Generic class feat/ures for "standard" classes

[paladinn]

An exercise in theorycrafting (i.e. thinking "out loud"). In 3e UA, the concept of generic classes involved converting standard class features into "feats" that generic classes could take. Hypothetically, this opens up a lot of character concepts without needing to multiclass.

I'm wondering if those sort of feat/ures might work if they were able to be selected along with regular feats. Or would it be too unbalanced or OP or ? Maybe have one of those feat/ures cost 2 feat slots? I can totally see a fighter character taking favored enemy or sneak attack or whatever. Obviously there are limitations; only caster would continue to take metamagic feats. But I could see a "good wizard" / "white mage" take turn undead. It worked for Gandalf:)

Thoughts?

[JNAProductions]

An exercise in theorycrafting (i.e. thinking "out loud"). In 3e UA, the concept of generic classes involved converting standard class features into "feats" that generic classes could take. Hypothetically, this opens up a lot of character concepts without needing to multiclass.

I'm wondering if those sort of feat/ures might work if they were able to be selected along with regular feats. Or would it be too unbalanced or OP or ? Maybe have one of those feat/ures cost 2 feat slots? I can totally see a fighter character taking favored enemy or sneak attack or whatever. Obviously there are limitations; only caster would continue to take metamagic feats. But I could see a "good wizard" / "white mage" take turn undead. It worked for Gandalf:)

Thoughts?

It'd likely be unbalanced.

But, given how unbalanced 3rd is just in its natural state, and the concepts this could open up, I could see this working well. I wouldn't do it as a universal rule, but with a group of people who know the game well and can work with one another to make characters that are in the same league as each other? Sure.

[paladinn]

I've been looking at True20 a lot.. it's pretty cool, but it looks like a lot of work to convert the feats, etc. to work with D&D. I already know I'd want to keep using the 5e spell system.

Has anyone ever done a more complete conversion of 3.5 class features to feats for generic classes? Or True20 feats to 3.5?

[paladinn]

Ok, yet another update.. Big change in focus. I'm working on a hybrid of C&C, B/X, the "generic class" rules from 3e UA, the spell/slot rules from 5e, and True20. I'm sure a lot of you can see where that will likely go.

I'm trying to decide the best approach for the generic class feat/ures (class features of standard classes that have been turned into feats), as well as any class features to keep so. In True20, almost Everything is a feat. There are the 3 generic classes (warrior, expert and adept/spellcaster). In 3e, the spellcaster still casts spells; in True20, an adept gets powers as feats as they progress. It's a very different approach; and I am sold on porting the 5e spellcasting.

Warrior characters are basically fighters. In 3e they get some class features, proficiencies, etc.; in True20 those are Very few, and most everything depends on feat choices. Experts are in the same boat. In True20, outside of HD, BAB, number of skills, etc. there's not a lot of distinction.

The fact is, both 3e generic and True20 allow one to build very cool, very specialized characters. I just don't know how far to take the feat-izing. What actual features should I keep as features? Any thoughts on how to make features into feats?

Thanks in advance for the input!

[Morphic tide]

How much to keep as discrete class features depends on how niche you want the classes to be. I'd say to build on the "Generic" list with more specific party roles, such as mixing properties of the Cleric, Paladin, and Healer to "lock in" the healer as a niche the base class can't escape, and other classes can't casually feat into. Ridiculous levels of specialization are fine, grab-bags of every effect one can possibly need aren't, and the key to the latter is separating those effects. This is highly dependent on the degree of interdependence you'd like.

As for converting existing features to feats, Pathfinder's Variant Multiclassing breaks down some class features into feat sets.

[Jervis]

I’d love it if say mettle and divine grace were feats but that’s kind of building on easy mode.

[paladinn]

How much to keep as discrete class features depends on how niche you want the classes to be. I'd say to build on the "Generic" list with more specific party roles, such as mixing properties of the Cleric, Paladin, and Healer to "lock in" the healer as a niche the base class can't escape, and other classes can't casually feat into. Ridiculous levels of specialization are fine, grab-bags of every effect one can possibly need aren't, and the key to the latter is separating those effects. This is highly dependent on the degree of interdependence you'd like.

As for converting existing features to feats, Pathfinder's Variant Multiclassing breaks down some class features into feat sets.

Thanks! Will definitely look into that. PF1 or 2?

Right now I'm working on the base classes, especially warrior and expert. In True20, warriors get weapon or firearms training and experts get expertise; but otherwise there's not a lot to differentiate them. Experts get a lot more skills of course. I'm just wondering what basic "class features", from whatever D&D or clone edition, should be kept just as "class features". Again, in True20 they each get 4 feats at L1 and one feat each level after. Experts get quite a few more feats, while warriors get roughly the same.

[Troacctid]

If they were normal feats, they'd be among the most powerful feats in the game, and the ease of accessing them would effectively be a nerf to the classes that lean on those features as a significant part of their power budget. I don't think this would be a good idea. If you did do it, I would strongly recommend gating it behind a feat tax. Most of them could easily be worth multiple feats. Some of them already are multiple normal feats and are still worth it!

[Morphic tide]

Thanks! Will definitely look into that. PF1 or 2?

Right now I'm working on the base classes, especially warrior and expert. In True20, warriors get weapon or firearms training and experts get expertise; but otherwise there's not a lot to differentiate them. Experts get a lot more skills of course. I'm just wondering what basic "class features", from whatever D&D or clone edition, should be kept just as "class features". Again, in True20 they each get 4 feats at L1 and one feat each level after. Experts get quite a few more feats, while warriors get roughly the same.

PF1 has the Variant Multiclassing, though PF2's feat categorization system, separating feats by class, race, and skill restrictions versus general feats, is actually a good way to improve the functional distinction between classes and races by more formally separating pools and letting classes vary the ratio of each kind of feat. Skill feats are more an artifact of the proficiency system, though.

With regard to what base classes to go with, I'd suggest separating them by core features that cause issues when mutually inclusive, like broad focuses of spell lists or the party roles you really do not want to combine, as well as cases where feats don't line up with scaling right like bulk spellcasting or where a function needs carefully watched for combinations like minion builds.

Oh, also check out Spheres of Power (http://spheresofpower.wikidot.com/), it's a (set of) 3rd-party subsystem(s) for PF1 that breaks up abilities into the titular Spheres, acting as topics of capability, with classes getting different schedules of Talents to get more abilities from their Spheres or access new ones. The casting further packs down into Traditions, defining how a character handles magic to potentially ludicrous specificity, including what kinds of magic they use, wholly independent of class taken. Gives plenty of at-will effects, even if I dislike the action economy constraints.

The function of class features in it is specialization in ways that mess with the fungibility premise, where it doesn't fit in the starting Talent budget even with drawbacks or would cause issues if particularly fungible. For instance, the Sphere shifter picks up permanent traits from early levels and aids the action economy of self-applied magic from the Alteration sphere, and the Mageknight inlines a grab-bag of Gish options separately from the Talent pool to not get bogged down in Sphere support. Mostly just works as Class Feats, really...


If they were normal feats, they'd be among the most powerful feats in the game, and the ease of accessing them would effectively be a nerf to the classes that lean on those features as a significant part of their power budget. I don't think this would be a good idea. If you did do it, I would strongly recommend gating it behind a feat tax. Most of them could easily be worth multiple feats. Some of them already are multiple normal feats and are still worth it!
This is the other thing, when a feature is such front-loaded power or such good scaling that putting it on a fungible feat is a bad idea because it's too blatantly superior. Also another reason for non-fungible categorization as it reduces the prominence of the issue by making it so they can't take over entire builds with heartless bland munchinry.

[paladinn]

This is becoming more and more a True20/ generics mashup. T20's feats, even the ones that replicate 3e class features, seem better balanced then what was proposed in 3eUA.

I'm still wondering if/which class features should actually Be class features and not feats. It would be good to have something for warriors and experts to set them apart. Warriors could get a "fighting style" or "martial role" (ala 5e) at L1. Experts would typically get "expertise"; but expertise isn't quite as powerful in 3e or T20. Still pondering. T20 gives 4 feats at L1, so I'm not sure how to divvy things up.

I am definitely having a Mage class that is separate from an Adept class. The T20 adept is great for things like superpowers, psionics, etc.; but I want to maintain a D&D-ish spell system for wizards, druids, clerics, etc. But if someone wants to play, say, a ranger with some magic abilities (not spells), s/he can MC warrior and adept (maybe it needs a different name?). The mage class I'm thinking to use the 5e sorcerer model.

Just thinking of the "power level" of the whole thing. It can actually be adjusted for a more OSR-level or 3e level. The 3 classes just lend themselves to an OSR d8/6/4 spread; or it could be a d10/8/6 spread, ala PF.

Work in progress..