Feats >, <, or = class features? The "Adventurer Fighter" archetype

[Segev]

Let's say there's a hypothetical fighter archetype called the "Adventurer." It's fluff is something about how versatile and well-travelled he is leading to an eclectic set of powers.

Mechanically, every archetype feature for this subclass is simply, "You gain a feat."

Would this be overpowered? Underpowered?

What if it were a subclass for a different class?

[Unoriginal]

Let's say there's a hypothetical fighter archetype called the "Adventurer." It's fluff is something about how versatile and well-travelled he is leading to an eclectic set of powers.

Mechanically, every archetype feature for this subclass is simply, "You gain a feat."

Would this be overpowered? Underpowered?


I think there was a class like that in late 3.X. Forgot the name, though.

Anyway. Feats are not all of equal power, so it'd be hard to say how powerful such a character would be. But coupled with a Fighter basic features it'll be a solid, useful character regardless.

Not sure about the flavor, though.



What if it were a subclass for a different class?

I'd be interested at what would happen if you applied this concept to the Ranger. It'd open the class with something new but still fitting the thematic.

[Pinkie Pyro]

I think there was a class like that in late 3.X. Forgot the name, though.

Actually, it was quite early in the run! it's name was fighter.

[Unoriginal]

To answer the title's question: feats tend to be weaker than important class/subclass features, but stronger than the ribbon ones.

[MaxWilson]

Let's say there's a hypothetical fighter archetype called the "Adventurer." It's fluff is something about how versatile and well-travelled he is leading to an eclectic set of powers.

Mechanically, every archetype feature for this subclass is simply, "You gain a feat."

Would this be overpowered? Underpowered?

What if it were a subclass for a different class?

So, it's a Fighter, but it gains extra feats at levels 3, 7, 10, 15, and 18?

[thinks]

If Tasha's feats are in play, it's not underpowered. By level 11 you'd have 3 ASIs and 3 bonus feats plus racial feats/ASIs--starting from a rolled 15 Dex and taking Wood Elf, you could have Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Defensive Duelist, Elven Accuracy, Dex 20, and Skill Expert (Athletics) to let you knock enemies prone (Athletics +9ish) and then shoot them a bunch of times at tri-advantage. There are enough other feats you might want too that I don't think you'd ever really see diminishing returns (Sentinel, Mobile, Lucky, Tough).

At the same time, I don't think you wind up stronger than an Eldritch Knight or even Battlemaster by going down this route. Defensive Duelist is different than Shield but not better per se--it's less bursty, more sustainable, but which one is better depends on campaign. Getting tri-vantage is nice, but it's not better per se than being able to kite with Expeditious Retreat, and honestly it's not like you couldn't have had someone else knock the enemies prone even without the extra feats. Dex 18 vs. 20 is nice, but it's not a game-breaker to have Dex 18, especially if you're an Eldritch Knight who can get your own +1 via Magic Weapon at 7th level. So on and so forth.

I think it would be fine. Not overpowered, not underpowered.

[OldTrees1]

In general I would rate the first handful of feats as equivalent to a Tier 2 level. The next handful is equivalent to a Tier 1 level. Synergy can offset the "best first worst last" effect to keep you in the first bucket longer.

I think this Adventurer Subclass would be par for the course on any non caster class. If it were on a caster class then it would be above par due to casters have smaller subclasses.



5E feats are better in quality than 3E feats, but we don't have quite the diversity. So there are definitely holes that Eldritch Knight fills that this Adventurer Fighter would not.


In conclusion, this Adventurer Fighter would be balanced, and become my new default Fighter for Tier 1-2 but sometime in Tier 3+ I would rather have Eldritch Knight for better high level qualitative support.

[stoutstien]

Im with max here. I don't think it would be to far out of line to worry about it.
In my mind it would suffer from the same issue the battle master has where you start by picking the ones you want the most in every pick after that is worth less but that isn't new.

[MaxWilson]

Im with max here. I don't think it would be to far out of line to worry about it.
In my mind it would suffer from the same issue the battle master has where you start by picking the ones you want the most in every pick after that is worth less but that isn't new.

Off-topic, but there are some Battlemaster maneuvers and some feats that you don't want to pick early because you don't yet have the tools to exploit them. E.g. Trip Attack doesn't become really good until you have Extra Attacks to exploit it, and Resilient (Wisdom) isn't worth much until your proficiency bonus is at least moderately large. Conversely, Crossbow Expert is worth more early on when it almost doubles your firepower than it is at 20th level when it adds only ~19%, maybe less depending on your bonus action alternatives.

Also, in some cases (like picking wizard spells), there are enough synergies and potential unknowns that the point of diminishing returns is much greater than your actual budget. I don't know if that would happen with feats, but it's possible. I think especially if Tasha's feats were allowed I'd probably have about 13 feats that I really want on even a single-classed fighter, including stuff like Poisoner, Mounted Combatant, and Fey Touched. Poisoner is a good example of a feat that you don't want early because you don't yet have the cash to exploit it; Mounted Combatant also gets better later on as mount options improve.

[stoutstien]

Off-topic, but there are some Battlemaster maneuvers and some feats that you don't want to pick early because you don't yet have the tools to exploit them. E.g. Trip Attack doesn't become really good until you have Extra Attacks to exploit it, and Resilient (Wisdom) isn't worth much until your proficiency bonus is at least moderately large. Conversely, Crossbow Expert is worth more early on when it almost doubles your firepower than it is at 20th level when it adds only ~19%, maybe less depending on your bonus action alternatives.

Also, in some cases (like picking wizard spells), there are enough synergies and potential unknowns that the point of diminishing returns is much greater than your actual budget. I don't know if that would happen with feats, but it's possible. I think especially if Tasha's feats were allowed I'd probably have about 13 feats that I really want on even a single-classed fighter, including stuff like Poisoner, Mounted Combatant, and Fey Touched. Poisoner is a good example of a feat that you don't want early because you don't yet have the cash to exploit it; Mounted Combatant also gets better later on as mount options improve.

That's a fair point on feats. I tend to disregard damage feats out of habit because i don't find them interesting.

[Dork_Forge]

Besides one sticking point I think that it would be okay, you could essentially build a FIghter out of the Feats anyway:

-Fighting Initiate
-Martial Adept
-Tough

The hard part if level 5, there's no feat that really represents that damage bump every class (except the Rogue) gets. You could go for CBE or PAM to grab a bonus attack, it still wouldn't quite cut it but it'd be a start. SCAGtrips are an option, but damage wise I don't think they quite make up for it.

I'd probably say something like...

Cbe, Archery, Hunter's Mark would end up being decent damage. Overall I think it'd be interesting as a utility character (especially with Fey and Shadow Touched) but lack lustre in the damage department. You'd almost be better off playing support and medic in combat as that has pretty great support:

-Healer feat
-Magic Initiate (Cleric:Bless)
-Jorasco Halfling for healing, HElf (Drow) for support