|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
I'm not sure what the value is in calling one kind of feat something different given that they are all chosen the same way and use all the same rules. In cases like these it feels like adjectives are sufficient.
Flavour. Different names are sometimes more evocative and help immersion in the setting. Look at the current keywording choices in games like Magic: The Gathering to see why, sometimes, calling a feat a feat is more mechanical than it wants to be in a game with a fantasy setting.These things were all always Feat(ure)s you just had relativley little choice about which class features you took unless you archetyped.
Using the sub-Feat words now that you can doesn't change the act you're learning to perform, or really make it easier/harder to grok.
It might actually risk confusion in new players about which feats they can buy in which circumstance. Add in the ten's of keywords that are now attached to make everything 'easier?' and you might actually have made everything harder.
Go and read about elegance in game design.