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

[ECMO3]

That's the crux of the whole matter for me. I'm sure the game is fine without multiclassing or feats, but I'm going to be wary of a group that insists we play it that way, so I'll probably never have that experience.

If somehow one of my established groups suddenly collectively turned against feats and multiclassing that would surprise me, but it's not something likely to sour me on playing with them. I don't care that much about those things, and I certainly have character ideas that don't require them I'm happy to use for the next campaign.

But if I was joining some new, unfamiliar group and was told "we don't use those 'optional' rules" (people opposed to using them usually feel compelled to remind you that they are optional, as if D&D has any mandatory elements) that would give me pause. Firstly, because I personally would be advocating for allowing these player options so maybe we're not on the same page or maybe they're going to ignore my input. Secondly, because I think the reasons for not using these options are often bad, having to do with overbroad solutions to specific problems, someone trying to impose their idiosyncratic vision of what the game should be on how other people play, or a misguided belief that, stripped of all its "options", 5e is suddenly a carefully-balanced game where the CR system actually works or whatever. Thirdly, because I think when player options are banned it is often the influence of the DM rather than the table as a whole, and when a DM, who already has absolute authority over every non-player creature in the game, feels they need to also put a bunch of broad, blanket limitations on how player characters can develop, I do not generally consider that an encouraging sign for how the campaign will go with them.

I get what you are saying, and I like feats and love multiclassing. On the other hand though some of the optional rules suck. Flanking pretty much sucks. So does marking. I like overun and tumble, but they should be actions only.

I am saying this not because I am right (although I am) but because people think differently about these optional rules and while I want feats and mutliclassing in my games, I don't particularly want flanking or marking. That said I still enjoy it with or without all those things.

 

[NaturalZero]

Yeah. When we were new to 5e, our party tried to use an improvised zipline to infiltrate an enemy fortification. The GM, for whatever reason, assigned us a DC 15 to successfully slide down the rope to the fort. Maybe there was some miscommunication there, and the the zipline was a lot more steep than what we players were imagining or something? We were around 7th level, I believe. Being a group that isn't strongly into optimization, we didn't have any spells or abilities to buff each other to make the roll easier. And out of the 9 or so players we had, all but one of us fell off the zipline.

In 3.5 I was playing in an Eberron adventure. 2 airships where 5 feet apart and the DM asked my Str 22 barbarian to make a Jump check to clear the gap. I rolled a 1 and fell 1,000 feet.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I prefer to play in games with feats and multiclassing, but I wouldn't quit a game if it didn't have them. The other people at the table are a much bigger factor.

 

[Parmandur]

And to think... that supposed peak human with the 20 STR can attempt basic DC 10 STR checks and fail 20% of the time by rolling 1s, 2,s 3,s and 4s. Whereas even humans with a STR of 3 (-4) can still sometimes complete a DC 15 task by rolling a Nat 20.

Just to nitpick, but that's not how the rules work in 5E: there is no Natural 20 for saves or ability checks in 5E, just attacks. If someone with a -4 rolls a 20, they get 16, and if someone with a only +4 rolls a 20 they will will still fail a 25.

Indeed, Skill checks can also be gated behind Proficiency, so that even if the Wizard has +5 Int, the 10 intelligence Paladin with Religion can still have rolls only they can do.

 

[Rabulias]

Just to nitpick, but that's not how the rules work in 5E: there is no Natural 20 for saves or ability checks in 5E, just attacks. If someone with a -4 rolls a 20, they get 16, and if someone with a only +4 rolls a 20 they will will still fail a 25.

Indeed, Skill checks can also be gated behind Proficiency, so that even if the Wizard has +5 Int, the 10 intelligence Paladin with Religion can still have rolls only they can do.

Good points. I think you got ripped off, @NaturalZero. And not to pile on, but a standing long jump with a 22 Strength would let you jump 11 feet, no roll required (PHB p.182).

 

[Flamestrike]

Tom Cruise trained extensively to hold his breath for six and a half minutes for the movie "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation", and Kate Winslet held her breath for over 7 minutes for shooting underwater scenes for "Avatar 2." And the world record is 22 minutes, set by Dane Stig Severinsen. (That's a Constitution score of 54!)

Nah he just took a feat that multiplies the time by 4.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Just to nitpick, but that's not how the rules work in 5E: there is no Natural 20 for saves or ability checks in 5E, just attacks. If someone with a -4 rolls a 20, they get 16, and if someone with a only +4 rolls a 20 they will will still fail a 25.

Indeed, Skill checks can also be gated behind Proficiency, so that even if the Wizard has +5 Int, the 10 intelligence Paladin with Religion can still have rolls only they can do.

'Nat 20' is shorthand for the die roll coming up '20' rather than getting to 20 after modifiers. There is nothing in the 5E rules with the terms 'Nat 20' or 'Natural 20' for attack rolls that cause critical hits or auto-success on skill checks. So it's not that that's not how the rules work... it's that those rules you're insinuating don't actually exist.

However, if you roll a 20 on the die and then subtract 4 points for your STR modifier... you complete a DC 15 check. Which is exactly as I said.

 

[S'mon]

I'll play either way. As a GM I usually prefer players who are outward focused to the world rather than inward focused to their PC build, so I'll typically prefer not to play with players who won't play without character build elements. But this varies by campaign. If running an AP where the world is just a stage set for the PCs then it makes sense to allow a wide variety of PC build elements and PCs created very differently from NPCs, who only exist in relation to the PCs. If running a 'living world' sandbox where PCs succeed by leveraging world elements more than PC-build elements I probably want simpler PCs and a lot of PC-NPC equivalence.

 

[Stattick]

'Nat 20' is shorthand for the die roll coming up '20' rather than getting to 20 after modifiers. There is nothing in the 5E rules with the terms 'Nat 20' or 'Natural 20' for attack rolls that cause critical hits or auto-success on skill checks. So it's not that that's not how the rules work... it's that those rules you're insinuating don't actually exist.

However, if you roll a 20 on the die and then subtract 4 points for your STR modifier... you complete a DC 15 check. Which is exactly as I said.

That's incorrect. A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. Some abilities even expand the crit range, such as Bladelocks being able to crit on a 19 or 20, or the Champion Fighter getting a higher crit range. RAW, you are correct that there is no critical success for proficiency checks. 5e does not have fumbles for rolling a Natural 1. Many tables houserule that a Natural 1 is a fumble, but it's not a part of the game, and it's a terrible houserule.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's incorrect. A natural 20 on an attack roll is a critical hit. Some abilities even expand the crit range, such as Bladelocks being able to crit on a 19 or 20, or the Champion Fighter getting a higher crit range. RAW, you are correct that there is no critical success for proficiency checks. 5e does not have fumbles for rolling a Natural 1. Many tables houserule that a Natural 1 is a fumble, but it's not a part of the game, and it's a terrible houserule.

I am saying nothing whatsoever about any of the rules in the game regarding what happens when a '20' gets rolled. I used the TERM 'Nat 20' (a term that does not actually exist in the 5E rules) to state actually rolling a '20' on the d20 die. Any additional rules people are implying from that is entirely on them.