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

[Chronos]

Quoth Max_Killjoy:

...while not being bogged down with the Bard's musical bent...

What musical bent? Honestly, one of my annoyances with the 5e bard is that you have to work at it to get a musical bent into the character. About all that's actually in there by default is being allowed to use a musical instrument as an arcane focus, and if you don't want to do that, you can just use a component pouch or a magic stick or something, just like a wizard. Oh, and I suppose that you get proficiency in some instruments, too, but then, so does my outlander ranger, and I've never once used it.

[Max_Killjoy]

What musical bent? Honestly, one of my annoyances with the 5e bard is that you have to work at it to get a musical bent into the character. About all that's actually in there by default is being allowed to use a musical instrument as an arcane focus, and if you don't want to do that, you can just use a component pouch or a magic stick or something, just like a wizard. Oh, and I suppose that you get proficiency in some instruments, too, but then, so does my outlander ranger, and I've never once used it.

I was using it as shorthand.

Performance-based?
Charismatic bent?
Social-based?

The point being that the Bard is build on interaction and inspiration... and the character in question is not.

[Willie the Duck]

What musical bent? Honestly, one of my annoyances with the 5e bard is that you have to work at it to get a musical bent into the character. About all that's actually in there by default is being allowed to use a musical instrument as an arcane focus, and if you don't want to do that, you can just use a component pouch or a magic stick or something, just like a wizard. Oh, and I suppose that you get proficiency in some instruments, too, but then, so does my outlander ranger, and I've never once used it.

If you don't want to, you can also play a cleric as agnostic, a wizard as only being scholarly in that they read from a book to swap out their spells, and a barbarian can be the most civilized member of a party. What exactly would you like to see, particular to the bard or otherwise, as a form of role enforcement? Make them unable to use other foci? Have specific magic-themed spells?

[EggKookoo]

I was using it as shorthand.

Performance-based?
Charismatic bent?
Social-based?

The point being that the Bard is build on interaction and inspiration... and the character in question is not.

Refluff it as a form of inspiration through determination.

Bardic Inspiration: Rather than handing out Bardic Inspiration dice because you inspire through words and music, you're inspiring through your never-say-die attitude.

Song of Rest: You don't sing a song to heal people, you're experienced with obscure knowledge about treating wounds. You're more helpful than you like to let on...

And so on...

[Pelle]

For that particular character, it's an old character being used in a new project, so I'd probably have to make a significant alteration to the character for an easy single-class fit.

I agree with ChrisBasken, you're probably better off just making a homebrew class that fits the old instead.

Weirdly enough, I'm much more positive to using homebrew stuff than MC or feats in my games. Because my resistance to latter is mainly due to the increased complexity it brings to the whole table.

[Max_Killjoy]

I agree with ChrisBasken, you're probably better off just making a homebrew class that fits the old instead.

Weirdly enough, I'm much more positive to using homebrew stuff than MC or feats in my games. Because my resistance to latter is mainly due to the increased complexity it brings to the whole table.

I'll be working on that as an option, then -- will post update to the other thread.

[Max_Killjoy]

What musical bent? Honestly, one of my annoyances with the 5e bard is that you have to work at it to get a musical bent into the character. About all that's actually in there by default is being allowed to use a musical instrument as an arcane focus, and if you don't want to do that, you can just use a component pouch or a magic stick or something, just like a wizard. Oh, and I suppose that you get proficiency in some instruments, too, but then, so does my outlander ranger, and I've never once used it.

Refluff it as a form of inspiration through determination.

Bardic Inspiration: Rather than handing out Bardic Inspiration dice because you inspire through words and music, you're inspiring through your never-say-die attitude.

Song of Rest: You don't sing a song to heal people, you're experienced with obscure knowledge about treating wounds. You're more helpful than you like to let on...

And so on...

Well, here's the "musical bent", if no where else -- Tools: Three musical instruments of your choice.

Would you allow that to be swapped out for different tools?

Would you allow Charisma to be swapped out for Int or Wis as the spellcasting ability?

[EggKookoo]

Well, here's the "musical bent", if no where else -- Tools: Three musical instruments of your choice.

Would you allow that to be swapped out for different tools?

Would you allow Charisma to be swapped out for Int or Wis as the spellcasting ability?

Swapping out musical instruments for other tools would be a no-brainer. I'd barely consider that a houserule. But I also allow "spells known" spellcasters to swap out their entire set of known spells when they gain new spells, instead of just one, so I'm not terribly strict about those kinds of things. I also let a player use a handaxe with his Dex mod, as if it was finesse. Mechanically it's the same as a shortsword so that also was barely a houserule -- possibly not even if I thought of it as just refluffing the latter weapon.

I would be open to allowing Int or Wis instead of Cha. I would have to do a quick check to make sure it didn't imbalance anything but my gut says it wouldn't. This is also a pretty simple conceptual switch since 5e already lets DMs swap out abilities for skills. It's not exactly the same but it's along the same lines.

I would find both of these changes less cognitively disruptive than multiclassing, and if were DMing your game I'd encourage you in that direction. As I've said before, though, I don't outright ban MC, I just try to exhaust other options first.

[Xetheral]

I also don't really accept MC as a way of realizing a concept. I almost never (well, literally never) see people asking about MC on this forum, for example, in the service of fulfilling a concept. It's always in the quest for maximizing character power. You can realize just about any concept with the existing classes and subclasses.

Three responses. First, character concepts can be expansive, and trying to squeeze in abilities to model different facets of an expansive concept has a ton of overlap with maximizing power. In both cases you're trying to find a way to fit as much capability into the available levels as possible, but the underlying motives are different, as are the resulting characters. (Usually, modelling expansive concepts leads to mechanically-broad characters, whereas optimizing for power leads to mechanically-deep characters.) Threads trying to fit x and y abilities into z levels thus aren't necessarily about maximizing power.

Second, escapism is a pretty common player motivation and, as such, being a badass in one way or another is commonly part of a concept. Trying to reach a high enough level of competence to support the concept again looks an awful lot like trying to maximize power, especially if you're currently far from your goal. Threads trying to find a way to make a character good at x are similarly not necessarily about maximizing power.

Finally, I would note that the relative number of threads devoted to multiclassing for power vs multiclassing for concept is probably not a good proxy for how often multiclassing is used in pursuit of each goal. Asking about mechanical optimization (which can be measured to some extent) is much more striaghtforward than asking about how well different builds model a particular concept, which is entirely subjective. Similarly, asking optimization questions of a group of experts is more likely to show a large net positive gain than asking those same experts for assessments of character modelling sufficiency when those experts can't know your personal tastes in characters.

[Max_Killjoy]

Three responses. First, character concepts can be expansive, and trying to squeeze in abilities to model different facets of an expansive concept has a ton of overlap with maximizing power. In both cases you're trying to find a way to fit as much capability into the available levels as possible, but the underlying motives are different, as are the resulting characters. (Usually, modelling expansive concepts leads to mechanically-broad characters, whereas optimizing for power leads to mechanically-deep characters.) Threads trying to fit x and y abilities into z levels thus aren't necessarily about maximizing power.

Second, escapism is a pretty common player motivation and, as such, being a badass in one way or another is commonly part of a concept. Trying to reach a high enough level of competence to support the concept again looks an awful lot like trying to maximize power, especially if you're currently far from your goal. Threads trying to find a way to make a character good as x are similarly not necessarily about maximizing power.

Finally, I would note that the relative number of threads devoted to multiclassing for power vs multiclassing for concept is probably not a good proxy for how often multiclassing is used in pursue each goal. Asking about mechanical optimization (which can be measured to some extent) is much more striaghtforward than asking about how well different builds model a particular concept, which is entirely subjective. Similarly, asking optimization questions of a group of experts is more likely to show a large net positive gain than asking those same experts for assessments of character modelling sufficiency when those experts can't know your personal tastes in characters.

Three great points -- well said.

[Malifice]

Just out of curiosity, does that end up increasing the power level of those first few levels?

Specifically, does it make lower level encounters significantly easier for the first Tier of play? I imagine that helps with survivability in those levels. I like to "pad" the first few levels myself. I give max hp at level 2. Helps keep characters from dying because some monster got a lucky shot in.

It does help a little (a Feat is worth around half a level in terms of power - effectively its an ASI without the increase in slots/ day, proficiency bonus, HP and HD one also gets in leveling up).

As you point out though levels 1-3 are pretty rough on most PCs so it's not that noticable, and it helps them get through the first few levels a little safer (in addition to enabling concepts).

It also lets PCs grab a half-feat at first in their +2 racial Stat, enabling starting stats of 18 for most races. Those half feats linked to your prime requisite ability score look very tempting at 1st level.

I just like it because it helps players get mechanical or thematic concepts off the ground quicker.

The only downside is it slows down character creation a little, but with experienced players its no biggie.

[Max_Killjoy]

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).

I really like the idea of everyone getting a Feat at level 1 -- opens up a lot in terms of concept and differentiation.

[EggKookoo]

I really like the idea of everyone getting a Feat at level 1 -- opens up a lot in terms of concept and differentiation.

It's one reason why I tend to encourage vHuman over regular human.

[Pelle]

Second, escapism is a pretty common player motivation and, as such, being a badass in one way or another is commonly part of a concept.

Fair points, but this argument I don't buy completely. Wanting to play a badass character is legitimate, but if you want to play a powerful character you can just play at a higher level. If a part of the concept is being powerful relative to the other PCs, then that's bad behaviour in a social cooperative game. Classes and levels don't mean anything in-game, and needing to take the most powerful options at a given level is at best fooling yourself. Now, if everyone in the group find solving character building puzzles fun and agree about the power level, no harm.

[EggKookoo]

Fair points, but this argument I don't buy completely. Wanting to play a badass character is legitimate, but if you want to play a powerful character you can just play at a higher level. If a part of the concept is being powerful relative to the other PCs, then that's bad behaviour in a social cooperative game. Classes and levels don't mean anything in-game, and needing to take the most powerful options at a given level is at best fooling yourself. Now, if everyone in the group find solving character building puzzles fun and agree about the power level, no harm.

I didn't want to prolong this topic unnecessarily but I agree here. A good DM is going to balance encounters around your actual power levels. If you MC into a stronger build, expect tougher fights. The problem there is mainly in relation to the other players at the table. Are you now carrying encounters for them? I mean sure, if a given class is kind of gimped (*cough*ranger) you could shore it up with another class, but that's generally not the case in 5e.

I get the desire for concept but I'm a big fan of refluffing, and I feel more confident making small crunch tweaks to a given class (such as the bard discussion above). Heck, I just posted a ninja concept using the wizard class in another thread.

[Xetheral]

Fair points, but this argument I don't buy completely. Wanting to play a badass character is legitimate, but if you want to play a powerful character you can just play at a higher level. If a part of the concept is being powerful relative to the other PCs, then that's bad behaviour in a social cooperative game. Classes and levels don't mean anything in-game, and needing to take the most powerful options at a given level is at best fooling yourself. Now, if everyone in the group find solving character building puzzles fun and agree about the power level, no harm.

I entirely agree that wanting to make a character more powerful than the other PCs isn't good behavior. But I don't see anything wrong with trying to, for example, get fighting styles, Extra Attack, or sources of extra damage when trying to model a character who is, whatever else they may be, also a badass swordsman. My underlying point it that if a poster seeks help trying to improve their character's swordfighting abilities, one can't (necessarily) infer that the underlying motive is maximizing power over supporting the concept. Striving for "good enough to support the concept" and "as strong as possible" will sometimes appear similar, even though the goal is different. That makes it hard to draw conclusions on underlying motives from the preponderance of threads looking to increase power.

A good DM is going to balance encounters around your actual power levels. If you MC into a stronger build, expect tougher fights.

Here I disagree to an extent, but I admit it's a question of DM style. If a player signals to me that they want their character to be badass in a particular area by devoting substantial build resources to that goal (necessarily in lieu of using them elsewhere), then as a DM I'm going to make sure the character gets opportunities to show it. That can mean including easier opponents than I might otherwise. It can also mean giving the character opportunities to face harder opponents, but only if the increased difficulty is readily apparent in the game world, so that the characters (and NPCs!) are aware of the significance of the challenge that the badass faces.

I would not invisibly increase the strength of the opposition (either by numbers or stats) to counteract the strength of the characters, so I can't agree that stronger characters should expect the same fights to be harder than if their characters were weaker. But that's an aspect of my style of DMing. Under a more Combat-as-Sport style where the DM is expected to tailor encounter difficulty to maintain a specific level of challenge, then yes, stronger characters should expect harder fights.

[EggKookoo]

Here I disagree to an extent, but I admit it's a question of DM style. If a player signals to me that they want their character to be badass in a particular area by devoting substantial build resources to that goal (necessarily in lieu of using them elsewhere), then as a DM I'm going to make sure the character gets opportunities to show it. That can mean including easier opponents than I might otherwise. It can also mean giving the character opportunities to face harder opponents, but only if the increased difficulty is readily apparent in the game world, so that the characters (and NPCs!) are aware of the significance of the challenge that the badass faces.

I was speaking generally, meaning that over time the encounters should, on average, be tailored to the power level of the party. Individual encounters may be easier or harder depending on narrative need. I often like giving higher-level players a palate-cleanser by having them mow down a bunch of mooks once in a while. And of course it's good to put the fear of death into the players when needed. So just clarifying that I don't mean each encounter should be engineered to be the same level of challenge.

But if a player asks to have their character be especially badass in some particular way, I'm okay with that as long as the PC has some unusual limitation to offset it, or the aspect in which the PC is badass is the kind of thing to come up so infrequently in the game that it doesn't unbalance everything, or (ideally) all my players' PCs have one or two such things. I'm far less concerned about badassery in the sense of balancing the crunch than I am concerned about making sure each player feels like their character has something significant and unique to contribute. It doesn't have to be a combat aspect but in practice it tends to work out that way, probably because that's when the crunch of the rules comes closest to the surface.

So my player won't say "I want to be the strongest man in the world" so much as "I want to be the 'tough guy' in the group." Each player likes being the "go to" person for something.

I would not invisibly increase the strength of the opposition (either by numbers or stats) to counteract the strength of the characters, so I can't agree that stronger characters should expect the same fights to be harder than if their characters were weaker. But that's an aspect of my style of DMing. Under a more Combat-as-Sport style where the DM is expected to tailor encounter difficulty to maintain a specific level of challenge, then yes, stronger characters should expect harder fights.

Right, we're in agreement this is very much a playstyle thing. I have and will "invisibly" alter numbers to make sure the fight feels challenging and fun, often in real time as we're playing. I do this most often in the service of assisting the players, as I find it easier to overpower an encounter and then dial it back, than to make a weak encounter suddenly feel more dangerous (although that has been done). I usually just have creatures drop before they hit 0 HP. But at our table I think we like to treat D&D as a game, even if we enjoy reminding ourselves that the characters don't see it that way. It's fun to hold both concepts in our heads and play with the weird disassociation it causes.

[Amdy_vill]

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.

A: not much. i find very few player multi classing in my game. it does bring down the power level of the game. most of the powerful build need multi classing.
B: Alot. feats are very useful in digitizing characters and making player feel unique. I would not do this.
AB: same problems as B.

[Max_Killjoy]

The potential danger of advancing challenge precisely with the PCs as they advance is that the game can feel less like progress, and more like a treadmill.

[Malifice]

The potential danger of advancing challenge precisely with the PCs as they advance is that the game can feel less like progress, and more like a treadmill.

Thats how the game has always worked.

You fight Kobolds to an Ogre to Giants to Dragons to Demons to a God.

[HappyDaze]

B: Alot. feats are very useful in digitizing characters and making player feel unique. I would not do this.

What does "digitizing" mean in this reply?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The potential danger of advancing challenge precisely with the PCs as they advance is that the game can feel less like progress, and more like a treadmill.

This depends a lot on how you do it. If, at character creation I see that the party is all super optimized, I know I can (and should) kick it up a notch. This is just matching their declared wish for challenge. If, however, I counter each attempt to succeed with crushing force then it feels cheap and adversarial. Etc.

Personally, I go more narrative and less challenge focused and so do my players. They consider it a "hard fight" if one of them gets dropped to 0. Which is good, because my dice like them much more than me.

[Chronos]

Bards cast spells using Charisma, true, but then, so do sorcerers, warlocks, and paladins, and nobody thinks of them as particularly related to performance. There's nothing at all in the bard class that references the Perform skill in any way. Music is occasionally mentioned in the fluff, but even then, it's only one of the options: Inspiration uses "stirring words or music", Song of Rest uses "soothing music or oration", and Countercharm uses "musical notes or words of power".

[Max_Killjoy]

Thats how the game has always worked.

You fight Kobolds to an Ogre to Giants to Dragons to Demons to a God.

This depends a lot on how you do it. If, at character creation I see that the party is all super optimized, I know I can (and should) kick it up a notch. This is just matching their declared wish for challenge. If, however, I counter each attempt to succeed with crushing force then it feels cheap and adversarial. Etc.

Personally, I go more narrative and less challenge focused and so do my players. They consider it a "hard fight" if one of them gets dropped to 0. Which is good, because my dice like them much more than me.

Just pointing out that there's a flipside to constantly and perfectly scaled challenges.

And as PhoenixPhyre points out, "perfect" is subjective here.

[EggKookoo]

Thats how the game has always worked.

You fight Kobolds to an Ogre to Giants to Dragons to Demons to a God.

There are also many ways to mitigate the treadmill feel.

1. Don't rely too much on combat as the source of content
2. Combat itself feels different at 15th level than at 5th, just by virtue of how many features/options a PC has
3. NPCs treat higher-level characters very differently compared to lower-level characters
4. Change the feel of the game to be less dungeon-crawly over time (or the reverse!)
5. Have the PCs go back and deal with lower-level threats once in a while as they advance, to demonstrate to their players how powerful they've become

[Benny89]

Lack of feats hurts most martial classes. Sorcerers or Wizards or Bards get their power creeps regardless of feats.

While it's feats that make martial classes comparable vs casting classes.

Multiclassing imo doesn't really hurt anyone as in most cases (excluding some like Sorcadins or Fighter/Wizards) pure classes are better than multiclasses in the end.

Between Multi and feats I would never run game without feats but It wouldn't make a difference imo without multi. Generally I don't like multiclassing, but it's neither strong or necessary apart from few exceptions.

The other thing is: feats allow to customize PCs when they share same class. The best example is fighter.

If you have 3 fighters in party, without feats they are pretty much same characters, which is very lame in any RPG.

However with feats one can be control PAM/Sentinel/Battlemaster tank, one can be Duelist/Lucky trickster with rapier and one can be X-bow Expert with SS and be your range DPR.

That makes 3 PCs with same class totally different fighters.

Playing without feats imo does not make sense as 5E customization is already reduced vs older editions and without feats that customization would be totally bland.

[EggKookoo]

Just pointing out that there's a flipside to constantly and perfectly scaled challenges.

And as PhoenixPhyre points out, "perfect" is subjective here.

And I'd like to point out I was not trying to say encounters should be constantly and perfectly scaled. Just in general over time. There should be plenty of bumpiness to add variety. Honestly I don't think it's possible to perfectly scale an encounter. The dice will unbalance it for you.

[Max_Killjoy]

And I'd like to point out I was not trying to say encounters should be constantly and perfectly scaled. Just in general over time. There should be plenty of bumpiness to add variety. Honestly I don't think it's possible to perfectly scale an encounter. The dice will unbalance it for you.

Of course.

I just posted without quoting because it wasn't meant as a refutation of your comment, just as a general observation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The other thing is: feats allow to customize PCs when they share same class. The best example is fighter.

If you have 3 fighters in party, without feats they are pretty much same characters, which is very lame in any RPG.

However with feats one can be control PAM/Sentinel/Battlemaster tank, one can be Duelist/Lucky trickster with rapier and one can be X-bow Expert with SS and be your range DPR.

That makes 3 PCs with same class totally different fighters.

Playing without feats imo does not make sense as 5E customization is already reduced vs older editions and without feats that customization would be totally bland.

This is entirely my opinion, but I don't find feats (especially the combat ones) to do much for customization. That's mainly because I find mechanical customization to pale in comparison to character customization. Two featless Thief rogues can be completely different characters, even if mechanically they're capable of doing the same things.

Feats do give great capabilities--my parties love lucky and mobile. I find the "combat" feats to be quite bland from a narrative point of view. Sure, they're mechanically powerful. But they're just numbers. And numbers are relative.

This isn't to say I don't like feats--even with my newer players I play with feats. Technically I allow multiclassing, but no one ever does it. Mainly because they're not working from a "concept" or "build", but from an initial character. The combination of background, class, race, and sub-class are plenty of "customization" for most of my players, because they're more focused on narrative customization rather than mechanical customization. Heck, one of the more useful characters is a fighter who, at level 8, has only 16 STR and forgets his maneuvers not infrequently. Does he do the most damage? No. Is he very good at thinking outside the box and manipulating the environment to his advantage? Yes.

[EggKookoo]

Between Multi and feats I would never run game without feats but It wouldn't make a difference imo without multi. Generally I don't like multiclassing, but it's neither strong or necessary apart from few exceptions.

I don't disallow either, but I steer the players to feats (even if they shrug), whereas I try to avoid going to MC unless I absolutely have to, or the player just wants to experiment.

Of course.

I just posted without quoting because it wasn't meant as a refutation of your comment, just as a general observation.

And I'd like to point out I like the cut of your jib.

This isn't to say I don't like feats--even with my newer players I play with feats. Technically I allow multiclassing, but no one ever does it. Mainly because they're not working from a "concept" or "build", but from an initial character. The combination of background, class, race, and sub-class are plenty of "customization" for most of my players, because they're more focused on narrative customization rather than mechanical customization. Heck, one of the more useful characters is a fighter who, at level 8, has only 16 STR and forgets his maneuvers not infrequently. Does he do the most damage? No. Is he very good at thinking outside the box and manipulating the environment to his advantage? Yes.

I will say I find many of my players -- especially the 1e/2e grognards like me -- often forget about their features. OD&D didn't have so much of that. You brought most of your uniqueness with you in the form of your imagination. But before this gets too "get off my lawn!" I do want to say I really like how 5e handles class features, and how they make each class feel distinct from each other and give the player a lot of toys. I just wish I could keep them all straight...