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

[MacMathan]

Our group has been having a great time running a modified Barrowmaze with no feats or multi classing, also more limited on races and classes than the standard 5e phb.

It would help if feats didn't range from amazing to terrible. The spread is too much for our current table and it was deemed more work than we wanted to do to fix them.

About 40% of the characters have been human, we are using rolled stats.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

The only feats I would actually dont really mind at my table are those which did not make the cut: Feat for Skill and Racial feats from the UA. To recreate my favorite leveling system aka Shadow of the Demon Lord, I'd remove ASI and instead hardcode the 2 racial feats of each race into the character progression (say level 4 and 12), and Utility Skill feats (say level 8, 16 and 19). Fighters and rogue would gain an extra Utility Skill feat with their bonus ASI.

 

[Undrave]

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.

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.

I'm still confused why your group both doesn't care enough about mechanics that the Archery style is enough AND still feel the push to ABSOLUTELY take Sharpshooter?! Do you often have multiple Archer PC in your group? Why do you build your NPCs like PCs?!

A part of it I get a little more after re-reading Sharpshooter. I completely forgot it had other benefits aside from the Power Attack thing. I can see why an Archer would want those benefits but... Does he really NEED them to be an Archer with the knowledge you ascribe to the fighting style?? Heck, there's no prerequisite to Sharpshooter. You could have a Halfling Wizard with a Sling take it (for whatever reason)! And if you do build some NPC with Feats... why does it matter? Do you need your Archer to be the BEST OF THE BEST at archery or do you need them to be good at their job? Heck, maybe your PC without a feat has 20 DEX a couple level earlier! That makes them good at a lot of other things, including AC.

I get that Archery fighter don't get as wide a variety of dedicated feat as melee fighters, but it's hardly the only choice. Especially if you take subclass into account. If I went for an Arcane Archer you bet your butt I'd go with Magic Initiate to pick up Mending (thematic!), Light (Use it on an Arrow and fire it!) and Fairie Fire (no more invisibility!). If I was a Battlemaster? I'd add maneuvers with Martial Adept! And those are just two ideas off the top of my head.

You act like if a player knows the most optimal way to build a certain character, they MUST absolutely build it that way or they'll resent not being that build. That's totally untrue.