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

tetrasodium said:

A sytem needs to be built for alternatives. You can "just roleplay your character more" in something like fate where feats & classes are mostly a oncept that exists outside the rules eve if there are some kinda sorta almost near analogues like high concepts & very well defined stunts/extras with near mathematical formula level definitions. That works in a system like fate because of how he system is designed to make "just roleplay your character more" a really interesting thing the whole table can get involved with. If freeform roleplaying were good enough for what a group wants to do they wouldn't have any need for the d&d system itself.

Click to expand...

Wow.

TwoSix said:

I strongly prefer to have the option, but I'll play in a game lacking them provided there's some other interesting hook to the game. "Just roleplay your character more" is not an interesting hook.

Click to expand...

Maybe not to you, but to many RP groups it is.

I'm the exact opposite of @TwoSix... I don't care what my game mechanics are for my character, because my character is its wants, its needs, its personality, its relationships to other people... it's ENTIRELY how they are roleplayed.

The board game part of an RPG can be whatever the GM wants to use. Doesn't matter to me one bit. If they want to roleplay in and around playing Risk? Fine. Great. If the GM is good and they can merge the two together into something that's compelling and interesting, then I'll go along with it.

As far as D&D is concerned... the board game part is just numbers. Adding them and subtracting them, and then layering on top of them a thing veneer of what they "represent" to connect it to the roleplaying part of the game. But that connection is exceedingly tenuous and for me drops away almost completely once we actually start playing.

I've said this before, but It always boggles my mind when someone says they need to use feats in order to differentiate their character. Because to me... most feats just make numbers higher on what you have written down on your character sheet. And the veneer of what that "feat" represents gets lost amongst all the other things that raise up that number.

In Pathfinder I took the Dodge feat to gain a +1 to my AC. Okay. Great. Apparently my character is now dexterous enough to dodge attacks now. Okay. And thus it means my AC is now one number higher. But how is that one point different than just strapping on a small shield? Or gaining a magical AC bonus to my armor? Or raising my DEX modifier by a point? Guess what... it's not different. That Dodge feat has done NOTHING to "distinguish" my character whatsoever that I couldn't already do seven different ways to Sunday. So having that feat to make my character different has not accomplished anything. I'm not PLAYING my character any differently because I have the Dodge feat now... my character is exactly the same except a random number in the board game is one point higher.

If I want to play a dodging, rolling, tumbling, parrying character in the world of the game... I'll roleplay him that way. All my descriptions of what I'm doing, how I'm moving, my instincts and personality in social situations will be what get that personality trait across-- NOT the numbers in the board game. I could have a character with a DEX of 12 and still roleplay the character that way and nobody would bat an eye. Why? Because again... the connection between the numbers in the board game and the veneer of what the represent is tenuous at best and is not actually necessary. So worrying about it is a waste of my time.

I'll play either way if I like the DM and it sounds like a fun campaign. There are, however, several classes/subclasses I would avoid in a game with no feats or multiclassing just because I don't personally find them sufficiently appealing (thematically and/or mechanically) to want to be stuck with them for a whole campaign.

When I DM I actively encourage players to multiclass and take feats. I've removed the multiclass stat restrictions, and I give a free feat at 1st level.

For me, I roleplay my character to the hilt. I couldn't roleplay any deeper or better if I tried. But the reason I only play games that have multiclassing and feats, is that with the class based design of DnD, there are plenty of character concepts that are just plain impossible to implement without multiclassing and feats. For instance, you can't write-up a "blind-martial artist monk" character without either multiclassing to get the Fighting Style: Blind Fighting, or taking the feat that lets you take a fighting style.

commandercrud said:

That's so sad.

Click to expand...

Yes, because "I want more mechanical tools" means that I don't already roleplay the hell out of my character.

I can't vote here because each option is a misrepresentation.

I strongly prefer the flexibility of multiclassing and feats. They add a lot to the experience, and allow us to tailor a hero to our concepts. They allow us to dabble and mix abilities. They're a lot of fun.

However, if there is a DM with a great campaign setting and a great style of DMing, as well as a great pool of players, I'll play regardless of what rules he selects. I have to trust the DM and their reasoning. However, I would consider the lack of feats and multiclasses as a warning sign that the DM is perhaps too controlling over the game and might be someone that wants players to "come tell my story" rather than "come create a story together".

To put it another way - If I like the DM, players and setting, I'd give it a go - but it would be a big strike 1 right off the bat. It doesn't mean it will turn out bad, but it isn't a great sign.

DEFCON 1 said:

If I want to play a dodging, rolling, tumbling, parrying character in the world of the game... I'll roleplay him that way. All my descriptions of what I'm doing, how I'm moving, my instincts and personality in social situations will be what get that personality trait across-- NOT the numbers in the board game. I could have a character with a DEX of 12 and still roleplay the character that way and nobody would bat an eye. Why? Because again... the connection between the numbers in the board game and the veneer of what the represent is tenuous at best and is not actually necessary. So worrying about it is a waste of my time.

Click to expand...

We've had this discussion before, but if the only part of the game that matters to you is the dramatic/thespian parts of the game, why not play a story game or simply freeform narrate instead? If you're using a system, the system should matter.

I stand by my statement; the amount of "roleplay" at a table is entirely uncorrelated to the mechanical complexity of a system. A game with more mechanical complexity will have more distinct characters because you differentiate on both the mechanical axis and the dramatic/thespian axis.

Dragonsbane777 said:

Maybe not to you, but to many RP groups it is.

Click to expand...

Every group should be roleplaying their characters to their hilt, regardless of the mechanical complexity of the game. That's just good gaming practice. Adding more character building tools shouldn't change that.

TwoSix said:

We've had this discussion before, but if the only part of the game that matters to you is the dramatic/thespian parts of the game, why not play a story game or simply freeform narrate instead?

Click to expand...

You mean a role playing game? I don't mean to alarm you, but that is what D&D is. However, there is a great reason to use a game mechanic as part of a story telling game even if the story is all that matters - control, or lack thereof, to be precise.

If you're using a system, the system should matter.

Click to expand...

This is not inherently true. The strategic side of D&D can be there to provide a 'board game experience' where you're trying to win the combat to win the combat, or it can be there to provide a random factor to the storytelling so that neither the DM, nor the players, have complete control. For many groups or individuals, it is usually a combination of both ... but the relative importance of each differs.

I stand by my statement; the amount of "roleplay" at a table is entirely uncorrelated to the mechanical complexity of a system. A game with more mechanical complexity will have more distinct characters because you differentiate on both the mechanical axis and the dramatic/thespian axis.

Click to expand...

Rules limit. That is what they do. They provide boundaries and reduce options. In the absence of rules, we can do anything. As we add more and more rules, less and less options are open to us.

A good ruleset can ALSO inspire creativity. This offsets the limitation by encouraging creativity within the boundaries provided. However, whenever you add a rule to the game, you reduce options.

Take stealth rules for example. In prior editions, they were COMPLEX. There was a lot to manage. Once you mastered them, they were sometimes good, sometimes bad. However, they were ripe with exceptions to the exception to the exception. 5E took a different tactic (after a first version that carried on the tradition of complexity). They said, "We're going to give you high level rules, and then we're going to tell the DM to be judge, jury and executioner for the corner cases." This ticked off a lot of players that wanted to have the rules to wave in front of their DM to tell the DM how they got to be effectively impossible to detect due to Loop Hole 1 to Exception 3 to Clause 7 of Paragraph 4 of PHB page 234. However, it gave the DM freedom to make stealth more dynamic and flexible within the game, which facilitated more freedom in storytelling.

In my experience, RPG rules are best when they provide the solid framework and rely upon the DM (with the assistance of the players) to administer corner cases. The rules do not have to go into the details of somersaulting - a rough acrobatics rule is fine. They do not need to provide the level of detailed depth to control each swing of a weapon individually - they can amalgamate them into a single attack for a round while leaving the details up to the player an DM to storytell. They reduce complexity in favor of nimbleness, they don't hogtie a DM away from good storytellin ... but they do inspire creativity and imagination.

5E is not perfect, but it is pretty darn good - the best D&D has had to offer.