How does not allowing multiclassing and/or feats impact the game?

[HappyDaze]

Despite the fact that it is considered an optional rule, including multiclassing and feats seem to be (almost) universally accepted as the default way of playing D&D 5e. Much of the game balance and optimization threads I've seen hinge on either or both of these options. But what about games played without them?

I'd like to start with Classes. Which classes are most impacted in games that:

• Do not allow multiclassing (Type A-)
• Do not allow feats (Type B-)
• Do not allow either multiclassing or feats (Type AB-)

Rules/mechanics analysis and commentaries are welcome, as are opinions that talk about how a certain feature might be viewed as more/less valuable in certain game types. OTOH, "I would never play in that type of game" statements are not really helpful, so if that's all the input that can be offered, start by not playing in this thread.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Despite the fact that it is considered an optional rule, including multiclassing and feats seem to be (almost) universally accepted as the default way of playing D&D 5e. Much of the game balance and optimization threads I've seen hinge on either or both of these options. But what about games played without them?

I'd like to start with Classes. Which classes are most impacted in games that:

• Do not allow multiclassing (Type A-)
• Do not allow feats (Type B-)
• Do not allow either multiclassing or feats (Type AB-)

Rules/mechanics analysis and commentaries are welcome, as are opinions that talk about how a certain feature might be viewed as more/less valuable in certain game types. OTOH, "I would never play in that type of game" statements are not really helpful, so if that's all the input that can be offered, start by not playing in this thread.

As a note, the default is no multiclassing and no feats. I'd say that (assuming a by-the-guidelines adventuring day averaging at least one short rest and multiple fights between each rest) balance is better in a Type AB- game for all classes. The power level decreases significantly (especially missing the combat feats), but you're closer to design standards so you can expect more of an authentic challenge.

You lose a lot of the "must have" optimization tricks--sorlocks, sorcadins, PAM/GWM or SS/CBE martials, SAD paladins (hmm, what class has come up the most so far?), life/knowledge cleric dips for wizards (and thus remove most easy access to armor for wizards). You also lose a lot of the "tricks" like

I'd say the effect is noticeable but not overwhelming at most tables.

@Tanarii is the go-to here--Type AB- are what he runs constantly.

[Lunali]

Part of the reason why it seems so prevalent is that without multiclassing and feats, there's very little to talk about with regards to balance and optimization.

[Max_Killjoy]

Part of the reason why it seems so prevalent is that without multiclassing and feats, there's very little to talk about with regards to balance and optimization.

And because there are a lot of concepts that don't fit well into any one of the extant classes... and custom classes are less commonly allowed than multiclassing.

[Rusvul]

Feats help martials... quite a lot, and they help casters relatively little. 5e has done a lot to cut down on caster supremacy, but it still exists. Removing feats will serve to make martials less interesting and casters more dominant. I can see running 5e without feats if your party is new--and restricting what feats PCs are allowed to take with variant human is a sensible houserule--but as far as I'm concerned, 5e is a less interesting and worse-balanced game without feats.

Classes/character archetypes that become worse when you remove feats:

• Anyone who primarily uses weapons instead of spells (TWF, GWM, PAM, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow Master are all pretty important for some characters)
• Anyone who intends to mix "I cast spells" with "I use weapons" (anyone who would have taken Warcaster)
• Non-spell battlefield control becomes the almost exclusive to Monks and grapplers (Sentinel and/or PAM)
• Casters are impacted only in that their Constitution saves (and thus concentration checks) will be worse. Sorcerers are less impacted than most.)
• Character concepts that involve just a little bit of magic become harder to achieve. (Ritual Caster, Magic Initiate)

Multiclassing... probably screws with balance a little. I personally like it a lot, but you'll probably have a better-balanced--if less interesting, IMO--game with stronger niches if you run a Type A- game.

In any case, the game will run just fine, but if you have ex-3.5 players who like the char-op subgame, they will probably grumble a bit.


Edit: I screwed up and my post didn't match the blood-type scheme in the OP

[Vogie]

It depends on your players. If they're new to the game, and are a tabula rasa, it won't impact it at all.

For more entrenched players, it'll feel overly limiting.

Simple things like:

• Crossbow Expert allowing a martial to use their extra attack feature if they're holding a light crossbow rather than a longbow.
• Non-hexblade blade warlocks starting with Paladin or Fighter to gain armor proficiencies
• Casters having to choose either Sorcerer or not having proficiency to Con saves for their concentration spells (as there is no Resilient: Con or Warcaster)

Among other things.

It'll feel like "just" DnD. You won't have deep character concepts that can be created through mixed classes. All the fighters will be fighters, because none of them will have a couple levels in cleric so they could feel like a field medic. Druids will only be able to communicate in humanoid form, because they can't dip into GOOlock for telepathy. A magical thief would have to be Arcane trickster, because they can't be a thief or assassin with wizard dip or the magic initiate feat... they just get the one choice.

[Malifice]

Despite the fact that it is considered an optional rule, including multiclassing and feats seem to be (almost) universally accepted as the default way of playing D&D 5e. Much of the game balance and optimization threads I've seen hinge on either or both of these options. But what about games played without them?

I'd like to start with Classes. Which classes are most impacted in games that:

• Do not allow multiclassing (Type A-)
• Do not allow feats (Type B-)
• Do not allow either multiclassing or feats (Type AB-)

Rules/mechanics analysis and commentaries are welcome, as are opinions that talk about how a certain feature might be viewed as more/less valuable in certain game types. OTOH, "I would never play in that type of game" statements are not really helpful, so if that's all the input that can be offered, start by not playing in this thread.

Fighters get hurt the most without feats (they get more of them than anyone else, and most of the great feats are either linked to 'fighting' like GWM, Sharpshooter, Crossbow expert, PAM, HAM etc OR are useful to a Fighter by giving him something other than Fighting to do - Actor, Ritual Caster, Skilled etc).

In fact, if you run a game where Martials are still considered 'weak', then I would suggest allowing Fighters (and only Fighters) the ability to select Feats with their ASI (make selecting feats with ASI instead of increasing a stat, a unique feature of the Fighter class).

[HappyDaze]

I can see running 5e without feats if your party is new--and restricting what feats PCs are allowed to take with variant human is a sensible houserule

Even if I run a game using Feats, I have no love for the Variant Human and do not allow it. In 5e, I don't like having Feats available at 1st level.

[HappyDaze]

In fact, if you run a game where Martials are still considered 'weak', then I would suggest allowing Fighters (and only Fighters) the ability to select Feats with their ASI (make selecting feats with ASI instead of increasing a stat, a unique feature of the Fighter class).

I have considered having a Feat (only, not optional) be the Fighter 6, Fighter 14, and Rogue 10 class abilities. Other ASIs for all classes must be ASIs.

[Jerrykhor]

Type A - Every class is affected, but i think Warlock is affected the most. No Sorcadins, no Bearbarians, no warlock dips.

Type B - Fighters. They get the most ASIs, and once their STR/CON are maxed, there's hardly any reason to pump ASI in other stats. It gets worse if they start with high ability scores from rolled stats. Without feats, fighters are very weak and boring to play.

Type AB - I won't even consider it. I can live without multi-classing, but not without feats. I'll admit that I am biased, I love feats. They are important for character customisation, to make certain character concepts possible. Even though this mode is technically the most 'vanilla', its also quite rare. I personally am too used to being in kitchen sink games where DMs allow homebrew stuff. Type AB seems awfully restrictive to me.

[Malifice]

Even if I run a game using Feats, I have no love for the Variant Human and do not allow it. In 5e, I don't like having Feats available at 1st level.

I love having them available at 1st level. It opens up some concepts from 1st level.

I ban Vuman, but grant everyone a feat at 1st (and Humans +1 to all ASI as normal, but I also give them an additional skill or tool proficiency at 1st level as well).

[LordEntrails]

Despite the fact that it is considered an optional rule, including multiclassing and feats seem to be (almost) universally accepted as the default way of playing D&D 5e. Much of the game balance and optimization threads I've seen hinge on either or both of these options. But what about games played without them?

I think your presumptions are just wrong.

Part of the reason why it seems so prevalent is that without multiclassing and feats, there's very little to talk about with regards to balance and optimization.

Yes, just because feats and multi-classing are talked about so much online in places like GITP is because these places are overwhelmingly frequented by optimizers and mechanical analysts.

Optimizers talk about the need to multi-class and use feats because they are tools to optimize, and hence are effectively required to optimize.

Most players of D&D do not discuss D&D on forums. Most don't read the forums. Most just play the game, and don't worry about playing it "better". They have fun, they enjoy it.

Though I don't restrict the use of multi-classing, most games I play in and run, only about 10% of the characters multi-class, and only about 25% use feats. And even though some of the players know how to optimize, maybe only 1 in 20 actually bother to optimize. Most of the several dozen gamers I play with have played for 20 or more years. I suspect most of us have passed through the optimizing and competitive phase of RPGs, and now play concepts and characters that are just fun and interesting.

[Rusvul]

I think your presumptions are just wrong.
Yes, just because feats and multi-classing are talked about so much online in places like GITP is because these places are overwhelmingly frequented by optimizers and mechanical analysts.

Optimizers talk about the need to multi-class and use feats because they are tools to optimize, and hence are effectively required to optimize.

Most players of D&D do not discuss D&D on forums. Most don't read the forums. Most just play the game, and don't worry about playing it "better". They have fun, they enjoy it.

Though I don't restrict the use of multi-classing, most games I play in and run, only about 10% of the characters multi-class, and only about 25% use feats. And even though some of the players know how to optimize, maybe only 1 in 20 actually bother to optimize. Most of the several dozen gamers I play with have played for 20 or more years. I suspect most of us have passed through the optimizing and competitive phase of RPGs, and now play concepts and characters that are just fun and interesting.

You're right that feats and multiclassing are critical to optimizing. I would argue, however, that they also vastly widen the number of fun, interesting character concepts for players with a reasonable degree of system mastery. Feats and/or multiclassing are essential for "cognitive dissonance Paladin/Hexblade doublesmite" but they are also essential for fully mechanically realizing concepts like "rage mage," or "big sword guy with a touch of Fae blood," or "diviner stealth assassin." While I'm not sure that you mean to imply it--and if not, sorry, I don't want to put words in your mouth--I think it would be pretty fallacious to say that only minmaxers would miss multiclassing and feats in a game without them.

[HappyDaze]

Type A - Every class is affected, but i think Warlock is affected the most. No Sorcadins, no Bearbarians, no warlock dips.

Is this because the Warlock isn't attractive enough on it's own for people to stick with it fully (i.e, full Warlock isn't good enough), or because it's too attractive as a dip option (i.e, a little Warlock makes other things so much better)?

If the former, that's not good as it would mean the class will be unlikely to be played. If the latter, that's less of a concern to me.

[Particle_Man]

I have played without feats/multiclass and with both. People seem fine with it in play either way and adapt in the way one might adapt in a game that allows variant stat rolling methods or high point buy or low point buy. As a player I can see the benefit of simplicity but also the benefit of tweaking to fit a theme. As a dm it helps me avoid a headache from a player that wants to exploit a particular combo, altough again I would be more sympathetic to a player that had a theme in mind.

[Mr.Spastic]

It honestly bothers me that people have been talking like this weakens the game and restricts character concepts. Sure, you have less access to some very fun and strong things that could shape interesting and unique character concepts but you can already make some very fun character concepts anyways. One person mentioned that that they couldn't make a battlefield medic because they couldn't be a cleric/fighter multiclass but there are several waus to make this work namely War Clerics, paladins, and fighters with a medicine skill through a background. But generally all clerics are combat medics by nature. The same person mentioned a magic thief character could only be a Arcane Trickster but you could get a similar effect from a Wizard, Warlock, or Sorcerer with the criminal background. My point is that claiming that denying multiclassing restricts character concepts is wrong.

Another thing of note is that people will have higher stats. This allows for MAD classes like Monk, Paladin, and other less mainstream builds to be able to keep pace without stretching them self too thin between ability scores and feats.

Another point about not having feats or multiclassing is that it makes the classes feel more unique. You can play a the character who weaves between enemies with ease unless you play a Monk or Rogue. Nobody else can wield a weapon quite as well as the fighter who will probably have the main attack stat maxed out by level 6. Nobody gets smites except the paladin. The sorcerer will be the only caster with a really good con save. Clerics and Druids are the only full casting healers. Wizards will never wear armor. There are a few exceptions to these kinds of things but most of those are through subclasses or being a Warlock.

I personally don't use multiclassing at my tables because I like my players to feel like they're special. It's makes the player feel more important to the group when their character is the only one who can something the others can't.

I do use feats in my games but my players never use them to optimize. One of my players took Tavern Brawler and another took Skilled grabbing two tool proficiencies. The really only took them to make more fun characters and not out of any need to make themselves stronger.

[Malifice]

I dont get why optimisation matters in 5E.

It's not like Pathfinder where the difference between an unoptimised PC and one thats optimised is a vast yawning gulf, where it's impossble to DM a 'vanilla' Monk or Fighter with (say) some optimised 'build' in the same party.

There really isnt much difference in 5E between an optimsed PC and one that's an 'out the box' PC, and there arent any trap options like in PF (the Monk, Rogue and Fighter Im looking at you).

Can someone care to provide an optimised PC using feats and MC that clearly (or even remotely) outshines a vanilla PC without feats or MCing out the box at levels 1-11 (where the game is played)?

[HappyDaze]

Type B - Fighters. They get the most ASIs, and once their STR/CON are maxed, there's hardly any reason to pump ASI in other stats. It gets worse if they start with high ability scores from rolled stats. Without feats, fighters are very weak and boring to play.

Those extra ASIs might not make you better at one avenue of fighting once STR/CON hit the ceiling, but they can help make a very broadly-capable everyman. Even Strength-based Fighters can benefit from high Dexterity if they want a strong alternate in non-Thrown ranged combat along with a valuable save, Initiative, and some useful skills. Increasing Intelligence is not bad if you're an Eldritch Knight, but otherwise isn't really all that useful. Increasing Wisdom gives a useful save bonus and helps with a few more popular skills. Increasing Charisma is mainly for the skills it grants, but it's probably not a first choice for most.

[Mr.Spastic]

Is this because the Warlock isn't attractive enough on it's own for people to stick with it fully (i.e, full Warlock isn't good enough), or because it's too attractive as a dip option (i.e, a little Warlock makes other things so much better)?

If the former, that's not good as it would mean the class will be unlikely to be played. If the latter, that's less of a concern to me.

It is the latter. Warlocks just happen to be the most front heavy of the classes but they don't ever feel weak or that they are falling behind as they level up. They just get the most dip worthy stuff a levels two and three.

[ad_hoc]

Despite the fact that it is considered an optional rule, including multiclassing and feats seem to be (almost) universally accepted as the default way of playing D&D 5e.

Mike Mearls recently stated that less than half of the tables use feats.

I doubt multiclassing is used more than feats.

[Malifice]

My point is that claiming that denying multiclassing restricts character concepts is wrong.

My character concept is Martial artist/ Assasin. A Ninja.

I mean; I guess I could (presuming you're allowing feats) select the tavern brawler feat on an Assasin, but by god.

What on earth is wrong with a Shadow Monk/ Assasin MC? What on earth is broken about or why wouldnt you let a PC who wants to play a 'Ninja' play that MC combo?

My current PC is a 'Darkmoon Knight of Elistraee.' He's a half-drow, who was gifted a 'Moonblade' (a singing silver Greatsword that radiates moonlight) by his Patron (the Masked Lady - a vestige of Elistraee during her time merged with Vhaerun). Now Vhaerun and Elistraee are seperate again, he's formally adopted Elistraee as his patron and devoted himself to her cause (freedom, liberty, racial harmony, gender equality, beauty and joy). He's a Knight (skilled in battle) of the Darkmoon order, who has been trained in Bladedancing by the Clergy (not being a cleric himself) and is gifted in both Arcane and Divine magic, and is highly resistant to both (thanks to his Drow ancestry and gifts from Elistraee).

He's recently travelled to Waterdeep to help build the temple on the surface. Knighted for his service, he's been selected to establish diplomatic relations with the Drow of the Promenaide of the Dark maiden on the 3rd level of Undermountain (we're playing Undermountain at the moment).

He's been gifted a vial of constantly moonlight holy water to pour into the Promenaides Moonspring portal to connect it to the surface temple portal.

His mother is non other than Vicona DeVir (of Baldurs gate fame).

The PCS mechanical build is an Ancients Paladin 7/ Hexblade -blade pact - Warlock 3/ Swords Bard 5/ Divine Soul Sorcerer 5.

Can I ask what the heck is wrong with that Multiclass? Why would any DM say 'no'?

[Malifice]

It is the latter. Warlocks just happen to be the most front heavy of the classes but they don't ever feel weak or that they are falling behind as they level up. They just get the most dip worthy stuff a levels two and three.

A 2 or 3 level 'dip' IN Warlock is a huge deal in 5E.

Those levels dont stack with other caster levels (unlike Cleric/ Wizard/ Bard/ Sorc etc) so you're always 2-3 levels behind in your casting.

They dont stack with martial levels for Extra attack either (unlike in 3.X where BAB stacked granting extra attacks).

They also delay feat selection by 2-3 levels.

You do that 3 level 'dip', and you're 2-3 levels behind in feats, ASI and the 'game changing' class features all classes get at 5th and 11th level.

Bear in mind most games dont go past 11th level. Delaying extra attack, stunning fist, bardic inspiration on a short rest, 3rd level+ spells, uncanny dodge etc by 2-3 levels is a huge deal. Yeah, you get a slightly better ranged attack with eldritch blast, and 2 x 2nd level slots per short rest, but It comes with a massive cost.

[Mr.Spastic]

My character concept is Martial artist/ Assasin. A Ninja.

I mean; I guess I could (presuming you're allowing feats) select the tavern brawler feat on an Assasin, but by god.

What on earth is wrong with a Shadow Monk/ Assasin MC? What on earth is broken about or why wouldnt you let a PC who wants to play a 'Ninja' play that MC combo?

Nothing is wrong with it and I never said it was broken. I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not nessecary to use a multiclass to fit a theme. A martial artist assassin could also just be a shadow monk. You don't need the rogue MC, it just makes it a stronger class.

Also, my players don't have a problem becaus they know that I don't use multiclassing before they make their characters. I have never had to tell a character no to a concept because they already new the parameters before they created a character.

[Jerrykhor]

Those extra ASIs might not make you better at one avenue of fighting once STR/CON hit the ceiling, but they can help make a very broadly-capable everyman. Even Strength-based Fighters can benefit from high Dexterity if they want a strong alternate in non-Thrown ranged combat along with a valuable save, Initiative, and some useful skills. Increasing Intelligence is not bad if you're an Eldritch Knight, but otherwise isn't really all that useful. Increasing Wisdom gives a useful save bonus and helps with a few more popular skills. Increasing Charisma is mainly for the skills it grants, but it's probably not a first choice for most.

Yeah but +2 Wisdom is so lame compared to just taking Resilient (wisdom). Want some skills? There's the Skilled feat. The thing is, with the bounded accuracy of ability scores, a +1 modifier dont matter most of the time.

I am still not sold on the feat-less idea. I've heard the argument that DM ban feats for less MinMaxing and more RP. But martials without feats do considerably less damage, and with the HP scaling of monsters at higher levels, it means longer fights since monster take longer time to die. Which might make fights a slog, considering PCs also have less interesting options without feats.

[Mjolnirbear]

Off-topic, I have doubts about Mearls' stats, but only because my anecdotal experience says otherwise. Actually, on second thought I have another reason: one of his databases include AL, which starts every character at 1st. Not all those players show up every week; there's bound to be more (in my mind, a lot more) low-level characters that just never got high enough for an ASI; and not all that did get that high chose a feat.

We also all play multiple characters. Just because Twinkie was a pure caster (less need for feats, multiclassing loses spell slots) doesn't mean Janette won't be a lockadin or sorlock or gish or be a fighter/rogue thug. The first one doesn't mean you're playing in an AB game.

Just because half of the characters he has are neither multiclass nor have feats doesn't mean half of all games/tables eschew feats and multiclassing.


Back on topic. I could play in an A game. But I won't give up feats. My pally wants more magic, or my blade lock also wants ritual casting. In the unlikely event I ever make a pure non-caster, feats are the only way to change up your play options. "I Rage. Attack. *roll* Done. *yawn* Your turn."

Also, poor fighter or rogue in am AB game. Once you've maxed your attack stat, you can... Increase your intelligence! Which has no practical benefit. You could...increase your Charisma! But there's already a Face. You can't get more skills with those ASIs, and bumping stats are useful for constitution, attack stat, or casting stat (which latter doesn't apply here, and the first you probably already pumped to something you were comfortable with).

[Malifice]

Nothing is wrong with it and I never said it was broken. I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not nessecary to use a multiclass to fit a theme. A martial artist assassin could also just be a shadow monk. You don't need the rogue MC, it just makes it a stronger class.

No, it doesnt make it stronger.

It makes the concept work better for the player. He wants to be a shadow oriented Martial artist that is sneaky, hiding all the time and capable of killing blows. It's best realised with Rogue [expertise in stealth, cunning action hide, sneak attack] and Monk [martial arts, shadow arts].

Multiclasing doesnt make either the Monk better, or the Rogue better.

A 5th level Monk (or a 5th level Rogue) is far stronger than a Monk/ Rogue with 5 levels split between them.

[Malifice]

Also, my players don't have a problem becaus they know that I don't use multiclassing before they make their characters. I have never had to tell a character no to a concept because they already new the parameters before they created a character.

That doesnt mean that you're not limiting concepts though. Your decision to ban multiclassing limits the concepts.

I mean it's your table so fill your boots, but multiclassing is the least of your problems if you're worried about multiclassed PCs being stronger than vanilla classes.

[Mr.Spastic]

I am still not sold on the feat-less idea. I've heard the argument that DM ban feats for less MinMaxing and more RP. But martials without feats do considerably less damage, and with the HP scaling of monsters at higher levels, it means longer fights since monster take longer time to die. Which might make fights a slog, considering PCs also have less interesting options without feats.

I think your approaching this from the wrong direction. None of what you are saying is wrong but I think you have a bit of a skewed perspective. The game was made to be playable and enjoyable without the feats(or multiclassing). Feats are an optional rule to make your characters stronger not the core game itself. Treating the game like it needs feats to function normally kinda like acting like you need a sports car to drive to work. Sure it's faster, more powerful, and has unique features, but you can get to work just fine with the average car and that was has no extra features but still gets you to work on time.

[Stygofthedump]

We run a type A game and it’s great. Much later we might allow multi classes and splat books but for now it all seems pretty well balanced.

[Mr.Spastic]

That doesnt mean that you're not limiting concepts though. Your decision to ban multiclassing limits the concepts.

I mean it's your table so fill your boots, but multiclassing is the least of your problems if you're worried about multiclassed PCs being stronger than vanilla classes.

It doesn't limit concepts though. You can still come up with infinite characters concepts without them. Saying that this infinite is small because this other infinite is technically bigger is inherently convoluded and makes sense only on a surface level. You don't limit character concepts you just set parameters.

Also, I never said I was worried about stronger characters at all. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I don't use multiclassing for various reasons and character strength is very low on the list.