D&D 5E How "optional" are rules like feats and multiclassing?

[Majoru Oakheart]

There are a couple of themes in this thread that, I admit, press my buttons! The first is the old Stormwind Fallacy; the fallacious assertion that anyone who likes/is good at character optimisation in a mechanical/rules sense cannot be good at/like the role-playing aspect of the game. That any attempt at 'min-maxing' somehow demonstrates that they aren't a 'real' role-player. That any attempt at multi-classing/using feats, since they can be used to optimise a PC, that simply using these rules demonstrates that you aren't a 'real' role-player and therefore 'must' by using those rules for selfish, powergaming motives.

I'll say the same thing I said last time this was brought up. Although being able to min/max or even enjoying min-maxing doesn't mean you can't roleplay(I can do both). I can tell you that each choice you make when building a character means you are almost always sacrificing one for the other. Which means that the urge to mix-max almost always means sacrificing roleplaying.

For instance, if you are choosing between feats and one says "People like you. The DM should roleplay that people like you more than other people." and another says "You are good at fighting. You get +5 to hit", one is much more flavorful. You are a PC, ALL PCs are good at fighting. That's the way the game works. Everyone is going to roleplay their character as someone who is good at fighting whether they take the feat or not. Taking that feat isn't going to add to any roleplaying situations at all. It just makes your numbers bigger. But since the first feat is entirely a roleplaying feat whose benefit is nebulous because it relies on the DM properly roleplaying it, anyone who wants to min-max will never take it.

The game forces you to make choices between those kind of things all the time. Not quite as extreme as that choice, but you WILL have to make a choice between roleplaying and min-maxing on a regular basis. And how often you choose one over the other will affect the game.

But I can tell you that so far no one has multiclassed for roleplaying purposes in any of the games I play in.

 

[Gadget]

Forgive me Li Shenron, this wasn't really aimed at you.

I agree that a simplified game is useful for people who have never played before, but those training wheels should be taken off ASAP.

There are a couple of themes in this thread that, I admit, press my buttons! The first is the old Stormwind Fallacy; the fallacious assertion that anyone who likes/is good at character optimisation in a mechanical/rules sense cannot be good at/like the role-playing aspect of the game. That any attempt at 'min-maxing' somehow demonstrates that they aren't a 'real' role-player. That any attempt at multi-classing/using feats, since they can be used to optimise a PC, that simply using these rules demonstrates that you aren't a 'real' role-player and therefore 'must' by using those rules for selfish, powergaming motives.

This is, of course, total bollocks. A person can like or dislike these two aspects of our hobby independently. Indeed, the pure role-playing aspect of your PC may be better expressed by a multiclass PC, or a PC with a particular feat or feats.

No one is accusing you of BadWrongFun. People enjoy different aspects of the game, and I daresay most of us enjoy playing an effective character, as well as one that meets our 'vision'. That said, some people enjoy the 'build' aspects of the game that usually prizes feats and multi-classing more than others. This can lead, IMHO, to a game with a 'pressure' in some groups where these options exist to make sure you're 'optimized' in your feat/multi-class choices. There can be a sort of tread mill of ever advancing min/maxing choices that is not easy to get off of due to a keeping-up-with-the-Jones mentality. Maybe we should be more disciplined, but some like to play in games that are free of such encumbrances.

The second button is this: it is totally okay to have your own view about whether or not you like and want to use feats and/or multiclassing. Is anyone saying, "I like multiclassing, therefore everyone in my game must multiclass"? No, that would be absurd!

But there are some who are saying things to the effect of, "I don't like multiclassing, I don't think it is needed to make a PC, therefore no-one else is allowed to multiclass, even if that other person can think of a good reason!"

First, Multi-classing (and feats) are optional rules. They are not part of the assumed standard, even though many (most?) games may play with them. It is perfectly Okay for a particular group or DM to decide upfront that they will not be using these rules, for reasons over and above the added complexity they bring. Personally, I think that D&D, as a class based game, is trying to have its cake and eat it too with multi-classing. It leads to a certain amount of homogenization and dilution in character building, and 5e already does that quite a bit in the base game, particularly with regard to the spell casting classes with shared spells/cantrips and the ability to easily pilfer spells from one another's lists. But this is, of course, a personal preference.

Y'know what? If you don't like feats/multiclassing, don't give your PC those features; I'm not saying you have to. But don't tell me what I can or cannot do based on your likes and dislikes! You make your PC, I'll make mine!

This is a thread about not using particular optional rules, and how the game works without them. I'm pretty sure the OP is not going to show up at your game to demand you comply; that is, unless you are in his/her game? Then by all means, let your voice be heard.

 

[Rhenny]

Wow, it just happened! One of my players in an off night mini-campaign multi-classed. His Dwarf started as a barbarian for level 1 to be beefy enough to survive since we are running only 2 or 3 pcs for this set of adventures. Then at level 2 he switched over to wizard. His growing backstory is that he dabbled in magic secretly in his clan, which is completely against such pursuits. Although he never had been able to work the magical weave, he was still banished from his clan. Now he is an iconoclast trying to pick up some of the arcane arts while he makes his way in the world. I'm pretty sure he's multiclassing for roleplaying reasons, but his PC is pretty sturdy and well suited for a small party.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'll say the same thing I said last time this was brought up. Although being able to min/max or even enjoying min-maxing doesn't mean you can't roleplay(I can do both). I can tell you that each choice you make when building a character means you are almost always sacrificing one for the other. Which means that the urge to mix-max almost always means sacrificing roleplaying.

Assuming of course the only definition for min/maxing is combat output. You can min/max for RP just as much as you can min/max for combat. My hypothetical fighter has a 16 wisdom because he's old, an 18 cha because he's a silver-haired fox and a 12 str and 10 con because he hasn't actually fought anything in 20 years. And actually, he sucks at being a fighter. But he's great for roleplay.

That is of course, also assuming that role-play and power-gaming are dichotomous, which they are not. My 20 st, 12 dex, 18 con sword and board fighter rocks the battlefield's socks but that's not to say that isn't also his character. Maybe he isn't too bright. Maybe he's young and not very wise, maybe he's not particularly personable either. I didn't have to sacrifice anything to role-play him.

For instance, if you are choosing between feats and one says "People like you. The DM should roleplay that people like you more than other people." and another says "You are good at fighting. You get +5 to hit", one is much more flavorful. You are a PC, ALL PCs are good at fighting. That's the way the game works. Everyone is going to roleplay their character as someone who is good at fighting whether they take the feat or not. Taking that feat isn't going to add to any roleplaying situations at all. It just makes your numbers bigger. But since the first feat is entirely a roleplaying feat whose benefit is nebulous because it relies on the DM properly roleplaying it, anyone who wants to min-max will never take it.

Possibly, but at the same time, a role-player would only take it if they WANT NPCs to like them. Taking my fighter example above, maybe he's not particularly interested in having a big social circle, preferring to do his job, get rich and get drunk, in that order, everyone else can take a hike. He wouldn't want a feat that made people like him more. I can imagine the hermit Druid and a number of other types of characters who wouldn't necessarily be "improved" in their roleplay by having more people like them.

On the flip-side, if your character is designed to be the party's face, you might take the "NPCs like me more" feat because that's your goal of min/maxing.

 

[Laznabog]

I feel 5e is very limited on player choices as is, in the game I am running now I am sifting through 3rd party stuff to give to my players because I think options and fun are directly proportional, as long as you can maintain balance.

I played one game with a DM that disallowed all Optional Rules, the game was horse piss in my opinion. I became very certain that this DM wasn't comfortable with players making choices that mattered in most any regard. The no "Optional Rules" was just the first sign of this.

 

[Tallifer]

I like feats and multiclassing mostly to allow my players to create unique character conceits which they might like from literature, other systems or their own fertile imagination. For example, an proximate version the 4E healing warlord is conveniently made with a Fighter (Battlemaster) plus Cleric.

I also allow much of the Unearthed Arcana and many third party rules to help flesh things out: Githzerai, Genasi, Artificers, Aasimar, Pixies, Psionics and Swordmages for example.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm pretty sure the OP is not going to show up at your game to demand you comply; that is, unless you are in his/her game? Then by all means, let your voice be heard.

I've actually started a kickstarter to raise funds so I can fly over to Arial Black's location and do just that! 20$ gets you the video, 50$ a signed USB key!

This is a thread about not using particular optional rules, and how the game works without them.

Thank you, that is what I am trying to understand yes.

 

[S'mon]

But there are some who are saying things to the effect of, "I don't like multiclassing, I don't think it is needed to make a PC, therefore no-one else is allowed to multiclass, even if that other person can think of a good reason!"

Y'know what? If you don't like feats/multiclassing, don't give your PC those features; I'm not saying you have to. But don't tell me what I can or cannot do based on your likes and dislikes! You make your PC, I'll make mine!

I only ban it when I'm the GM... if I'm a player and the GM allows it, obviously that's up
to her or him (though I don't think anyone has multiclassed in either of the 5e games I'm a
player in). I guess if a group were really multiclassy & build-centric that might deter me
from wanting to play with them.

 

[Savevsdeath]

I'll say the same thing I said last time this was brought up. Although being able to min/max or even enjoying min-maxing doesn't mean you can't roleplay(I can do both). I can tell you that each choice you make when building a character means you are almost always sacrificing one for the other. Which means that the urge to mix-max almost always means sacrificing roleplaying.

For instance, if you are choosing between feats and one says "People like you. The DM should roleplay that people like you more than other people." and another says "You are good at fighting. You get +5 to hit", one is much more flavorful. You are a PC, ALL PCs are good at fighting. That's the way the game works. Everyone is going to roleplay their character as someone who is good at fighting whether they take the feat or not. Taking that feat isn't going to add to any roleplaying situations at all. It just makes your numbers bigger. But since the first feat is entirely a roleplaying feat whose benefit is nebulous because it relies on the DM properly roleplaying it, anyone who wants to min-max will never take it.

The game forces you to make choices between those kind of things all the time. Not quite as extreme as that choice, but you WILL have to make a choice between roleplaying and min-maxing on a regular basis. And how often you choose one over the other will affect the game.

But I can tell you that so far no one has multiclassed for roleplaying purposes in any of the games I play in.

Saying you're good at fighting, and showing it are two different things. if my character is on a quest to become the world's mightiest warrior, and roleplays as such, then it makes sense to take the option that mechanically makes him a better warrior, so that when someone calls his bluff he can in fact demonstrate his superiority. In 5E, this means that unless you are either higher-level than whoever is challenging you, or have a Feat/Class combo that makes you better, you are just saying you're better without actually being so, which is fine, but is no different from taking the combat ability and saying 'i'm really good at talking' while you have no persuasion and an 8 Cha. Why people think stats have nothing to do with reality in-game I will never understand.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This has probably been said, but: at bottom, Feats & MCing are optional so that the core/Standard game feels like the classic game (pre-3.0). Use them and you get a more 3.x/PF feel out of 5e. They're essentially some of the 'modules' we were promised, just with pride of place in the PH instead of being in the DMG or still just unrealized possibilities.