D&D 5E How "optional" are rules like feats and multiclassing?

[ProphetSword]

My players are currently 14th level. I allowed both feats and multiclassing in the game I run.

The outcome is that the feats that were taken do some occasional cool things, but don't break the game in any significant way. And no one has multiclassed at all, despite having the option. 5th Edition makes it appealing to stick with your class. Even if they did multiclass, it would be unlikely they would break the game.

So allow them or don't. I think you'll find the experience to be the same each way, unless you have a min/max power-god in your group who likes to break things just to watch you squirm.

 

[mellored]

Only high level fighters suffer without feats, because they get extra ability score increases which are capped at 20. So once they get 20 Str and 20 Con (around level 12), adding +2 Cha just doesn't have enough on an impact. But they do just fine before then.

Multi-classing is generally weaker then single class and all classes are viable upto 20.

 

[Azurewraith]

Only high level fighters suffer without feats, because they get extra ability score increases which are capped at 20. So once they get 20 Str and 20 Con (around level 12), adding +2 Cha just doesn't have enough on an impact. But they do just fine before then.

Multi-classing is generally weaker then single class and all classes are viable upto 20.

Pffft adding to cha pump dex man and grab studded leather lose your stealth penalty

 

[mellored]

Pffft adding to cha pump dex man and grab studded leather lose your stealth penalty

It's not useless, but it's not the same impact as +1 to hit and damage.


Still much more balanced then older edition fighters though. But i would dropp them an extra +1 on their weapon and armor than other classes.

 

[Moraine]

On our first play the Dm decided not use feats: this increased classes unbalance. Ah, and most of the characters multiclassed. Optional? Yes. Do they make D&D more interesting? Yes.

 

[Azurewraith]

It's not useless, but it's not the same impact as +1 to hit and damage.


Still much more balanced then older edition fighters though. But i would dropp them an extra +1 on their weapon and armor than other classes.

Definitely right there I wouldn't play a fighter in a no feat game

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I've played/run more 5B (Basic) than 5E. It's completely viable to run the game without feats or multi-classing and even preferred. Of course, this is our once-every-two-months Saturday night beer & pretzels Slaughter Fest game so we don't want rules to get in our way. If you've spent more than 5 minutes looking at build options you're ridiculed as a "try-hard". This is a campaign where one player is on Bort the IVth after Borts I to III met untimely ends.

In my monthly 5E game we don't allow multi-classing, but certain feats are fine (no GWM, SS, etc.). At level 11 most players have taken ASIs. The battle master took Inspiring Leader at 8th and the wizard took Actor for story reasons. I expect just about everyone to grab a feat after they ding at 12th.

 

[seebs]

I don't think it's exactly assumed that they aren't in use, so much as "it works well either way". I personally like them quite a bit.

 

[Ancalagon]

Hmmm...

Maybe I will allow feats for fighters only (their bonus feats give them access to the feat table, but no "regular" feats for anyone?)

Another thing I'm noting is the massive amount of natural healing available to everyone. If I cut that back a bit, the fighter's self-healing ability becomes more important...

 

[Iry]

On the one hand, they are completely optional and the game runs 'fine' without them. On the other hand, some character builds do not get much benefit from ASI at 12+. Feats are a good way for those character builds to go.


20 out of 21 groups I know use Feats. 18 out of 21 use Multiclassing. They seem pretty popular.