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

[Vaalingrade]

Don't care about multiclassing, but I won't play without feats and feel that the idea of replacing them with raw numbers was a terrible mistake.

I want to customize my character and be able to do stuff without playing mother may I with the DM. That's what feats are for; expanding or enabling abilities that would otherwise have to be adjudicated.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Playful chit chat is not an attack. Taking it that way is a huge overreaction.

A wise practice on the internet is to assume everything written is intended in the most positive way possible. I suggest considering why that approach would be beneficial.

Or maybe just apologizing for coming across as insulting when people call you on it.

That's a wise practice and more accurate than assuming positivity inside the hate machine.

 

[MoonSong]

As for the general question of the thread, I love having multiclassing and feats available. I'll always have them when I run a game, and see no reason to limit them. Can I go without multiclassing? yes, though I'd think it twice before committing to a long term game without it, merely because I don't want to feel tied to a single concept and I'd rather have room for changing paths if the need arises (That being said, this is sadly a good problem to have). In short, not having multiclassing isn't an issue most of the time.

Feats are more of a must have for me. Otherwise, there is no point to playing humans -standard human is just a boring bag of plusses -. A game has to offer something I really want for me to go into it without feats. It can happen and has happened, but I choose to play in featless games despite no feats rather than because of it.

 

[Fanaelialae]

So you mean even the sorcerers need to go to college in order to become sorcerers?

No, although they may need time and practice to learn how to harness and control their power. That said, sorcery is an innate talent that not everyone possesses (IMC).

If you want your character to be a sorcerer, then give them a level of sorcerer at the start. My players can't decide halfway through the campaign that their character spontaneously manifests those abilities.

That said, those are the general rules, and I do allow for exceptions if they are warranted.

 

[NaturalZero]

My issue has been the banning mechanical options that are considered standard has usually been a sign, in my experience, of a DM with control issues. It's isn't so much an issue with a need for me to have feats as much as it just comes off as a red flag.

 

[GlassJaw]

I certainly prefer games with more options but I would still play in a game without. I would want to know why the DM was restricting the options.

I'm always skeptical when I hear about sweeping, restrictive house rules. Unfortunately, they are often based on flawed reasoning or a lack of understanding of how the rules actually work.

I'd much rather hear a DM say "I don't really like how multiclassing works in 5E, and I want to avoid multiclassing being used for "builds" instead of for actual character development. I'll allow it, let's just discuss what you have in mind first." instead of flat "no".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I generally view most concerns about balance with either option as wildly overblown, and probably won't enjoy playing with a DM who is banning either option.

If they ban if for balance reasons, they probably don't run a game that just lets the PCs do cool stuff and enjoy their character, IME. Rules interpretation errs on the side of telling the PCs no, etc. Not something I'll enjoy, and I'll end up disrupting the game because I have limited willingness to just keep quiet and ignore something I strongly disagree with, especially when it's something I have a lot of experience with, like DMing.

If they ban it because "classes take years of training", I probably won't enjoy how they interpret things like what a class means in the fiction, or how literally you can take the interaction of mechanics with in-fiction physics, etc. I also just really dislike that POV on what classes are, and am not willing to restrict myself to it. If I want to use the rules for the Swashbuckler Rogue and Bladesinger Wizard to represent a specific school of swordfighting, and none of the options involved are banned in general, I am going to do so. Period. If I want to take a level of fighter at level 10 because it does a better job in my opinion of modeling the expertise I've acheived with the sword, then I will. In my own games, I don't consider decisions like this something the PCs need my permission for, or that I have a right to deny them.

I have asked my fellow DM's permission for build elements before, because I wanted to make sure he wouldn't be annoyed down the road by the gameplay they imply, like making a tinkerer alchemist that enchants magic items. Magic item crafting is world dependent, and invention has basically no rules for it in 5e, so that build asks a lot of the DM, and I'd have been happy to adjust the concept if he hadn't been up for it.

Me playing an Open Hand Monk/Moon Druid doesn't ask any more of the DM than playing a monk or a druid, so if I start talking about my concept and the DM starts telling me no, I'm probably going to find something else to do rather than waste both my time and that DM's time. Our outlook on TTRPGs are incompatible.


That all being said, I would play in a game without either option if the DM had a reasonable and interesting concept in mind and the lack of either option seemed to legitimately contribute to that, or if a DM I really trust and know well proposed it and asked me to just trust them.

 

[Lanefan]

Voted "it's complicated".

Starting with 3e, I've seen feats in general as being little more than a thinly-disguised attempt to ramp up the power curve and turn ordinary characters (and, in some cases, their opponents) more into superheroes. They also often tend to break down niche protection. That said, there's in each edition been a few "feats" that really should have instead just been baked-in abilities for some classes; and, there's a very short list of abilities - maybe about six - that can apply to all classes and thus could take the role of chooseable feats at high level.

So, for feats my vote is for either none at all or a very short curated list equally available to all, with minimal impingement on any class-related abilities.

Multiclassing is something I've never liked much in any edition. I can't get rid of it as there's some common character concepts that simply can't be done without it, so my preference again is to only allow a very short curated list of options and either stop there or very harshly penalize any other choices. In part this is again to enforce niche protection and character interdependence; I'd rather see a group of characters each covering for the others' weaknesses than a bunch of one-man bands who each can do everything.

That said, within those options there's room for more flexibility. I prefer independent multiclassing rather than additive (i.e. the 2e model over the 3e/5e model), for example.

On a more general note, other than the very basics e.g. a Fighter should be able to fight well I've never been all that big on caring whether the game's mechanics reflect my character's specific traits; which is what feats seem to want to do. The mechanics give me the basics, and after that it's on me to roleplay the character into uniqueness.

 

[ph0rk]

Depends on the setting, but some classes are well suited to it (Warlocks in particular, also Monks). I'd probably stay the hell out of melee, but someone likely needs to do it.

I don't think it is appropriate to have a featless game and leave Fighters and Rogues as-is, though. If a player really wanted to play as one (especially fighter) I'd probably give them feat options for their class specific bonus ASIs.

 

[MoonSong]

If you want your character to be a sorcerer, then give them a level of sorcerer at the start. My players can't decide halfway through the campaign that their character spontaneously manifests those abilities.

But why? It is a known trope.