D&D 5E Can you share your experience with a featless/multiclassless game?

[Arial Black]

I do agree that feats that focus your character in combat are easily the most problematic feats and the best candidates for removal. Ideally, feats grow your characters in breadth, not specialize them further.

Yeah, in the same way that casters shouldn't get more powerful (higher level) spells as they gain experience, Ideally, they should gain more 1st level spells to 'grow your characters in breadth'.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hiya!

Ok. I think I see where our heads are butting here. Y'see, I DON'T see the "regular Fighter" as sub-par or 'bad'. Quite the opposite, actually. You see adding of Feats as adding "spice" to your Fighter. We see Feats as adding "spice" to the fighter, but your only real choices of spice is black pepper, salt, or oregano. In other words...all Feats do is add an almost forced, pre-determined "ability" to a generic 'build' of Fighter. Want to be good with a bow? You have no choice...you MUST take Sharpshooting or you will simply be far worse than every other Fighter (Archer) you come across that does have Sharpshooting.

Because of course neither your basic to hit or damage roll is meaningful and neither is your subclass. Seriously it's far from clear that Sharpshooter is superior to +2 Dex for an archer where that's available. More to hit, more damage, better melee, and better defence, and better skills. Depending on your stat spread Piercer is either amazing or utterly useless.

Also I call cherry picking if you're going for archery.

But even if we assume you are right then so what? What difference does it actually make? If we assume you are right then 100% of archer fighters have the Sharpshooter feat ASAP (they don't) then

• Without feats at level 4 then 100% of archer fighters have the Archery fighting style and +2 Dex
• With feats at level 4 according to you then 100% of archer fighters have the Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter.

How is one of these more varied than the other? Except in that the sharpshooter fighter is more different from other fighters than the dex fighter is.

In reality however I'd estimate that with feats at level 4 it's more like the following:

• 33% of archer fighters have +2 Dex because they are skirmish fighters and know the enemy will get in their face or want to be more flexible
• 33% of archer fighters have Sharpshooter to focus on long range shooting
• 16% of archer fighters have Piercer because they had an odd Dex and aren't so worried about secondary stats
• 16% of archer fighters chose another feat

Even if we assume that by level 8 they will all be Dex 20 + Sharpshooter their path will have been different. This believe it or not actually matters.

The second thing worth mentioning here is that without feats pre level 11 archer fighters are chumps. The archer ranger gets the archery fighting style, hunter's mark, favoured foe, generally an extra dice of damage from their subclass, and more from their casting. Each arrow from the archer ranger is going to threaten more damage than the fighter can. Without feats a Dex 16 fighter reaches Dex 20 at level 6 and the Dex ranger reaches Dex 20 at level 8 so there are only two levels in the first 10 where the fighter isn't strictly behind the ranger as an archer. Meanwhile with feats the ranger only reaches Dex 20 Sharpshooter at level 12 so the fighter has combat advantages in the 6-10 range as well as when they get the third arrow at level 11.

So...what did you actually gain by taking that Feat? What 'uniqueness' did you get from taking SS when every other Archer is ALSO going to have SS? You aren't special an more. You are typical. Average. Bland. Expected. You want to be unique? DON'T take SS. You'll suck compared to the SS guys, but at least you'll be different!

What did you actually gain? Not all of us take our morals or aesthetics from fictional supervillains. "When everyone is super then no one will be." was the claim of the bad guy. You get to be more effective at what you are supposed to be good at. And you get to play an archer fighter without knowing you've made a chump's choice by not being a ranger.

 

[TwoSix]

Yeah, in the same way that casters shouldn't get more powerful (higher level) spells as they gain experience, Ideally, they should gain more 1st level spells to 'grow your characters in breadth'.

Exactly. This guy gets it.

 

[GlassJaw]

Yes. With no Feats the GM has a lot more flexibility to say "you can do that with a skill check", or grant it as a training reward, or even for free. Some people don't like this kind of GM empowerment but most players are happy.

While I am 100% for "GM empowerment," my post was to emphasize how poorly designed the feat system is, top-to-bottom.

Feats run the range from "must-have/possibly OP" to "ehh, just make a skill check."

 

[auburn2]

nm

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hiya!

Ok. I think I see where our heads are butting here. Y'see, I DON'T see the "regular Fighter" as sub-par or 'bad'. Quite the opposite, actually. You see adding of Feats as adding "spice" to your Fighter. We see Feats as adding "spice" to the fighter, but your only real choices of spice is black pepper, salt, or oregano. In other words...all Feats do is add an almost forced, pre-determined "ability" to a generic 'build' of Fighter. Want to be good with a bow? You have no choice...you MUST take Sharpshooting or you will simply be far worse than every other Fighter (Archer) you come across that does have Sharpshooting. So...what did you actually gain by taking that Feat? What 'uniqueness' did you get from taking SS when every other Archer is ALSO going to have SS? You aren't special an more. You are typical. Average. Bland. Expected. You want to be unique? DON'T take SS. You'll suck compared to the SS guys, but at least you'll be different!

And I missed one major point here.

Without feats the only way to specialise in archery as the archer fighter is to take the archery fighting style. All this does is a bland +2 bonus to hit on a d20 roll. In other words out of every ten arrows you fire if you are a specialist archer on average one will hit that would otherwise have missed. Given the variances involved in a d20 roll and how much bounded accuracy narrows the target range (so a first level fighter firing at a CR 17 Adult Red Dragon probably needs a 14 to hit or 12 with the archery style) this doesn't feel meaningfully different from any other Dex based fighter. With just the archery fighting style you are average as a dex based fighter. Typical. Bland. Expected.

On the other hand the Sharpshooter fighting style does make a specialist archer meaningfully different from a dex based fighter. So what uniqueness do you get from taking Sharpshooter? It actually makes you into an archery specialist rather than a jack of all trades fighter who isn't much better at archery than any other fighter of the same Dex.

This doesn't mean that the regular fighter is bad. But the regular fighter is a jack of all trades. And the fighting styles are pretty bland (+1 to AC?) - the only interesting one that's not just a splash of extra DPR or +1 AC in the PHB is Protection. If you want to play an actual specialist archer fighter without playing an Arcane Archer you want feats.

And this for the fighter type that provides the fewest options. Almost the cherry picked one I'd have said.

 

[Hayato]

Without feats the only way to specialise in archery as the archer fighter is to take the archery fighting style. All this does is a bland +2 bonus to hit on a d20 roll.

You forgot the cover rule.

A half-covered creature gains +2 bonus AC against attacks that originate on the opposite side of the cover, and a three-quarters-covered creature gains +5 bonus AC. This is why archery fighting style gives +2 to the attack rolls instead to damage rolls. Nullifying a common attack penalty is a huge gain to a archer fighter.

Thus, a jack of all trades (non-archery fighting style) fighter will have a hard time trying to fight some distant/covered opponents, something that a archer will not have, because s/he is a specialist.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

And I missed one major point here.

Without feats the only way to specialise in archery as the archer fighter is to take the archery fighting style. All this does is a bland +2 bonus to hit on a d20 roll. In other words out of every ten arrows you fire if you are a specialist archer on average one will hit that would otherwise have missed. Given the variances involved in a d20 roll and how much bounded accuracy narrows the target range (so a first level fighter firing at a CR 17 Adult Red Dragon probably needs a 14 to hit or 12 with the archery style) this doesn't feel meaningfully different from any other Dex based fighter. With just the archery fighting style you are average as a dex based fighter. Typical. Bland. Expected.

On the other hand the Sharpshooter fighting style does make a specialist archer meaningfully different from a dex based fighter. So what uniqueness do you get from taking Sharpshooter? It actually makes you into an archery specialist rather than a jack of all trades fighter who isn't much better at archery than any other fighter of the same Dex.

This doesn't mean that the regular fighter is bad. But the regular fighter is a jack of all trades. And the fighting styles are pretty bland (+1 to AC?) - the only interesting one that's not just a splash of extra DPR or +1 AC in the PHB is Protection. If you want to play an actual specialist archer fighter without playing an Arcane Archer you want feats.

And this for the fighter type that provides the fewest options. Almost the cherry picked one I'd have said.

I get that this is what many proponents of Feats (and MC, I suppose) "see" as a good thing. As a "needed" thing in order to more aptly distinguish, mechanically, a "Fighter" from an "Archer". I get that mindset. The thing is...I, and my group, don't put much emphasis on the mechanics of the game as the "default capability" of a PC/NPC/Monster/etc. For us, a +2 is mechanically significant enough.

For us, a Fighter who has taken the "Archery" fighting style is "An Archer". A Fighter is not an archer...even though he knows how to shoot a bow, how to maintain the bow and, well, that's about it. When a fighter goes to buy a bow...he buys a bow. When an Archer goes to buy a bow...he knows what he's looking for, what is good, what is bad, what price is acceptable, etc. When a fighter enters an archery contest against archers...he will likely loose. He might make it one round in, maybe two (assuming all contestants are equivalent level)...but the actual Archer is the one who's going to get to the end. And yes, mechanically, it is because of that "paltry +2" (and the likely higher Dex than the Sword & Shield fighter). That is more than enough for us.

Additionally, the Archer just KNOWS stuff about archery related things and the S&S Fighter just doesn't. I mean, I know how to shoot a bow. I've done it a few times. I'm no archer by any stretch of the imagination! If I was to go to an Archery tournament, I'd get hammered...I'd also sound like a complete idiot to the other Archers around when hanging out and "talking shop". I'd have no clue what brands are good for X, what brands are good for Y, or why someone would want Bow Type ABC over Bow Type XYZ when going pheasant-hunting, let alone what kind of arrow to use. ... ... None of that would be "mechanical", in game terms. It would be Roleplaying considerations and implied superiority. In my game, a Player who says "I tell him to toss that apple up into the air, and I shoot the apple out of the air when he tosses it up" would have me asking "Are you an Archer? Do you have the Archery Fighting Style?". If the Player say says No, then "Ok, AC20". If the Player says Yes, then "Ok, you shoot the apple out of the air". Why? Because the Player of the Fighter is a Fighter...and 'archery' isn't his thing; but the Player of the Archer...Archery is his thing, so I give the benefit of the doubt and let the PC look cool because, honestly, the Archer hits targets like this all day long every day. This is no stressful situation and is something familiar enough to the Archer to be more or less "routine". Now, if the Archer (or Fighter) wasn't prepared, and the guy tossing the apple up was just doing it to be cool and intimidating as he and his 'boys' threatened the Archer (or Fighter)...well NOW we need a roll for both; AC20. The Fighter shoots with his +2 and the Archer shoots with his +6...and I'm apt to give the Archer Advantage simply because it's an 'inanimate' object and the Archer can clearly see and guage where the apple is going to go.

So, yeah. My DM'ing style obviously "accounts" for more than the Feat, and for games that have a DM that is more "RAW" over "RAI" or even "RAD" (Rules as Desired). But that's kinda the point; the way Feats are right now in 5e...they just do NOT work for us. They make every PC seem "same-y" or "forced to comply" with certain 'optimal Feat/MC choice builds', else the PC automatically be worse than every other PC/NPC that does have the 'required' Feat/MC/Build. I, and my group, much prefer a more "role-playing centric" take on PC's and their capabilities.

Clear anything up...or did I just muddy the waters worse?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Neonchameleon]

You forgot the cover rule.

A half-covered creature gains +2 bonus AC against attacks that originate on the opposite side of the cover, and a three-quarters-covered creature gains +5 bonus AC. This is why archery fighting style gives +2 to the attack rolls instead to damage rolls. Nullifying a common attack penalty is a huge gain to a archer fighter.

Thus, a jack of all trades (non-archery fighting style) fighter will have a hard time trying to fight some distant/covered opponents, something that a archer will not have, because s/he is a specialist.

Wrong for two reasons. An offset is not a nullification and +2 is such a pathetic bonus that there is no time when a dex fighter will have a hard time fighting opponents that an archer won't.

Let's run some numbers on distant/hard targets. We had the AC 19 Adult Red Dragon earlier - let's put it behind hard cover for an AC 24. Our first level fighter needs a 19 to hit it. Our "specialist" archer? A 17. That still isn't an easy time. It's a slightly better time, but the "specialist" is still going to miss four arrows out of every five. And if we then make the dragon distant as well the "specialist" is now going to hit four times as often as the generalist. But although the 1/25 the specialist hits is better than the 1/100 the generalist gets it's still harder to hit than to roll a nat 20 so even the "specialist" is having a hard time.

If of course the archery style actually nullified the penalties rather than offset them the way Sharpshooter does then the archer would still be hitting on a 14 in all cases. A much better time.

And if we move to the middle of the bell curve and an AC 16 target the non-specialist hits 50% of the time and the "specialist" 60%. Heavy cover makes this 25% vs 35% or disadvantage makes it 25% vs 36%. Our specialist is having a slightly easier time - but is still having a hard one in both cases. Meanwhile our sharpshooter without the fighting style is going to be trotting along at 50% in both cases.

The gain just isn't huge because it doesn't actually nullify penalties.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hiya!

[Snip]

Clear anything up...or did I just muddy the waters worse?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

It cleared a little up. But half of that is that a fighter is already a jack of all trades who should IMO know whatever weapons they use. Any fighter who regularly archers IMO, even if it's their secondary weapon, should be able to talk about bows and know what a good one is - especially certain battlemaster builds that are genuine jacks of all trades.

It also doesn't engage with my major issues:

1. Even if Sharpshooter is basically the only choice for archers there is a strong and meaningful difference between Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, and Sentinel. Oh, and Heavy Armour Master, Martial Adept, and Lucky, of which at least two work with archers. You're seriously weakening the variety in the melee characters. Which means that the grand total of "required" feats is ... Sharpshooter.
2. The ability to take extra feats appears to be an intended class feature for the fighter, with extra choices over other classes at level 6, 14, and 18.
3. The archer fighter is, without access to Sharpshooter, a bit of a chump until level 11 compared to the ranger equivalent.