I know there is. But its an optional rule. And my argument is not just against feats but specific feats, muliticlasses, classes, races, and interactions between them. I don't feel like having these as optional rules derails my argument at all. It in fact supports my point because desire by the GM to allow as much choice as possible while .... not really wanting anyone to ever multi-class.If My GM said "no mulit-classing" Then it would resolve many of his issues with player builds but he was feel like the bad guy for limiting players. He doesn't want to restrict players and be the bad guy so he allows it but then he gets annoyed and passive aggressively targets those player and tries to push them away from it with fluff "roleplay regulations" creating case by case justifications when ever possible. I have seen a lot of GM jaded talking on the forums starting from a similar approach who attack anyone who has not problem with these using fluff and many who eventually removed feats and multi-classing and will constantly bring it up saying its "broken" or not implemented well by developers or that players can't handle it, but really its just something they never liked and want to blame it on everyone else so its not their fault when they remove it.
Rephrase of what I am saying:
GM find something they have an issue with but instead of just telling players "no" when they find it they try to avoid conflict and say its fine, then it continues to to annoying to them so they start finding reasons to attack it or justify its removal on a case by case basis. Seeing it as a continual problem they start blaming "faults in game design" and or player for being "powergamers" or "munchins" or "ignoring fluff". Makes them Jaded and they become adamantly out spoken against these "problems" attacking anyone who uses or likes to use these features. I am not saying the game is perfect or that GMs intend to go down that road. Its more of a side effect, of a GM trying to be "nice" but really hating it. You can usually spot when its a GM problem when only the GM has a problem with it. For example, I got accused of power gaming by looking items that made me good at my role in the group, I am not actually that great at my role because I make bad dice roles regularly. I took alert as a feat and picked up eyes of the eagle from a magic item dealer we found. Now we have a tank whose role is to hold the line and mash stuff. He wanted magical armor, a magical weapon, and took the heavy armor master to do his job. The GM is not made because I am the most powerful player or that I am even good at my role in the group, no my GM is made because he wanted to ambush and kill my character for being a warlock and because I was not surprised he did not get the ambush and because I have high initiative and advantage on my perception I got away fine....So the GM says I am powergaming, EVEN though I approved the feat before taking it then found and bought Eyes of the eagle because he allowed it and rolled on random chance table. .... But he didn't read the feat... or the item... or consider that they would have some effect on game play. The same goes for multi-classing. The only way for GM to avoid "surprises" is to look at character sheets and approve changes like mulit-classes and feats. Many GMs don't have the time or want to take the time to do this then blame players for something only the GM has an issue with.
