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

[ph0rk]

But why? It is a known trope.

And on top of that, 99% of the time multiclassing is a power loss, not a power gain.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But why? It is a known trope.

Then the player can take a level of sorcerer at the start and not use those abilities until the sorcerer "manifests" their abilities. That would represent them having the potential but being unaware of it. This can handle that trope, although I admit that it won't appeal to every player.

Alternately, if they have something particular in mind, they can talk to me and we might be able to figure out something. I'm not entirely inflexible on the matter and will try to work with players when reasonable.

The default (where you can just take a level of sorcerer upon level up) doesn't really handle the trope either. Typically in stories, a sorcerer's powers will manifest in the middle of a dramatic scene. PCs don't level up in the middle of dramatic scenes in my game, so even if I allowed taking a level of sorcerer whenever they leveled up, it wouldn't handle the trope.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then the player can take a level of sorcerer at the start and not use those abilities until the sorcerer "manifests" their abilities. That would represent them having the potential but being unaware of it. This can handle that trope, although I admit that it won't appeal to every player.

I find it pretty unreasonable to tell a player they have to start out with basically no capabilities aside from skills just to play a basic archetype. Especially if other things like thief skills or combat ability are also part of it.

Also, it's kind of literally what the magic mode subclasses do, so why not allow it to be done this way?

 

[ph0rk]

Indeed, why is taking a level of sorcerer at level 3 different than choosing eldritch knight at level three?

 

[Fanaelialae]

And on top of that, 99% of the time multiclassing is a power loss, not a power gain.

Even if we accept that 99% of multiclassing combinations result in a net loss of power, if you have optimizers at your table they will use the 1% of combinations that result in a net gain 100% of the time.

Certainly not all of my players are optimizers, but I've had a few grace my table over the years.

The main reason, as I said, is because it takes time to train to become 1st level IMC. Even the sorcerer, who may be able to activate their power from the get-go, typically needs to learn to control those powers. That's just how things work in my campaign. Classed characters are rare because it requires not only talent but also significant effort to become classed.

 

[ph0rk]

if you have optimizers at your table they will use the 1% of combinations that result in a net gain 100% of the time.

Less than half of optimizers are even half as good at optimizing as they think they are.

It isn’t a problem, barring a few specific combinations broken enough to be called out as such in AL, and I have no problem going with the calls they make (e.g. coffeelocks).

 

[Ath'kethin]

It's interesting to me that the choices are all or nothing; I love feats but I don't do multiclassing.

When I'm playing I just don't bother with the MC; when I'm running the game I swing my banhammer.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I find it pretty unreasonable to tell a player they have to start out with basically no capabilities aside from skills just to play a basic archetype. Especially if other things like thief skills or combat ability are also part of it.

Also, it's kind of literally what the magic mode subclasses do, so why not allow it to be done this way?

Indeed, why is taking a level of sorcerer at level 3 different than choosing eldritch knight at level three?

Because that's how it works at my table.

I'm not suggesting that you need to play this way, or that my way is better than the standard; just that it's how I do things. If you don't like the idea then by all means, please feel free not to use it. I promise I won't take offense.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because that's how it works at my table.

I'm not suggesting that you need to play this way, or that my way is better than the standard; just that it's how I do things. If you don't like the idea then by all means, please feel free not to use it. I promise I won't take offense.

You posted about it publicly. We're going to critique it.

 

[ph0rk]

Because that's how it works at my table.

If you allow other multiclassing but not this and that’s the only reason you give, I can understand why players wouldn’t like it. You might not think you’re wrong, but the game is a group activity, and further we’re here discussing it, so “well thats just how I do it” is the discussion equivalent of taking your marbles and going home.