feats and multiclassing question.

[Smorgonoffz]

As stated in the topic title, i would like to know why people take for granted both feat and multiclassing since they are an optional subsystem.

[Madfellow]

As stated in the topic title, i would like to know why people take for granted both feat and multiclassing since they are an optional subsystem.

Because they are in the Player's Handbook and any GM who doesn't allow them is a mean meanyface. :smalltongue:

[Smorgonoffz]

Well, they are still optional so the players shouldn't be expecting them to be allowed

[Scirocco]

They are the default options in organized play; despite being "optional" it's pretty clear that the designers intended that feats/multiclassing be used at all but a few home tables.

[Baveboi]

Would you not allow your players to take them if their character concept was sound? Multiclass, more often than not, will hurt more than help, and feats are a mixed bag. They are there to help give another depth to character creation and development.

Want to make a battle wizard? Medium armored, bearded dude with a shield in one hand and a fireball in the other? Sounds legit to me.

That also opens a lot of complexity to the game. The tank could just as well be the Abjurer Battle Wizard, the main DPS could be the Two Handed Barbarian, the healer could be the Warlock with Magic Initiate. Anything is possible when your man smells like the man he could smell like!

[Smorgonoffz]

Personally anything labelled optional is optional, so it won't be allowed.

[Demonic Spoon]

As stated in the topic title, i would like to know why people take for granted both feat and multiclassing since they are an optional subsystem.

Literally every rule in any D&D edition ever is optional in the sense that any DM can overrule it at any point.

It's pretty well assumed that when people talk about multiclassing and feats, it's understood that their DM is allowing them, optional or not. And in truth, most DMs probably will. I'd guess that feats are optional mostly for the benefit of new players who don't want to be deal with that complexity.

[Daishain]

Well, they are still optional so the players shouldn't be expecting them to be allowed
A.) Feats and multiclassing have been a part of D&D almost from day one. Any veteran player is going to expect them to be in play.
B.) A Certain class that has traditionally gained (and needed) significantly more feats than anyone else, is now granted much more in the way of ability increases than it needs.
C.) Feats are flavorful additions to any character, and represent an important game mechanic that allows for greater customization of the people we are acting out.
D.) General rule of thumb when DMing, "thou shalt not limit access to major aspects of the game without good cause"
E.) The context heavily suggests that the "optional" features in the PHb are labeled as such so a DM could keep things under control for an inexperienced crowd, IE a bunch of newbies that haven't played a PnP before.

Between all of the above, yeah, I would be inclined to think that a DM who limited access to feats and/or multiclassing without very good cause was a d***.

(Note: The above only applies to restricting access to game features entirely, DMs are perfectly free to prohibit player choices that simply don't work out in context, even if they do work by RAW, such as a fiend pact warlock wanting to multiclass as an oath of ancients paladin)

[OldTrees1]

As stated in the topic title, i would like to know why people take for granted both feat and multiclassing since they are an optional subsystem.

Because I would allow(they are optional so must be allowed before use) them as a DM and because the reasons I would allow them as a DM. I want my players to have the option to make their characters as close to their concept as possible. Feats and Multiclassing give additional granularity to support this end.

[Madfellow]

Personally anything labelled optional is optional, so it won't be allowed.

I think you might be confused as to what the word "optional" means. Optional means that it is an option. You can take it or leave it. It's a choice. Saying "it won't be allowed" is taking that option away from the players. Now if you or your players are inexperienced and don't need or want the extra complexity, then that's fine. If you're worried about breaking the game, don't be; forum wisdom states that feats and multiclassing aren't really the ways to do that.

[Daishain]

Personally anything labelled optional is optional, so it won't be allowed.
Then I am glad I'm not playing with you as the DM. Come to think of it, I don't actually know any DMs that have done anything other than assume that everything in the PHb is fair game (save for a few that stuck with the point buy for abilities).

A vast majority of the fun involved in this game is being able to build up character concepts. Arbitrarily limiting a player's options to get the character's mechanical abilities to match the person in their head is never kosher.

[Oncoming Storm]

Personally anything labelled optional is optional, so it won't be allowed.

As others have said before me, I am INCREDIBLY glad I don't have to put up with you as DM.

Feats add depth and complexity to play and character creation, and allow conceptual diversification. Without them, two fighters play more or less the same (not to mention, fighters run out of relevant ability score increases pretty quickly.) If anything, feat access should be increased, not eliminated.

Multiclassing similarly allows character diversification, and--crucially--rarely increases character power in any way which could be called broken. There's an argument to be made for restricting it based on character concept and player skill, but more from the standpoint that it's way, WAY easier to gimp your character by multiclassing than it is to achieve even a modest increase in overall power.

Finally, you need to realize that you're playing WITH a group of players, who are actual people who have a say in what your game includes, if only because they have the right to withdraw participation if they are bored. As DM, you have the right to veto certain aspects of the game, but doing so without reason (or because TEH RAW IS TEH LAW) is going to leave you without willing players pretty quickly.

[AugustNights]

I have been DMing since 3.0, and have had a lot of fun toying with AD&D and pathfinder. All the same I'm not entirely sold on feats yet. For my first 5e run, I'm not allowing feats and keeping to basic races and the four classic classes. I don't think these restrictions will detract from the fun of the game. It seems to me that 5e is rather palletable without feats, not to say that feats aren't a welcomed spice, but the game isn't bland in their absence.

[ProphetSword]

A.) Feats and multiclassing have been a part of D&D almost from day one. Any veteran player is going to expect them to be in play.


Going to have to disagree with this. D&D has been around since 1974. Being able to freely multiclass as you level up and pick feats came into being in 2000. I think they missed "day one" by about 26 years. Lots of veteran players do not expect them.

[azoetia]

My group is using neither feats nor multiclassing. This declaration was met with unanimous applause from the players. My group shares my distaste for feats, some hating them even more than I do. One player refused to even give 5th edition a cursory look until I promised him that he would never have to mess with a single feat.

I read "optional" as both meaning whether DMs allow them as well as whether players want to use them once they are allowed. I do think it's completely kosher for a DM to say "we're not doing this in this game," and if anyone has a problem with that they should play with a different group. It's like running a game where you don't allow evil characters. I would find that unreasonably restricting and wouldn't join that group, but I would never say "no DM should ever disallow evil characters!" because every group is different. I'd hope any DM who would make such a declaration would already have the support from at least some of their players before doing so unless they want to find themselves all alone at an empty table.

In fact, if I were to try to DM an edition with an integrated feat system now I'd find myself looking for players to replace the ones with whom I've gamed for a decade.

[Daishain]

Going to have to disagree with this. D&D has been around since 1974. Being able to freely multiclass as you level up and pick feats came into being in 2000. I think they missed "day one" by about 26 years. Lots of veteran players do not expect them.
Multiclass rules have changed pretty dramatically, but have been with us since first edition.

Feats are a little trickier. They weren't codified until third, but various 2nd edition optional rules filled the same niche.


snip
Ok, I've got to ask. That seems like a harsh and unusual response to subsystems that simply provide the player with more options they can choose to take. For one person to greatly object to it is weird, for an entire group to do so sounds like bizarro world from where I'm sitting. What, if anything, is the reasoning there?

If you don't like multiclassing, don't multiclass. Don't like having to pick feats? just fill in the obvious choices and don't worry about it (or in this case, just go for ability increases). If you don't like the subsystems, your ability to not have to deal with them does not depend on your DM making a blanket ban.

I can understand having a negative reaction to the kind of powergame multiclass cheese that went on in 3.x, but that would be a separate issue that can be handled as it comes up.

[rollingForInit]

The idea of "optional" is that players that don't want to think about feats shouldn't have to. They can take their +2 ability scores, and it'll still be fairly balanced. Same with multiclassing. And if no players want to use multiclassing and feats, all the better for them, because the system allows for that.

But for a DM to say "feats and multiclassing will not ever be allowed here" ... well, sure. Just like you're allowed to say "you may only play humans at my table" or anything like that. Just be prepared that players might dislike it, and find another DM. Your power as a DM only extends as far as players are willing to tolerate it, after all. If you do too many things players dislike, you'll find yourself without anyone to play with.

[Strill]

Personally anything labelled optional is optional, so it won't be allowed.

I think you have a pretty skewed definition of "optional".

[ProphetSword]

Multiclass rules have changed pretty dramatically, but have been with us since first edition.

Feats are a little trickier. They weren't codified until third, but various 2nd edition optional rules filled the same niche.


I'll give you the multiclassing, even though the way it exists now is completely different than the way it was in 1st Edition, but I think you could be stretching it a bit on the feats. But, my point is that some older editions didn't have feats or multiclassing as it exists now, and I think it still holds.

I'm not saying either of these are bad things (I definitely allow them at my table), but the way that they were handled in 3rd Edition led to some really ridiculous power builds and a lot things to track. As a DM, I hated that with a fiery passion and so did a lot of others.

I'm happy to say that 5th Edition isn't the same as 3rd, no matter what it looks like on the surface. Feats are pretty well balanced, and multiclassing tends to hurt a character more than help them, so a character needs to be fulfilling a specific role or have a certain concept to even pursue it. You don't see the kind of crazy shenanigans that went on previously.

In the end, it's up to the individual DM and their group. And while I understand why some of them won't allow them (and it won't throw off the balance of the game if they don't), at the same time, I encourage them to try it anyway; because the game remains balanced even when they are implemented. To each their own, though. If they're having fun, they're not doing it wrong.

[Eslin]

Well, they are still optional so the players shouldn't be expecting them to be allowed

Any fighters are going to hate your guts. They get 7 ability increases and only need two ability scores, it's kind of expected that they will take feats.

[Oscredwin]

Any fighters are going to hate your guts. They get 7 ability increases and only need two ability scores, it's kind of expected that they will take feats.

I would think EK Fighters will become a lot more popular. They can benefit from 3 ability scores.

[VeliciaL]

I like feats a lot better in this edition than in previous editions. For one thing there are less of them - or it at least feels like it - so keeping track of potentially useful ones is a lot easier. For another, they make a bigger impact now, so it really feels like you're getting something. Much better than "+2 to X and Y" style feats.

[Eslin]

I would think EK Fighters will become a lot more popular. They can benefit from 3 ability scores.

Plus they're the only type of fighters that actually want to take more than a few levels in the class, since champion sucks and battlemaster gives the majority of its benefits at level 3. Doesn't change the fact that banning feats is stupid.

[Baveboi]

Plus they're the only type of fighters that actually want to take more than a few levels in the class, since champion sucks and battlemaster gives the majority of its benefits at level 3. Doesn't change the fact that banning feats is stupid.

Jesus Eslin, where did you get the idea that Champions sucked? I will agree on you on the Battle Master, even if they DO get a lot more features later on, it certainly doesn't look like it.

[Eslin]

Jesus Eslin, where did you get the idea that Champions sucked? I will agree on you on the Battle Master, even if they DO get a lot more features later on, it certainly doesn't look like it.

I got the idea when I noticed they got absolutely no abilities at all, and would drive anyone who tried playing them to 20 to quit through boredom.

[Baveboi]

I got the idea when I noticed they got absolutely no abilities at all, and would drive anyone who tried playing them to 20 to quit through boredom.

Actually one of my players is a Champion and he is enjoying it greatly. He is also the strongest character in our game, since he seems to be the only one, besides the elf moon druid, who hasn't died yet (the elf is quite new still so she doesn't earn as many survival points).

I have the impression you are somewhat prejudiced toward the Champion, but don't let the lack of active abilities fool you; There are plenty of actions someone can take while dancing around an enemy and being a cocky boxing swordsman.

[VeliciaL]

Champion is definitely the subclass most improved by feats.

[Strill]

I got the idea when I noticed they got absolutely no abilities at all, and would drive anyone who tried playing them to 20 to quit through boredom.

They're intended to be like that. Some people don't want lots of choices.

[Baveboi]

Champion is definitely the subclass most improved by feats.

One could argue in favor of that, yes, but there is a certain beauty in simplicity and while the Champion does one thing he does it really well so he has lots of room to Roleplay.

[Eslin]

Actually one of my players is a Champion and he is enjoying it greatly. He is also the strongest character in our game, since he seems to be the only one, besides the elf moon druid, who hasn't died yet (the elf is quite new still so she doesn't earn as many survival points).

I have the impression you are somewhat prejudiced toward the Champion, but don't let the lack of active abilities fool you; There are plenty of actions someone can take while dancing around an enemy and being a cocky boxing swordsman.

I think you mean biased against the champion, and no there aren't lots of actions you can take. Go play a 4e fighter or a 3.5 warblade with actual abilities at your disposal and come back to try a champion, you'll notice what's missing immediately.


One could argue in favor of that, yes, but there is a certain beauty in simplicity and while the Champion does one thing he does it really well so he has lots of room to Roleplay.
Roleplaying and having actual choices in combat are in no way mutually exclusive.

[VeliciaL]

I think you mean biased against the champion, and no there aren't lots of actions you can take. Go play a 4e fighter or a 3.5 warblade with actual abilities at your disposal and come back to try a champion, you'll notice what's missing immediately.


Roleplaying and having actual choices in combat are in no way mutually exclusive.

It's not mutually inclusive either. A good roleplayer can get a lot of mileage out of a Champion, despite the lack of "choices" listed on the character sheet, and they may even feel that having lots of maneuvers to sift through would only slow them down.

I like lots of little abilities on the sheet myself, but I can see the appeal of something like a Champion.

[Eslin]

It's not mutually inclusive either. A good roleplayer can get a lot of mileage out of a Champion, despite the lack of "choices" listed on the character sheet, and they may even feel that having lots of maneuvers to sift through would only slow them down.

I like lots of little abilities on the sheet myself, but I can see the appeal of something like a Champion.

By definition, fluff and crunch aren't really that related. They can have affects on each other, but in general your ability to roleplay is independent of your character's abilities.

[Objulen]

By definition, fluff and crunch aren't really that related. They can have affects on each other, but in general your ability to roleplay is independent of your character's abilities.

The player's raw capability, perhaps, but it's highly disruptive to immersion when someone portrays a PC in a way that has nothing to do with or heavily contradicts their abilities. The suave Fighter with a Charisma of 6 or the cunning, intelligent Barbarian with an Int of 8 and a Wisdom of 10 coming up with highly complicated battle plans are both prime examples.

It's also jarring when you're describing something happening in-game that has no relevance or real ability to be portrayed in the mechanics. I'd say that having good cohesion between the fluff and the crunch is very important to maintaining a healthy game.

[Eslin]

The player's raw capability, perhaps, but it's highly disruptive to immersion when someone portrays a PC in a way that has nothing to do with or heavily contradicts their abilities. The suave Fighter with a Charisma of 6 or the cunning, intelligent Barbarian with an Int of 8 and a Wisdom of 10 coming up with highly complicated battle plans are both prime examples.

It's also jarring when you're describing something happening in-game that has no relevance or real ability to be portrayed in the mechanics. I'd say that having good cohesion between the fluff and the crunch is very important to maintaining a healthy game.

Well, yes, but I was trying to throw a bone to the people who seem to think having options is a bad thing.

[Dark Tira]

Feats and multiclassing are generally viewed as the "standard" level of play. Without a certain degree of system mastery it's quite possible for beginners to screw themselves over with bad feat or class choices so the PHB is designed to ease people into the system first. It's similar to how a lot of games give you a default character to play with before allowing you to make your own.

[azoetia]

Ok, I've got to ask. That seems like a harsh and unusual response to subsystems that simply provide the player with more options they can choose to take. For one person to greatly object to it is weird, for an entire group to do so sounds like bizarro world from where I'm sitting. What, if anything, is the reasoning there?

If you don't like multiclassing, don't multiclass. Don't like having to pick feats? just fill in the obvious choices and don't worry about it (or in this case, just go for ability increases). If you don't like the subsystems, your ability to not have to deal with them does not depend on your DM making a blanket ban.

I can understand having a negative reaction to the kind of powergame multiclass cheese that went on in 3.x, but that would be a separate issue that can be handled as it comes up.

Sometimes someone wants to join us. Our current campaign has three new players in addition to four veterans (not including me as DM), which I'm finding a bit overwhelming. If someone wants to join then he or she needs to be willing to accept our playstyle (narrative, cinematic combat instead of tactical and grid-based; gonzo roleplaying; no theorycrafting or min-maxing; no rules lawyers) or find more like-minded people. If someone reacts to the "no feats" rule negatively then that's a huge, neon sign that his or her playstyle will probably clash with ours.

My group gets only a little bit of mileage out of mechanical options; they're the boring, necessary evil we put up with in order to support our actual fun. In 5th edition the options provided by race, class, and background are as crunchy as we want without being over-complicated. Feats and multiclassing would put it over the edge. The fighter at my table doesn't feel gimped without feats. Mechanically, what he's doing doesn't have a ton of variation, but we heavily roleplay our combats so he's doing an enormous amount of narratively different things all the time, only restricted by his imagination and what is reasonably possible in that situation. It does come down to playing "mother may I" with the DM, but my answer is almost always "yes, you may try it, and by the way that's awesome." There's a shared feeling that the less we have to look at character sheets, the better, and we don't have much patience for someone who is constantly fiddling with mechanics or looking through the books. We'd rather spend that time doing crazy things in character and laughing until our chests hurt.

So basically, sometimes certain attitudes about relatively small things have deeper implications. Different groups have different playstyles, and we are protective of ours because people in the past have tried to undermine it. Shaving off systems we don't want and marking them as radioactive simplifies our collective experience and enhances our focus on what we do enjoy.

[rollingForInit]

I got the idea when I noticed they got absolutely no abilities at all, and would drive anyone who tried playing them to 20 to quit through boredom.

I've a friend who loves the simplicity of the Champion. She hates spells and characters with tons of abilities. She just wants something that'll hit, and hit hard and often.


Sometimes someone wants to join us. Our current campaign has three new players in addition to four veterans (not including me as DM), which I'm finding a bit overwhelming. If someone wants to join then he or she needs to be willing to accept our playstyle (narrative, cinematic combat instead of tactical and grid-based; gonzo roleplaying; no theorycrafting or min-maxing; no rules lawyers) or find more like-minded people. If someone reacts to the "no feats" rule negatively then that's a huge, neon sign that his or her playstyle will probably clash with ours.

My group gets only a little bit of mileage out of mechanical options; they're the boring, necessary evil we put up with in order to support our actual fun. In 5th edition the options provided by race, class, and background are as crunchy as we want without being over-complicated. Feats and multiclassing would put it over the edge. The fighter at my table doesn't feel gimped without feats. Mechanically, what he's doing doesn't have a ton of variation, but we heavily roleplay our combats so he's doing an enormous amount of narratively different things all the time, only restricted by his imagination and what is reasonably possible in that situation. It does come down to playing "mother may I" with the DM, but my answer is almost always "yes, you may try it, and by the way that's awesome." There's a shared feeling that the less we have to look at character sheets, the better, and we don't have much patience for someone who is constantly fiddling with mechanics or looking through the books. We'd rather spend that time doing crazy things in character and laughing until our chests hurt.

So basically, sometimes certain attitudes about relatively small things have deeper implications. Different groups have different playstyles, and we are protective of ours because people in the past have tried to undermine it. Shaving off systems we don't want and marking them as radioactive simplifies our collective experience and enhances our focus on what we do enjoy.

And that's perfectly fine and valid, since you're all in agreement about the kind of game you want to play and what you want from the PHB and what you don't want. In the end, any role-playing game is a collaboration between the DM and the players. When they're synched, fun stuff happens.

I think the issue people are having with the "no feats attitude", is when it comes solely from a DM who wants to ban anything optional, just because, without the players agreeing with it. That's stupid. But, in your case, where everyone agrees, it's not.

[Baveboi]

I think you mean biased against the champion, and no there aren't lots of actions you can take. Go play a 4e fighter or a 3.5 warblade with actual abilities at your disposal and come back to try a champion, you'll notice what's missing immediately.
Been there and done that. Multiple times.
I always thought 4th ed to be stiffening, that "If it is not on your sheet, you can't do it" kind of situation. No matter how many "dailies" I got to use it always felt contrived by what was written there, much like I was some kind of muscle wizard and all my movements and actions were slots. It felt weird, but not at all unpleasant.

And don't get me started on warblades, swordsages and crusaders. I played and DMd to all these classes and combinations thereof multiple times (swordsage less than the others, understandably enough). It's not that they are bad, but again they have that feeling of muscle wizards with their semi-vancian spells. "What you mean I can use this to walk up to an enemy and create a pathway of fire, but I can't light my goddamn torch without a flint and steel?" kinda deal. Not saying they are bad, they aren't, and they are very cool to play with (look at you Iron Heart, my beloved), but they aren't simple. And simplicity is beautiful in its own rights.


Roleplaying and having actual choices in combat are in no way mutually exclusive.
True!
They are in no way related to each other, either. It's a question of preference and taste, is what I am saying. Sometimes more choices is confusing and drives you away from immersing in the game.

I have a player that opted to play a spellcasting-less bard because he didn't like the complexity of spells. He was actually MVP of last game, so there is that.

[Eslin]

Been there and done that. Multiple times.
I always thought 4th ed to be stiffening, that "If it is not on your sheet, you can't do it" kind of situation. No matter how many "dailies" I got to use it always felt contrived by what was written there, much like I was some kind of muscle wizard and all my movements and actions were slots. It felt weird, but not at all unpleasant.

And don't get me started on warblades, swordsages and crusaders. I played and DMd to all these classes and combinations thereof multiple times (swordsage less than the others, understandably enough). It's not that they are bad, but again they have that feeling of muscle wizards with their semi-vancian spells. "What you mean I can use this to walk up to an enemy and create a pathway of fire, but I can't light my goddamn torch without a flint and steel?" kinda deal. Not saying they are bad, they aren't, and they are very cool to play with (look at you Iron Heart, my beloved), but they aren't simple. And simplicity is beautiful in its own rights.


True!
They are in no way related to each other, either. It's a question of preference and taste, is what I am saying. Sometimes more choices is confusing and drives you away from immersing in the game.

I have a player that opted to play a spellcasting-less bard because he didn't like the complexity of spells. He was actually MVP of last game, so there is that.

I agree completely, actually. I think the problem was the spellcasting similarities - it would have felt a lot more organic without the 9 level 1-17 spellcasting-like structure.

[Baveboi]

I agree completely, actually. I think the problem was the spellcasting similarities - it would have felt a lot more organic without the 9 level 1-17 spellcasting-like structure.

Now I know the world is mad; Eslin and I agree on something! :smallbiggrin:

Going back on track for the topic; I can see why someone wouldn't allow multiclassing when faced with beginning players in a table that would penalize weak characters. Aside from that, I like to emulate the settings I am playing in, so I wouldn't really allow for free-picking feats and multiclassing in Forgotten Realms (going by the AD&D standards), but I have no problem with people playing Dwarf Wizards and Elf Paladins, specially in this edition.

I guess it is a question of preference, but I don't think feats and multiclassing are necessary for an enjoyable experience in a table.

[Eslin]

Not sure that's much of an issue, I've never had a player who didn't know what they were doing try to multiclass.

[Objulen]

Well, yes, but I was trying to throw a bone to the people who seem to think having options is a bad thing.

I like options as much as the next guy, but it's not always a good thing, especially when you're using duct tape to try and make it stay on.

[WickerNipple]

As stated in the topic title, i would like to know why people take for granted both feat and multiclassing since they are an optional subsystem.

Troll sense activated, but I'll bite anyway:

Because it's a message board made up of members who play the game in all sorts of different environments. A message board is made for the sharing of information, and by its very nature sharing is a permissive approach.

In order to be able to have anything interesting to say, we default to the notion that everything is fair game.

If you don't want the knowledge or level of information it's easy to ignore it, it's much harder to add that in if you default to a lower level of completeness.

[azoetia]

I think the issue people are having with the "no feats attitude", is when it comes solely from a DM who wants to ban anything optional, just because, without the players agreeing with it. That's stupid. But, in your case, where everyone agrees, it's not.

How much is that happening? I just can't see a DM getting away with that if people feel strongly otherwise. Same with any other DM decree, like the "no evil characters" thing I mentioned before. I've sat at the table with a rules lawyer DM before and, 30 minutes in when I saw which way the wind was blowing, got up and walked away. If you feel that your fun is being preemptively destroyed you can easily rectify it.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that everyone at the table who likes feats will feel strongly about it. Someone might not care too much and be happy to go with the flow either way.

Ultimately, when page 163 of the PHB reads, "Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign," then you shouldn't take it as a given that they are until it has been confirmed.

[Izha]

The idea of "optional" is that players that don't want to think about feats shouldn't have to. They can take their +2 ability scores, and it'll still be fairly balanced.

I strongly disagree with this. Just focusing on martial feats for a second, Heavy Weapons Master, Sharpshooter, and Polearm Master are all FAR better than +2 to an ability score.

[Mechaviking]

Roleplaying and having actual choices in combat are in no way mutually exclusive.

Give this man a friggin medal! I am so on board with that statement good sir!

[rollingForInit]

How much is that happening? I just can't see a DM getting away with that if people feel strongly otherwise. Same with any other DM decree, like the "no evil characters" thing I mentioned before. I've sat at the table with a rules lawyer DM before and, 30 minutes in when I saw which way the wind was blowing, got up and walked away. If you feel that your fun is being preemptively destroyed you can easily rectify it.

Which doesn't necessarily mean that everyone at the table who likes feats will feel strongly about it. Someone might not care too much and be happy to go with the flow either way.

Ultimately, when page 163 of the PHB reads, "Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign," then you shouldn't take it as a given that they are until it has been confirmed.

I don't think it happens often either. But OP is one example, obviously. Really, though, you shouldn't take anything for granted about the game until the premise for the campaign has been discussed. Races, classes, anything could be disallowed. Then there's houserules as well. But then again, in my opinion, a DM shouldn't expect to be able to disallow anything just because he or she dislikes it any more than a player should expect to be able to do anything they want. In the end, it's a collaboration, and the DM needs the players to be happy as much as the players need to be okay with the way the DM runs games.

But yes, I would expect feats and multiclassing (feats especially) to be in a game per default because it's typical d&d and I love character customisation, unless there are very, very good reasons for not allowing it. Your reason is good, I certainly wouldn't mind trying to play with a group like yours. I'd give up feats for that. However, "Anything optional is forbidden because I say so" is not a good reason, in my opinion, and I'd never in my life play with a DM who had that attitude.


I strongly disagree with this. Just focusing on martial feats for a second, Heavy Weapons Master, Sharpshooter, and Polearm Master are all FAR better than +2 to an ability score.

True, feats with the right build can be a bit better. But then, consider a character with 20/20/20/12/10/8 as a final array. Or 20/20/18/14/10/8. Depending on what you want, that's pretty neat as well. Especially if you don't care about min/maxing and don't want to pick feats. You might have less fancy things to do, but you won't be terribly far behind, either. Even more so if it's a game with more focus on RP than combat.

[Mandrake]

I just wish to note how fascinated I am how a little bit of //bad gaming mannerism//misinformedness//trolling//different playing experiences// of the OP (who I don't see writing since) led to all of this in a thread.