing those classes

Well, pretty much this. There plenty of other systems where features are not grouped in class package. Just because a feature seems to be "basic" or "mundane" or "boring" - doesn`t mean it ought to be universally accesible.
Expertise - is signature feature, even it is available to rogues AND bards. Fighting Style - is signature feature, even it is available to fighters, rangers and paladins (even then paladins don`t get archery, and rangers - heavy weapon fighting). Arcane Recovery - is signature feature, even it is available to both wizards and druids.
Yes, we do have Ritual Caster, Magic Initiate, Martial Adept and Skilled. As for me, that is more than enough for "minor multiclassing with ASI". It is thematically appropriete, and still less than whole "Class Feature".

But if you are interested to make some class-less system - they are interesting and already existing. GURPS is one of examples.

[Sir cryosin]

I thought that a fighter was the highest DPR right now with there many ASI and feats you get 2 action surges and 4 attacks and that's just the base line fighter. The battlemaster is real nice control high DPR and the champion is such a nice crit fisher and the EK makes you that nice tank you want to be. Getting rid of the fighter and just turning him in to feats will throw the balance if the game out of wack. If you make action surge a feat and then letting a wizard have it for just one ASI will make him so much stronger. Yes he can mc to get it but he is trading his high lv spell for it. Which balances it out even. Were if the wizard a sad class were he can afford to spend a ASI on a feat can make him pretty op by going super nova by beING able to cast a 9th and 8th lv spell in the same action. Or let's take the fight ability to automatically make any save (I can't remember what's the ability is Called it starts with an I) to anyone oh I suck at X kind of saves wait I have that feat were I can say I made my save. Even if you made it to one use a day.

[OldTrees1]

I would caution against it if you intend to have classes be unique. On the other hand, I really like customized classes (basically select/advance a level's worth of level appropriate abilities every level)*. It is mainly the middle ground that gets messy.

If 3 skill proficiencies is a feat, then 2 expertise could be a feat.

*Explains a lot of why I like Fighter

[SharkForce]

i would be extremely cautious about giving out class features as a feat. many class features serve not just as a mechanical element, but as a key part of class identity. it isn't just a question of mechanical power (although i do think that some class abilities also are too powerful to hand out as feats).

[Daishain]

While I'm generally in favor of the idea (not least due to my opinion that the existing system is slightly too rigid to support appropriate character customization), caution must be observed. Any class features that present opportunity for nasty combos (Action surge is a big offender in this regard) should either not be available as a feat, or be weakened in some manner.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So you think people should be forbidden to play as Gimli in D&D?

You can conceivably fit the themes of paladin, ranger, monk, rogue and barbarian as fighter subclasses. The reverse is not true.
The fighter class is mandatory to the game for it's flavor, not it's mechanics. Every single other class has a heavy baggage that many character concepts don't want. Even if the class suck/is badly designed/feels bland/etc, removing the class is not a solution because unlike the glorified subclasses that got their own class in core, that one class is damn too important.

Never said that, but you get the exact same thing by picking up the NPC and running it as you do running the Fighter.

Can gimli be an option? Sure. But Gimli shouldn't be the only option for non-magical martials.

Right now you either play an NPC class or you play magic. You (general use, not specifically YOU) are cutting out so many options and so many opportunity to expand that it is down right pathetic.

Make the Fighter features feats, all of them from the core class, and the only two worth taking would be action surge and fighting style.

Even indomitable wouldn't be worth taking unless you have proficiency in Con or Wis saves... And even then, there are plenty of other feats that would outweigh that feature (1/long rest is terrible for that feature).

What's worse is that the NPC fighter's have better class features than the base fighter. How about letting the Fighter, and not some pseudo magic striker ability, gain brave, brute, shield bash, parry, or leadership?

These NPCs get more interesting and useful abilities than the base fighter. Compare that to the Druid, Acolyte, and Archmage NPCs and the druid, cleric and wizard. Acolyte and Druid get nothing special that the PC class doesn't get, he'll BOX druids don't get wildshape. The Archmage gets magic resistance but I would take arcane recovery over that.

Hell, the Assasin NPC is the rogue + subclass... But they get multiattack!

I'm not saying you can't have a linear basic version of classes but my gosh, don't have that be the only choice you get. A core class shouldn't be on par with an NPC.

[pwykersotz]

Never said that, but you get the exact same thing by picking up the NPC and running it as you do running the Fighter.

Can gimli be an option? Sure. But Gimli shouldn't be the only option for non-magical martials.

Right now you either play an NPC class or you play magic. You (general use, not specifically YOU) are cutting out so many options and so many opportunity to expand that it is down right pathetic.

Make the Fighter features feats, all of them from the core class, and the only two worth taking would be action surge and fighting style.

Even indomitable wouldn't be worth taking unless you have proficiency in Con or Wis saves... And even then, there are plenty of other feats that would outweigh that feature (1/long rest is terrible for that feature).

What's worse is that the NPC fighter's have better class features than the base fighter. How about letting the Fighter, and not some pseudo magic striker ability, gain brave, brute, shield bash, parry, or leadership?

These NPCs get more interesting and useful abilities than the base fighter. Compare that to the Druid, Acolyte, and Archmage NPCs and the druid, cleric and wizard. Acolyte and Druid get nothing special that the PC class doesn't get, he'll BOX druids don't get wildshape. The Archmage gets magic resistance but I would take arcane recovery over that.

Hell, the Assasin NPC is the rogue + subclass... But they get multiattack!

I'm not saying you can't have a linear basic version of classes but my gosh, don't have that be the only choice you get. A core class shouldn't be on par with an NPC.

The CR12 Archmage has 9th level Wizard casting. There are many other NPC's with spellcasting ability. I don't think your argument about "playing an NPC" really follows.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The CR12 Archmage has 9th level Wizard casting. There are many other NPC's with spellcasting ability. I don't think your argument about "playing an NPC" really follows.

The point is that the Archmage is an NPC that doesn't get anything above and beyond what a core class wizard gets. What it gets is either similar or lesser than what the wizard gets at the same expected level when they would meet.

However low cr martial NPCs get class features that a fighter just will never be able to touch.

The Fighter, if chosen battle master, can use parry. But only 4 times before they get winded/tired/forgets how to parry. A Gladiator or Knight (and Noble funny enough) can parry at-will and add to their AC. *

Hell, the gladiator gets Shield Bash at-will. 2d4+str and can knock a creature prone.

They put more thought and care into the martial NPCs than the martial PCs.

*The ability to parry isn't what is impressive, the fact that they get to do it at-will and not forget/get tired unlike the Fighter subclass. Plus the core fighter doesn't even come close to getting anything this useful.

[CantigThimble]

The point is that the Archmage is an NPC that doesn't get anything above and beyond what a core class wizard gets. What it gets is either similar or lesser than what the wizard gets at the same expected level when they would meet.

However low cr martial NPCs get class features that a fighter just will never be able to touch.

The Fighter, if chosen battle master, can use parry. But only 4 times before they get winded/tired/forgets how to parry. A Gladiator or Knight (and Noble funny enough) can parry at-will and add to their AC. *

Hell, the gladiator gets Shield Bash at-will. 2d4+str and can knock a creature prone.

They put more thought and care into the martial NPCs than the martial PCs.

*The ability to parry isn't what is impressive, the fact that they get to do it at-will and not forget/get tired unlike the Fighter subclass. Plus the core fighter doesn't even come close to getting anything this useful.

Defensive Duelist and Shield Master are both feats. Fighters get lots of feats. Those mechanics work slightly differently for NPCs, but that's just the nature of the system.

[Addaran]

I don't have a problem with it, but take exemple of the existing feats. Martial Adept gives you only 2 maneuvers instead of 3, one dice instead of 4 and it's a lower one. Magic Initiate is 2 cantrips and 1 spell known even less then a lvl 1 warlock.

Some things like FS can't really be split, but metamagic could be. Maybe you have only one metamagic and enough sorcery point to cast it once?

You'd also have to make lvl requierement for some things, if it's not a lvl 1 abilitiy. Would be stupid to let vhuman or a lvl 4 get something before the class could actually get it. (like bard stealing some paly/ranger spell before the real class...)