D&D 5E How do you feel about games without Feats and Multiclassing?

[CleverNickName]

Eh, either way is fine for me.

As a DM, I leave it up to the players to decide if they want/need feats and multiclassing when creating their characters. So far, out of 5 players, none only one of them has ever multiclassed their character and only one of them has chosen a feat instead of an ASI. (EDIT: forgot about the rogue/bard.)

And as a player, I don't care much for the way 5E does multiclassing so I always give it a pass. I like some of the feats though, but I rarely choose more than 1 because the ASI is too tempting.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Barring feats feels more like a hit on the Fighter. If you're a wizard, for example, you can spend all the ASIs you typically get in a campaign on INT, CON, and DEX, and be just fine. But for a typical Fighter six ASIs by 16th leaves you pumping up an ability you probably don't use much, when at least one of the martial feats would be so much better.

 

[Arilyn]

I don't like my characters all ending up with 18s and 20s in their core stats. These used to be so rare, and now it's often just assumed that you'll get there. This is another reason I prefer feats. And they are just more interesting than yet more stat points.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't like my characters all ending up with 18s and 20s in their core stats. These used to be so rare, and now it's often just assumed that you'll get there. This is another reason I prefer feats. And they are just more interesting than yet more stat points.

Allowing feats is certainly one way to reduce stat-creep. Especially if you house-rule it such that characters must choose feats instead of ASIs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

An instance where I'd run a game with no MC or feats;

Recently, my friends and I had an idea to run an epic tier 4e one shot where the PCs are a few of the mythic figures of the past of my Islands World setting, who saved the world and bound the Night Serpent before it could swallow the moons.

If we decided to run it in 5e instead, I'd likely ask for no MC build unless it's a "classic" combination or tells a specific story that uses the classes as actual in world things, because these are the archetypes of this world, so I'd want the PCs to be as archetypal as possible.

In 4e we don't really even feel like multiclassing is genuinely mixing classes, unless you use the hybrid rules, so I don't care if they take MC feats. Tremayne is a Bard MC Ranger, Rogue, and Avenger, with Twin Strike that was 1/encounter until they took a feat to make it at-will, and some other cheesy combo stuff that makes for kind of a weird swordmaster bard thing. In 5e that could just be a Blades Bard. Then again, if they wanted to mix in some Hexblade to crank up the swordmastery, I wouldn't care.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't like my characters all ending up with 18s and 20s in their core stats. These used to be so rare, and now it's often just assumed that you'll get there. This is another reason I prefer feats. And they are just more interesting than yet more stat points.

I'm just plain not interesting in a plain old +NUMBERS stuff either. At least have it +NUMBERS WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING INTERESTING... like the lowest grade of feats.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I don't like my characters all ending up with 18s and 20s in their core stats. These used to be so rare, and now it's often just assumed that you'll get there. This is another reason I prefer feats. And they are just more interesting than yet more stat points.

The problem is 5e doesn't have a big sliding THAC0 scale or +5 weapons. It's assumed that by about level 10 or so, you'll have at least a +4 bonus to relevant rolls from your main stat. I've seen many characters stop at 18 and be absolutely fine, but if your main stat is 16 or below (and a 16 is impossible without a racial bonus!), you'll struggle.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I'm just plain not interesting in a plain old +NUMBERS stuff either. At least have it +NUMBERS WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING INTERESTING... like the lowest grade of feats.

From a design standpoint, I very much dislike feats as a dumping ground for ideas that the designers couldn't really fit anywhere, and there's not much ASIs do that couldn't be done just as well by making proficiency go from +2 to +11. The bonuses to damage and HP are on net a bad thing.

I'd prefer ability scores to stay static for the course of the game and occasionally get class options in addition to subclass features.

 

[Arilyn]

The problem is 5e doesn't have a big sliding THAC0 scale or +5 weapons. It's assumed that by about level 10 or so, you'll have at least a +4 bonus to relevant rolls from your main stat. I've seen many characters stop at 18 and be absolutely fine, but if your main stat is 16 or below (and a 16 is impossible without a racial bonus!), you'll struggle.

Not contradicting your points. I do find it odd, however, that WOTC touts bounded accuracy, playing successfully with minimal magic items, etc. But now we need to push stats up to maximum levels to avoid struggling?

I'd rather have my 14 str fighter with a higher hit bonus and and/or a +3 magic sword then run around with weight lifter muscles.

 

[ph0rk]

The bonuses to damage and HP are on net a bad thing.

Martial damage only scales badly if GWM and/or SS are on the table.

Lacking damage from main stat, things like improved divine smite and lifedrinker coupled with polearm master makes pure fighters look quite poor by comparison; and these can only barely keep up with eldritch blast+agonizing blast.

So, it's GWM and SS that are the real issues (especially with on-tap advantage or precision attack - without these they're only minor boosts in average damage at level-appropriate targets with an estimated accuracy of .65%).

A fighter with 18 or 20 dex and a rapier isn't really stunning anyone with their damage output.

I'd rather have my 14 str fighter with a higher hit bonus and and/or a +3 magic sword then run around with weight lifter muscles.

A 20 str need not mean weightlifter muscles; there isn't anything in the rules that dictate body shape or muscle tone.