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

[toucanbuzz]

....Then resulted in all Fighters needing to also have it or they would 'suck in comparison'....

Reminds me of things like Power Attack from 3.5/Pathfinder. It was a "mandatory" feat, and there should be no such thing.

I don't use multiclass because it doesn't work like it did in AD&D and leads to goofball abuses and "builds" people find on the internet. Games run perfectly fine.

I still keep feats, but it's starting to feel like an older edition. There's 1/2 that no one will ever take, ever, and others that are mandatory for a particular "build." I've yet to come up with a fix that would suit me, but haven't tried a game without them (yet).

 

[Undrave]

Nobody uses Multiclassing anyway so it doesn't change much. Feats on the other hand...

The three fighter feats that feel between them like losing basically half a class out of the game to me are the "hordebreaker" heavy armour master, the "you will fight me" sentinel and the "let someone else try first" polearm master. (Great Weapon Fighter, for all it's a power feat, doesn't change much about what the fighter does).

I think, especially as they are basically the non-magic classes even in a featless game I'd let the fighter pick a feat at (or after*) 6th level, 14th level, and 18th level, and the rogue at (or after) 10th as that is where they get extra ASIs in a featless game - and the value of these is nerfed when you're filling out second and third choice stats rather than your first choice.

Just an idea that I'll try if I ever DM a game again:
Create new fighting styles using the different bullet points of said feats, Fighters can swap a Bonus ASI for another fighting style:

I always felt like some of the feats were originally 'advanced Fighting style' that were turned into feats (and thus available to everyone) when it was decided the Fighter should "get more feats" because that's what it had in 3.X and they wanted to bring back that 'tradition' that only really existed for one edition.

Heavy Armour Master, Sentinel, Polearm Mastery, etc etc. There is a bunch that scream 'upgraded version of fighting style'.

The Fighter basically had its class features hidden in the feat section. It was probably judge 'too complex' for the beginner class so they added the optional rule layer. Feats, IMO are Fighter Class feature so if you ban feat I would still allow Fighters to get them.

Nobody but a Fighter would take a Feat before they maxed their main stat so if you stay below the second ASI level you'll probably not see much feats, especially if you don't allow variant humans.

 

[Prakriti]

I ran a group through Lost Mine of Phandelver and Storm King's Thunder without feats or multiclassing. It was fun. People leveled up their characters when it was time to do so and didn't agonize over min-maxing vs. staying true to their character, which is what always seems to happen when feats and multiclassing are on the table.

In all the years I've been playing 5E, I have never seen anyone choose to multiclass because it made sense for their character. They only ever did it to increase their DPR.

 

[el-remmen]

Unless I was running BECMI, it'd feel weird to not have multiclassing. But in my games players choose to multiclass based on narrative choices and in-campaign events, rather than specific builds. The bard multiclassed to wizard b/c his thirst for knowledge made him realize that there was a whole field he could know more about. The tiefling started as a ranger who was fleeing the urban origins of her clan for the wilderness, but later decided to embrace and pursue the sorcerous lineage she had once eschewed.

As for feats, same basic deal. Certainly people aren't picking the same ones: The druid took the Healer feat and the bard/wizard took the Observant feat. The ranger hasn't gotten a stat raise or feat chance yet because of how she chose multiclassed levels. The barbarian took an ASI at 4th.

We don't play with the variant human.

 

[el-remmen]

Reminds me of things like Power Attack from 3.5/Pathfinder. It was a "mandatory" feat, and there should be no such thing.

Nobody uses Multiclassing anyway so it doesn't change much. Feats on the other hand...

My experiences are evidence as to why "never" and "always" are problematic words.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Anyone attempt banning feats for ASI, but allow variant humans to grab a feat at creation?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Nobody uses Multiclassing anyway so it doesn't change much. Feats on the other hand...





I always felt like some of the feats were originally 'advanced Fighting style' that were turned into feats (and thus available to everyone) when it was decided the Fighter should "get more feats" because that's what it had in 3.X and they wanted to bring back that 'tradition' that only really existed for one edition.

Heavy Armour Master, Sentinel, Polearm Mastery, etc etc. There is a bunch that scream 'upgraded version of fighting style'.

The Fighter basically had its class features hidden in the feat section. It was probably judge 'too complex' for the beginner class so they added the optional rule layer. Feats, IMO are Fighter Class feature so if you ban feat I would still allow Fighters to get them.

Nobody but a Fighter would take a Feat before they maxed their main stat so if you stay below the second ASI level you'll probably not see much feats, especially if you don't allow variant humans.

IIRC, most of the features the playtest's fighter had have been transformed into feats or Hunter ranger's archetypes features.

Initially the feature choices you now see in the Hunter was part of the basic fighter's progression and you had maneuvers that looked somewhere between feats and BM's maneuvers.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Anyone attempt banning feats for ASI, but allow variant humans to grab a feat at creation?

Yup, I do, but I usually work with my players to pick a feat that makes sense with their origin story. So its mostly skill or extra proficiency, or feats that adds a layer of personality to a character (Observant, Keen Mind, etc).

The new ''X-touched'' feats from Tasha's are also great for this kind of thing.

 

[Azzy]

Haven't run/been in a game that forbids either. However, since the 5e PHB first dropped, I haven't seen anyone multiclass. There's been some talk about doing so, but it just never happens. As far as feats, they tend to be few and only occasionally chosen.

 

[Parmandur]

Never played or DMed a 5E game that used Feats or Multiclassing. It works fine, I suppose using the alternative rules probably works fine, too, if you are into that sort of thing. Note that AL is a pretty niche use case.

 

[The Green Hermit]

The page 163 of the Player's handbook says:

However, even they are an optional rule, feats and multiclasses are allowed in the Adventure League's plays, and some claim they as a core part of the edition. Thus, I want to know how was your experiences without theses optional set of rules. This include gaming balance, martials against spellcasters, fighters without feats and so on.

Thanks in advance.

We've never played with the feats or with multiclasses. It isn't banned from our table, but nobody's ever jumped on it.

 

[GlassJaw]

Tasha's and all the UAs prove that 5E could work as a complete a la carte character system; bounded accuracy makes balancing features quite forgiving, much more so than past systems.

Now complexity and system mastery are another discussion entirely but the system can handle it.

My point is that if a player wants a druid without wild shape or a fighter with some sneak attack, there are enough checks & balances inherent in the system that you can do that without much worry about the system breaking (within reason).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

???

4-6 > 1, which is how many variants you get if you don't have feats.

Two handed melee fighters alone have four to six textbook feats: Great Weapon Master, Heavy Armour Master, Martial Adept, Polearm Master, Sentinel, and Lucky. Of these precisely one (Lucky) gets taken by wizards.

IME Charger is a must.

Class guides generally declare this feat to be subpar, but I used it at the start of more than 50% of my encounters (as a fighter) and probably more than 75%. I went from level 1-13. +5 damage isn't worth losing an attack, but I don't have the feat I could lose attacks. I used it whenever I couldn't "single move" to a target and multiattack at the start of a battle (or even during a battle, if enemies are spread out).

Some of the players were uninterested in feats. However we were different classes, so no "apples and oranges" comparisons.

We had no multiclassing, although a bard (we had one) is practically multiclassed out of the gate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I often see the argument that feats help "differentiate" characters. I have found the opposite to be true. Since everyone tends to gravitate towards the same 4-6 amazing feats, the effect of having feats in the game actually creates more sameness among characters, not distinctiveness.

I don't buy it.

It's absolutely true over a large population of characters, on say, DNDBeyond. It seems like complete and utter nonsense across the characters actually played by a single gaming group. I think you're talking about the former, which is outside scope for this discussion. Unless people are playing VHumans, Feats often don't even enter the building until level 12 for non-Fighters. How many campaigns even go that high?

 

[Undrave]

My experiences are evidence as to why "never" and "always" are problematic words.

Haven't run/been in a game that forbids either. However, since the 5e PHB first dropped, I haven't seen anyone multiclass. There's been some talk about doing so, but it just never happens. As far as feats, they tend to be few and only occasionally chosen.

I've seen 1 MC character (Barbarian into Fighter, so nothing eccentric like a Sorlock or Sorcadin) and 1 character talk about it (Eldritch Knight/Blade Pact Warlock).

Multiclassing is way too difficult to pull off in 5e for most players. It's only a problem in niche corner cases, most of the times it's a downgrade.

 

[Torquar]

I'd be tempted to try just clipping off the -5/+10 from GWM and Sharpshooter and seeing what that changes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IME Charger is a must.

Class guides generally declare this feat to be subpar, but I used it at the start of more than 50% of my encounters (as a fighter) and probably more than 75%. I went from level 1-13. +5 damage isn't worth losing an attack, but I don't have the feat I could lose attacks. I used it whenever I couldn't "single move" to a target and multiattack at the start of a battle (or even during a battle, if enemies are spread out).

Some of the players were uninterested in feats. However we were different classes, so no "apples and oranges" comparisons.

We had no multiclassing, although a bard (we had one) is practically multiclassed out of the gate.

Charger's something I'd expect to differ on a campaign by campaign basis. If you're in a dungeon 30 feet is a long way and you'll very seldom use it. If you're in the wilderness it's a lot more useful, especially with the object interaction rules or if you're sword & board making it hard to throw two javelins in a turn.

 

[Burnside]

I don't buy it.

It's absolutely true over a large population of characters, on say, DNDBeyond. It seems like complete and utter nonsense across the characters actually played by a single gaming group. I think you're talking about the former, which is outside scope for this discussion. Unless people are playing VHumans, Feats often don't even enter the building until level 12 for non-Fighters. How many campaigns even go that high?

I'm actually talking about the latter. "Magic Initiate so I get a familiar" is ubiquitous. I'm running a Curse of Strahd campaign where THREE players in the same party did it (fighter and two rogues, and they all did it at level 4). I see this feat in every campaign.

Fighter is the edge case, because it actually does differentiate them to a degree. Although man I'm sick of great weapon masters, who are inevitable in every campaign. And the polearm master and great weapon master feats are so good that the fighters who have them can rarely justify doing ANYTHING else with their actions in combat, regardless of what fun stuff their subclass abilities might let them do.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'd be tempted to try just clipping off the -5/+10 from GWM and Sharpshooter and seeing what that changes.

Or change it to -/+ proficiency.

(Note: It actually gets better if it's -(prof)/+(2*prof), so don't do that.)

 

[Bacon Bits]

So wait a second here. Two fighters are more same-y when one's a great weapon master who can make mighty blows at low accuracy and the other's a polearm master who fights with both ends of the weapon than when they each have a +1 to rolls based on a different stat?

I just don't get it.

Because it's the feat that determines the capabilities instead of anything else. Subclass doesn't matter. You don't pick a different weapon style or weapon because you're limited to the two or three viable "builds". Worse, it infects all martial characters. Everyone is going for GWM + PM or SS + CE. So all the classes that favor weapons start to feel the same.

It'd be like if every spellcasting class had identical spell lists.