overgeeked
B/X Known World
Up until the DM calls for DEX checks every time you describe dodging and rolling.
D&D 5E How do you feel about games without Feats and Multiclassing?
overgeeked
B/X Known World
Maybe the options should be “prefer” rather than “only”.
I prefer to play without multiclassing as it’s almost always a power gamer tool rather than an rp one. I prefer to play with feats, though I’d prefer if some of the more obviously power gaming feats be removed from the game.
I prefer to play without multiclassing as it’s almost always a power gamer tool rather than an rp one. I prefer to play with feats, though I’d prefer if some of the more obviously power gaming feats be removed from the game.
Last edited:
Bedrockgames
Legend
I will play both, but I was not terribly enthused by feats in D&D. With multi classing it is always a double edged sword. 3E really streamlined the multi classing process, but it also greatly changed the game (and sometimes I like playing that style where you can use class dipping to build a concept, but sometimes I crave something much more basic and clean)
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Long live Int-5 Sherlock Holmes!
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
You can disagree without attacking me, which is what you're doing when you say snarky crap like "I don't mean to alarm you, but D&D is a roleplaying game." Don't do that, and we won't have issues.
jmartkdr2
Hero
I voted for "I'll play either way" and "It's complicated" - I will play either way, but I will consider whether or not to play in such a game depending on the reasoning behind the exclusion.
If the dm is new to dming, or a majority of players are, then leaving out optional rules is a good way to simplify the system a bit and keep balance. I'd go along with that. (When I've done this, the elements were always adding in later once everyone figured the system out.)
If the dm has experience but wants to leave the options out to 'balance' the game or to go for a specific, old-school feel, I'll put that in the 'cons' column when deciding to join the game. It's not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it's a point against. Not because those are intrinsically bad reasons, but because they point to a dm style I'm not interested in playing in.
In an open-table game, I would outright recommend no multiclassing for niche protection, a little bit of balancing, and ensuring character theme, but that's a particular context. But leaving out feats in that context doesn't help any of those elements, so would be a point against.
If the dm is new to dming, or a majority of players are, then leaving out optional rules is a good way to simplify the system a bit and keep balance. I'd go along with that. (When I've done this, the elements were always adding in later once everyone figured the system out.)
If the dm has experience but wants to leave the options out to 'balance' the game or to go for a specific, old-school feel, I'll put that in the 'cons' column when deciding to join the game. It's not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it's a point against. Not because those are intrinsically bad reasons, but because they point to a dm style I'm not interested in playing in.
In an open-table game, I would outright recommend no multiclassing for niche protection, a little bit of balancing, and ensuring character theme, but that's a particular context. But leaving out feats in that context doesn't help any of those elements, so would be a point against.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Assuming a good DM who is running a game in the general style I prefer as a player, than I am willing to try almost any optional or house rules. Those options or house rules that fall outside that "almost any" are very likely to violate the "general style" caveat anyway.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
So you mean even the sorcerers need to go to college in order to become sorcerers?
But you are still hitting every time with strength weapons for a lot of damage? Can wear heavy armor without problem? Don't have issues carrying a lot of gear? Because you aren't roleplaying a weak character, rather a lazy character that won't bother doing some stuff... I don't know, this feels like cheating...
Arilyn
Hero
If mechanics and stats don't mesh with the image I have of my character, it gets frustrating. And not from a purely game point of view.
If I want to play a daring, lucky swashbuckler, it's nice to have some way for that luck to be represented. It's noticeable that my 14 str. fighter doesn't quite hit as well as the typical 5e fighter, but he's more well rounded. These things are noticed. And when I play him as meditative, educated, and a little emotionally aloof, the mechanical bits can help make him more authentic. His high wisdom makes sense and sells the idea that he's alert and gaining proficiency in wis saves backs up my idea that he doesn't easily fail wis saves. Without the feat, he'd still have that high wisdom and be meditative and all that, but the feat gives the whole picture some extra punch because it will be noticed that he really shines in this regard. If I say he's really awesome at wis saves, and he's just fair, that's going to jar (of course this assumes well behaved dice...
.)
If I want to play a daring, lucky swashbuckler, it's nice to have some way for that luck to be represented. It's noticeable that my 14 str. fighter doesn't quite hit as well as the typical 5e fighter, but he's more well rounded. These things are noticed. And when I play him as meditative, educated, and a little emotionally aloof, the mechanical bits can help make him more authentic. His high wisdom makes sense and sells the idea that he's alert and gaining proficiency in wis saves backs up my idea that he doesn't easily fail wis saves. Without the feat, he'd still have that high wisdom and be meditative and all that, but the feat gives the whole picture some extra punch because it will be noticed that he really shines in this regard. If I say he's really awesome at wis saves, and he's just fair, that's going to jar (of course this assumes well behaved dice...
.)
jgsugden
Legend
Playful chit chat is not an attack. Taking it that way is a huge overreaction.
A wise practice on the internet is to assume everything written is intended in the most positive way possible. I suggest considering why that approach would be beneficial.
Similar Threads
- Poll
