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

[Ancalagon]

I think that with the right selection of backgrounds and feats you can at least get the feel of multi-classing.

That is my impression as well based on my initial reads

 

[jodyjohnson]

One of my options is remove the "power attack" part of the feat and add +1 dex to SS

I also remove the 'never get cover' and no disadvantage at long range and replace it with +1 dex.

So "Sharpshooter: you gain +2 Dex."

 

[Azurewraith]

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.

Its because its a flat +10damage boost ib every attack you make if you got bless/adv on top of ignoring cover or a bonus attack on dropping a Guy.

 

[S'mon]

They are definitely optional and the game works fine without them. I don't use multiclassing IMCs* and my online 5e group won't use feats either. I think the Champion Fighter is a bit bland without Feats, but the game certainly works fine.

*I really don't like 3e multiclassing, which 5e emulates. If it were 1e/2e or 4e styles I'd probably allow it.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Its because of something like a Barbarian with a built in advantage mechanic dealing more damage than the rest of the party put together or something like the shield master feat which is at will knocking stuff prone which grants advantage to a GWM user.

Spells as well. Any spell or class ability that causes paralysis/stun/prone/blindness or grants advantage (faerie fire, greater invisibility, foresight) tends to enable it along with outright numerical buffs such as bard dice and the bless spell.

 

[Celtavian]

Depends on your players. If your players are more focused on story and playing characters, you'll be ok. If your characters like mechanically interesting characters, feats and multiclassing are a must to allow the characters the maximum freedom for mechanical customization. Fighters will indeed be extremely bored without feats, though ability boosts are always nice given they affect saves. Each ability boost, even for a nonessential stat, is in essence a +1 save bonus.

 

[Kite474]

5e works fine without Feats or Multiclassing. I will say however that not including them will change the game for better or for worse. Basically you have to ask yourself (and your group) how much do you enjoy PLAYING D&D i.e. do you enjoy games for mechanics on a significant level.

If that answer is no then you'll be right as rain.

If that answer is yes then I would say they are absolute musts as 5e is WAY too barebones for mechanical enjoyment.

 

[Rhenny]

I'm an old time DM/player and when 5e basic came out, my group played the pre-gens for Lost Mines of Phandelver. I was the cookie cutter evocation wizard pre-gen. No feats, no multi-class. We had a blast.

Of course, that was only levels 1-5 or 6 (I forgot already) and then we switched over to longer campaign with full-blown feats, etc. So far though, nobody has multi-classed. Personally, I really like how there are definite drawbacks to multi-classing (especially for long-term campaigns) - trade-offs are pretty meaningful by and large. I think that's why nobody in my group has tried a multi-class.

 

[Kite474]

I'm an old time DM/player and when 5e basic came out, my group played the pre-gens for Lost Mines of Phandelver. I was the cookie cutter evocation wizard pre-gen. No feats, no multi-class. We had a blast.

Of course, that was only levels 1-5 or 6 (I forgot already) and then we switched over to longer campaign with full-blown feats, etc. So far though, nobody has multi-classed. Personally, I really like how there are definite drawbacks to multi-classing (especially for long-term campaigns) - trade-offs are pretty meaningful by and large. I think that's why nobody in my group has tried a multi-class.

Unless your playing Warlock.... Honestly anyone else feel like its the ONE class they kind of screwed up on when it comes to abilities and design?

 

[Ancalagon]

Unless your playing Warlock.... Honestly anyone else feel like its the ONE class they kind of screwed up on when it comes to abilities and design?

How so? I'm not disagreeing, but if the class has flaws I would like to know. Do you mean that it needs to multiclass to work? Or feats, or something else?