D&D 5E How do you feel about games without Feats and Multiclassing?

[TwoSix]

You mean a role playing game? I don't mean to alarm you, but that is what D&D is. However, there is a great reason to use a game mechanic as part of a story telling game even if the story is all that matters - control, or lack thereof, to be precise.

You're passive-aggressively trying to make me out to be a poor role-player. I would really, REALLY appreciate if you didn't do that simply because I enjoy the mechanical aspects of the game as much as the freeform thespian aspects.

 

[Undrave]

I feel like the cutting of feats unfairly limits martial classes. A spell caster character doesn't need to use Feats to define their character. A Fighter can pretty much tailor their fighting styles way more with access to Feat than any other class.

See as I don't particularly care much for Spellcasters, I'd rather have the option. If nothing else, humans are REALLY uninteresting without that lv 1 feat.

That's so sad.

Maybe not to you, but to many RP groups it is.

You can 'role-play more' in any system, it's a hook for the whole genre of role playing game. It's not a 'hook' if its the damn baseline!

 

[Magister Ludorum]

The poll doesn't quite capture my groups feelings on the matter.

We don't use level based ASI . only feats. (Avoids ability bloat. We also limit abilities to 18 without the use of magic.)

We modify feats that give +1 to an ability so that they give something else instead.

Multiclassing isn't forbidden, but almost no one ever uses it.

When multiclassing we track spells and spell slots from each class separately instead of using the chart in the PHB. No Warlock dips for extra smiting.

 

[iserith]

I expect a DM to customize the rules to suit the theme of the campaign he or she is presenting. Sometimes that may mean not including optional rules like feats and multiclassing. It's just fine with me and do it myself.

 

[BookTenTiger]

That's so sad.

How about not judging other people for their playstyles?

I've always thought that more mechanical options actually introduce more opportunities for roleplaying. When I take the Magic Initiate Feat for my fighter, or I multiclass Sorcerer/Paladin, those mechanical choices actually tell part of the story of my character.

So yeah, I play with Feats and Multiclass because to me, they're not just fun, but they're opportunities for fun character concepts!

 

[DEFCON 1]

We've had this discussion before, but if the only part of the game that matters to you is the dramatic/thespian parts of the game, why not play a story game or simply freeform narrate instead? If you're using a system, the system should matter.

I stand by my statement; the amount of "roleplay" at a table is entirely uncorrelated to the mechanical complexity of a system. A game with more mechanical complexity will have more distinct characters because you differentiate on both the mechanical axis and the dramatic/thespian axis.

The system for me does matter insofar as the actual board game itself is fun to play. If the board game stinks then it doesn't matter for me how good the methods for generating character and roleplay are, just like if the character and roleplay stinks (because the the GM and players just aren't very good) then it doesn't matter how compelling the board game is.

But in terms of "character"? One side has it all over the other one hands-down.

Where will I find and create a more interesting, compelling, and satisfying "character"? By doing an improv scene between two people where there are almost no "mechanics" whatsoever... or playing a board game where there is almost no "roleplay" whatsoever? I think we know what the answer is here. I mean I might play "The Shoe" when playing Monopoly... but that don't mean I have a "character". Whereas when I improvise a scene... I'm nothing BUT a character.

And to continue that line of reasoning... if I'm going to play and character and improvise a scene, I can get from the audience (or the improv game itself) any mechanical bits to make parts of my character for me. I can get the audience to suggest a job for me... to give me an emotion to play... to give me three quirks I have. The game itself might mechanically stipulate that each of my sentences have to start with the next letter of the alphabet... or that I am higher status or lower status compared to my scene partner. ANY of these bits and bobs can be given to mechanically influence my character, and quite possibly make it more and more complex. But absolutely none of that matters if I just suck at playing that character and my scene stinks. If I improvise crappily (and goodness knows in improv that happens A LOT) then none of the mechanics matter. My character is crap. Because the mechanics aren't the character... they merely inform me on the things my character can do and be. But ** I ** actually have to play it.

 

[TwoSix]

And to continue that line of reasoning... if I'm going to play and character and improvise a scene, I can get from the audience (or the improv game itself) any mechanical bits to make parts of my character for me. I can get the audience to suggest a job for me... to give me an emotion to play... to give me three quirks I have. The game itself might mechanically stipulate that each of my sentences have to start with the next letter of the alphabet... or that I am higher status or lower status compared to my scene partner. ANY of these bits and bobs can be given to mechanically influence my character, and quite possibly make it more and more complex. But absolutely none of that matters if I just suck at playing that character and my scene stinks. If I improvise crappily (and goodness knows in improv that happens A LOT) then none of the mechanics matter. My character is crap. Because the mechanics aren't the character... they merely inform me on the things my character can do and be. But ** I ** actually have to play it.

It sounds like you're making the point that the character play/improv part of the RPG is pretty much unconnected to the mechanics (or at least a different layer), which I would largely agree with.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I feel like the cutting of feats unfairly limits martial classes. A spell caster character doesn't need to use Feats to define their character. A Fighter can pretty much tailor their fighting styles way more with access to Feat than any other class.

See as I don't particularly care much for Spellcasters, I'd rather have the option. If nothing else, humans are REALLY uninteresting without that lv 1 feat.

I agree with what you are saying here up to a point. "Warriors" have less mechanical distinction in the board game than "Spellcasters" do. Because spellcasters have an entire third of a book granting possible game mechanics they can select from and add to their sheet. The Feats section of the book does not in any way compare to the Spells section in terms of variance and width of options, but it does grant something additional to Warriors that they otherwise wouldn't have. So if you do not use Feats, the warrior characters have less game mechanics to use during play. I agree with that.

The part I don't agree with is when you attribute this mechanical distinction to "defining your character", because your character is all in how you play it. An awesome roleplayer can take an AD&D Fighter with almost no game mechanics and make it more compelling and interesting and useful of a character than a bad roleplayer using the full suite of Pathfinder options to bust out the numbers on the sheet nine ways to Sunday.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's so sad.

Not really. I’m going to be roleplaying my character no matter what, so being told to roleplay my character as a substitute for a mechanical bonus feels pretty hollow.

 

[TwoSix]

Not really. I’m going to be roleplaying my character no matter what, so being told to roleplay my character as a substitute for a mechanical bonus feels pretty hollow.

Thank you, that's a very succinct way of expressing what I was trying to say.