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

[Parmandur]

As a DM and by default, i tend to say yes to Feats and no to MC so... It's complicated ^^

I also like the aesthetics of playing only with the Basic Rules but then i use (variant human + prodigy feat) as the standard human.

I don't care for Feats, bit Multiclassing does just feel like a trap for the unwary players who muck about with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really see the point of playing 5e without feats and multiclassing; if I wanted to play that way, I'd use an older version of the game, or a retro clone. I've played and enjoyed both. I've also never had a 5e player who didn't want those rules as part of the mix, and don't see a practical reason for them to be optional.

If I had my way though, i would remove ASIs altogether and just make people take feats. Half-feats and magic are all the ASI i think anyone needs.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't really see the point of playing 5e without feats and multiclassing; if I wanted to play that way, I'd use an older version of the game, or a retro clone. I've played and enjoyed both. I've also never had a 5e player who didn't want those rules as part of the mix, and don't see a practical reason for them to be optional.

If I had my way though, i would remove ASIs altogether and just make people take feats. Half-feats and magic are all the ASI i think anyone needs.

I mean, why use them...? ASI's tend to be a better deal higher levels, so I haven't seen people take Feats even if it was on offer.

The game doesn't need them, but I guess it's nice to have the option if people like them

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, why use them...? ASI's tend to be a better deal higher levels, so I haven't seen people take Feats even if it was on offer.

The game doesn't need them, but I guess it's nice to have the option if people like them

The game doesn't need feats, but I and every 5e player I've ever played with likes them and thinks they're fun. The problem is theyre a hard sell sometimes vs. ASIs, especially in early game. Just cut ASI as a level up option, and people feel more free to use the feats they, IME, want to use anyway.

 

[Parmandur]

The game doesn't need feats, but I and every 5e player I've ever played with likes them and thinks they're fun. The problem is theyre a hard sell sometimes vs. ASIs, especially in early game. Just cut ASI as a level up option, and people feel more free to use the feats they, IME, want to use anyway.

I think they've struck a good balance as is right now, especially game balance wise: Feats are there for those that want them, and they are comparable to the ASIs, bit do not overshadow them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I’ve been irritated by multiclassing ever since 3e, so I could give it up for most character concepts. Feats on the other hand I really like in 5e. I‘ll play without them but I’ll be more prone to pick a mechanically simple concept, like a standard human Champion fighter with Defense fighting style, or a Thief rogue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think they've struck a good balance as is right now, especially game balance wise: Feats are there for those that want them, and they are comparable to the ASIs, bit do not overshadow them.

Oh, I believe feats vs ASIs are more or less balanced against each other, I just think that characters don't need their stats constantly ramping up as they level. I'm tired of everybody pushing for 20s in their core before they do anything interesting with their character options. Make them take a half feat if it's really important to them, or look for a magic fix. You can already start with a 16 (or higher if you roll) in one stat as it is.

 

[teitan]

I prefer games where they aren't present but I am not stuck on older editions, as much as I love 1e, I think about going back to that or Swords & Wizardry and just... I can't bring myself to do it. I don't mind games with feats, I play 5e and what I like is that feats are an option players can pick but they don't have to and it really doesn't hurt them. I recently discovered Dungeon Crawl Classics though and I am 100% sold on it. It's modern in what it adapted from 3.x era but simple. It seems complicated from the critical charts and spell charts but even those are simple. It really encourages roleplaying in it's use of those charts like Spellburn, Disfavor, Patron Taint etc. to create a unique experience, especially Mercurial magic ensuring no wizard casts the same spell twice or with the same cost.

 

[Arilyn]

During lockdown last summer, my husband and I played DCC. Just the two of us making a "guild" of adventures and then assembling small teams to send out on adventures. We just kind of made stuff up for them to do using random tables and our imaginations. We had a blast, and some surprisingly coherent stories grew from it. And yeah, casting spells in DCC is nerve racking!

 

[Parmandur]

During lockdown last summer, my husband and I played DCC. Just the two of us making a "guild" of adventures and then assembling small teams to send out on adventures. We just kind of made stuff up for them to do using random tables and our imaginations. We had a blast, and some surprisingly coherent stories grew from it. And yeah, casting spells in DCC is nerve racking!

The power of random tables is impressive. I really like the DCC approach to spellcasting.