D&D 5E Character Options

[Andor]

In 5th edition we are presented with two optional systems for adding additional options for character growth, to wit: multiclassing and feats.

Given that multiclassing in it's various forms has been a fixture ever since AD&D and feats have been with us for 15 years now most people take these as a given, but I thought I'd ask what people think the up and down sides of using them might be. Seperately and together.

For example, one of the perks of the fighter class is that they get more stat bumps than the other classes . Which is nice, but really shines when you put feats into the game. Conversely a lot of feats are there to provide flexibility by adding a little magic or new abilities to a character, but that flexibility pales before the benefits that can be gained by multiclassing. So the fighter is at his most attractive in a game where feats are allowed but multiclassing is not.

 

[redrick]

I don't know that I have a strong preference, inasmuch as I'd happily play a game with no feats, no multiclassing, or neither of the two, but I allow both when DM'ing, and our other DM allows both as well, and don't have any problem with them.

Both feats and multiclassing can certainly play into a kind of playstyle that I personally don't relate to, which is a focus on complicated, optimized builds, but they don't have to be used that way, and I don't know that banning them would necessarily solve any actual problems, other than maybe turning away a number of players, some of whom take complicated character build to an anti-social level. Probably easier to address those issues on a more personal level.

I did ban variant humans when my regulars were building 1st-level characters for our "D&D open house" last week. Not because I think there's anything wrong with them, but just because I wanted to limit the amount of complexity for first-time players in what was meant to be a one-off game. Having feats not become available until after 4th level is something that is super friendly to new players, as they have plenty of time to understand their characters before they get into the weird stuff. The variant human feels a little bit of an "experienced players only" option that separates those PCs from the more vanilla options of first-time players. (I chose to let first-time players swap out their generic humans for variant humans within the first few sessions, if they so chose.)

 

[Kobold Stew]

One of the things I like about both feats and multi classing is that even when they are allowed, they are not needed at the table. I have a player who is very happy to just take the +2 because he doesn't want to deal with feats, and is in no way weakened by that decision. Conversely, in the characters I play in OL games, I find that I regularly take the smattering-of-magic feats even when multi classing is allowed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

One of the things I like about both feats and multi classing is that even when they are allowed, they are not needed at the table. I have a player who is very happy to just take the +2 because he doesn't want to deal with feats, and is in no way weakened by that decision. Conversely, in the characters I play in OL games, I find that I regularly take the smattering-of-magic feats even when multi classing is allowed.

Yep. I have nothing against multi-classing, but 5e is the first edition since AD&D where it's the exception rather than the rule it seems. It just isn't really needed, and most of my players look forward to all of the advancements within the same class. I think backgrounds and feats are to take credit for that. For example, rather than have my F/T in AD&D, I can just have my fighter with a criminal background and done.

 

[Wik]

Well, we're currently playing "feats only". I like feats, but I think next game, I'm going to play without them. As for multi-classing, we decided after a long look to get rid of them, and only one player is put-off by this decision... and he still absolutely understands why I made it.

I'd be all for getting rid of feats if I had a player seriously interested in sharp shooter or great weapon master. Strangely, no one is, and so they work quite nicely. But yeah, I'd prefer to get rid of the added complexity, and just have everyone make simpler characters.

 

[Bupp]

My group plays with just feats, but the only ones that have taken them so far are the variant humans at creation. When they hit 4th level, everyone chose ability score increases.

I'm willing to allow multiclassing, but none of my players are interested.

I feel with backgrounds and feats that you can simulate many multiclass combinations.

 

[Warbringer]

Subclasses pretty much fill the space.

Backgrounds add more flavor options that feats so you character concepts are more supported without fears and dipping.

 

[Mercule]

I allow feats, but my intent was always to say "You're 4th level, gain a +2 to stats." Unfortunately, my players are still in the 3E mindset that "I'm 4th level, I get a feat (or a +2 to stats, if I really can't find anything)." I'm not sure how to fix that w/o removing feats entirely, for the next campaign. I really, really like feats to add one or two little tweaks to a PC, but hated the arms race from 3E. I probably shouldn't worry too much, since I'm using Eberron and have two Dragonmarked characters (using feats).

5E multiclassing looks like the most useful, least broken way of doing it to date. The rogue dipped into one level of ranger, mostly for pure character reasons. Otherwise, no one is hot to do it. The system looks neither penalizing nor over-potent, which is a good thing.

One thing I love about the multiclassing rules is that casters get to toss all their spells into one big bucket for casting. Strangely, the most obvious use for this is expressly against the intent of the designers: feats that grant spell knowledge (Dragonmarks) don't get pooled into the character's prepared spells. To this, I've decided that WotC can pound sand. Letting Dragonmarks count as prepared spells makes so much sense in terms of the setting -- no need for a Dragonmarked Heir PrC when the Fighter can just choose to go with Eldritch Knight, for example. From personal experience, allowing this is definitely not broken.

Edit: didn't originally comment on multiclassing.

 

[epithet]

First 5e game I ran, one of my players started with the Min/Max crap, gonna take 2 levels of this, 3 levels of that, 1 level of the other thing... took me no time at all to shut that down. My first instinct was to say "if you want to switch classes, you will need to come up with a narrative in which that makes sense." Then I realised that it was just a much better idea to disallow multiclassing, period. You don't need it in 5e - any character concept you can imagine can be expressed with a single class and a feat or two, especially if the DM is willing to indulge some creativity (which I am.)

Edit: one of the dangers of unrestricted multiclassing is that someone will spend multiple levels in a class for one ability that turns out not to work the way they thought it would. If you allow at-will multiclassing, you might at least give a thought to how you might allow a re-spec. I know, I know... the fool dug his own grave, he should have to lie in it, etc. Thing is, there are some folks who won't play a character for months in a campaign after they've decided it is "broken." Better to plan ahead for that possibility than to lose a player over poor class choices, and if you've spent effort on developing hooks and tie-ins to that character's back story, a respec is better than a new character.

 

[epithet]

I allow feats, but my intent was always to say "You're 4th level, gain a +2 to stats." Unfortunately, my players are still in the 3E mindset that "I'm 4th level, I get a feat (or a +2 to stats, if I really can't find anything)."

I'm not sure how to fix that w/o removing feats entirely, for the next campaign. I really, really like feats to add one or two little tweaks to a PC, but hated the arms race from 3E.

Just limit the feats, then. I mean, if you can say "no feats" then you can say "1 feat before level 10, a second feat after." Or simply "2 feats, max, ever."

Another possibility for you, especially if you start them off with a point-buy or array for stats, is to give them the +2, but then just give them a bonus feat at a level you feel is appropriate. That's especially useful if you're running an adventure path and using milestone level-ups, and you have a side-quest or a little something extra for the party to do that isn't part of the path. Since their not getting xp for it (it isn't on the path to the next milestone) you can reward them with a feat, as mentioned in the alternative reward chapter of the DMG.