Feats and MultiClassing

[Grand Warchief]

Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere and feel free to link the thread if it has, but I would like people's opinions on feats and multiclassing as the title suggests.

In some previous editions, (my only experience is with 3.5 and pathfinder) feats were tied to character level, not class level, meaning that if you wanted to multiclass, you weren't penalized feats. However, 5e decided to change that and punish players for multiclassing by making them lose felts unless they left the class at specific points, i.e. 4,8,12, and 16 (fighter exception).

I personally don't like this concept and believe that requiring minimums in certain stats is difficult enough and players should not be further punished by losing feats. But I want your thoughts.

[Shining Wrath]

RAW feats (or ability score increases, which are standard while feats are optional) occur at various levels in a class, not levels as a character.

So, yes, there's a price to multiclassing, and you get fewer benefits than you did in 3.5. Evidently WotC decided that 3 and 4 class builds were cheesy or otherwise undesirable.

[Ghost Nappa]

So, yes, there's a price to multiclassing, and you get fewer benefits than you did in 3.5. Evidently WotC decided that 3 and 4 class builds were cheesy or otherwise undesirable.

And that's why I'm perfectly happy with that change. It's another subtle way of preventing some amount of mechanical abuse (assuming your DM lets you have them in the first place).

[Easy_Lee]

Removing this limitation won't really affect the balance of the game in a meaningful way. New character builds will be possible, but otherwise the game will go on without change. WotC only put this limitation in to further discourage multiclassing. It doesn't need to be there and I very much suspect that it will be removed in the next edition.


And that's why I'm perfectly happy with that change. It's another subtle way of preventing some amount of mechanical abuse (assuming your DM lets you have them in the first place).
It is neither subtle nor does it prevent abuse. One who wants to abuse multiclassing can still do so, via playing a sorcerer and taking a two level dip in warlock after character level nine. One who wants to multiclass Rogue and fighter can still attain 6-7 ASIs, two more than a normal class. Meanwhile, one who wants to multiclass anything with a monk finds it extremely challenging to do so due to the sheer pain of lost feats if one is not careful.

The system prevents some combinations but not others, ultimately affecting builds in an inconsistent way. It doesn't work either from a balance perspective or a design perspective. That's why, unlike with bounded accuracy and stat caps, WotC missed the mark on this one by a mile.

[Demonic Spoon]

Feats/ASIs are a class feature. They take the place of whatever else you would get at 4th/8th level. The idea that this is a punishment for multiclassing is silly. You wouldn't argue that a level 1 fighter multiclassing into wizard should get action surge, would you?

On the contrary, without that limitation, the ASI levels become dead levels for single-classed characters.

[Madfellow]

Yeah, I don't mind the feat/multiclass rules at all. They create a nice tempo in character advancement.

[ChubbyRain]

Because you get stuff that make you effective at your role in combat, you usually don't need feats on a character except to make them a bit more powerful in specific situations.

All non-full casters are strikers and they all get stuff to do this effectively. Feats may allow martials to dabble into other roles such as defender or leader but they are not effective at it. Due to reactions being 1/round you can't even make a good defender with the feat combo.

Casters have spells, spells are worth more than feats. The only three feats that casters may "need" to take would be resilient con, war caster, or elemental adept. But even those aren't mandatory.

Partial casters (paladins, rangers, and monks) get class features outside of feats that let them do their striking effectively enough and have some other role qualities (defender or controller mostly) but still are primarily strikers.

If you MC you don't need feats as much since you are gaining the abilities you want/need for your build through other classes.

Feats all look nice but aren't really that worthwhile in actual practice for the most part... Especially when in competition with ASI. I'm hoping 5.5 fixes this but I don't expect much.

[Myzz]

I kind of like it as is... provides minimal discouragement for MC'ing, if removed those levels would be dead levels for sure.

If you want to add more feats to encourage MC'ing, I'd recommend adding a starting Feat (and Ixnay Vhumans) for every race...

[SharkForce]

simply put: most classes are front-loaded so that you gain more from the first few levels then you do from the rest (this is a particularly egregious problem with fighters, for example).

losing feats due to multiclassing is simply a means to allow them to front-load the classes without giving away all that front-loaded goodness for free. seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[Oscredwin]

In 3.X there was this concept of "break points," levels of a class where it made more sense to take a level in another class than to take a level in the same class (fighter 2, monk 1 2 or 6, cleric 1, barbarian 1-2, etc). In 5E people try and find breakpoints, but they aren't nearly as clear as they were in 3.X. Basically warlock 2 is the only thing that's even close to as good a break point as the old ones in 3.X.

[MadBear]

outside of a few very niche cases (sorcerer 18/warlock 2 picked up at the very end) multi-classing doesn't increase a characters overall power. Instead multi-classing gives a character utility.

Even if you break from sorcerer at level 9 for instance to do a 2-level warlock dip, it's at the cost of being behind a full spell level your entire career. Sure you eventually get 9th level spells, but you lose sheer sorcerer level power for having a more reliable cantrip attack. It's a good combo. Heck I'd even say it's a really good combo, but it's a definite trade off.


As far as feats and multi-classing goes. I love that multi-classing comes at a cost. Rarely is it worth it to give up a class abilities and a feat for a 2 level dip. You either commit in a class to level 4 minimum, or you give up something useful. Then again in my games nothing was less fun then the Fighter2/crusader8/knight4/barbarian6 (completely random classes pulled out of thin air), where the characters abilities and classes didn't tie into their character at all, and were instead only chosen for power gains.

[Myzz]

outside of a few very niche cases (sorcerer 18/warlock 2 picked up at the very end) multi-classing doesn't increase a characters overall power. Instead multi-classing gives a character utility.

Even if you break from sorcerer at level 9 for instance to do a 2-level warlock dip, it's at the cost of being behind a full spell level your entire career. Sure you eventually get 9th level spells, but you lose sheer sorcerer level power for having a more reliable cantrip attack. It's a good combo. Heck I'd even say it's a really good combo, but it's a definite trade off.

Wouldn't it make more sense to grab the Warlock levels either at character levels 4 and 5, or 5 and 6 dependent on when whether the ASI was that important? EB after 5 much better than any cantrip attack the Sorc is gonna have...

[Oscredwin]

Wouldn't it make more sense to grab the Warlock levels either at character levels 4 and 5, or 5 and 6 dependent on when whether the ASI was that important? EB after 5 much better than any cantrip attack the Sorc is gonna have...

Then you still lack a top level spell slot, your most powerful action at any level.

[Galen]

Why level nine?
Because he subscribes to the school of thought that the "level X" prerequisites in Warlock invocations refer to total level and not class level, so I guess he wants to grab some invocation that has a prereq of "level 9".

[SharkForce]

Then you still lack a top level spell slot, your most powerful action at any level.

that's pretty debatable with a sorcerer. apart from wish, it's fairly likely that the most useful thing you can do is spam (quickened or twinned) cantrips (well, ok, after twinning a haste if you have two melees in the party). you really don't have that massive versatility to offer like most other caster classes. you get no summons, and your versatility is basically hamstringed by the reduced spell list. you get a bunch of different flavours of damage, and that's pretty much it, so you may as well get the most damage you possibly can. it'll hurt a fair bit at level 17, when you would've been able to start making a simulacrum with a wish spell. but before that? odds are good that high amounts of damage is your primary contribution to the party. having a reliable long range powerful damage cantrip is a huge boost.

[Easy_Lee]

Because he subscribes to the school of thought that the "level X" prerequisites in Warlock invocations refer to total level and not class level, so I guess he wants to grab some invocation that has a prereq of "level 9".

No, level 9 because it's a much easier point to take the dip than taking it earlier. Delayed access to spells, abilities, and feats hurts more at the early levels than the later. And specifically level 9 because that way the sorcerer gains the agonizing invocation at the same level as he gets three hits from Eldritch blast, which is the exact point where having the agonizing invocation starts to really matter.

I don't appreciate your insinuation than I'm trying to abuse the missing wording of the invocations section of the PHB to qualify for an invocation that I shouldn't. That's a level of cheese that I don't think many DMs would allow.

[Oscredwin]

that's pretty debatable with a sorcerer. apart from wish, it's fairly likely that the most useful thing you can do is spam (quickened or twinned) cantrips (well, ok, after twinning a haste if you have two melees in the party). you really don't have that massive versatility to offer like most other caster classes. you get no summons, and your versatility is basically hamstringed by the reduced spell list. you get a bunch of different flavours of damage, and that's pretty much it, so you may as well get the most damage you possibly can. it'll hurt a fair bit at level 17, when you would've been able to start making a simulacrum with a wish spell. but before that? odds are good that high amounts of damage is your primary contribution to the party. having a reliable long range powerful damage cantrip is a huge boost.

Twinned EB (with agonizing blast and a 20 CHA) is more powerful than Firebolt and a max level scorching ray? I buy that quickened EB is the highest average damage over the day, but I was talking about (controllable) peak damage, when you really have to kill that sonofabitch.

[coredump]

Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere and feel free to link the thread if it has, but I would like people's opinions on feats and multiclassing as the title suggests.

In some previous editions, (my only experience is with 3.5 and pathfinder) feats were tied to character level, not class level, meaning that if you wanted to multiclass, you weren't penalized feats. However, 5e decided to change that and punish players for multiclassing by making them lose felts unless they left the class at specific points, i.e. 4,8,12, and 16 (fighter exception).

I personally don't like this concept and believe that requiring minimums in certain stats is difficult enough and players should not be further punished by losing feats. But I want your thoughts.

No one is being 'punished', it is a feature of the class that you get an ASI/Feat at level 4, thus if you are not level 4 in that class, you do not get that class feature.
If you are not level 4 in Rogue, you do not get the Rogue lvl4 ASI/Feat
If you are not level 5 in Rogue, you do not get the Rogue lvl5 Uncanny Dodge.

But hey, you *do* get the class feature of whatever you MC'd into...

[Galen]

I don't appreciate your insinuation than I'm trying to abuse the missing wording of the invocations section of the PHB to qualify for an invocation that I shouldn't. That's a level of cheese that I don't think many DMs would allow.I was under the impression you argued previously this was legal. Maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else. My apologies for attributing to you a position you do not hold.

[Easy_Lee]

I was under the impression you argued previously this was legal. Maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else. My apologies for attributing to you a position you do not hold.

It is and I have argued that it is legal by the RAW alone. But only the RAW, not the RAI.

I know that it's not something I personally would do, and IIRC I said "ask your DM" most of the times I brought it up ways to use it (such as on a fighter/warlock multiclass). These days, it's a pretty well-known thing, so it doesn't come up as often as it used to (when it was first discovered, it was all over the forums in the same way as the druid capstone).

[calebrus]

I was under the impression you argued previously this was legal. Maybe I'm misremembering and it was someone else. My apologies for attributing to you a position you do not hold.

No matter what Easy says, he advocated that until the cows came home, building bare handed pact weapon monk-locks with lifedrinker and all sorts of nonsense.
You were correct in your assessment, even if he says otherwise right above me. Your reason was wrong, but your memory was just fine.

[Easy_Lee]

No matter what Easy says, he advocated that until the cows came home, building bare handed pact weapon monk-locks with lifedrinker and all sorts of nonsense.

Actually, that one's pretty clean. Unarmed strike is on the weapons table, and an 8 monk / 12 warlock can pick up lifedrinker by RAI. The damage is still overall inferior to a champion or sorcerer/warlock, so it's really not broken, just a fun build.

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

I was referring more to the fact that you originally claimed that this would be workable on something akin to a monk 8 warlock 4, because you fully endorsed the character level theory on invocations.
And you did.
Secondly, using an unarmed strike as your pact weapon is not something that simply works. It requires a very (and I mean VERY) agreeable DM.
But I'm not gong to derail the thread any longer, so feel free to rebut all you like because you'll have the last word when you do.