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

[Blue]

I have a different take than many others. 5e is a good, fast running (and DM prepping) game. In order to make it even more accessible to new players, some of the subsystems that requires more future planning for character advancement are optional. Does the game play fine without them? Well, are lower levels it will, though the fighter loses out on his ability with more ASI to pick up cool non-combat options like Actor and gain additional non-combat abilities. Also, without feats all advancements become "just a math adjustment" which one friend of mine finds ultimately boring.

Feats give players more options. IMO, leaving them out constrains characters to only doing what their class and backgrounds say. I strongly encourage them, and may not join a game without feats. (That said, a DM limiting access or removing some of the combat-only feats wouldn't bother me as long as I knew it when making my character.)

Multiclassing is a slightly different story. The classes are all interesting and you can easily play them 1-20. And there are variations within each class for even more play. If you picture classes as coins scattered on a piece of paper, there are parts of the paper that still show through, and multiclassing helps there. IMO it's more important as players have multiple characters under heir belt and want to try something else, but it can be a useful tool to helping define a specific character. I think it's useful, but not mandatory.

 

[Blue]

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...

Just a point to consider - the natural healing is taken during a short rest, an hour of downtime. That's a whole different animal than mid-combat healing like the Fighter's Second Wind feature.

 

[Arial Black]

Knowing the history of D&D, and the way the rules were written, it seems to me like both rules are part of the core game. However, for marketing reasons, they wanted to make it easier (less complex) for all the newbies they hoped to attract. So they labelled feats and multiclassing as optional.

Making them optional feels like riding a bike with stabilisers: fine when you're learning to ride, but you want those stabilisers off as soon as you get the hang of it!

Don't use those rules if the game is being played by those new to the hobby, but as soon as they get the hang of the game take those stabilisers off and let them choose feats and allow them to multiclass if they want. They will have more fun if they can develop their own PC the way they want.

In one way it increases complexity, but in another way it doesn't because you are still playing a single character with a defined set of abilities. Who cares which classes gave them those abilities! Multiclassing changes your suite of options from 12 base classes to....thousands! You have more options, sure, but only one actual PC.

 

[Horwath]

In our current campaign, 8th level we all have one feat and one ability boost.(primary stat to 18).

Yes, the primary stat 20 would be maybe better and it works perfectly, but feats add a level of personalization to the character. without it fighters are more or less clones of each other(in statistics only, RP is another thing)...get str or dex to 20, get con to 20...what ever...

 

[Krachek]

Feat and multi classing are optionals rules.
The game is design to run without them.
Removing some feat , just think of sharp shooter and gwm can be an option for a Dm who want to tone down damage done.

 

[Illithidbix]

Short Answer: Yes.

If you run without Multiclassing and feats. the game will run fine.
The players will still have lots of options between the backgrounds, subclasses, maneuvers, spells, skill etc.

Long Answer: Yesssssssssssss.
It might in fact work better for balance between the classes.

Feats
I've heard various claims that Big Sword Fighters and Bow Fighters get significantly weaker if they can't access Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter.

But I've also heard *more* claims that this is because Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter can become somewhat over powerful if the players can gain reliable sources of Advantage/Attack bonuses (e.g. Bless) to overcome the -5 to hit for +10 damage feature.

Fighters and Rogues get more Ability Score Improvements than the other classes so *may* at higher levels feel the pinch, but I'm not convinced.

Multiclassing
Multiclassing is potentially a powerful disappointment engine, the main problem isn't that it opens the gateway POWERFUL BUILDZ!
It is in fact that it is a lot easier to accidentally creating a weak character. Which is fairly *hard* if you follow the obvious steps with most classes.

Multiclassing can add breadth to your character and fun options, but mostly it seems you're just better off sticking with your core class.

Esp. because "Ability Score Improvements" is actually a class feature, not a function of your character's total levels like it was in earlier editions.

Similarly although multi classing now lets spellcasters still have high level spell slots, you still can't have spells known and prepared that are higher than you could have based upon the individual levels of the spell casting classes.

(e.g a character with 4 levels in Wizard and 4 Levels in Cleric would have 3rd and 4th level spell slots, but they can't cast wizard or cleric spells higher than 2nd level. They would have to just cast more powerful versions of their 1st and 2nd level spells with the higher level spell slots.)


Almost all the "powerful" multiclass builds I've encountered involve a few reoccurring combinations.

Getting 2 levels of Fighter for action surge.
Getting 3 levels of Rogue (Assassin) for Assassinate. (Or at least when multiple Attacks from being a Fighter and Action Surge)
Getting 2 levels of Warlock for Eldritch Blast, Hex and Agonizing Blast then going up another Charisma based spell casting Class.
Getting 1 level of Life, Tempest, Nature or War Cleric to get proficiency in Heavy Armour.

There may well be more that I'm missing.

Variant Human
The Standard Human gets +1 to all six ability scores.
The Variant Human gets +1 to two ability scores of their choice and proficiency in a skill and a feat.

Personally I actually prefer the variant human to the standard human.
Because the benefit of +1 to all six ability scores very much depends upon the character gen system, and how many odd numbers you get in you Ability Scores.

The standard array (15,14,13,12,10,8) doesn't benefit much from six +1's.
If you roll for stats then it depends how many odd numbers you can roll. It could be great or useless.
With the 27 point buy system you can milk far more benefit.

 

[Horwath]

Feat and multi classing are optionals rules.
The game is design to run without them.
Removing some feat , just think of sharp shooter and gwm can be an option for a Dm who want to tone down damage done.

yeah, everyone have a bone to pick with SS and GWM.

One of my options is remove the "power attack" part of the feat and add +1 dex to SS and +1 str to GWM.
Other is add archery fighting style to SS and GWF style to GWM.

that way it give a consistent damage boost but does not go everboard.

 

[Bupp]

Personally I'm not a fan of multi-classing. I think that with the right selection of backgrounds and feats you can at least get the feel of multi-classing.

 

[Xvartslayer]

yeah, everyone have a bone to pick with SS and GWM.

One of my options is remove the "power attack" part of the feat and add +1 dex to SS and +1 str to GWM.
Other is add archery fighting style to SS and GWF style to GWM.

that way it give a consistent damage boost but does not go everboard.

My group has had no problems with SS or GWF.

 

[Savevsdeath]

My group has had no problems with SS or GWF.

Same here. I really don't get why these feats are problems - bounded accuracy ensures that numbers stay relatively low, and the fact that sources of advantage can negate the penalty is silly to cite because the resourcesused toget that advantage would be just as useful on anything else, and it IS a resource. But YMMV, IMHO, and so on.