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

[Hayato]

The page 163 of the Player's handbook says:

The combination of ability scores, race, class, and background defines your character's capabilities in the game, and the personal details you create set your character apart from every other character. Even within your class and race, you have options to fine-tune what your character can do. But this chapter is for players who-with the DM's permission-want to go a step further.
This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign.

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The game works fine. No issues. Easier to balance combats to as well.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Agreed with @DEFCON 1 ,

I can say that the game and its attrition-based model work even better without feats. Multiclass isnt that much of a power bump, but it can create some monstrosities (sorcadin, sorlock).

And yeah, at least at my table, it removes the whole ''build'' thing. With 13 classes and 80-ish (?) archetypes, 40+ races etc, there's a lot of option to differentiate your characters, even before going into roleplaying differences.

 

[mortwatcher]

it makes the MAD characters bit less stresful to play, as you remove the do I ASI or feat on those
makes fighters a tad worse, as you wont be able to use those extra ASI on anything else than more HP/+1 to wis save

would say multiclassing won't be that noticeable, a lot of players are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot with that then to actually improve their character

 

[Hayato]

makes fighters a tad worse, as you wont be able to use those extra ASI on anything else than more HP/+1 to wis save

Well, at least human fighters can have STR 20, DEX 20, CON 16, CHA 14, WIS 14, INT 11.

 

[jsaving]

We tried going without feats and multiclassing for a while. Character generation was easier, the level-up process was more straightforward, and there wasn't a sacrifice in overall character power (because 5e does a better job balancing feats/multiclassing than 3e did). However, about half the gaming group said they felt like they needed feats and multiclassing to have the character they truly wanted to play, even though a few players tried to "explain" that they ought not want that level of customization or could come pretty close to their intended character in other ways. Things might be different for other groups but we were very happy to end the experiment and bring feats and multiclassing back.

 

[Nefermandias]

Most of my 5e campaigns are without feats and multiclass. They play just fine and spare me a lot of trouble with idiotic combos and "dips".

Besides, feats doesn't really expand the character's options since the only ones that are really good are just too obvious, to the point they become mandatory whenever they are available.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

We tried feats and MC initially. After a while (maybe 6 to 8 months) of using them we dropped them both. MC'ing because it felt like you were never 'both' classes (or however many) because you'd go in as a Fighter, kicking butt and taking names, tanking, the whole shebang...then you'd wake up the next morning and POOF! You are now able to cast spells because you took a level of Wizard. Then you'd go into another adventure, fighting 99% of the time, cast a handful of your spells, and POOF! You wake up a better Wizard...even though almost all your adventuring time and actions were via using all your Fighter stuff. It just borked our suspension of disbelief.

Feats...oh man. Bottom line, it made characters MUCH more "same-y". Every Fighter took one of the "weapon mastery" Feats. Then resulted in all Fighters needing to also have it or they would 'suck in comparison', for example. It also made the Players feel like they "had" to take certain Feats or they would 'suck' or they would at least feel like they weren't a "real Fighter" (or Barbarian, Ranger, Cleric, etc). It just didn't work for us.

So...yeah. No Feats no MC in my game since that initial trial back when the PHB came out. Our games are better for it.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[GlassJaw]

It would be fine. Multiclassing sucks in 5E anyway. In the vast majority of cases you are better off staying single-class. Because of that, the system encourages players to construct highly specific combos instead of multiclassing for the sake of their character (like warlock/paladin/bard dips, no thanks).

I would be more inclined to let a player swap class features (a la Tasha's) than have them multiclass. Multiclassing in 5E is so clunky.

Feats are a mixed bag. The biggest problem is that the feat system in 5E sucks. They compete with ASIs, they are grossly unbalanced, and since you get so few of them, players are disincentivized to pick cool ones that fit their character. It needs to be nuked form orbit.

Feats get substantially better if you ban or nerf the biggest offenders. Most feats are fine or even underpowered. A lot of abilities granted by feats I would let players do with a skill check or even for free.

 

[tetrasodium]

I said no mc on one game because I was such of having the same one or two players playing the same totally different but identical in all the ways that matter sorlocks. Those players left and some of the other players pushed for the return with good reasons offered so I quickly had a different sorlock player. Playing the same totally different sorlock


In a different game I basically said no feats with the idea of using the individual bullet points as magic item attachments. Unfortunately it didn't really work any better because there are only one or two that any class/build needs(usually the same ones as other classes) & they provide such a night & day difference that it made the problem even more obvious.