Unpopular Opinion: Feats and multiclassing were a mistake.

[Amechra]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.

[Christew]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.
Not particularly unpopular and exactly why feats and multiclassing are both optional variant rules. It is a basic concept of game design that fewer features are easier to balance.

A vanilla game is certainly possible (and will reveal many of the design nuances as you mentioned), just make sure your players are onboard. Players drool over options and tend to balk if they feel that their choices are being limited.

[Man_Over_Game]

I disagree. Most of the Martial classes all revolve around the Attack Action.

Part of this could be simplicity, but I think it was designed around expecting multiple Attack features to be utilized together. Otherwise, why limit the Rogue to only Finesse or Ranged weapons from Sneak Attack, when those are basically the only weapons the Rogue could use in the first place?

Why grant Fighters an extra Action instead of extra attacks? That certainly seems easier to balance.


I agree that removing multiclassing improves the caster-portion of the game, but casters generally don't multiclass too much to begin with (usually due to the faulty design behind multiclassing casters). They don't really get too much out of it, and they already have a much larger number of options to choose when they level up compared to martials.

This really hurts martials (who I believe deserve every advantage they can get to stand out against casters) and Warlocks (who isn't weakened by multiclassing, since they'll just get 0 levels instead of 3), without really giving anything to anybody else. Casters won't play any differently, but this instead forces everyone else to play like them (without any of the benefits, like upper-level casting effects).

Personally, I feel that most of the difficulty in rulekeeping doesn't come from multiclassing or feats, but from spell effects. Removing those for the sake of complexity would be like trying to simplify Sneak Attack to deal a flat 2 damage per Rogue level, while the Druid is trying to get specifics on dragging Moonbeam over someone vs. dragging them into Moonbeam.

Who are you helping, and what needs the help?

[nickl_2000]

I wouldn't mind a no-multiclassing game at all. I have plenty of single class builds that I want to play that are perfectly effective.

No Feats would be more of a struggle for me. I love options and I love the choices that feats give. I also feel like they offer a power boost (or more choices) that is needed for martial classes in a world of casters.


But you do you, if that is something that seems fun for everyone at the table that sounds good to me.

[LudicSavant]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.

Eh, it's not the Wizards and Druids that are going to be feeling the biggest burn from losing multiclassing and feats. There are still very noticeable power gaps if you play single classed.

[Morty]

I disagree about feats, agree about multiclassing. It's a very awkward mechanic that disproportionately rewards metagaming and optimization while offering a lot less reward to players who just want to mix and match classes. Archetypes generally do a better job of being able to branch out of your class's core abilities. And ultimately, the game has classes and levels - while multiclassing tries to slap a coat of paint on it and pretend you can still build your character freely.

[Matticusrex]

Getting rid of feats is the fastest way to destroy what little power martials have in 5.e

[Sam113097]

I don’t really like multiclassing from a roleplaying perspective. It leads people to creat optimized “builds” that, while strong in combat, create additional work for the DM, who now has to figure out why your Bard has suddenly become a Hexblade. Often, builds are prioritized over creating a fleshed-out character: yes, your Paladin-Warlock-Sorcerer can do a whole lot of smites, but now you have to come up with a reason that you’ve now got three sources of magic, and I feel that the roleplaying aspect, in my experience, suffers for it.

I don’t mind feats though.

[Fable Wright]

Well, sword and shield Eldritch Knights will officially suck without Warcaster. I'll be sad about the loss of Ritual Caster, too, since that's a fun way for a Fighter to bring utility to the table. Barbarians will be sad at level 11, and never really have a way to recover.

But hey, you do you.

[Segev]

There have been options on the table for my PCs in my Tomb of Annihilation game to multiclass. None have taken them. (The Zealot Barbarian heard about Kubazan and devoted herself to him, and has been desperately seeking more info, refusing to accept a certain thing that's been said repeatedly about him is true. Multiclassing to warlock or taking Magic Initiate: Warlock would be quite valid for her; she's considered it, but not been too interested compared to the things her levels of Barbarian give her. The wizard has considered multiclassing to cleric for better healing, but hasn't wanted to give up wizard progression. He's a worshipper of Savras, the god of knowledge and divination with a temple in his home town of Port Nyanzaru, so it wouldn't be inappropriate.)

They have taken various feats. The wizard too Healer in lieu of multiclassing. The barbarian is quite enjoying her Sentinel feat; it's made her able to do the tank's job supremely well and she cackles every time she stops an enemy from disengaging, or punishes one for hitting anybody but her. The elven warlock is absolutely adoring Devil's Sight + darkness + Elven Accuracy, for reasons I doubt I need to elaborate on. I think the ranger took an ASI.

In short, I have not found multiclassing to be a problem because for the most part, my players haven't found it to be attractive. Which suggests to me that it's not all that broken, as some of them are the sorts to find loopholes and exploits, and they're finding single-classing to be superior.

[sithlordnergal]

I mean, you do you...personally I wouldn't play in a featless/multiclassless game as I find most single classed characters to be boring at best and a chore at worst. That said, there are plenty of powerful single classed builds out there. Some things to keep an eye on:

Full casters, but especially Druids, Wizards, and Bards, will have an edge over any martial class without feats.

Druids in general are going to be very, very powerful, particularly Moon and Shepard Druids.

With a lack of magical weapons, you'll find Monks excel over other classes.

I'm curious what kind of weapons you'll be adding to the game if they don't give bonuses to attacks and damage? Does that mean no flametongues? Or do you just mean +1 through +3 items?

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options.

I couldn't disagree more. The game was *clearly* designed with 5e-style multiclassing baked in, as you can see from the class progression tables and how frontloaded all of the classes are. WotC tried to make the first level of a class exactly as valuable as a capstone, and the second level as valuable as a 19th level ASI.

If it had been designed without regard to multiclassing there would have been more room e.g. to make capstones more impressive.

It was designed with multiclassing in mind, but 5e multiclassing is poorly thought out, particularly w/rt armor and shield proficiencies.

[micahaphone]

I definitely prefer playing in games with some reluctance to multiclass, like you need some setup and work to multiclass. Do a quest or two, and you better commit to this change. No dipping back and forth.

But feats I think are a good thing to have. Imagine playing a single classed fighter and you get all those extra ASI - after the first 2, your main stat is probably at 20, then you could put points into con or wis. Con/Wis increases are boring but practical, and usually only give you defensive/passive buffs.
Imagine playing an archer - once you have 20 dex, you don't have much else to look forward to with your ASIs, rendering one of the biggest buffs to playing a figher moot. With default human and point buy, you could have a starting array of 10/16/16/12/13/10. Your dex will be maxed out by level 6. 16 Con is pretty good for a ranged character. What're you looking forward to at levels 8 and 10?

[Segev]

I couldn't disagree more. The game was *clearly* designed with 5e-style multiclassing baked in, as you can see from the class progression tables and how frontloaded all of the classes are. WotC tried to make the first level of a class exactly as valuable as a capstone, and the second level as valuable as a 19th level ASI.

If it had been designed without regard to multiclassing there would have been more room e.g. to make capstones more impressive.

It was designed with multiclassing in mind, but 5e multiclassing is poorly thought out, particularly w/rt armor and shield proficiencies.

I would argue that front-loading is actually something that's safer to do in designing for games that do NOT allow multiclassing. Front-loading means you can cherry pick with one-level dips. But if you can't multiclass, you could give all the juicy stuff up front, then have just some fairly boring level-up numbers for a while, and it would be reasonably well-balanced. (Not a great idea for other reasons, but safe enough in terms of overall interclass balance.)

[JNAProductions]

I disagree that they're a mistake to have in the game.

I agree that you can (and indeed SHOULD, if it's more fun for you!) run a featless single-classed game.

[Daphne]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

I agree with you, OP, especially on the Sorcerer part. I don't mind allowing feats at my table though.


Archetypes generally do a better job of being able to branch out of your class's core abilities. And ultimately, the game has classes and levels - while multiclassing tries to slap a coat of paint on it and pretend you can still build your character freely.

Yeah, I think multiclassing makes the game worse beacause of this.

[Pex]

Balance is not nirvana. A game can be balanced, but that doesn't make it fun to play. I find a game without multiclassing and feats to be boring even if for a particular character I will do neither.

In any case I categortically disagree the game is ruined by multiclassing a feats. They add versatility of options of fun things to do. Synergy is a feature, not a bug.

[ad_hoc]

I wouldn't call it a mistake. More that they are rightly optional rules.

Some people make the mistake of assuming they are part of the base game.

I agree that the game was not designed with them in mind. They were made after and can have big repercussions on class identity.

[BurgerBeast]

I share your sentiment, but, as was mentioned, they’re optional. I get more annoyed by people assuming that they are a part of every game.

They make a good option for people who play a lot and are looking for variety to overcome boredom with essentially exhausting all available options.

As a separate point that I think is also relevant: less options causes players to think less about mechanics and more about the gameplay itself. There is something liberating about knowing that your character is complete and just playing.

Oblique, but related to this, is the unfortunate situation of having someone have to compromise between the character that they think makes sense and the character that is optimized. While feats and multiclassing can’t be blamed for this, they certainly don’t relieve the problem.

[Waazraath]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.

You make solid points. In hindsight, I think it would be better if they limited the PHB to the non-variant rules, and mabye made another splat book specificly for feats and/or multiclass (in the line of the Skills & Powers, Combat & Tactics, etc. books in AD&D). That would make it really 'optional', the way it is included in the PHB somehow assumes it to be standard.

As for the games I played that were no-feat and no-multiclass: they haven't been a iota less fun that the ones that included those options. Mabye its different for the folks who can play weekly in several campaigns, but if you have 1 or 2 campaigns running max, that take a few year... well, let me say there are plenty of options I haven't tried yet, without feats and multi-classing.

As for the 'but martials won't have power', that's untrue in my experience. Als the OP mentioned, casters benefit massively from ways to get proficient in con saves. In addition to that, a lot of them gain defensive power from a level 1 or 2 dip in cleric of fighter, to get heavy armor, shield, and action surge. Presenting a game without these options as disrupting just for martials is plain wrong imo.

[ZorroGames]

You want MC to “mean something”? Make them write a backstory that shows why the PC does a MC. And be hard on making that backstory make coherent sense. And make them start already MC. Not possible in AL I grant you but most here are not fans of AL it seems so let show examples of what I mean.

The not AL game I just started in a campaign I joined at level 5, my backstory explained why I started Rogue and what happened when Brandobaris came to me and my adopted father separately in dreams to change my life path to MC as a Trickery Cleric (with some layers of Rogue included.). Because I kept in contact with my roguish friends I can add a few levels later (currently Rogue 1 and Cleric 4) to fill out my story.

Now if I wanted Ranger 5/ Cleric X instead, I would need to have started with a different backstory and at least 1 level of each class at Level 5. I believe you need a story reason along with a mechanics reason to justify MCing.

Feats, as others have explained are important, maybe vital. If you want Martial characters in your game after mid-tier 2. It also, I think, reduces the perceived need to MC.

[deljzc]

In my campaign, I restrict both.

No feats. Multiclassing has to be with one of the four "basic" classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.

It cleans up a lot of the super optimization that can throw off balance in my opinion.

But again, just my campaign, just my opinion. I completely understand the other side of the coin.

[CIDE]

To start, yes! You're right! That IS an unpopular opion!


To follow up? Bold of you to assume 5e's "balanced" as a default.

Whenever I see talks of limiting this these because they're broken or unbalanced I always get the impression of the same people that thought the Monk was OP in 3.5 because of the lack of dead levels. Or Warlocks for all day utility and ranged touch attacks.

[JNAProductions]

You want MC to “mean something”? Make them write a backstory that shows why the PC does a MC. And be hard on making that backstory make coherent sense. And make them start already MC. Not possible in AL I grant you but most here are not fans of AL it seems so let show examples of what I mean.

The not AL game I just started in a campaign I joined at level 5, my backstory explained why I started Rogue and what happened when Brandobaris came to me and my adopted father separately in dreams to change my life path to MC as a Trickery Cleric (with some layers of Rogue included.). Because I kept in contact with my roguish friends I can add a few levels later (currently Rogue 1 and Cleric 4) to fill out my story.

Now if I wanted Ranger 5/ Cleric X instead, I would need to have started with a different backstory and at least 1 level of each class at Level 5. I believe you need a story reason along with a mechanics reason to justify MCing.

Feats, as others have explained are important, maybe vital. If you want Martial characters in your game after mid-tier 2. It also, I think, reduces the perceived need to MC.

My character is a noble knight of the realm. They've got a temper that really flares up in battle, but always try to make amends and peace afterwards.

What class are they?

[Boci]

In my campaign, I restrict both.

No feats. Multiclassing has to be with one of the four "basic" classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.

It cleans up a lot of the super optimization that can throw off balance in my opinion.

So someone can go Warlock / Fighter. Can they go Fighter / Warlock? If they start as one of the 4 basic classes, can they multiclass into a non-basic class?


My character is a noble knight of the realm. They've got a temper that really flares up in battle, but always try to make amends and peace afterwards.

What class are they?

Barbarian/Cleric/Fighter/Ranger/Hexblade, ect. You haven't really narrowed it down, since knight is a vague concept that at best means someone who is good at martial stuff and has a code of conduct/is in service to a lord, noble is about personal ethics, and temper is again a personality trait that need not neccissarily be mechanical.

[ZorroGames]

My original AL shop coordinator asked me once when I was wondering if there were many AL games there without MC and/or feats, “Why would you feel it necessary o reduce peoples’ fun?”

If it is fun for all, then fine, you and your players do that. No quibble for you and yours being happy that way.

Myself, even if I never MC another character, even if I never took another feat, I would just walk away from such a table. After being reinvestigated every 5 years for work (clearances, accesses,) over 30 plus years I never want someone deciding how I should want to play a game for fun for the rest of my life. Not drama, just my preferences.

[JNAProductions]

My original AL shop coordinator asked me once when I was wondering if there were many AL games there without MC and/or feats, “Why would you feel it necessary o reduce peoples’ fun?”

If it is fun for all, then fine, you and your players do that. No quibble for you and yours being happy that way.

Myself, even if I never MC another character, even if I never took another feat, I would just walk away from such a table. After being reinvestigated every 5 years for work (clearances, accesses,) over 30 plus years I never want someone deciding how I should want to play a game for fun for the rest of my life. Not drama, just my preferences.

I think that's an overreaction.

If someone said "Hey, I'm a new DM-is it okay if we don't have any multiclassing or feats, is that okay?" would you walk away from that?

Now, if the DM said "Ha, no you can't mutliclass! I don't have that powergaming BS at my table!" when you're trying to make a Monk/Paladin, well then, THAT'S a good reason to walk away. But a universal feels wrong.


Barbarian/Cleric/Fighter/Ranger/Hexblade, ect. You haven't really narrowed it down, since knight is a vague concept that at best means someone who is good at martial stuff and has a code of conduct/is in service to a lord, noble is about personal ethics, and temper is again a personality trait that need not neccissarily be mechanical.

Precisely. Classes are mechanics, mechanics that are not facts of the world. Just as a peaceful, unarmed monk can be represented by a Barbarian (Tavern Brawler with Rage being a state of zen focus) so can a lot of other concepts work with oddball classes. I can understand making MECHANICAL decisions about multiclassing restrictions, I don't understand fluff restrictions.

[False God]

I almost universally single-class my characters. Did it in 4th, and do it in 5th.

No, feats and multiclassing were not a mistake, because 5E would likely be a dead edition offering very little variety or creativity and not offering systems that people like in D&D. I mean, really I can log into WoW and get more customization than that.

They're also OPTIONAL. The game clearly lays out that feats and multiclassing are not a player option unless your DM says so. Most DMs say so, and many more assume they're default rules because they're in the PHB.

I've played without feats, it can be pretty boring and uncreative. Characters feel more a MOBA character whose abilities are defined for you and all you get to do is choose a pretty skin. And it gets worse if more than one person plays the same class/subclass. You need to REALLY pile on the roleplaying and good DMing, which obviously isn't evey table.

I voluntarily play without multiclassing, because I find 90% of the classes are just plain good. Not like, AAA+ good, but like, B+ good, which IMO is good enough for the overwhelming majority of gameplay. But I enjoy taking feats to add an edge of customization beyond the base. I almost never power-game in 5E, there's just no point.

[ad_hoc]

My original AL shop coordinator asked me once when I was wondering if there were many AL games there without MC and/or feats, “Why would you feel it necessary o reduce peoples’ fun?”

If it is fun for all, then fine, you and your players do that. No quibble for you and yours being happy that way.

Myself, even if I never MC another character, even if I never took another feat, I would just walk away from such a table. After being reinvestigated every 5 years for work (clearances, accesses,) over 30 plus years I never want someone deciding how I should want to play a game for fun for the rest of my life. Not drama, just my preferences.

You could make this argument for every rule and situation.

Everyone needs to be having fun at the table.

You are not the special person who gets to decide what is fun.


No, feats and multiclassing were not a mistake, because 5E would likely be a dead edition offering very little variety or creativity and not offering systems that people like in D&D. I mean, really I can log into WoW and get more customization than that.

If there were no feats or multiclassing then 5e would still be insanely popular.

The actual impact to the popularity of the game would be small.

Calling it 'dead' without multiclassing or feats is laughable.

[Zetakya]

If anything I would like there to be more options, more multiclassing, more ways I can make characters who express their actual characterization through their abilities, feats and skills.

If your table has a problem with players always playing cookie-cutter "power build" cardboard cut-outs instead of characters, then the problem you have is with the players not the rules.

[Boci]

If anything I would like there to be more options, more multiclassing, more ways I can make characters who express their actual characterization through their abilities, feats and skills.

If your table has a problem with players always playing cookie-cutter "power build" cardboard cut-outs instead of characters, then the problem you have is with the players not the rules.

You don't even have a problem with the players technically, just different preferences clashes. Afterall announce to some groups "So I saw this power build on the internet I wanted to try" and they'll say "Sounds awesome!"

[Man_Over_Game]

If anything I would like there to be more options, more multiclassing, more ways I can make characters who express their actual characterization through their abilities, feats and skills.

If your table has a problem with players always playing cookie-cutter "power build" cardboard cut-outs instead of characters, then the problem you have is with the players not the rules.

I think there's an important thing to note here.

If your players are multiclassing into cliche' and unoriginal ways, what would removing options do to help?

[jas61292]

I don't know if I would say Feats and Multiclassing were a mistake, but I definitely wish that the fact that they are optional variant was more emphasized. Like... putting them in the DMG instead of the PHB. No one assumes the options in the DMG are standard, but so many people assume that anything in the PHB is. Its not so much that they are, as a whole, terribly unbalanced, but that they open up so much room for abuse.

But its not just abuse that bothers me, its the fact that feats and multiclassing actually take away from the uniqueness of classes in my opinion. As someone mentioned, for example, without feats or multiclassing, only Sorcerers get that oh so valuable Constitution save proficiency. Yet when the other options are on the table it feels like every caster has it. Look at guides and you would get the impression that every single caster needs to take Resilient (Con), Warcaster, or both. Or start out as a Fighter for a level or two. Getting that save is a huge bonus for the Sorcerer, but when Feats and Multiclassing are assumed, no one considers that anything special.

And on the other hand, when it comes to non-casters, having feats around can also homogenize things. Using a big weapon? Take GWM and/or PAM. Using a bow? Take Sharpshooter. Sure, you don't have to, but in combat situations, which is what you are supposed to be good at as a martial, you will fall behind anyone who does. And while some people like to claim this is necessary to help martials keep up with casters, I disagree. These combat feats do nothing to help martial characters in comparison to casters. They help them do more damage, which is the one area they already are the best at. Being even better isn't helping with the issue that you cannot contribute as much in other areas of the game.

This is especially a shame as the one thing I love about feats is their ability to open up character versatility. But too often, because of the available feats, it feels like by choosing to be versatile or unique, you are sacrificing power.

I'm not going to say that games without Feats and multiclassing are better than ones that allow them. Most of my games do allow both. But they are allowed with suitable DM oversight. Not every feat is allowed, and any multiclassing must first be cleared before it is allowed to be used. In this way it truly feels like a variant rule. I just wish the game did a better job to reinforce that variant status.

[Garfunion]

I don’t like multiclassing, I feel the it forced fewer in class option to be created.

I would have much preferred more feat options including multiclass-like feats.

[Nero24200]

If your table has a problem with players always playing cookie-cutter "power build" cardboard cut-outs instead of characters, then the problem you have is with the players not the rules.

YMMV with this one. I'm a very firm believer of "Don't hate the player, hate the game". If the game rewards players for picking power-build options it becomes hard for me to say "You're wrong for doing that".

I think making Feats and Multiclassing optional rules is a good call, and I wish more was done in the PHB to emphasise that so that not every player assumes they're in the game by default.

Though having said that part of me suspects the game wasn't fully designed with these rules being optional in mind - if they were we might see more front-loaded classes (or even just more options for classes at level 1) and more feats that aren't specifically tailored to give martial classes more options.

[Morty]

If anything I would like there to be more options, more multiclassing, more ways I can make characters who express their actual characterization through their abilities, feats and skills.

If your table has a problem with players always playing cookie-cutter "power build" cardboard cut-outs instead of characters, then the problem you have is with the players not the rules.

If that's the goal, then the way to do it would be to open classes up and make them less restrictive, instead of having a rigid 1-20 level progression and then taking a crowbar to it with multiclassing.

[Daphne]

I don’t like multiclassing, I feel the it forced fewer in class option to be created.

This is one aspect of multiclassing that I really dislike. Sometimes something very interesting shows up in UA and the first reply is "it's too abusable with multiclassing", I feel it limits design space.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is one aspect of multiclassing that I really dislike. Sometimes something very interesting shows up in UA and the first reply is "it's too abusable with multiclassing", I feel it limits design space.

The Lore Wizard was perfectly abusable all on its own.

Sometimes, things are just designed poorly. The idea that we could add 12 new options by removing the option to mix-match the 12 classes doesn't really add much content.

In fact, you create more content by allowing them to combine. Consider how RGB colors work.

[1Pirate]

Disliking multi-classing I get, but I’ll join the ranks of those saying taking away feats hurts martials, especially fighters where those extra ASIs wind up going into stats they rarely use.

[False God]

If there were no feats or multiclassing then 5e would still be insanely popular.

The actual impact to the popularity of the game would be small.

Calling it 'dead' without multiclassing or feats is laughable.

But, the game wasn't popular when 5E came out. 4E represented a huge dive in D&D popularity, any many people transitioned to Pathfinder, an ostensible extension of 3.5E. Arguably 5E is nothing more than 3.5 with the volume turned down. Clearly there were expectations about what "D&D" should include and what it shouldn't.

5E is popular in large part because it is more accessible while still providing many of the elements people enjoyed about prior editions, while toning the whole thing down several notches.

I mean, if 5E lacked feats or multiclassing, it would be little more than the Starter Set. Most people move on from more restrictive games into less restrictive ones as they become better gamers and want to experience a broader range of gameplay. A highly restrictive 5E with few creative or customization options does not sound like something with high replayability.

But again, none of this matters because multiclassing and feats are already optional material.

[Daphne]

But, the game wasn't popular when 5E came out. 4E represented a huge dive in D&D popularity, any many people transitioned to Pathfinder, an ostensible extension of 3.5E. Arguably 5E is nothing more than 3.5 with the volume turned down. Clearly there were expectations about what "D&D" should include and what it shouldn't.

5e is what made D&D popular again, and it did that by being easily accessible by it's simplicity. 5e is nothing like 3.5.

[Zetakya]

There are several places where I think 5e oversimplified, if anything.

[Tanarii]

Agreed. Until recently zi ran a long running multiple game store campaign. And it was all single class, no feats, and primarily Tiers 1 and 2. With some Tier 3. I've also played AL and run many one shots that allowed feats and MC. The game is superior without. Feats are eh in moderation and as long as the OP ones are avoided. Multi classing isn't really needed at all, at least not the cherry-picking way most optimizers want.

[False God]

5e is what made D&D popular again, and it did that by being easily accessible by it's simplicity. 5e is nothing like 3.5.

But multiclassing and feats were included right from the get go, even under the header of "optional content", you can't argue that there was some other 5E that didn't have feats and multiclassing and then those things were added later.

What 5E is nothing like is 4E. If you can't see how closely 5E resembles 3.5 but smoothed out and toned down, well then I just don't know what to tell you.

[47Ace]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class.

This has been brought up by others but I will try to ask the question directly. If there is much subtle design that shows feats are not part of the balance then what do you make of fighters getting extra ASIs if its is not to take more feats as fighters historically had more feats. After maxing strength or dexterity at level 6 fighters have another 5 ASI and only 3 of those are likely to be usable on Constitution and then what do they do with the last two? In contrast Barbarians can use Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution but they don't have the extra ASIs to help take advantage of that.

I am ignoring multi-classing because there is a huge amount of different ideas on what classes are and what multi-classing means that I don't want to get into that.

[ad_hoc]

But, the game wasn't popular when 5E came out. 4E represented a huge dive in D&D popularity, any many people transitioned to Pathfinder, an ostensible extension of 3.5E. Arguably 5E is nothing more than 3.5 with the volume turned down. Clearly there were expectations about what "D&D" should include and what it shouldn't.

5E is popular in large part because it is more accessible while still providing many of the elements people enjoyed about prior editions, while toning the whole thing down several notches.

I mean, if 5E lacked feats or multiclassing, it would be little more than the Starter Set. Most people move on from more restrictive games into less restrictive ones as they become better gamers and want to experience a broader range of gameplay. A highly restrictive 5E with few creative or customization options does not sound like something with high replayability.

But again, none of this matters because multiclassing and feats are already optional material.

5e is a paradigm shift away from 3e.

The entire philosophy of the game rules is different. This is why I find 3e players the hardest ones to teach 5e to, because they have an entirely different way of looking at RPGs.

5e isn't popular because it is 3e lite.

People like 5e because it is written narrative first. It is made to be played at the table, rules are written such that they are easy to guess, it is written to be inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds including women, etc.

Multiclassing and feats are so far down on the list of why people play 5e that they are insignificant to that discussion.

You may not be aware of how popular 5e really is.

[MrStabby]

I think it is worth making a distinction between "the feat rules are poorly designed" and "there are some feats that are poorly designed". Is it the general set up or specific feats?

I think that feats kind of work well, and indeed are now working better with more options. I think that some feats are just either dull (lucky for example just makes you more likely to succeed at something not let you do something new and cool), a bit too powerful (what archer wouldn't take sharpshooter) or just too painful to miss out on an ASI for (take your pick). I like that they are a way to customise your character a bit more - the issues is when the balance is so poor that you see the same selections again and again.

I think that this has got a bit better with Xanathars Guide - and I think this is one thing they did get pretty right in terms of balance. The racial feats tend to be thematic, interesting and neither clearly better or worse than boosting an ability. Sure some are always going to be a bit better than others, but in general i think they pitched most of them right.


I think that multiclassing and feats are part of the same thing and need to be looked at together, along with subclasses. Essentially the three of these working together are the tools to let people customise characters. If we didn't have feats then multiclassing would need to take on more of this burden and we would need more subclasses and more of the power of a character coming from the subclass. I would argue that a fighter using sharpshooter feels more different from a fighter using shield mastery than it does from a ranger using sharpshooter, let alone a different subclass of fighter.

Sometimes characters need a feat to make them work, sometimes a multiclass dip, sometimes a specific subclass.

One of my favourite characters was a ranger/cleric/rogue somewhat emulating the Van Helsing style; multiclass was essential in the absence of godlike stats. I needed to be good at investigation and knowledge checks without gimping my character by investing in Int too highly (knowledge cleric). I needed turn undead but wanted to be a martial character, lightly armoured and mobile. I wanted particular advantages against my chosen enemy. She was great fun. Needed multiclassing though. Then the prodigy feat was released - now I could emulate the character with a dexterity based paladin and the feat filled the role that multiclassing had done before. To fill the concept whilst not being gimped I needed these tools and to a certain extent feats and multiclass are substitutes.

Generally I don't like to multiclass, but I do think it adds something to the game and the same for feats. This isn't to say that the rules are perfect or that the classes are well designed for it - but again this is an issue with the specific rather than the general.

[JumboWheat01]

As a class purist, I care very little about multiclassing and never do it myself (save for the Baldur's Gate series with my favorite, a gnomish cleric/thief, love that guy,) but feats, martial or caster, are always nice. Some make or break a build, some allow for more fluff, and some are just good to have versus other options.

Like, take a Fighter, you have 7 ASI. With a stat cap of 20, you can easily cap your main stat, Constitution, and have more to spread around that may or may not really be of any use to you. Being able to blow those extra ASI on feats is really nice.

And while it can be a pain at times, I rather like how straight up stat increases are competing in the same slots as feats. Do you you want to improve your stats and gain better *insert what X stat does for you* or do you want to improve your options by gaining another save, maybe more skills, ritual casting ability, cover ignoring at range? Makes for interesting choices as you play the game.

[CIDE]

5e is a paradigm shift away from 3e.

The entire philosophy of the game rules is different. This is why I find 3e players the hardest ones to teach 5e to, because they have an entirely different way of looking at RPGs.

5e isn't popular because it is 3e lite.

People like 5e because it is written narrative first. It is made to be played at the table, rules are written such that they are easy to guess, it is written to be inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds including women, etc.

Multiclassing and feats are so far down on the list of why people play 5e that they are insignificant to that discussion.

You may not be aware of how popular 5e really is.


I've encountered the exact opposite. Both in how easy it was to transition players but also where I see the players going when it comes to 5e. In my current group we have players that started with 1e, 2e (myself), 3.5, 4e, and some brand new to RPing with 5e. The composition has varied as people come and go with some being part time players but we're all over the board. The people most likely to play in the way you attribute to ex-3.5 players I only saw with the 4e's and the completely new players. The players that picked up 5e and played it the way you envision it? The ex-3.5 players and myself (while I started with 2e I have WAAAYYYY more 3.5 experience than 2e).

That said, even the purely roleplaying players that would probably even be fine in a rules lite or systemless RP all vastly prefer having multiclass rules and feats at the table. The crunch and the fluff aren't inherently disconnected and to just state that those things are way further down the list for people that focus more on a narrative than the rules just seems weird. Especially when those things directly tie into and shape the narrative. They may not be WHY they play but they can drastically alter everything else about the process.

[Pex]

To start, yes! You're right! That IS an unpopular opion!


To follow up? Bold of you to assume 5e's "balanced" as a default.

Whenever I see talks of limiting this these because they're broken or unbalanced I always get the impression of the same people that thought the Monk was OP in 3.5 because of the lack of dead levels. Or Warlocks for all day utility and ranged touch attacks.

That and some people get upset when a PC does more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage". PCs are supposed to be powerful. What used to be obstacles eventually no longer are. Some DMs can't or won't adapt to the change of circumstances. Forbidding feats and multiclassing are a means to curtail PC power and sense of loss of control. The less choices players have the better in their eyes.

For those players who want the simplicity hooray for them. If you really absolutely enjoy playing single class with no feats go for it. I cheer you. Have fun. Your preference however should not deny me my preference of multiclassing and feats. You are not a superior player. Those who multiclass or take feats are not playing the game wrong, and no way are they less capable of however much immersive roleplaying you prefer.

[EggKookoo]

If it had been designed without regard to multiclassing there would have been more room e.g. to make capstones more impressive.

My experience from running high and low level 5e campaigns is that the lower levels are generally thought of as more fun, and tend to be where most players hang out. Frontloading might have also just been a way to keep the fun where the players are. If they put major level 20 capstones in, they run the risk of people claiming it's too hard to get up there. Most players start at 1st, or have played low levels at some point. I imagine there are quite a few players who never see above level 12 or so.

Not really disagreeing with your point that multiclassing was an intent from the start -- mainly since 5e uses a lot of 3e-isms and MC was a big part of that. Just that the lack of capstones isn't really an ironclad argument for it.

[ad_hoc]

I've encountered the exact opposite. Both in how easy it was to transition players but also where I see the players going when it comes to 5e. In my current group we have players that started with 1e, 2e (myself), 3.5, 4e, and some brand new to RPing with 5e. The composition has varied as people come and go with some being part time players but we're all over the board. The people most likely to play in the way you attribute to ex-3.5 players I only saw with the 4e's and the completely new players. The players that picked up 5e and played it the way you envision it? The ex-3.5 players and myself (while I started with 2e I have WAAAYYYY more 3.5 experience than 2e).

That said, even the purely roleplaying players that would probably even be fine in a rules lite or systemless RP all vastly prefer having multiclass rules and feats at the table. The crunch and the fluff aren't inherently disconnected and to just state that those things are way further down the list for people that focus more on a narrative than the rules just seems weird. Especially when those things directly tie into and shape the narrative.

There are far more people playing 5e as their first RPG (and indeed first hobby game) than there are people who have played previous editions.

That should tell you something.


They may not be WHY they play but they can drastically alter everything else about the process.

We are specifically talking about why people play the game. If you're not talking about that you should not be replying to the conversation.

The original claim was that without multiclassing and feats 5e would be a dead game/it would be a lot less popular.

I don't think its popularity would be lessened enough for it to even be noticed if the game didn't have those options.

[Chaos Jackal]

For better or worse, 5e is a simple edition.

Taking out feats and multiclassing makes it way too simple. Very little variety.

I generally avoid multiclassing, and even though I'm typically an optimizer I don't enjoy using nonsensical dips to boost a character. If I can come up with a compelling backstory or in-game actions explaining why my warlock is a paladin, sure, but just providing a mechanical advantage isn't enough.

That being said, I can't deny the concepts and tricks that can be pulled off via multiclassing. That as well as feats make games more interesting, differentiate characters and and allow expansion.

Everyone has fun in their own way, and there are those who enjoy games without multiclassing and feats. But they aren't a mistake. They're adding some vagueness to what is otherwise a very clear-cut setup. And in a fantasy game, making things a bit more fluid is good. Options are good. They add to longevity and replayability.

[Man_Over_Game]

For those players who want the simplicity hooray for them.

I have a theory that the number one thing that determines how fun a build is to a person is how complex that build is vs. how complex the player wants to play.

And when it comes to martial classes, a lot of their options for complexity is baked into their feats and multiclassing. There are no options for a complex Barbarian, and very few for Fighters or Rogues.

I can, however, make a fairly simple caster by utilizing Warlock levels, or going Draconic Sorcerer. Dreams Druids are fairly straightforward, while Moon Druids are the exact opposite. Casters have great diversity when it comes to being simple vs. complex, but martial classes do not.

Even when a character multiclasses between caster and martial levels, the intent is often to have the caster levels provide magical support towards the martial playstyle, with things like Shield or Absorb Elements. Spellcasters generally don't multiclass between each other, because of how spell leveling works when multiclassing spellcasters.

All of this continues to be true when considering feats instead of multiclassing.

Removing this component will leave the options for any additional complexity to be left with casters, who would be mostly unchanged through this. I feel like it'd remove a lot more game than it'd add. I tried a single-class 5e Ancestral Barbarian, got him to level 6, and it was the dullest experience I've had playing DnD. I'm not saying that everyone would have that experience, but I also wouldn't want anyone to feel like they had to.

[Dr. Cliché]

My issue with Feats and Multiclassing actually tends to be the opposite problem - that it's frequently too unattractive.

I'm not a fan of Feats directly competing with ability score increases, as the latter are very important and having a system like this means that a lot of flavourful feats are rarely taken because the opportunity cost is too high.

Similarly, there are a lot of Multiclass builds I've considered which make sense for the character but are cripplingly bad when it comes to the actual mechanics.

Especially in the latter case, it seems like Multiclassing was made deliberately bad in order to dissuade optimisers. But it actually had the opposite effect - since it's only the optimal multiclasses that are actually worth doing.

[Man_Over_Game]

Especially in the latter case, it seems like Multiclassing was made deliberately bad in order to dissuade optimisers. But it actually had the opposite effect - since it's only the optimal multiclasses that are actually worth doing.

For example, Sorcerer+Paladin, or Warlock+Paladin. In fact, most multiclassing with Paladins makes no thematic sense, or is completely suboptimal.

[JNAProductions]

For example, Sorcerer+Paladin, or Warlock+Paladin. In fact, most multiclassing with Paladins makes no thematic sense, or is completely suboptimal.

Ancients Paladin/Feylock. You were a devout defender of nature, to the point where you attracted the notice of a Fey noble, who offered you a place in their court as a Knight.

Vengeance Paladin/Draconic Sorcerer. Your mother was raped by a dragon, and you swore revenge against the beast that ruined her life, even if it is your father. But, you still have the power of the draconic ancestry.

[EggKookoo]

I have a theory that the number one thing that determines how fun a build is to a person is how complex that build is vs. how complex the player wants to play.

I, and the people I DM for, don't want complexity. If I can boil it down, I find it to be largely universal that players want to know the 1-3 things their PC is really good at, the 1-3 things they're not good at all for, that one surprise thing you didn't expect they'd be able to do, and they're average for just about everything else. I've had one player who would try to min-max stuff, but generally they just want something they can conceptualize via the mechanics.

[Morty]

That and some people get upset when a PC does more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage". PCs are supposed to be powerful. What used to be obstacles eventually no longer are. Some DMs can't or won't adapt to the change of circumstances. Forbidding feats and multiclassing are a means to curtail PC power and sense of loss of control. The less choices players have the better in their eyes.

For those players who want the simplicity hooray for them. If you really absolutely enjoy playing single class with no feats go for it. I cheer you. Have fun. Your preference however should not deny me my preference of multiclassing and feats. You are not a superior player. Those who multiclass or take feats are not playing the game wrong, and no way are they less capable of however much immersive roleplaying you prefer.

You seem to be arguing against several points no one has actually made. Has anyone claimed not multiclassing/feats makes you a superior player?

On a more general note, it's a mistake to present it as a choice between multiclassing and lack of variety. Multiclassing is simply a poor tool of introducing variety. If at some point during the design someone was concerned the classes and levels are too restrictive, they should have been loosened, instead of using multiclassing to bypass them.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason multiclassing is in 5E is because people expect it to be, not because of any practical concern.

[sithlordnergal]

To be honest, I have always been of the opinion that single classes characters are too restrictive, and that multiclassing creates far more interesting characters. I also find multiclassing to be better at capturing a character idea then single classed characters do. For example, if I wanted to make a Fey Knight that is one with the forest and serves Mielikki, I'd make a Paladin/Druid. Why? Because Oath of the Ancients Paladin doesn't quite go far enough with the "One with the Forest" bit, while Druids don't have that "Knightly" feel.

"So why not fluff it?" you might ask? Because I am of the opinion that if my fluff does not have any mechanics to back it up, then the fluff isn't really important and does not really matter. I can claim to be one with the Fey spirits and forest or whatever, but without some solid mechanics that Druids provide then I'm really no different then any other Ancients Paladin. Or perhaps an Oath of Devotion Paladin that has done some great deed and becomes a chosen of their God. Without levels of Divine Soul Sorcerer, or at the very least Cleric, in there then you're not chosen...you're just another standard Devotion Paladin with no differences between you and any other Devotion Paladin.

As for feats, they really help differentiate the characters. Now, I will admit that some feats are OP, and I wish that they'd be taken less, but that's a problem with individual feats. For example, lets say you have two Thief Rogues in your party. They are essentially going to be exactly the same. Sure, they can change up their skill choices and ability score placement, but in the end they're still gaining the exact same features. But give one the Dungeon Delver feat and another the Healer, and suddenly they really are different. One is a medic, while the other is a trap expert.

EDIT: My fluff thing is why I actually gave my players a single free level of Great Old One Warlock when they decided to serve the BBEG in my homebrew campaign. Because it helped drive home that they serve this Eldritch God now, and in return it has granted them power.

[Evaar]

I'm not a fan of Feats directly competing with ability score increases, as the latter are very important and having a system like this means that a lot of flavourful feats are rarely taken because the opportunity cost is too high.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But I wonder if that's more indicative that certain flavorful feats should have been categorized as something other than a "feat" while leaving certain build-makers competing with ability score increases. Like Linguist probably shouldn't have to compete with Sharpshooter. Or maybe it should, maybe us optimization-minded folks don't sufficiently value three extra languages. But nah I'm pretty sure they're not equal.

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed wholeheartedly. But I wonder if that's more indicative that certain flavorful feats should have been categorized as something other than a "feat" while leaving certain build-makers competing with ability score increases. Like Linguist probably shouldn't have to compete with Sharpshooter. Or maybe it should, maybe us optimization-minded folks don't sufficiently value three extra languages. But nah I'm pretty sure they're not equal.

I'm of the opinion that the value of a skill should scale dramatically with your attribute bonus. The problem with using a feat to determine a skill-like ability is that most players read that as saying "You need this feat to do this thing".

As a result, you NEED Observant to read someone's lips. You NEED Athlete in order to stand up after only moving 5 feet. We see feats as permission, and now that there are rules as to do this cool thing, you must follow those rules, and allowing someone to do the same thing through another way means you're punishing those who purchased that feat.

But, at the same time, we're told to keep skills open-ended and be yes-men.

Take out all of the skill-related feats. Those should be inherent to whatever a character wants to do with skills in the first place.
Put more weight on attribute bonuses.
Have all feats be strictly combat-mechanic related stuff that mostly give you new means of versatility, where spending your ASI remains a better choice for enhancing raw damage output/stats.

It solves the problem with skills, solves the problem with optimizers, those who want "simple" are incentivized to do so, and those who want more complexity have tons of options. Everyone's a winner.

[False God]

5e is a paradigm shift away from 3e.

The entire philosophy of the game rules is different. This is why I find 3e players the hardest ones to teach 5e to, because they have an entirely different way of looking at RPGs.
I have never had this experience. Also, spare me the corporate lingo. 5E may be a move towards simplicity, but it's hardly a paradigm shift from 3.5. 4E was a paradigm shift. People didn't like that so 5E was developed to make them happy.


5e isn't popular because it is 3e lite.

People like 5e because it is written narrative first. It is made to be played at the table, rules are written such that they are easy to guess, it is written to be inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds including women, etc.

Multiclassing and feats are so far down on the list of why people play 5e that they are insignificant to that discussion.

You may not be aware of how popular 5e really is.
I'm not exactly sure who you're arguing against, but it's not me. Since I never claimed 5E wasn't popular, and since this was a discussion of multiclassing and feats, I'm really not sure why you're bringing up stuff like inclusivity and narrative design (and I strongly disagree 5E is a narrative-forward edition) and attempting to demonstrate the game is popular.

I know the game is popular. I know there are reasons beyond multiclassing and feats that make the game popular. But I can't really discuss about half of those on this forum and the other half are limited to rules and such.

I think you underestimate how much customization feats and multiclassing provides, and how much that opens the game up both to narrativists and number-crunchers to get create and do things they both enjoy. You don't need rules and numbers and crunch for a narrative-based game. 5E is just as number-oriented and combat-centric as it's predecessors. It can't get away from that without not being D&D. And to that end, elements that allow for versatility and variety among the numbers and the combat play a huge role.

[Boci]

People like 5e because it is written narrative first. It is made to be played at the table, rules are written such that they are easy to guess, it is written to be inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds including women, etc.

I'm curious, how exactly were 3e and 4e not written to be inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds including women, ect?

[Dienekes]

Hmm, personally, I can understand disliking multiclassing, but I think the classes are far too restrictive to play the characters I want without them.

Now admittedly, I'm the eternal GM at my table, but I have through the course of the game attempted to create a character based on Aragorn, and the only way I figured to do that was a Ranger/Fighter. And because I like to have warfare, commanders, and intrigue be a big part of my games I have had my players deal with several generals that the only way I could appropriately model was to mix and match Fighter, Bard, and Cleric (and once Barbarian) to get the feel for the character I wanted. Maybe I won't have to do that if they ever make a Warlord class. But as of now, I kinda need multiclassing to get the system to even accomplish the type of fantasy I want it to accomplish.

Now as to feats, I kind of agree that they can be a bit problematic. I still want them, but I think they suffer a bit from a few problems.
1) They are balanced poorly and tend to push players toward a specific playstyle. I don't know why the designers decided hand crossbows were to be the best ranged weapon. And Great Weapon Master is clearly better than anything given to two-weapon fighting or the often ignored einhander style of fighting. And on the mage front, you can clearly see why everyone would want to get that Constitution Saving Throw higher. While other feats probably aren't worth the +2 Ability improvement.

2) Classes and their Ability Score needs got streamlined too much. Most classes in this game, especially the casters, need their primary ability score, and then at least a +1 or +2 in Constitution and that's really it. So after they get the Ability Scores they need, they're free to grab the feats at no real cost.

And since, as noted above, the feats are not really balanced well against each other, you'll often see the same class pick the same 2 or 3 feats unless they're specifically trying to do something weird with it. So this feature that was designed to demonstrate your unique build, really doesn't. At least not until level 16 or so.

And I don't really know how to fix those two problems without massive rewrites, and I'm pretty sure not everyone even finds them a problem.

[ad_hoc]

I have never had this experience. Also, spare me the corporate lingo. 5E may be a move towards simplicity, but it's hardly a paradigm shift from 3.5. 4E was a paradigm shift. People didn't like that so 5E was developed to make them happy.


I'm not exactly sure who you're arguing against, but it's not me. Since I never claimed 5E wasn't popular, and since this was a discussion of multiclassing and feats, I'm really not sure why you're bringing up stuff like inclusivity and narrative design (and I strongly disagree 5E is a narrative-forward edition) and attempting to demonstrate the game is popular.

I know the game is popular. I know there are reasons beyond multiclassing and feats that make the game popular. But I can't really discuss about half of those on this forum and the other half are limited to rules and such.

I think you underestimate how much customization feats and multiclassing provides, and how much that opens the game up both to narrativists and number-crunchers to get create and do things they both enjoy. You don't need rules and numbers and crunch for a narrative-based game. 5E is just as number-oriented and combat-centric as it's predecessors. It can't get away from that without not being D&D. And to that end, elements that allow for versatility and variety among the numbers and the combat play a huge role.

The claim was that the game would be dead without them.

That just isn't true.

Half the people playing the game don't even use those rules.

The most popular race by far is standard human.

[False God]

The claim was that the game would be dead without them.

That just isn't true.

Half the people playing the game don't even use those rules.
That sounds like it requires a citation.


The most popular race by far is standard human.
Both the standard and variant humans are massively powerful races which provide overall power by rounding up a string of odd scores or by providing access to creative and/or powerful character options at low levels without the restriction of situationally useful, build-specific or niche abilities. Humans most likely would have been played more in prior editions if every other race wasn't Human+.

Further, for the sake of good statistics, if "half the people don't even use those rules" and lets for the moment say that's true, then every one of those players who picks a standard human should be discounted from the measurement, since the option to pick the alternative never existed for them. And in a game with no feats, early-game ASIs to round up multiple odd scores is a massive power boost.

Which is probably a strong argument against 5E being a narrative-first game, since the race of choice is the most numbers-oriented.

[Pex]

I'm of the opinion that the value of a skill should scale dramatically with your attribute bonus. The problem with using a feat to determine a skill-like ability is that most players read that as saying "You need this feat to do this thing".

As a result, you NEED Observant to read someone's lips. You NEED Athlete in order to stand up after only moving 5 feet. We see feats as permission, and now that there are rules as to do this cool thing, you must follow those rules, and allowing someone to do the same thing through another way means you're punishing those who purchased that feat.

But, at the same time, we're told to keep skills open-ended and be yes-men.

Take out all of the skill-related feats. Those should be inherent to whatever a character wants to do with skills in the first place.
Put more weight on attribute bonuses.
Have all feats be strictly combat-mechanic related stuff that mostly give you new means of versatility, where spending your ASI remains a better choice for enhancing raw damage output/stats.

It solves the problem with skills, solves the problem with optimizers, those who want "simple" are incentivized to do so, and those who want more complexity have tons of options. Everyone's a winner.

Not all problems with skills. :smallwink:

I can agree with the argument that the disparity between the effectiveness of feats is an issue. The cost indeed is too high to take some feats because you're giving up an ASI. You have to really, really want that feat. There will be that one player who feels that way and takes the feat, but it's not the norm. Personally, though, while acknowledging the disparity between feat values I don't find particular feats too powerful that others do. I've played enough games with enough players to have seen the feats taken at least once, but it's not everyone and not in every campaign. When the feat is taken the other players cheer when it's used, and the DM has no issue. Back in the day of Ye Olde WOTC 3E Forums someone wrote "Taste the indecision? That's the balance, right there." In that perspective I can understand the choice between an ASI or Feat despite not liking it. The Feat needs to be worth it so that you make that hard choice. I'd rather have that hard choice than no choice at all.

[Daithi]

I'm a huge fan of the Feats and multi-class options. I really look forward to UA and new book releases. It is one of the things that keeps me coming back and sustains my interest. It is worth the cost of potentially losing balance in my opinion.

Individuals more concerned with balance can limit their books to the core books and not allow the optional rules. Of course, this assumes the people with whom they play agree to these rules. (This would cause an exodus at my table.) Plus, I don't really think the classes in the core books are all really balanced either.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.

Feats were a mistake because they just slapped stuff down and said "y'all deal with it".

Multiclassing would have been better handled as feats, yeah like 4e, or via a hybrid system like 4e. Another way to do subclasses would have been to make each subclass give you a ribbon/proficiency at level 1 and then give features at 3, 6, and 9 (or 10). This way you could make each class into a subclass itself that other can take.

A Rogue that wanted to MC cleric would take the cleric MC subclass.

1st: medium armor and Shields

3rd: 1/3 cleric casting + Cantrips + domain choice (w/1st level domain profs)

6th: Cleric Channel Divinity feature and a domain 2nd level channel Divinity feature.

10th: Domain Feature from 6th level cleric.

Now you have an Avenger.

Then there would be a real good reason to make MC a variant rule, you could make some awesome crazy combos.

[Luccan]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.

While I disagree that their inclusion in the game is a mistake, it's because I agree with the idea the game wasn't balanced around them. Because it explicitly wasn't, as has been said, IIRC, seventeen billion times by the developers. The developers included them as options, aware they would throw off the balance if included. The "problem", then, is players and DMs who behave as if they're non-optional and then don't adjust the game at all when including these optional rules.

I've considered doing a no multiclassing game that allows feats; I think it would be a way you could represent some divergent training, like with multiclassing, but keep toe-stepping between characters to a minimum since everyone's class would be unique to them (unless two players really wanted to play the same class, but even then there's subclasses).

[Mr. Wonderful]

I've read all sorts of Multiclassing optimization threads and am generally unimpressed.

Most authors point to a particular level where their optimized build either "kicks in" or ends. Sure, I get it, if you know you're going to start at level 4 and end at level 12 you can get a little extra juice from an optimized build - and certain rules interpretations. And no disrespect for those who like that sort of thing, but if you're going from 1 to 20 you generally* can't go wrong with a straight class.

This is especially true for full casters. MC with full casters seems great on paper, but actually playing them from level one sucks when you're fighting encounters where you're expected to have 3rd level spells and you've only got 2's. And don't forget that the XP chart is weighted towards levels 5-10, so you'll spend the most table time with the biggest disadvantages unless you MC starting at 11.

Last - and certainly not least - it is the role of the DM to provide the party with fun, interesting and challenging encounters regardless of their optimization. The game is intended to balance itself out, and the victory condition is fun not hp dealt.




*sorry Rangers

[Luccan]

Agreed wholeheartedly. But I wonder if that's more indicative that certain flavorful feats should have been categorized as something other than a "feat" while leaving certain build-makers competing with ability score increases. Like Linguist probably shouldn't have to compete with Sharpshooter. Or maybe it should, maybe us optimization-minded folks don't sufficiently value three extra languages. But nah I'm pretty sure they're not equal.

Most feats are more campaign-dependent, but the nature of D&D is that there will be a fight at some point. You can have games where Keen Mind is actually a really handy feat, but it will be equally if not more rare to have a game where Polearm Master never seems impressive. However, Linguist's biggest flaw, specifically, is that almost every intelligent creature is assumed to speak Common these days. I can't remember the last time I interrogated a goblin that didn't speak it fluently.

[MaxWilson]

While I disagree that their inclusion in the game is a mistake, it's because I agree with the idea the game wasn't balanced around them. Because it explicitly wasn't, as has been said, IIRC, seventeen billion times by the developers.

If you're saying the developers have said that 5e balance does not require feats or multiclassing, then yes. If you're saying they have explicitly acknowledged that 5e design balance assumes the *absence* of feats and multiclassing, I doubt that.

[Luccan]

I doubt that.

Doubt what?

[MaxWilson]

Doubt what?


While I disagree that their inclusion in the game is a mistake, it's because I agree with the idea the game wasn't balanced around them. Because it explicitly wasn't, as has been said, IIRC, seventeen billion times by the developers.

If you're saying the developers have said that 5e balance does not require feats or multiclassing, then yes. If you're saying they have explicitly acknowledged that 5e design balance assumes the *absence* of feats and multiclassing, I doubt that.

[Luccan]

If you're saying the developers have said that 5e balance does not require feats or multiclassing, then yes. If you're saying they have explicitly acknowledged that 5e design balance assumes the *absence* of feats and multiclassing, I doubt that.

I don't see a meaningful difference to my point, but I'll admit I may be misremembering their exact wording. Either way, the designers put those rules in the game as options and didn't assume they'd be used in the game when designing everything else. They've publicly acknowledged this. The error is player side: the game should be made more challenging when including those options, not left unaltered. Of course, I'd argue the given systems for balancing the game are inadequate, but you should adjust them relative to how you think a single classed, featless party would handle them.

Though even the adjustment of difficulty will be relative to the selected options: a Berserker Barbarian/Wizard isn't coming out ahead in the same manner as a Hexblade/Paladin. Feats, likewise, are variable in power.

[Tanarii]

You don't need rules and numbers and crunch for a narrative-based game.Narrative games need rules and crunch just as much as non narrative games. It's no wonder you don't think 5e is narrative if you mistakenly believe otherwise.

I happen to agree 5e isn't narrative first. But your reasoning is flawed. Whether or not a game is narrative first isn't about presence or lack of mechanics, it's about how the mechanical rules are implemented.

[False God]

Narrative games need rules and crunch just as much as non narrative games. It's no wonder you don't think 5e is narrative forward if you mistakenly believe otherwise.

I happen to agree 5e isn't narrative first. But your reasoning is flawed.

Gonna preface this with a big fat PERSONALLY, I just don't see the point of a rules-reliant narrative-forward game. A narrative-forward game relies heavily on players willing to engage and stay in character and a DM who's a good storyteller. It requires players who are sometimes willing to hand over control if it improves the story, and DMs who are willing to give up control if what a player wants to do improves the story. Many elements of 5E are a rebuttal of the player-empowerment focus of 4E (and to a lesser extent, the over-demanding player expectations of 3.5) by empowering DMs to "say NO" with rulings over rules. (which I am a big proponent of BTW) But this does make for an extremely top-down experience. The DM has been explicitly given authority to shut players down, and the player side of the rules has been kept vague enough to prevent a player from saying "Well the rules say I can, therefore you have to let me do it!"

What narrative-forward games really require is cooperative gameplay. Not authoritarian DMing. 5E doesn't really make any overt effort to make this happen any more than any other edition. It just makes things a little more "fuzzy" in an attempt to not tie the game down to anything specific before the DM and players add their own layers to this casserole. Again PERSONALLY I don't feel this actually promotes a narrative-forward experience, and I say this as a narrative-forward DM.

Being narrative-forward is something you can encourage in a game, but IMO it's more of a DM/player/group-interaction thing. The rules are, more or less, "respect other people, know that everyone is here to have fun, and be willing to share the spotlight". +X ot -Y or special ability Z are all completely irrelevant. The player declares that they are an anthropomorphic cat-girl who's really good at jumping and easily distracted by sparkly things. You don't need rules for that. The player just needs to keep that in mind when the DM presents relevant situations, and the DM needs to keep that in mind in order to present relevant situations.

I'm generally a believer that the fewer rules the better, but 5E has never accomplished that, and D&D has never even attempted that. 3.5 threw rules at you like they were going out of style. 4E went all LN on everyone. 5E decided that the rules would use "soft language" in order to make them more flexible, but all it really did was make them harder to understand. At least with 3.5 and 4E everyone knew what the rules were, there was a certain expectation that Table A and Table B would run the same rules the same way, even if they don't always make use of all of the rules. But 5E? Every table's idea of the rules is different. Different DMs, different players, it feels like I have to re-learn the game every other time I play because WotC has empowered everyone to interpret the rules differently.

I often find I have to spend more time teaching players, even experienced players, that this game isn't their other game. And I can see the confusion it causes between lax DMs who "rule of cool" everything, strict DMs who poo-poo player ideas, and everything else. I don't have that experience in other editions (mainly 3.5/Pathfinder and 4E) beyond "yes we're using this book" or "no we're not using that rule".

[Xenken]

As someone who was lucky enough to get some Dungeon World/Five Torches Deep exp under their belt, the whole “5e is narrative first” convo strikes me as incredibly funny. It’s barely dipped it’s toes in that pool, considering all the systems (old and new) out there.

+1 to the person who asked whether we were talking about concept or current implementation. I still don’t know which convo this is, but I’ll just take “having all feats and MC’s gone for good would be better for the game” as at least part of the OP’s premise.

+1 to the bunch of people reminding us that these things are optional.

Now, when it comes to my own characters, I don’t really have a stake here. I basically always play either a Druid, Wizard, or Bard, (Ok, tiny pinch of Paladin,) and a big part of the reason I play the classes I do is that I like consistency and they don’t give two hoots about what optional setting their DM has on at any given time. A younger, more naive me would’ve just said that if your game was turning the all the optional rules off forever then you should just play one of those.

...but it’s easy to see how silly that is, right? Especially in a game where classes encompass both mechanics and flavour? If a player wants to play a Barb with more than Cast Fist and Grappling, I don’t think it’s wrong to have an option other then telling them to get stuffed. Furthermore, (+1 to all the people who’ve said this before,) optimizers and powergamers don’t care. They’ll work within whatever system you give them. (I should know, it’s kind of my side hustle.) Sure, they can’t all take the same feats or dips now that we’ve killed them all, but they’ll still take the same weapons, subclasses, fighting styles, and spells, and you won’t suddenly start liking them or their characters if you haven’t before. For every GWM player you haven’t really changed, there could easily be 2 or 3 with Healer, Inspiring Leader, Alert, Prodigy, Diplomat, Second Chance, and so on that you’ve just kicked in the fictional nutsack.

Multiclassing is slightly less defendable but basically the same story.

We lost something in that trade, so what exactly did we gain back? Especially compared to the dozens of simpler games in the same genre that you could play right now? I think letting bygones be bygones on variant rules is just the, ahem, optimal way to go about things.

[KyleG]

Im curious if there are DMs amongst you with restricted feats or multiclassing options?
The next campaign i run i have been considering if some should be outright ruled out, not that my players currently abuse them but for peace of mind. I try to encourage a heads up on what the players are going to do so i can include that in the story. I would prefer the players to work towards a class, or feat, or asi rather than wow i can now do all this new stuff.

[Knaight]

I'd agree that multiclassing is a mistake from a game-as-art perspective (in game-as-product not so much) - but it's an inherited mistake from earlier editions, and like so many of those it traces back to the identity crisis at the core of D&D from almost the very beginning. Is D&D a very specific game that pursues a narrow focus in detail, or is it a broad toolkit for basically any fantasy game? The rules vacillate wildly in philosophy, and fit together really weirdly in places because of it.

Multiclassing is an area that stands out. From a broad toolkit philosophy something like it is basically mandatory - either that or you jetisson classes entirely. There's a lot of fantasy fiction to cover, and if you're using classes broad classes that can be mixed make a lot of sense. The actual classes in question are mostly (but not by any stretch entirely) designed from a very specific game perspective. Which is how you end up trying to make general characters out of pieces that represent specific orders of heavily armored mage priests with specialized skills for dealing with undead, or you end up interfacing with spells that assume an incredibly specific planar configuration.

The specific 5e model is mostly inherited from 3e, which really showed building generalities out of highly specific pieces with a lot of its prestige classes, but it was there in a less stark form way back with the original incarnation of the bard.


As someone who was lucky enough to get some Dungeon World/Five Torches Deep exp under their belt, the whole “5e is narrative first” convo strikes me as incredibly funny. It’s barely dipped it’s toes in that pool, considering all the systems (old and new) out there.

I tend to have that same reaction when Fate is described as narrative - seeing it for D&D, any D&D, is downright bewildering*. 5e codified a couple of really, really minimal concepts that tend to show up in more narrative games, tacked them on as an afterthought, and called it a day.

*Or should be, you get used to the differences between D&D editions getting blown way out of proportion.

[Fable Wright]

If there were no feats or multiclassing then 5e would still be insanely popular.

The actual impact to the popularity of the game would be small.

Calling it 'dead' without multiclassing or feats is laughable.

This is a provocative statement, and one that I'm going to have to strongly disagree with.

D&D 5th edition is a success only because it successfully recaptured long-lost player bases from 2e and 3.X. I'm going to take, as a key example, Critical Role. This is a show that helped popularize D&D among audiences who never heard of it before. I'd say that around 10% of new players coming into my open table at game stores came in because of this one show.

Think about that. One show. 10% of new players. Think of how many shows like it have contributed to D&D's resurgence. Without this kind of strong online following, it just wouldn't have exploded back to prominence.

Then remember that Critical Role started as a Pathfinder game, and switched over to 5th edition. I feel confident in saying that this switch would not have happened if there were no feats or multiclassing. It's too ingrained in what the players expected, and too key to some of their builds.

I'll agree, 5th edition D&D may have been a good game; may possibly have even deserved success without feats or multiclassing; but without them, it would not have captured a strong early following from people who liked 3.X but were tired of the mechanics.


5e isn't popular because it is 3e lite.

People like 5e because it is written narrative first. It is made to be played at the table, rules are written such that they are easy to guess, it is written to be inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds including women, etc.

If simplicity was all people wanted, why hasn't Dungeon World exploded in popularity like D&D 5e has? It's extremely simple, narrative driven, character focused, easy to pick up and learn, and written by a solid team from a variety of backgrounds.

Why aren't narrative-driven retroclones blowing up the shelves if narrative-driven simplified systems were all that people wanted?


There are far more people playing 5e as their first RPG (and indeed first hobby game) than there are people who have played previous editions.

That should tell you something.

It does tell me two things:

That the game is easy to pick up; and that it has a persistent player base that sticks around and recruits new people.

The easy to pick up part, you've absolutely addressed. It's the persistent player base part that you're ignoring. Like it or not, six years ago, when the edition first came out, the only early adopters were people invested in D&D as a whole. Without those people spreading the game, it would not have taken off, and if those people left, you wouldn't have the exponential player base growth we see. More than that, the game release was riddled with flaws. Terrible bindings, cut corners, a three-month stagger between each of the three core books necessary to play the game, dubious reviews from the D&D Next playtesters.

Without including something keeping that release afloat, the game would have flopped. Hard. It might have had the potential to become the world's biggest game, but it wouldn't have been capitalized on. D&D was at its lowest point, ever.

I am going to say that without the intriguing nature of early 5e's upcasting rules and how they interacted with multi-classing; the unique things you could do with feats; and the customizability of the core package, D&D 5e would not have had a strong launch. And without that strong launch, it would not become the juggernaut that it is today, because there would be no one to spread it. No initial market sales to encourage the team to keep pumping money into higher-quality books. No memetic hit from online advertisements like aforementioned Critical Role or Acquisitions Inc.

The game would have flopped without those rules to hook a persistent player base. Look at them as an artifact from an older time, perhaps, and possibly vestigial. But 5e would not have succeeded in its infancy without them.

[EggKookoo]

While I disagree that their inclusion in the game is a mistake, it's because I agree with the idea the game wasn't balanced around them. Because it explicitly wasn't, as has been said, IIRC, seventeen billion times by the developers. The developers included them as options, aware they would throw off the balance if included. The "problem", then, is players and DMs who behave as if they're non-optional and then don't adjust the game at all when including these optional rules.

I've said in other threads about this subject that I wish they had put at least MC but maybe even feats in the DMG rather than the PHB to underscore that they're optional rules.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I've said in other threads about this subject that I wish they had put at least MC but maybe even feats in the DMG rather than the PHB to underscore that they're optional rules.

This plus not make Feats and MC core rules for Adventure League.

Making them core rules for Adventure League shows that while they're called "optional", they aren't really so "optional".

[diplomancer]

I'd play a game with no multiclassing, and I agree that it is a balance issue, specially for new content. Crawford has stated that they don't balance UA for multiclassing, but they do it before release, which means that a lot of new content gets stifled by the need for this balancing (I'm looking at you, Ranger fixes)

Playing without feats work, but only really for tiers 1 and 2. Tiers 3 and 4 for martials without feats is sad. If you want play something like that, ban variant human (or only allow them to have half-feats), use point-buy, and say you can't have a feat before having a 20 in an ability. Earliest feat to come online will be fighters at 8th level, rogues at 10th. All others will have it starting from 12th.

[Knaight]

If simplicity was all people wanted, why hasn't Dungeon World exploded in popularity like D&D 5e has? It's extremely simple, narrative driven, character focused, easy to pick up and learn, and written by a solid team from a variety of backgrounds.

I'd agree with you that simplicity is clearly not all of what people want (HERO is still kicking for a reason), but this particular argument is pretty dubious. D&D has an enormous advantage in brand recognition, and no matter how perfect a game is for you you can't play it if you don't know it exists. That hits almost everything other than D&D, though Pathfinder got through compliments of Paizo being a big name and the WoD/CoD/Whatever lines were big enough in the 90's to mostly ignore it. Then there's the network effects side, both in terms of pickup games being easier when everyone knows them and in terms of having a player base big enough for something like AL to even exist.

Plus, PbtA games being easy to pickup generally is debatable; a lot of people struggle. The quantitative side is easy, sure, but heavy improv front structures have a somewhat higher skill floor than dungeon crawling on the GM side.

[HiveStriker]

Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options. There are actually quite a few subtle bits of design (like how Sorcerers are the only full caster with Con proficiency, meaning that they're the only ones with a scaling Concentration save) that just kinda fly out the window once people start picking up feats or detouring into another class. On top of that, there are some really obvious cases of some classes benefiting from feats and multiclassing way more than others - we have cutesy names for every single possible combination of Charisma-based caster + Warlock, for crying out loud.

I think that the next game I run (not the current one, because it would require people to change their characters) won't use feats or multiclassing. On top of that, I think I'll stick with magic items being weird bits of utility - there will still be magic weapons (because the game does expect you to have a way to get through that resistance by the end of Tier 1), but they won't give bonuses to attack and damage.

I'm curious to see what kinds of "weak" characters people will go for.
I generally agree with you on the bolded part but...

I disagree. Most of the Martial classes all revolve around the Attack Action.

Part of this could be simplicity, but I think it was designed around expecting multiple Attack features to be utilized together. Otherwise, why limit the Rogue to only Finesse or Ranged weapons from Sneak Attack, when those are basically the only weapons the Rogue could use in the first place?

Why grant Fighters an extra Action instead of extra attacks? That certainly seems easier to balance.


I agree that removing multiclassing improves the caster-portion of the game, but casters generally don't multiclass too much to begin with (usually due to the faulty design behind multiclassing casters). They don't really get too much out of it, and they already have a much larger number of options to choose when they level up compared to martials.

This really hurts martials (who I believe deserve every advantage they can get to stand out against casters) and Warlocks (who isn't weakened by multiclassing, since they'll just get 0 levels instead of 3), without really giving anything to anybody else. Casters won't play any differently, but this instead forces everyone else to play like them (without any of the benefits, like upper-level casting effects).

Personally, I feel that most of the difficulty in rulekeeping doesn't come from multiclassing or feats, but from spell effects. Removing those for the sake of complexity would be like trying to simplify Sneak Attack to deal a flat 2 damage per Rogue level, while the Druid is trying to get specifics on dragging Moonbeam over someone vs. dragging them into Moonbeam.

Who are you helping, and what needs the help?
Why I strongly disagree with Man_Over_Game on his assertion that it improves casters (and that they usually don't multiclass), I agree with him that it hurts martials (removing multiclass and ESPECIALLY feats).

I mean, IF Dms all were keen on following guidelines, I wouldn't mind pure martials, because they would shine at least at the two last encounters of the day when casters are out of slots.

As is, honestly, I would usually not be interested in playing pure-class martials unless I have a "warranty" (as empty as that word may be for an adventurer risking life every day) that I can get to level 20.
I simply feel that barring a few select archetypes or classes (Rangers especially Beastmaster, 4E Monk, possibly Shadow Monk, most Rogues, Eldricht Knight), martials are simply too limited, at least for non-combat situations.

There are also a few features I do love too much to not try and get them most of the time...
Which could be actually a big argument in your favor: banning multiclassing and feats to force people to get out of their comfort zone. ^^ Maybe I've had a whole different view from the get go if feats and multiclassing had been simply not officially implemented (even as optional rules as many people rightly recalled).

I also agree with MOG that I feel some spell effects are rather the problem... Am I the only one thinking that 5th, *maybe* 6th level spell is already grand enough to have heaps of fun?
Most balance-pushing spells appear with 7th level. And at that time casters also have enough slots to start casting around without too much thinking, at least when there are only 2 encounters for the day (which seem to be common around).

----
I would be fine playing a game without multiclass, but not without feats. Apart from GWM and Sharpshooter, all of them are balanced, and many of them bring a welcomed versatility or non-combat enhancement to give some refresher to classes that are imo too much about combat for my own enjoyment (Fighter, Barbarian, even Monks and Paladins).

[airless_wing]

I’ll die on the hill that multiclassing INTO sorceror makes absolutely no thematic sense. So you’ve been a heavily armored crusading paladin, holding your oath across many levels of stressful adventures, and you just suddenyly wake up and now have innate magical powers? I dont buy it.

[EggKookoo]

I’ll die on the hill that multiclassing INTO sorceror makes absolutely no thematic sense. So you’ve been a heavily armored crusading paladin, holding your oath across many levels of stressful adventures, and you just suddenyly wake up and now have innate magical powers? I dont buy it.

Puberty...

[Eldariel]

Given Fighter and Rogue extra ASIs and Vuman, I'd argue feats were definitely a core of the basic design and dropped into an "optional" rule to ease people into the game without option paralysis. Though of course, something like Transmuter Wizard does get a lot better when their ability to have three good saves is uniqueish so there's that at least.

[Dienekes]

I’ll die on the hill that multiclassing INTO sorceror makes absolutely no thematic sense. So you’ve been a heavily armored crusading paladin, holding your oath across many levels of stressful adventures, and you just suddenyly wake up and now have innate magical powers? I dont buy it.

Eh. I get it, but the fluff of the sorcerer does give a brief list of examples on how sorcerers get made. One is of course bloodline, but others were things like getting blessed by a dryad, accidentally stepping into a magic power flux, or nearly dying from magic. And honestly those things seem easy enough situations for your adventurer to have happen to them.

I can totally understand why you wouldn’t want that stuff into your game. Though I’d personally allow it, but would prefer if my player gave me a heads up they were interested in such a thing so I could weave it into the narrative.

[Boci]

I’ll die on the hill that multiclassing INTO sorceror makes absolutely no thematic sense. So you’ve been a heavily armored crusading paladin, holding your oath across many levels of stressful adventures, and you just suddenyly wake up and now have innate magical powers? I dont buy it.

That's only if its a spontenous descision. If its planned, then the player could have accounted for it in their backstory. Alternativly, the fluff of the sorceror does not you don't have to be born with it and you can aquire it. This seems to be stepping on the warlocks toes a little, but it is in the book.

[Benny89]

I agree on multiclasses, but not on feats. Without feats characters would be bland. Fighter with 20 STR vs another Fighter with 20 STR would make no difference. With Feats one can be Polearm Master, one can be Mobile with greataxe, one can be Shield Master with defense style, one can be dual wielding fighter etc. Feats are necessary to give your character a "mechanical personality" since like in real life people are not the same.

My problem is that feats in 5e SUCK hard. I miss weapon foucs feats, weapon specialization feats, power attack feats, metamagic feats, Blindsight, Dodge, Skill Focus feats etc. There were TONS of ways to personalize character through feats in older edition.

Also they don't add new feats fast enough. There is still not feat for one-handed weapons that would make them competetive vs Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter. A simple -3 to hit +5 to damage feat would open up so many new viable ways to play. There are way too few feats that boost INT, CHA, WIS (I am talking about general feats, not race specific). We need more feats cause currently 90% of builds (not even talking about min-maxing) revolve around the same feats over and over again: Warcaster, Resilent, GWM, SS, CBX, Lucky, Mobile, Elven Accuracy, Inspiring Leader, Magic Iniate. There are some race variantons (like Orcish Fury for example) but generally it's those or +2/+1 ASI because other feats just simply suck and they don't over significant change in playstyle which makes feat good. You wait 4 levels for next one, it should be something significant that changes whole playstyle. Warcaster allow for awesme combos (like Disotant into Booming Blade) + using shields. Mobile changes playstyle of Monks and Rouges like none other. Magic Iniate gives tons of utility + familiar. Inspiring Leader is part-wide free buff. Those are great feats.


Multiclassing I agree that it should be gone. There just should be classes or sublcasses that are "semi-multiclasses" like Sword Bard, Hexblade etc. who are gishes. But multiclassing will always lead to just simply better or worse builds.

For example it's just plain impossible to ignore 1 or 2 level dip of Hexblade into Bards, Sorcerers or Paladins. It's no brainer to dip 1 level life cleric for every class that wants to heal. 1 level of fighter to any wizard to get heavy armor and shields? Sure!

Imo multiclassing it's always too complex (even in simplified 5e edition) to be balanced. Feats on the other hand are much easier to adjust and change and they can already make a different build.

For example Ancestral Barbarian wood elf with Magic Iniate and Elven Magic can already have a lot of magical side of him. Feats are awesome.

So yeah, I am all for more and more feats, but I would like DnD to drop multiclassing finally...

[HiveStriker]

For example, Sorcerer+Paladin, or Warlock+Paladin. In fact, most multiclassing with Paladins makes no thematic sense, or is completely suboptimal.
Not sure I agree with this assertion. In fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree.

First things first: roleplay wise, Paladins do carry a heavy weight since you're supposed to respect, follow and enforce a specific set of moral values.

In that regard, multiclassing away from Paladin may be a bit complex to "jusfify" at times because why would a Paladin basically not have faith in its own precepts and stay true to his/her path? And how would one manage training in another class while still staying faithful to his tenants?

Still, it can be done in many cases: I could see why a Vengeance Paladin multiclasses into a Battlemaster Fighter because his archnemesis require more martial finess than divine favor. Or a Redemption Paladin multiclass into Bard because he thinks the utterly best way to enforce peace is through mutual understanding and strong Persuasion.
Of course, Devotion Paladin and Fiend Warlock? Nope, not in my book. But a Vengeance Paladin? Sure! After all, "by all means necessary" is one core tenant.

Overall, the only classes I find kinda strange to make do "after" Paladin would be Barbarian (hard to explain why, it just doesn't "feel right" to me), some Rogue (technically the "unlawful" / "evil" aspects are extremely light for Rogue in 5E, essentially only Thieve's Cant, so only combinations like Devotion / Thief would be a no), some Cleric Domains (Redemption / War, Death/Devotion, things like that) and Warlocks.

As far as multiclassing *into* Paladin, I find it both easier and harder at the same time: imo it's all about finding a true vocation in your life... Which is easy to say when you're a "no rp ties attached class" like most martials and Sorcerer, or a "naturally fitting" like some Clerics or Warlocks, but otherwise hard to realize in a credible way unless it's something the DM gently breeds upon you from several levels before.

IMO the true problem of multiclassing, Paladin case or otherwise, is that often you want a dual-class "fused" because you view a level 5-6 or maybe 8-9 character where a near even split can make perfect sense, but since you progress level by level it's extremely immersion-breaking if you alternate levels or make some switchs and come backs.
Incidentally, this is probably why some (many?) DM, when experienced players want some multiclass that can make sense as a level 3-5 character, allow party to jumpstart at that level directly.



On a more general note, it's a mistake to present it as a choice between multiclassing and lack of variety. Multiclassing is simply a poor tool of introducing variety. If at some point during the design someone was concerned the classes and levels are too restrictive, they should have been loosened, instead of using multiclassing to bypass them.

I very, very strongly disagree with this statement.
There are an impressive number of tropes or character archetypes that can be made very simply with multiclassing, which would otherwise require dozens of specific classes.
Which would bring us right back in the hell of 3e and Pathfinder.

WoTC did a great job into ensuring that, apart from a handful of very specific multiclass, one could make any kind of multiclass without being either useless or overpowered.
Thanks mainly to...
- The spell slots system that limit magic spam until high level (hence why spell points is a dangerous variant).
- But also an impressive of 1st to 5th level spells that have either an effect that stays relevant up to level 20, or scale well with slots, or both, making even pure Eldricht Knight or Arcane Trickster feel still useful when using spells at high level.
- And with the concentration limit which avoids the creepy/stupid powercheese of previous editions where by the end casters did everything by themselves, and martials were overall simple pawns to be buffed and ordered to fight.

As I said above, the only problem I see with multiclassing as is is the "mechanical, immersion-breaking" way to gain levels.
Considering how many characters can be made with just a combination of two classes, I'm missing really dearly the "gestalt progression" of 4e. Of course, such a thing was easy to do within 4e since everything was "overbalanced" if I may. In 5e, hard besides quickstarting at high level or designing a homebrew archetype for the class of the two that seems the best starting place.



I'm of the opinion that the value of a skill should scale dramatically with your attribute bonus. The problem with using a feat to determine a skill-like ability is that most players read that as saying "You need this feat to do this thing".

As a result, you NEED Observant to read someone's lips. You NEED Athlete in order to stand up after only moving 5 feet. We see feats as permission, and now that there are rules as to do this cool thing, you must follow those rules, and allowing someone to do the same thing through another way means you're punishing those who purchased that feat.

But, at the same time, we're told to keep skills open-ended and be yes-men.

Take out all of the skill-related feats. Those should be inherent to whatever a character wants to do with skills in the first place.
Put more weight on attribute bonuses.
Have all feats be strictly combat-mechanic related stuff that mostly give you new means of versatility, where spending your ASI remains a better choice for enhancing raw damage output/stats.

It solves the problem with skills, solves the problem with optimizers, those who want "simple" are incentivized to do so, and those who want more complexity have tons of options. Everyone's a winner.
I understand the intent behind the bolded part and it could make an interesting challenge of homebrewing skills variants.

I very, VERY strongly disagree with the italic part.
You don't NEED anything. Just ask your DM. Back on examples...

1. Reading lips?
A Perception check maybe, or an Investigation, or an Insight? The choice of skill and DC level would depend on many things, like whether it's a language you simply "know", one you're proficient, or your native one, as well as your way to compensate lack of specific training (when you doubt what you "read", do you try to read body language -Insight-, or deduce from context -Investigation-, unless you also focus on the few sounds that sometimes reach you -Perception-). Maybe even could it be made as what I call a "cross-skill" (stacking several attribute bonuses but only once proficiency since you're using a mix of several different abilities to try and overcome the challenge).

You don't NEED Observant to do that. EVER. You simply need a DM open-minded and self-confident enough to analyse the situation and provide you the adequate check to try and succeed.
Observant *simply warrants the fact you trained enough for that specific way to perceive talk to be as natural as hearing it*. In other words, Observant simply makes that an "auto-success" (or a non-factor of added challenge).

The nuance is substantial.

2. Getting back up with only 5 feet?

Yeah, sure, you cannot stay "I just do it". And honestly I think it's fair: after all, we are talking about people that are often loaded with equipment, in a (usually, otherwise why bother with that mechanic) hostile or otherwise dangerous environment, possibly with enemies threatening close by.
So I would never expect a Paladin or other martial clad in heavy armor just pop back on its feets like it's nothing.
Why not ask the DM though? As long as there is something that can justify it, an Athletics or Acrobatics check could warrant that. As a DM, I could possibly even allow it without eating up your aciton if the circumstances are really favorable (like you're a near-nude Monk, or you're an armored guy but there is some solid point you could hang onto to lift the whole body in one arm pull).
Again, the feat just says: "I decided this kind of situation was common enough for me that I trained hard to make sure I would be able to do it whatever happens".

Your argument is like saying "you need to pick Actor feat if you want to impersonate someone".
No, you don't. You'll just have more trouble succeeding than one that took it, and there are some situations where the fact you cannot properly imitate its way of speech will make the check either unattainable ceiling or outright impossible. Nothing less, but nothing more.

[Keravath]

I don’t really like multiclassing from a roleplaying perspective. It leads people to creat optimized “builds” that, while strong in combat, create additional work for the DM, who now has to figure out why your Bard has suddenly become a Hexblade. Often, builds are prioritized over creating a fleshed-out character: yes, your Paladin-Warlock-Sorcerer can do a whole lot of smites, but now you have to come up with a reason that you’ve now got three sources of magic, and I feel that the roleplaying aspect, in my experience, suffers for it.

I don’t mind feats though.

1) As a DM, I don't find multiclassing an issue. If you think the abilities gained from a couple levels of hexblade create additional work for the DM, you haven't tried playing with characters with level 5,6,7+ spells and the many combinations and interactions that result. That is far more work to keep track of than the abilities granted by a couple levels of hexblade on any character.

2) If your players can't come up with good backstories explaining why their character is a a paladin/hexblade/sorcerer then it isn't a failing of the system, it is a failure of the imagination of the player and/or DM. ANY combination of classes can be explained from a role playing perspective. If the player doesn't want to do that then it isn't the fault of the system. Even explaining why a character is any single class should require an explanation ... why is the character a paladin or rogue or sorcerer or fighter ...explaining why a character is a combination of these is simple.

As an example, I have a yuan-ti pureblood, 1 fighter/2 GOO warlock/X draconic sorcerer whose class choices are completely and clearly explained in the character backstory. I could not have made the character fitting the backstory without multiclassing or simply ignoring some of the experiences they had as having no effect on the character development.

"<Name omitted :)> is the name I chose when I entered human society. I was 14. I was born deep in the fastness of the Sky Lizard Mountains of Chult. My parents were Yuan-ti, the snake people, formerly sorcerer followers of the cult of the Dendar. The Yuan-Ti consider themselves better that any other race and it shows. The society is also highly stratified and as a pureblood I was considered barely above the level of a slave. My parents chose to be Yuan-ti. I didn't have that choice. When I was young, I showed an aversion to the rituals and feasting that characterized the life of the people. I somehow empathized with those that were sacrificed as part of the rituals. Some would be elevated to be purebloods but the rest were fodder and most did not want to be there. At the age of 8, my martial training began, since purebloods were rarely deemed worthy of any role better than foot soldier or spy. This allowed me to escape the settlement, joining watch details or hunting for food. These were good reasons to be out of the settlement when the rituals were conducted. However, when I was 12, I started having odd dreams. A creature was trapped and needed help. Sometimes it was a deer, other times a dinosaur, sometimes a food animal or a human, in the dreams I felt an overwhelming need to aid them. This "feeling" was very unusual. It felt like sunlight on the skin after a heavy rainfall in the jungle. It felt liberating. Over the next few days, the dreams changed. They began to be more specific and included images from within the settlement. There was a room in a secluded section of the area of the settlement used by the warlocks and the malisons who ran the colony. It was an area that all but a few were forbidden to enter though there were ways to enter. Having grown up here, I had explored extensively due to my endless curiosity. My urge to follow the dreams grew. Late one night, I escaped the creche where the young yuan-ti slept and stealthily made my way to the room in my dreams. In the middle of the room was a roiling mass of mixed dark and light surrounded by runes marked on the floor. It seemed to be a very small part of a much greater whole and it felt "sad". A voice spoke into my mind using no words. It promised to open my mind and expand my understanding and empathy, offered to guide and counsel me. All that was needed in exchange was for me to erase some of the runic markings. It was tempting, but I resisted and returned to the creche to ponder the offer. Over the next week, I returned to the room several times in the deep of night. The runic carvings changed and became more complex, the creature became more frantic and it became clear that the warlocks planned to sacrifice the entity to Dendar. On the third visit, I found within myself the resolve to prevent this sacrifice. It was wrong. I was not under the influence of the confined creature. I have always had a strong will and made my own decisions. That night, I defied my people, broke the runic circle and freed the creature. I returned to the creche without being noticed. The following morning was an uproar. A pogrom to discover the traitor who had freed the being began. They overlooked the children. The following year I disappeared into the jungle left Chult and journeyed to the Sword coast. My adventures had begun."

Started as 1 fighter due to training though ranger would have also been an option. Followed by GOO warlock for 2 levels and then into his draconic sorcerer heritage from his parents. The character is strong willed and makes their own decisions so staying a GOO warlock after fighter training probably wouldn't fit for this character. However, none of fighter or warlock or sorcerer by themselves would mechanically fit my conception of the character. I could role play that I had some fighting experience but I would have no useful weapon or armor proficiencies. I could just have chosen to be a sorcerer but that leaves out all their previous years of experience as a fighter/hunter/scout as well as the encounter with the Great Old One.

Anyway, to me this is just one example of the many characters that could not be created without allowing multiclassing.

Besides that, the character hasn't been OP in any way and has been fun to play. In combat the gloomstalker ranger with Xbow expert and sharpshooter and the fighter with sharpshooter do more damage than most of the rest of the party combined. :)

[Tanarii]

Would multiclassing be more acceptable if something in line with the original method were introduced?

Standard Humans can multiclass to any one other class, but once you do so you cannot advance in your original class any more.

Elves, dwarves, bigfoots, and half-humans can multiclass specific lists of classes, but must alternate levels to keep them equal.

Variant humans can choose a feat at first level, but cannot multiclass.

Single class characters can select one feat in lieu of an ASI while leveling up.

[Pex]

I don't see a meaningful difference to my point, but I'll admit I may be misremembering their exact wording. Either way, the designers put those rules in the game as options and didn't assume they'd be used in the game when designing everything else. They've publicly acknowledged this. The error is player side: the game should be made more challenging when including those options, not left unaltered. Of course, I'd argue the given systems for balancing the game are inadequate, but you should adjust them relative to how you think a single classed, featless party would handle them.

Though even the adjustment of difficulty will be relative to the selected options: a Berserker Barbarian/Wizard isn't coming out ahead in the same manner as a Hexblade/Paladin. Feats, likewise, are variable in power.

I'm not bothered that particular multiclass options are uber subpar while others are synergistic nirvana. If someone can make a barbarian/wizard work hooray for that person, but that lack of universal every combination being equally viable is not evidence that multiclassing is bad how dare one use it, hyperbole speaking.

I find there is legitimate concern a player doesn't Win D&D. The iconic infinite Simulacrum via Wish and other breakdowns (Coffeelock) ought to be discouraged or flat out No'd so that the game can function, but the game does not come to a halt because a character attacks with a greatsword with an 18 modifier that just happens to be CH smiting with Great Weapon Master then next turn casts Eldritch Blast adding CH modifier to damage. Nifty, yes. Powerful, yes. The game is unplayable let's try Risk, no. The DM adapting to the player's power is doing his job and shouldn't resent it. The player wants to use his stuff. That's why he has them. It's the DMs who can't or don't want to adapt who will nix the player getting that stuff. It's the DM's prerogative, but I don't praise it. I won't condemn it either, but it's obviously not my preference.

[sithlordnergal]

I’ll die on the hill that multiclassing INTO sorceror makes absolutely no thematic sense. So you’ve been a heavily armored crusading paladin, holding your oath across many levels of stressful adventures, and you just suddenyly wake up and now have innate magical powers? I dont buy it.

Eh? You're joking right? Sorcerer is probably the second easiest class to roleplay multiclassing into. The easiest class is, obviously, Warlock. Either go Celestial, which makes thematic sense, or Hexblade, either make your pact with some sort of good sentient blade or RP it as you leeching off/stealing power from some being like one Warlock I know did.

As for Sorcerer, have you done some great, note worthy deed during your travels? Something that would please your deity enough that they might reward you in some manner? Congrats, you could potentially be a Divine Soul Sorcerer, though Celestial Warlock also works.

Or maybe your party has run into some strange, aberrant magic, or maybe you've been Fireballed one too many times. Either way, Wild Magic Sorcerer is super simple to multiclass into. Heck, the class description itself makes it easy to get into. I quote, "You might have endured exposure to some form of raw magic, perhaps through a planar portal leading to Limbo, the Elemental Planes, or the mysterious Far Realm. Perhaps you were blessed by a powerful fey creature or marked by a demon."

All of those things sound like something that a properly questing Paladin might run into and/or have had happen to them during their adventuring career.

[Keravath]

Would multiclassing be more acceptable if something in line with the original method were introduced?

Standard Humans can multiclass to any one other class, but once you do so you cannot advance in your original class any more.

Elves, dwarves, bigfoots, and half-humans can multiclass specific lists of classes, but must alternate levels to keep them equal.

Variant humans can choose a feat at first level, but cannot multiclass.

Single class characters can select one feat in lieu of an ASI while leveling up.

Honestly :) .. no. Having played most of my D&D with those constraints it tends to pigeon hole characters far more than 5e does.

[Waazraath]

Would multiclassing be more acceptable if something in line with the original method were introduced?

Standard Humans can multiclass to any one other class, but once you do so you cannot advance in your original class any more.

Elves, dwarves, bigfoots, and half-humans can multiclass specific lists of classes, but must alternate levels to keep them equal.

Variant humans can choose a feat at first level, but cannot multiclass.

Single class characters can select one feat in lieu of an ASI while leveling up.

Interesting. Would cater to a lot of the objections against the current situation, with the additional advantage that it gives optimizers a lot of things to think about :)

[MaxWilson]

I’ll die on the hill that multiclassing INTO sorceror makes absolutely no thematic sense. So you’ve been a heavily armored crusading paladin, holding your oath across many levels of stressful adventures, and you just suddenyly wake up and now have innate magical powers? I dont buy it.

So you've been a heavily armored crusading paladin with divine blood, keeping true to your principles through many battles, and as you grow older and wiser you learn to channel divine to heal or aid in battle?

That could describe a 5E Paladin/Divine Soul, a 5E Paladin/Celestial Warlock, or even a pure-class 5E Paladin as well as an AD&D Paladin.

You don't any benefit from your "divine blood" until you actually put levels into Divine Soul or Warlock, but that doesn't mean you don't have that background/relationship. It doesn't give you any mechanical benefits, yet, but that shouldn't stop you from roleplaying.


Would multiclassing be more acceptable if something in line with the original method were introduced?

Standard Humans can multiclass to any one other class, but once you do so you cannot advance in your original class any more.

Elves, dwarves, bigfoots, and half-humans can multiclass specific lists of classes, but must alternate levels to keep them equal.

Variant humans can choose a feat at first level, but cannot multiclass.

Single class characters can select one feat in lieu of an ASI while leveling up.

No, that doesn't fix core issues with multiclassing. Human cleric 1/wizard X, Hexblade 1/Evoker X, Paladin 6-9/Divine Soul-or-Warlock X are still stronger than comparable single-classed characters, even with an "extra" feat, and elves/dwarves/etc. must either stay single-classed or be restricted to extremely weak multiclass combos far weaker than their AD&D equivalents.

You could fix the issue for nonhuman multiclassing by removing the level cap though. Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is terrible, much worse than 9/11 or 11/9, but Fighter 11/Wizard 11 is both pretty good and impossible under vanilla 5E rules.

[False God]

Eh? You're joking right? Sorcerer is probably the second easiest class to roleplay multiclassing into.
I agree, as IMHO the default sorcerer is basically being a mutant. Even if sorcerers powers normally manifest at puberty or younger, there's no reason they can't manifest later, especially under the various strains of battle.

I think DMs often spend too much time attempting to justify a player's multiclassing decision. Many classes fit together like they were made for it, and while I will always encourage a player to put some effort into developing their character from a role-play perspective, these aren't terribly hard answers.

Paladin/Rogue? You've decided you need some better sneaking skills.
Rogue/Paladin? You joined the Order to make up for past misdeeds.
Paladin/Barbarian? Your crusade for good has taken a tip towards the extreme.
Paladin/Warlock?(even with a potentially evil patron) You believe you can use the powers of evil to do good.

One line. That's it. That's all it takes to justify 90% of multiclass choices. Not every character decision represents a massive ideological shift. And frankly, if there's no opportunity to change your characters direction, (IE: you're Paladin from start to finish) it can make characters constricted or dull when roleplay does present or force an ideological shift but the character isn't allowed to represent it mechanically (which, D&D not being a narrative-forward game, is a big problem).

[Morty]

I very, very strongly disagree with this statement.
There are an impressive number of tropes or character archetypes that can be made very simply with multiclassing, which would otherwise require dozens of specific classes.
Which would bring us right back in the hell of 3e and Pathfinder.


Having Pathfinder's pile of specific classes isn't the only alternative to multiclassing. In fact, they're both clumsy attempts at circumventing the same core issue, namely that a character's progression is more or less locked in when they pick a class. And if your concept isn't covered by one of the classes, you're up the creek without a paddle. Of course, one might say it's not an issue at all, but an intentional part of the design... but in this case, the game should cop to it instead of trying to work around it.

[Misterwhisper]

A game with no feats or multiclassing is going to have a drastic lack of martial threat, it is feats like PAM, CBE, SM, GWM that make most of them keep up.

Because weapons in 5e are so bland only feats give a reason to pick certain ones over another.

There is already no reason to use half the weapons on the list, with no feats, cuts it down to about 5.

Also you thought the double scimitar was broken before, now imagine it when nobody could take combat feats.

Casters will actually have to play nervously for once instead of most clothie casters just taking a level of some class that gets armor and shields.

With no multiclassing someone might actually take warlock for more than 2 levels, they will probably still all be hexblades.

Monks won’t even notice, most did not multiclass or take feats anyway.

[EggKookoo]

Because weapons in 5e are so bland only feats give a reason to pick certain ones over another.

Creative use of magic items can compensate for this.

[Tanarii]

Interesting. Would cater to a lot of the objections against the current situation, with the additional advantage that it gives optimizers a lot of things to think about :)
A simpler option would be allowing Feats or Multiclassing, for any given character.

[Pex]

I generally agree with you on the bolded part but...

Why I strongly disagree with Man_Over_Game on his assertion that it improves casters (and that they usually don't multiclass), I agree with him that it hurts martials (removing multiclass and ESPECIALLY feats).

I mean, IF Dms all were keen on following guidelines, I wouldn't mind pure martials, because they would shine at least at the two last encounters of the day when casters are out of slots.

As is, honestly, I would usually not be interested in playing pure-class martials unless I have a "warranty" (as empty as that word may be for an adventurer risking life every day) that I can get to level 20.
I simply feel that barring a few select archetypes or classes (Rangers especially Beastmaster, 4E Monk, possibly Shadow Monk, most Rogues, Eldricht Knight), martials are simply too limited, at least for non-combat situations.

There are also a few features I do love too much to not try and get them most of the time...
Which could be actually a big argument in your favor: banning multiclassing and feats to force people to get out of their comfort zone. ^^ Maybe I've had a whole different view from the get go if feats and multiclassing had been simply not officially implemented (even as optional rules as many people rightly recalled).

I also agree with MOG that I feel some spell effects are rather the problem... Am I the only one thinking that 5th, *maybe* 6th level spell is already grand enough to have heaps of fun?
Most balance-pushing spells appear with 7th level. And at that time casters also have enough slots to start casting around without too much thinking, at least when there are only 2 encounters for the day (which seem to be common around).

----
I would be fine playing a game without multiclass, but not without feats. Apart from GWM and Sharpshooter, all of them are balanced, and many of them bring a welcomed versatility or non-combat enhancement to give some refresher to classes that are imo too much about combat for my own enjoyment (Fighter, Barbarian, even Monks and Paladins).

This tells me your problem is not feats or multiclassing but high level play. Your discomfort is in the power level of what characters can do not the versatility of options.

[Luccan]

I'm not bothered that particular multiclass options are uber subpar while others are synergistic nirvana. If someone can make a barbarian/wizard work hooray for that person, but that lack of universal every combination being equally viable is not evidence that multiclassing is bad how dare one use it, hyperbole speaking.

I find there is legitimate concern a player doesn't Win D&D. The iconic infinite Simulacrum via Wish and other breakdowns (Coffeelock) ought to be discouraged or flat out No'd so that the game can function, but the game does not come to a halt because a character attacks with a greatsword with an 18 modifier that just happens to be CH smiting with Great Weapon Master then next turn casts Eldritch Blast adding CH modifier to damage. Nifty, yes. Powerful, yes. The game is unplayable let's try Risk, no. The DM adapting to the player's power is doing his job and shouldn't resent it. The player wants to use his stuff. That's why he has them. It's the DMs who can't or don't want to adapt who will nix the player getting that stuff. It's the DM's prerogative, but I don't praise it. I won't condemn it either, but it's obviously not my preference.

I don't know if you're agreeing with me or if you think I'm arguing something I'm not. I agree that a DM should adapt to a player's power.

[Keravath]

I think the problem with forbidding multi-classing is that it then silos all character ideas into one of twelve categories. You can't have a character who is a paladin but with greater casting abilities than a "standard" paladin. You can't have a paladin that makes a pact with a supernatural being to be better at achieving their goals. You can't have a rogue that works as a bouncer and has learned to fight. You can't have a religious order wizard or a character that starts off as a cleric of Mystra but then decides that the only way to further their faith is to learn the magic directly.

I think it comes down to how you perceive character creation and development. In my opinion, every character is unique, sometimes this uniqueness can be simply expressed through role playing but often the uniqueness can be emphasized by the use of feats or multiclassing to create individualized characters and a much wider range than the basic class choices with nothing but stat increases allowed.

Is the game playable either way, absolutely yes. However, how much fun the campaign is depends on the DM in either case. Personally, I find the game play a bit less enjoyable when the characters aren't allowed to progress in whatever natural way grows out of their background and their in game experiences. A fighter can never learn from his buddy the rogue, can't learn to be expert in a skill or two, can't learn to sneak attack, no matter how much effort that rogue might put in to teaching him. This is why I like multiclassing since it allows for more natural character development to occur as the result of interaction between characters and NPCs. Development that is impossible without allowing multiclassing or feats. Take the fighter with a wizard friend who tries to teach him a bit of spell casting, perhaps he doesn't really get the details of spell casting but the idea of rituals click ... he could take the ritual casting feat to reflect the character interaction.

[MrStabby]

I think the problem with forbidding multi-classing is that it then silos all character ideas into one of twelve categories. You can't have a character who is a paladin but with greater casting abilities than a "standard" paladin. You can't have a paladin that makes a pact with a supernatural being to be better at achieving their goals. You can't have a rogue that works as a bouncer and has learned to fight. You can't have a religious order wizard or a character that starts off as a cleric of Mystra but then decides that the only way to further their faith is to learn the magic directly.

I think it comes down to how you perceive character creation and development. In my opinion, every character is unique, sometimes this uniqueness can be simply expressed through role playing but often the uniqueness can be emphasized by the use of feats or multiclassing to create individualized characters and a much wider range than the basic class choices with nothing but stat increases allowed.

Is the game playable either way, absolutely yes. However, how much fun the campaign is depends on the DM in either case. Personally, I find the game play a bit less enjoyable when the characters aren't allowed to progress in whatever natural way grows out of their background and their in game experiences. A fighter can never learn from his buddy the rogue, can't learn to be expert in a skill or two, can't learn to sneak attack, no matter how much effort that rogue might put in to teaching him. This is why I like multiclassing since it allows for more natural character development to occur as the result of interaction between characters and NPCs. Development that is impossible without allowing multiclassing or feats. Take the fighter with a wizard friend who tries to teach him a bit of spell casting, perhaps he doesn't really get the details of spell casting but the idea of rituals click ... he could take the ritual casting feat to reflect the character interaction.


I agree with some of this sentiment but less with other bits.

I think that you are right that multiclassing can act as one way in which a character interacts with the world - and that is a good thing.

I am not a fan of thinking of classes as such a concrete part of a game world - they are just a regulatory framework to provide structure and balance. If I play a paladin/warlock I am likely to just be a paladin but whose divine power manifests itself in a mix of short and long rest magic. If I am a sorcerer who multiclasses monk then I am not suddenly going to a monastery, it is likely that my martial arts powers are an expression of my bloodline.

[Knaight]

I agree, as IMHO the default sorcerer is basically being a mutant. Even if sorcerers powers normally manifest at puberty or younger, there's no reason they can't manifest later, especially under the various strains of battle.

Sometimes you just get bitten by a radioactive magical spider in a biochemisty alchemy lab.

[EggKookoo]

I am not a fan of thinking of classes as such a concrete part of a game world - they are just a regulatory framework to provide structure and balance. If I play a paladin/warlock I am likely to just be a paladin but whose divine power manifests itself in a mix of short and long rest magic. If I am a sorcerer who multiclasses monk then I am not suddenly going to a monastery, it is likely that my martial arts powers are an expression of my bloodline.

To further this, a monk can be someone who still sees the world through what might be considered a typical paladin worldview. Their monk abilities are just how the divine works through them.

https://66.media.tumblr.com/43a2f3b393226e0f6e3a7ca61dcc4bc7/tumblr_on542koPuc1uijsn1o1_500.gifv

[False God]

Sometimes you just get bitten by a radioactive magical spider in a biochemisty alchemy lab.

And thus, every Drow sorceress was born.

[pming]

Hiya!


Yeah, that's right, I said it. :smalltongue:

My argument is that the game was clearly balanced around not having those additional options.((SNIP))

Welcome to the club, Amechra! *holds out an ice cold mug o' ale*

We tried Feats/MC when we first played. Used them for about a year. None of us liked them; one person was 'kinda-sorta' ambivalent. So we stopped using them. A year or so later we decided to try again...that did NOT last long! After each PC got to level 4 (different sessions; XP is gained a bit differently in my game)...I would say "Let me guess...you took Feat XYZ?"...and I was right. Every. Single. Time. Why? Because Feats do NOT make characters "more varied and unique"...they do the exact opposite. For example, show me a mid-level Fighter with an 18+ Strength that uses a 2-handed weapon that DOESN'T take GWM. Go on. Show me an 'archer' Fighter with a high Dex that DOESN'T take SS. I'll wait. ... ... See? Not different. The same. Exact. Feats. Every. Single. Time. 🤬

Besides that, the monsters and NPC's don't have Feats or MC. So PC's that do use them and "use a PC 'build'"...will quickly outpace/outperform against the baddies. So the DM has to go in an 'adjust' the monsters. I absolutely HATE that style of DM'ing (for me; ymmv). At some point it basically becomes "Well, I want the PC's to loose this battle, so I'll just do X, Y and Z", or "Well, I want it to be an average fight, so I'll only use X", or "Well, this is supposed to be a little warm up, so I'll just leave it as is and the PC's will win easily". I mean, I, as DM, might just as well not even have monster stats if all I'm going to do is pre-determine the outcome of any battle by custom-making "encounters" where I decide how the PC's fare. What's the point? No excitement, no surprises, nothing for me, the DM, to be wowed at...after all, I already 'built' the encounters to fit the outcome I *want*. Yuck-o! 🤢

Phew! Sorry for the little mini-rant there. But if there is ONE thing about 5e that I absolutely hate...is that they even included Feats and Multiclassing the way they did. Nice concept, could have been amazing...but, yet again, just like 3e, they "did it wrong".

So...no Feats, no MC in my campaigns. Also, PHB, MM, DMG. Only the core. Other things may be added on a case by case basis if it fits and everyone in the group agrees it might add to the game....and I reserve the right to retroactively nix it if it proves to be..."bad" for the campaign.

[Boci]

Hiya!



Welcome to the club, Amechra! *holds out an ice cold mug o' ale*

We tried Feats/MC when we first played. Used them for about a year. None of us liked them; one person was 'kinda-sorta' ambivalent. So we stopped using them. A year or so later we decided to try again...that did NOT last long! After each PC got to level 4 (different sessions; XP is gained a bit differently in my game)...I would say "Let me guess...you took Feat XYZ?"...and I was right. Every. Single. Time. Why? Because Feats do NOT make characters "more varied and unique"...they do the exact opposite. For example, show me a mid-level Fighter with an 18+ Strength that uses a 2-handed weapon that DOESN'T take GWM. Go on. Show me an 'archer' Fighter with a high Dex that DOESN'T take SS. I'll wait. ... ... See? Not different. The same. Exact. Feats. Every. Single. Time. 🤬

But without feats, every 12th level fighter who uses a 2 handed weapon is just going to have 20 strength...and also be exactly the same. At least GWM gave some tactical consideration in that you might not want to use it against high AC enemies without advantage. Not much, but more than the featless fighter.

[47Ace]

I absolutely HATE that style of DM'ing (for me; ymmv). At some point it basically becomes "Well, I want the PC's to loose this battle, so I'll just do X, Y and Z", or "Well, I want it to be an average fight, so I'll only use X", or "Well, this is supposed to be a little warm up, so I'll just leave it as is and the PC's will win easily". I mean, I, as DM, might just as well not even have monster stats if all I'm going to do is pre-determine the outcome of any battle by custom-making "encounters" where I decide how the PC's fare. What's the point? No excitement, no surprises, nothing for me, the DM, to be wowed at...after all, I already 'built' the encounters to fit the outcome I *want*. Yuck-o! 🤢


I am confused How to feats change that? That is mostly what you are doing when you build an encounter anyways. Do you feel that without feats you can just randomly pull monsters from the MM and with feats you can't? I can't picture what are normally doing as a DM when you building an encounter if it is not to a certain difficulty taking into account player level and other abilities.

[MrStabby]

Hiya!



Welcome to the club, Amechra! *holds out an ice cold mug o' ale*

We tried Feats/MC when we first played. Used them for about a year. None of us liked them; one person was 'kinda-sorta' ambivalent. So we stopped using them. A year or so later we decided to try again...that did NOT last long! After each PC got to level 4 (different sessions; XP is gained a bit differently in my game)...I would say "Let me guess...you took Feat XYZ?"...and I was right. Every. Single. Time. Why? Because Feats do NOT make characters "more varied and unique"...they do the exact opposite. For example, show me a mid-level Fighter with an 18+ Strength that uses a 2-handed weapon that DOESN'T take GWM. Go on. Show me an 'archer' Fighter with a high Dex that DOESN'T take SS. I'll wait. ... ... See? Not different. The same. Exact. Feats. Every. Single. Time. 🤬




Although your criticisms here seem to be more around specific feats rather than the way feats work in general. There are plenty of feats of about the right power level, it is just the careless inclusion of others into the game that is an issue. I do think that the way that feats works is good - sacrificing a stat bump is a meaningful cost and means that some of these things are not that straightforward; the ones that are are more about mistakes made in feat creation than in the system/rules as a whole.

[KorvinStarmast]

I disagree. {snip}

Who are you helping, and what needs the help? That's the bottom line.
Keep feats. Feats were not a mistake.
I can see curtailing multiclassing; plenty of classes are front loaded.

I'd also like to see a few rethinks of high level class features.
Some of the capstones are not as good as others.

[djreynolds]

I believe the consensus is feats are good, multiclassing not as good.

But the combinations at every table are almost limitless and variety is the spice of life.

[KorvinStarmast]

You seem to be arguing against several points no one has actually made. Has anyone claimed not multiclassing/feats makes you a superior player?

On a more general note, it's a mistake to present it as a choice between multiclassing and lack of variety. Multiclassing is simply a poor tool of introducing variety. If at some point during the design someone was concerned the classes and levels are too restrictive, they should have been loosened, instead of using multiclassing to bypass them.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason multiclassing is in 5E is because people expect it to be, not because of any practical concern.Multi-classing was in the original game if you played an elf. 1974. You were a magic user and a fighting man if you chose to be, or you could be straight up Fighting man (capped at 4) and straight up Magic User (capped at 8). With Greyhawk and thieves, half elves and a number of others could multi class. Oddly, (in retrospect) humans could not. The "player with two classes" deal arrived in AD&D 1e.

[Dork_Forge]

I would like a kind of minor feat/major feat system. With how limited ASIs are, players aren't really likely to take some of the more interesting role play options available (for example Keen Mind) when there's a stat bump or more combat relevant feat at stake. So perhaps one or two 'minor feats' (just strip the half ASI out of some of the feats) to be given at certain character levels in tiers one and two?

[KorvinStarmast]

Take out all of the skill-related feats. Those should be inherent to whatever a character wants to do with skills in the first place. Alert needs to stay just as it is. It's only a "skill check" because Initiative is technically a Dexterity based skill check.

[Man_Over_Game]

I also agree with MOG that I feel some spell effects are rather the problem... Am I the only one thinking that 5th, *maybe* 6th level spell is already grand enough to have heaps of fun?
Most balance-pushing spells appear with 7th level. And at that time casters also have enough slots to start casting around without too much thinking, at least when there are only 2 encounters for the day (which seem to be common around).



I'd like to see how the game would be different with slower spell progression. Where full casters cap out at level 6 spells, getting new spell levels every 1/3 levels, and they get more spell slots than normal (on those 2/3 levels) to compensate for their loss of power.

The idea is to make Martials good at killing stuff, with mages good at everything else. Right now, I'd say both are equally fine in combat, with mages being exceptional outliers in non-combat elements.

Not sure how it'd impact skill monkeys, but I'll see how it'd look first before start making too many assumptions.



I'll probably flesh something out tomorrow, put something on the Homebrew section. I can send you a link then if it sounds like your kinda thing.


Alert needs to stay just as it is. It's only a "skill check" because Initiative is technically a Dexterity based skill check.

I'd agree, but I'd much rather have designated skills provide combat advantages to do the same.

I started doing something like that with Passive skills, where you choose one that you're actively utilizing at all times.

For Example: Someone using Perception as their selected Passive gets the visibility benefits of Alert, but Sleight of Hand lets you roll a Sleight of Hand check at the start of combat to use if the result is higher than your Initiative roll.

Arcana let's you identify spells without spending a Reaction, Athletics gives you the benefits of Athlete, and so on.

[Segev]

For example, show me a mid-level Fighter with an 18+ Strength that uses a 2-handed weapon that DOESN'T take GWM. Go on. Show me an 'archer' Fighter with a high Dex that DOESN'T take SS. I'll wait. ... ... See? Not different. The same. Exact. Feats. Every. Single. Time. 🤬

The Barbarian in my game has Sentinel, and uses whatever the d12 axe is. (I think it's the greataxe.) She does not have GWM.

[False God]

I'd like to see how the game would be different with slower spell progression. Where full casters cap out at level 6 spells, getting new spell levels every 1/3 levels, and they get more spell slots than normal (on those 2/3 levels) to compensate for their loss of power.

The idea is to make Martials good at killing stuff, with mages good at everything else. Right now, I'd say both are equally fine in combat, with mages being exceptional outliers in non-combat elements.

Not sure how it'd impact skill monkeys, but I'll see how it'd look first before start making too many assumptions.



I'll probably flesh something out tomorrow, put something on the Homebrew section. I can send you a link then if it sounds like your kinda thing.

Point of personal preference, I really enjoy being able to be a blaster caster who when asked for buffs, battlefield control or similar just shrugs and lights someone on fire.

The problem with mages being good at "everything else" is that "everything else" is like, 3/4ths of the game. Stealing? Mages can be invisible. Staying quiet? Mages can cast silence. Turning into animals? Mages can polymorph, druids can wild shape (both of which are often just as good in combat as fighters).

Casters really need to be less kitchen sink, even if that sink lacks blasting. I'd love to see specialist wizards be more along the lines of "you pick one school, and can't cast spells from any others". So the design choices you make in creating a caster have more impact on party dynamics, instead of just assuming you have a walking copy of the PHB in your group. Divide clerics distinctly between buffers/debuffers, healers and blasters. Divide druids similarly with an added "shapeshifter" category.

Martials need more versatility, and casters need less. 5E has made some progress in that direction, but not nearly enough IMO.

[Man_Over_Game]

The problem with mages being good at "everything else" is that "everything else" is like, 3/4ths of the game. Stealing? Mages can be invisible. Staying quiet? Mages can cast silence. Turning into animals? Mages can polymorph, druids can wild shape (both of which are often just as good in combat as fighters).

I think that it'd still be true with lowering the overall spell levels. Wizard's can use Invisibility, because they can afford to. It's a level 2 spell, which is expensive at level 4, but very affordable by level 7.

If Invisibility cost you one of your best spell slots at, say, level 5, you'd only see wizards who wanted to specialize into that playstyle that would use it. By the time Invisibility would be affordable to be used often, they'd be level 10, when everyone should expect that sort of thing.

Personally, I think it fits better for my worlds. I have a hard time trying to make a world that uses so much magic that the current spell progression seems to imply.

[Zetakya]

I have a hard time trying to make a world that uses so much magic that the current spell progression seems to imply.

High Level Casters are rare. Or should be.

In fact High Level Characters of any class are rare.

[False God]

I think that it'd still be true with lowering the overall spell levels. Wizard's can use Invisibility, because they can afford to. It's a level 2 spell, which is expensive at level 4, but very affordable by level 7.

If Invisibility cost you one of your best spell slots at, say, level 5, you'd only see wizards who wanted to specialize into that playstyle that would use it. By the time Invisibility would be affordable to be used often, they'd be level 10, when everyone should expect that sort of thing.
I think you could produce the same result with forcing more specialization on wizards and leaving the spell levels as is. Also shortening duration on spells dramatically, and increasing failure chances. The number of checks a rogue has to make to stay hidden vs "just use magic" is rather ridiculous.


Personally, I think it fits better for my worlds. I have a hard time trying to make a world that uses so much magic that the current spell progression seems to imply.
I don't think D&D does a real good job of representing magic to begin with, and that's ultimately the root of many problems in the system. While it can be annoying to lose a good spell, IMO magic needs to be far more unreliable. Hitting things with a stick? That's reliable. That's why the overwhelming majority of people learn how to hit things with a stick. But hitting things with fire? That should have a fairly strong chance to do nothing or light your hands on fire instead of the other guy.

You should always feel better counting on the rouge to sneak through a trap-laden hallway than using magic on it. Maybe the magic will safely disarm the traps, maybe it will turn them all into little animated trap-gremlins. Maybe it'll do nothing! Magic presents bigger rewards, but with very little cost in exchange except "being squishier" which ya know, you really don't turn out to be very squishy after a couple levels.

Though I don't think 5E the "simple edition" is the place for any of that kind of stuff.

[Luccan]

I think you could produce the same result with forcing more specialization on wizards and leaving the spell levels as is. Also shortening duration on spells dramatically, and increasing failure chances. The number of checks a rogue has to make to stay hidden vs "just use magic" is rather ridiculous.


I don't think D&D does a real good job of representing magic to begin with, and that's ultimately the root of many problems in the system. While it can be annoying to lose a good spell, IMO magic needs to be far more unreliable. Hitting things with a stick? That's reliable. That's why the overwhelming majority of people learn how to hit things with a stick. But hitting things with fire? That should have a fairly strong chance to do nothing or light your hands on fire instead of the other guy.

You should always feel better counting on the rouge to sneak through a trap-laden hallway than using magic on it. Maybe the magic will safely disarm the traps, maybe it will turn them all into little animated trap-gremlins. Maybe it'll do nothing! Magic presents bigger rewards, but with very little cost in exchange except "being squishier" which ya know, you really don't turn out to be very squishy after a couple levels.

Though I don't think 5E the "simple edition" is the place for any of that kind of stuff.

Giving abilities an inherent chance of failure is a good way to ensure they get used less. Giving abilities an inherent chance to screw over the person using them or their allies is a fantastic way to make players hate those abilities. So many people seem to think players would be happier if they couldn't do what their class is intended to do reliably and I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. Many people didn't like Thieves in older editions, not just because they sucked at everything outside their niche, but because they weren't very reliable at what they were intended to do either. If they'd also had a chance to cut off a finger whenever they failed to open a lock, they would not have somehow been improved in the eyes of most players.

[MrStabby]

Point of personal preference, I really enjoy being able to be a blaster caster who when asked for buffs, battlefield control or similar just shrugs and lights someone on fire.

The problem with mages being good at "everything else" is that "everything else" is like, 3/4ths of the game. Stealing? Mages can be invisible. Staying quiet? Mages can cast silence. Turning into animals? Mages can polymorph, druids can wild shape (both of which are often just as good in combat as fighters).

Casters really need to be less kitchen sink, even if that sink lacks blasting. I'd love to see specialist wizards be more along the lines of "you pick one school, and can't cast spells from any others". So the design choices you make in creating a caster have more impact on party dynamics, instead of just assuming you have a walking copy of the PHB in your group. Divide clerics distinctly between buffers/debuffers, healers and blasters. Divide druids similarly with an added "shapeshifter" category.

Martials need more versatility, and casters need less. 5E has made some progress in that direction, but not nearly enough IMO.

I do think it should be a lot more focused, and indeed closer to what you describe than it is now, but I think a single school is taking it to far - at least without a lot of new spells being added. I would just settle for out of school spells taking a slot one level higher. Would need some compensation though.


I think that it'd still be true with lowering the overall spell levels. Wizard's can use Invisibility, because they can afford to. It's a level 2 spell, which is expensive at level 4, but very affordable by level 7.

If Invisibility cost you one of your best spell slots at, say, level 5, you'd only see wizards who wanted to specialize into that playstyle that would use it. By the time Invisibility would be affordable to be used often, they'd be level 10, when everyone should expect that sort of thing.

Personally, I think it fits better for my worlds. I have a hard time trying to make a world that uses so much magic that the current spell progression seems to imply.

I just don't think this is right. Is not being seen important for this task? Is this task important to succeed in? If yes to these then it is worth one of your highest level slots to succeed. If not then you can leave it to those using skills. So spells are the answer when it is important and actually has a serious effect on the game, and the caster of invisibility deigns to let others do their thing when the consequences are trivial. The issue isn't how often a caster can do this, but that they can do it when it is really important and another character should contribute to that part of the plot.

[djreynolds]

5E, IMO, humbly, the classes and archetypes are not equal.

You are choosing to role-play a character.

Feats and multiclassing allow for growth, many players take feats so as to be included in the exploration and social aspect.

And yes, a fighter should take GWM, SS, PAM, or sentinel or even shield master... but some grab dual wielder.... IMO this shows growth. Those extra ASI at 6th and 14th really allow a fighter to diversify or specialize in their fighting style.

But a fighter should take something like ritual caster or MI or even the skilled feat.

A +2 into charisma is not as strong for a fighter as grabbing the skilled feat and getting in return persuasion, deception, and even insight if they already have intimidation.

Its a great game when you take a step back and watch players as they level up and really try to be more helpful to the party's success.

Feats and multiclassing allows this, without it.... the fighter becomes a meat shield with max strength and con and a good wisdom score.

[False God]

Giving abilities an inherent chance of failure is a good way to ensure they get used less. Giving abilities an inherent chance to screw over the person using them or their allies is a fantastic way to make players hate those abilities. So many people seem to think players would be happier if they couldn't do what their class is intended to do reliably and I don't understand how they come to that conclusion. Many people didn't like Thieves in older editions, not just because they sucked at everything outside their niche, but because they weren't very reliable at what they were intended to do either. If they'd also had a chance to cut off a finger whenever they failed to open a lock, they would not have somehow been improved in the eyes of most players.

I get that, I do. I just think "magic" in D&D is far to clinical and scientific. If you stripped away the names and the fluff and replaced it with sci-fi names and sci-fi fluff I'd have absolutely no problem with it. Because the point of science is that it's reliable, testable and repeatable. To me what makes magic "magic" is a certain unreliability that can cause both unexpected failure and unprecedented success, but cannot be reliably repeated (except for simple things like cantrips). The words get read a little differently, the gold you used on the scroll was less pure.

I like the wild magic system, but I just don't feel any of the effects have any real consequence.

I'm sure there could be some kind of stat or skill that could be invested in to make casters less SAD and reduce their magical failure chances, but I'd also argue it should lower their chances for wild success. They're trading being able to do incredible things sometimes for being able to do average things reliably. (I quite liked the magic system from Deadlands)

Again 5E, and I don't think even D&D is really the place for this.

[False God]

I do think it should be a lot more focused, and indeed closer to what you describe than it is now, but I think a single school is taking it to far - at least without a lot of new spells being added. I would just settle for out of school spells taking a slot one level higher. Would need some compensation though.

I'm very much in favor of adding new spells, but also providing ways to vary the effects of different spells. IE: "burning hands" could require a ruby to cast(not consumed on casting), but if you use a sapphire it deals cold damage, or an emerald and it deals acid damage, or a diamond and it does electrical damage. Any new spells should clearly be part of a "niche".

I don't think a single increased spell level is enough to suitably encourage people to stick within their nice. As the second part of your post responds to MOG, if its important, the caster will do it anyway. Martials don't even have that option. If they don't have the ability, they don't have the ability. The idea is to prevent wizards/clerics/druids (any caster with access to all spells on demand, as opposed to the sorcerer who has fixed spells) from being walking utility belts.

You can add a lot of versatility to casters within their niche simply by providing them ways to spice up the limited things they can do. Much like how a martial can pick up a different weapon to still do the same thing (hit stuff with a stick) but with a big stick, or a little stick, or a high-crit stick, or a reach stick.

[Yakmala]

Imagine a new feat called Combat Agility: "Your years of combat training have honed your agility and reaction time to a razor's edge. You gain the following benefits"


+1 to AC when not wearing heavy armor.
+1 to attack and damage rolls when using ranged or precision weapons.
+1 to Dexterity based saving throws, ability checks and skill checks.
+1 to Initiative checks.



That's a pretty good feat!

Of course, as we all know, that's also the benefits of using your ASI to gain +2 Dexterity.

So, what I'm saying is, I disagree on your stance on feats. I think they are balanced just fine. Sure, some are better than others. Many are situation specific. Some rely on how your DM runs their game.

As for Muti-Classing, I think the issues have more to do with how front loaded certain classes are. There's a reason you see so many 1 level dips into Cleric or Hexblade. The benefits of that single level are too good to pass up in the minds of many players, especially if you know your campaign is unlikely to get to level 20.

[False God]

As for Muti-Classing, I think the issues have more to do with how front loaded certain classes are. There's a reason you see so many 1 level dips into Cleric or Hexblade. The benefits of that single level are too good to pass up in the minds of many players, especially if you know your campaign is unlikely to get to level 20.

Which is pretty much why they're front-loaded to begin with. From the last polls I looked at, few campaigns make it past level 10, and most of the official campaigns "cap" around level 15. The designers want you to feel like your class right off the bat. No point in saving the best for later when the statistics show few people ever get to "later".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Imagine a new feat called Combat Agility: "Your years of combat training have honed your agility and reaction time to a razor's edge. You gain the following benefits"


+1 to AC when not wearing heavy armor.
+1 to attack and damage rolls when using ranged or precision weapons.
+1 to Dexterity based saving throws, ability checks and skill checks.
+1 to Initiative checks.



That's a pretty good feat!

Of course, as we all know, that's also the benefits of using your ASI to gain +2 Dexterity.

So, what I'm saying is, I disagree on your stance on feats. I think they are balanced just fine. Sure, some are better than others. Many are situation specific. Some rely on how your DM runs their game.

As for Muti-Classing, I think the issues have more to do with how front loaded certain classes are. There's a reason you see so many 1 level dips into Cleric or Hexblade. The benefits of that single level are too good to pass up in the minds of many players, especially if you know your campaign is unlikely to get to level 20.

That's not a good feat, that's an absolutely boring feat and I would never touch it.

Partially because it's just a +2 Dex, but because it doesn't expand what my character can already do.

Flat bonuses are boring and there's multiple reasons a majority of them got left behind in 4e.

[Sigreid]

I do think it should be a lot more focused, and indeed closer to what you describe than it is now, but I think a single school is taking it to far - at least without a lot of new spells being added. I would just settle for out of school spells taking a slot one level higher. Would need some compensation though.



I just don't think this is right. Is not being seen important for this task? Is this task important to succeed in? If yes to these then it is worth one of your highest level slots to succeed. If not then you can leave it to those using skills. So spells are the answer when it is important and actually has a serious effect on the game, and the caster of invisibility deigns to let others do their thing when the consequences are trivial. The issue isn't how often a caster can do this, but that they can do it when it is really important and another character should contribute to that part of the plot.

Sounds like you'd prefer the old 1e method where when you encountered a spell you had a percent chance that you could understand it based on your intelligence. And you only had a certain number of spells per level, again based on your intelligence that you were capable of understanding. Each spell you learned and understood basically meant that there was another spell you could never learn. At least until you found a way to get godlike intelligence, which was pretty much up to the DM.

[Pex]

I think you could produce the same result with forcing more specialization on wizards and leaving the spell levels as is. Also shortening duration on spells dramatically, and increasing failure chances. The number of checks a rogue has to make to stay hidden vs "just use magic" is rather ridiculous.


I don't think D&D does a real good job of representing magic to begin with, and that's ultimately the root of many problems in the system. While it can be annoying to lose a good spell, IMO magic needs to be far more unreliable. Hitting things with a stick? That's reliable. That's why the overwhelming majority of people learn how to hit things with a stick. But hitting things with fire? That should have a fairly strong chance to do nothing or light your hands on fire instead of the other guy.

You should always feel better counting on the rouge to sneak through a trap-laden hallway than using magic on it. Maybe the magic will safely disarm the traps, maybe it will turn them all into little animated trap-gremlins. Maybe it'll do nothing! Magic presents bigger rewards, but with very little cost in exchange except "being squishier" which ya know, you really don't turn out to be very squishy after a couple levels.

Though I don't think 5E the "simple edition" is the place for any of that kind of stuff.

Magic is already unreliable. You can miss with your attack roll or the monster makes his saving throw. At this point, though, your problem is not multiclassing or feats but the power level of PCs. It's fine to have your personal taste of the matter. To be blunt but no insult intended, when I said some DMs can't or won't adapt to the change of power level you would be among the latter. I agree with you 5E is not the place for it, but that doesn't mean 5E is in the wrong about it.

There are other game systems that suit your needs. Immediately I can think GURPS. You set how many build points players have to create characters. You don't increase in power exponentially. In fact it's very slow. You have to roll to cast any spell, can fail to cast it, even botch it if you're really unlucky to the point of self-harm like summon a Demon who attempts to kill you.

[EggKookoo]

High Level Casters are rare. Or should be.

Strictly speaking, high-level anythings exist only if they do in the party. Everything the party runs into are high-CR, not high-level. Which is relevant in a discussion about multiclassing. As was pointed out upthread, NPCs don't multiclass or take feats.

But semantics aside, high-power should be very rare, else it's not really high power. It's just... normal.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Strictly speaking, high-level anythings exist only if they do in the party. Everything the party runs into are high-CR, not high-level. Which is relevant in a discussion about multiclassing. As was pointed out upthread, NPCs don't multiclass or take feats.

But semantics aside, high-power should be very rare, else it's not really high power. It's just... normal.

High power doesn't need to be rare at all, that's lazy right there.

Also, logical fallacy, you're saying when X = X then X =/= X.

High powered is just high powered, doesn't matter if one or a million characters within a setting has this power... Because it's relative to our real world base abilities.

[EggKookoo]

High power doesn't need to be rare at all, that's lazy right there.

Also, logical fallacy, you're saying when X = X then X =/= X.

High powered is just high powered, doesn't matter if one or a million characters within a setting has this power... Because it's relative to our real world base abilities.

Ok, I guess we're getting into semantics, but "high" is a relative term. If everyone's level 20, it's not level 20. It's level 1. I understand the game has absolute levels and you could say a lot of people know 9th level spells and therefore 9th level spells aren't "rare" in the context of the people in that world. But unless that's a recent development, they wouldn't be considered high-level spells. They'd just be spells.

If high power isn't rare, then (most) everyone has it, so how do you define it as "high?" I mean, it took an evolutionary jump for creatures on earth to be able to breathe oxygen. Doing so gave those creatures a significant energy advantage over previous generations. It represented high power using metabolism as a metric. But we all do it now, so it's not really a high power feature any more.

Olympic sprinters are fast ("high" speed). But if someone flipped a switch and we could all run like that, we wouldn't consider that to be especially fast any more. It would just be the speed normal people can run.

In a game world where 9th level spells were commonplace, the baseline standard for power and quality of life would move up. "High" would no longer mean "can use 9th level magic" but something beyond even that. "Low" would mean "can use no more than 9th level."

[Boci]

Ok, I guess we're getting into semantics, but "high" is a relative term. If everyone's level 20, it's not level 20. It's level 1.

Yes, but that's not what people mean when they say highpower level. High power level doesn't commoners tilling the field are level 20. It means the king's royal mage is level 16-20 or something like that. In a low powered setting by contrast, the king;s royal mage could be level 8 or so.

[EggKookoo]

Yes, but that's not what people mean when they say highpower level. High power level doesn't commoners tilling the field are level 20. It means the king's royal mage is level 16-20 or something like that. In a low powered setting by contrast, the king;s royal mage could be level 8 or so.

Yes. but that's basically in support of what I'm saying. In that low-powered setting, you wouldn't find a lot of 9th level royal mages. A 9th level royal mage would be rare. They would also be considered pretty darn powerful. I mean it's not like people in a low-power setting know they're in a low-power setting. It's just how the world works for them. That 9th level mage would be pulling off some impressive stuff. Imagine what a 13th level mage could do! 16th level mages are probably mythical. People might not even know 9th level spells even exist (and they might actually not exist).

Compare to your high-powered example, where royal mages average 18th level. In that world, you probably couldn't even get a job as a royal mage at 9th level. Why? Not powerful enough, for sure, but there are also probably a lot of 9th level mages running around, compared to 18th. The nature of that world -- the availability of personal magic power -- is high enough that it takes less effort relatively speaking to get to 9th than it would in a low power setting. Why, specifically? Who knows? Something particular to those settings. It depends on how you model magic in them.

What I'm saying is, "high" and "low" are relative terms. Yes, in D&D, they're baked into an absolute scale of character levels, spell levels, and CR. But that's just to make the game manageable as a game and so we don't have people trying to make 100th level characters flinging around 32nd level spells.

[Boci]

Yes. but that's basically in support of what I'm saying.

How? High powered settings and low powered settings are different. A setting where a king/ruler or anyone with enough resources can reliable recruit the services of a 14+ level character, and a setting wher ethey're lucky to get someone of 9th level are two very different settings in feel. How does that support your point that high power makes high power normal? It doesn't. Level 14+ are still the exception not the norm, even in a high powered setting, they're just not that rare.

[Waazraath]

The problem with mages being good at "everything else" is that "everything else" is like, 3/4ths of the game. Stealing? Mages can be invisible. Staying quiet? Mages can cast silence. Turning into animals? Mages can polymorph, druids can wild shape (both of which are often just as good in combat as fighters).

Bolded for emphasis. Sorry, but come on... these kind of statements are generalistic, false or non-RAW (or several at the same time), and thus provide a totally wrong picture of class balance. If you actually follow the rules:

- invisibility doesn't mean your character is undetectable. It when walking, sneaking, pickpocketing, the best it should do would be disadvantage on those trying to detect him.
- if by "staying quiet" you mean loudly pronounce some vocal components, after which a 20ft radious area turns dead quiet instantly, then yeah. Very unconspicious...
- polymorph gives you the mental stats of an animal, something people tend to forget. Can be unconvenient, both when scouting and in combat.
- "both as good in combat as fighters" is bollocks; moon druids at level 2/3, yeah, go through these boards to find how many people complain about the rapid power drop after that. The same goes for polymorph, nice when you get it with a few specific forms (giant ape wasn't it?) but with the added disadvantage that its concentration and you're walking into melee. Low AC, a few hits, one unlucky roll and *poof* spell is gone.

So yeah, if you ignore the rules, "mages are good at everything". But that's not a problem with mages...


I get that, I do. I just think "magic" in D&D is far to clinical and scientific. If you stripped away the names and the fluff and replaced it with sci-fi names and sci-fi fluff I'd have absolutely no problem with it. Because the point of science is that it's reliable, testable and repeatable. To me what makes magic "magic" is a certain unreliability that can cause both unexpected failure and unprecedented success, but cannot be reliably repeated (except for simple things like cantrips). The words get read a little differently, the gold you used on the scroll was less pure.

I like the wild magic system, but I just don't feel any of the effects have any real consequence.
.

The level 3 party that just got TPK'd by a random fireball begs to differ =P


To be honest, I didn't mind the uncertainty in older editions, where a miscast teleport could have serious consequences (like: ending up halfway buried in the rock), and the like. Something like they did in 5e with wish, if you get greedy, 1/3 chance to have a real problem. Then again, just tuning the strongest spells a bit down might be better for class balance, and the game in general.

[EggKookoo]

How? High powered settings and low powered settings are different. A setting where a king/ruler or anyone with enough resources can reliable recruit the services of a 14+ level character, and a setting wher ethey're lucky to get someone of 9th level are two very different settings in feel. How does that support your point that high power makes high power normal? It doesn't. Level 14+ are still the exception not the norm, even in a high powered setting, they're just not that rare.

I never said a high power setting makes high power normal. I'm not even sure I can parse that. I said high power is rare, more or less inherently. If high power is common, it wouldn't really be considered "high" any more. Power exceeding what we had been tagging as high would become the new "high."

If I'm the only person who can lift 1,000lbs, I'm "very strong." If I can lift 1,000lbs, but so can the average person, then I'm no longer "very strong." I'm "normal." Concepts like "very strong" and "normal" depend on the rarity of people who can achieve a thing, not the absolute intensity of the thing itself (at least not in a vacuum).

Again, we only call an Olympic sprinter fast because he's faster than almost everyone else on the planet. Not because he's fast in some absolute sense. In fact, Olympic sprinting speeds have increased so much since the games began that it's expected that many non-Olympic pro sprinters nowadays would beat the first Olympic sprinters. What was "fast" has slid down closer to "normal" over time as it's become less rare.

[Tanarii]

The Barbarian in my game has Sentinel, and uses whatever the d12 axe is. (I think it's the greataxe.) She does not have GWM.
Is the barbarian's player aware they've made a massively suboptimal choice?

I mean, some people just don't care that their choice is incredibly suboptimal. They'll do it anyway. More power to them. Other people very much care, they can't not do it.

It's roughly equivalent to starting with a 10 in your Strength score. Not many people are going to go that route.

[Morty]

Multi-classing was in the original game if you played an elf. 1974. You were a magic user and a fighting man if you chose to be, or you could be straight up Fighting man (capped at 4) and straight up Magic User (capped at 8). With Greyhawk and thieves, half elves and a number of others could multi class. Oddly, (in retrospect) humans could not. The "player with two classes" deal arrived in AD&D 1e.

It has been around a while, yes, and has been a clanky Rube Goldberg device of a mechanic all this time. It doesn't change my assessment.

[False God]

Magic is already unreliable. You can miss with your attack roll or the monster makes his saving throw. At this point, though, your problem is not multiclassing or feats but the power level of PCs. It's fine to have your personal taste of the matter. To be blunt but no insult intended, when I said some DMs can't or won't adapt to the change of power level you would be among the latter. I agree with you 5E is not the place for it, but that doesn't mean 5E is in the wrong about it.
I've done a pretty good job not making judgements about other people and their playstyles. I'd appreciate it if you'd not assume things about me. Especially when they are astoundingly wrong. As far as "power levels" go in 5E I have very little problem with it, I think it's done a good job of demonstrating how bad off martials were in earlier editions because functionally very little has changed from the 3.5 fighter to the 5E fighter. Casters have been brought much closer in line. Not perfect, but much better. I'm mostly just discussing stuff for the sake of discussing, I mean, that's what an internet board is for right?

I like 5E for what it is. "Easy Mode 3.5" No D&D is perfect. No game is perfect. And I'll probably never be 100% happy with any system.


There are other game systems that suit your needs. Immediately I can think GURPS. You set how many build points players have to create characters. You don't increase in power exponentially. In fact it's very slow. You have to roll to cast any spell, can fail to cast it, even botch it if you're really unlucky to the point of self-harm like summon a Demon who attempts to kill you.
Yes I keep meaning to try GURPS, but I can never seem to get more than one person interested in playing.

[Boci]

I never said a high power setting makes high power normal.

You said "high-power should be very rare, else it's not really high power. It's just... normal." That's not true. It can be rare or just uncommon too, and high power is still high power. There's not only one option to run it as you suggested.

[EggKookoo]

You said "high-power should be very rare, else it's not really high power. It's just... normal." That's not true. It can be rare or just uncommon too, and high power is still high power. There's not only one option to run it as you suggested.

Ok, I guess I've hit a wall on trying to explain it. Carry on...

[djreynolds]

Imagine a new feat called Combat Agility: "Your years of combat training have honed your agility and reaction time to a razor's edge. You gain the following benefits"


+1 to AC when not wearing heavy armor.
+1 to attack and damage rolls when using ranged or precision weapons.
+1 to Dexterity based saving throws, ability checks and skill checks.
+1 to Initiative checks.



That's a pretty good feat!



That is great

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___

Funny enough many players enjoys playing unoptimized PCs

While others want to be the most optimized of creations

Its their time, its their hobby. This is the most important function of a DM, to weigh the game at hand vs the player's desires.

If you want to play a hexblade/sorcerer/paladin.... be my guest. I find it cheesy, but with bounded accuracy having a 20 in a stat vs an 18 is often not a big deal. And its the fighter who going to get to 20 first at 6th level

Many people just want to play a champion. Its not always about having to make easier decisions with the champion.

I find achieving perfection with a champion fighter (which I have not achieved) would be like solving an incredible riddle.

Playing a beastmaster.... its testing your skills as a player... can take a beastmaster and win the day? So players like that challenge.

Other players do not want a challenge, they want to come and conquer.

Some players want focus on one area or all areas

I honestly find playing without multiclassing or feats is really boring. Something like shield master (before or after the errata) really spruces up the old S&B fighter.

[Tanarii]

Ok, I guess I've hit a wall on trying to explain it. Carry on...
You explained it pretty well. But the idea that "high level is just whatever is rare in the campaign" just not really that relevant to the idea that level-equivalent 11+ Creatures to some degree, and level-equivalent 17+ creatures definitely, shouldn't be commonplace in a typical D&D campaign. Nor that characters in those Tiers will probably find a way to face off with them anyway. :smallamused:

[Boci]

Ok, I guess I've hit a wall on trying to explain it. Carry on...

Or maybe you're just planting your flag on a technically correct but utterly irrelevant point. Like the colour blue being a human invention. Sure, it is. But the sky is still blue, you don't get brownie points for pointing out blue technically doesn't exist outside the human race.

[MrStabby]

You said "high-power should be very rare, else it's not really high power. It's just... normal." That's not true. It can be rare or just uncommon too, and high power is still high power. There's not only one option to run it as you suggested.

I think that as you become high power, you move in circles with more high power people.

To use a mundane example, if you are a senior politician you will frequently come into contact with similarly powerful people, top economists, top scientists, high ranking military officers and so on. The circles you move in change.

So with being an adventurer - as you become more well known you attract the patronage of more powerful sponsors - the kind of problem that a more powerful sponsor needs help with is going to be going up against more deadly foes and so on.

[Boci]

I think that as you become high power, you move in circles with more high power people.

To use a mundane example, if you are a senior politician you will frequently come into contact with similarly powerful people, top economists, top scientists, high ranking military officers and so on. The circles you move in change.

So with being an adventurer - as you become more well known you attract the patronage of more powerful sponsors - the kind of problem that a more powerful sponsor needs help with is going to be going up against more deadly foes and so on.

Yeah, sure, that's just balancing an encounter. But there's also a difference between what you face as a 1st level adventure and a 6th level adventurer, in D&D at least. And yet we have no problem telling that neither of those are high level.

[stoutstien]

I don't mind the multiclass optional rules but I dislike classes that have sharp fall offs which make it more attractive than single classes. My personal solution was to buff higher level class/subclass features to make the choice more of an actual choice.

I like feats and I think it was a good move to attach it to the ASI advancement system. I have an aversion to any "feat tax" for PC concepts. I addressed this by moving the bulk of those feats onto the weapons/armors as special features.

[EggKookoo]

You explained it pretty well. But the idea that "high level is just whatever is rare in the campaign" just not really that relevant to the idea that level-equivalent 11+ Creatures to some degree, and level-equivalent 17+ creatures definitely, shouldn't be commonplace in a typical D&D campaign. Nor that characters in those Tiers will probably find a way to face off with them anyway. :smallamused:

Yeah, I think all I'm saying is all else being equal, if you have to progress up power levels and there's a chance you could fail or stall out at a certain point, you'll end up with a kind of pyramid, with the point at top representing the highest power levels.

That changes if there's a way to reach a high level of power without having to advance through lower levels, but that's not how most things work. I mean rich kids inheriting their parents' millions aside...

Which is actually interesting. Imagine if you passed on your spellcasting ability to your children. A 17th level wizard gives birth to an infant capable of casting 17th level spells. That could certainly cause a top-heavy shape. But I think even within that shape, there would end up a kind of point on top of that, probably made up of those with long magical lineages.


Or maybe you're just planting your flag on a technically correct but utterly irrelevant point. Like the colour blue being a human invention. Sure, it is. But the sky is still blue, you don't get brownie points for pointing out blue technically doesn't exist outside the human race.

Yeah, I'm still not getting your metaphors here. Really, I'm just saying "high" is a relative concept and is applied to things at the top of the spectrum. And that things at the top of the spectrum more or less depend on there being things lower down on the spectrum.

[MaxWilson]

Strictly speaking, high-level anythings exist only if they do in the party. Everything the party runs into are high-CR, not high-level. Which is relevant in a discussion about multiclassing. As was pointed out upthread, NPCs don't multiclass or take feats.

This is demonstrably false. What level is a 20th level NPC necromancer? 20th level, same as if he were a PC necromancer. (He may even be an ex-PC necromancer.) The 5E DMG calls this out explicitly: NPCs can have class levels, same as PCs.

Many NPCs don't have levels, but then again, some PCs don't have levels (if the DM lets a player play something weird like a Silver Dragon or a Medusa). The difference between NPCs and PCs strictly whether there's a player attached to the character.


Imagine a new feat called Combat Agility: "Your years of combat training have honed your agility and reaction time to a razor's edge. You gain the following benefits"


+1 to AC when not wearing heavy armor.
+1 to attack and damage rolls when using ranged or precision weapons.
+1 to Dexterity based saving throws, ability checks and skill checks.
+1 to Initiative checks.



That's a pretty good feat!

Of course, as we all know, that's also the benefits of using your ASI to gain +2 Dexterity.

No, it's clearly better than +2 Dexterity. It allows you to exceed the caps on medium armor Dex bonus (can get AC 18 wearing half-plate, +2 for shield), making medium armor as good as heavy armor, and the cap on attack bonuses (can get +6 to hit, making Sharpshooter relatively stronger).

Technically it also gives twice as much benefit as Dexterity when it comes to initiative, since you get +2 (+1 for Dexterity ability check, which initiative is, and an extra +1 as a specific bonus), but I think you didn't intend to grant that.

As others have said, it's a pretty boring feat and I would definitely not pick it up until I had other feats to grant synergies (e.g. Sharpshooter), but it's something worth taking at mid-levels, if you're aiming for effectively Dex 22.

Wouldn't allow this feat in my games for the above reasons.

[ArtIzon]

I would be wholly uninterested in playing at all without multiclassing or feats. There aren't enough choices to make in character building without them, especially for martials (as has been said numerous times throughout the thread). Honestly it's not really up for discussion. It makes the game worse to not have those choices, period.

That said I don't think they're handled as well as they could be. Why is every feat not competitive with GWM/XBE/SS? Why is Hexblade stupid and the best DPS warlock regardless of range at the expense of Pact of the Blade? Etc. etc.

But I also think that certain multiclasses should be objectively better performance-wise than single-classed characters in general. I'm not referring to any specific multiclasses, and I don't think they should be superior to the extent of Sorcadin shenanigans, but there ought to be somewhat of a gap. Games ought to reward players who opt to learn about the game's rules and systems, and those who take the time to learn ought to outperform those who don't. Or at least, some system that provides more complex build choices, some better than others, needs to exist, to this end.

I mean, buying a guitar doesn't entitle you to be able to play it. The act of writing numbers and such on a character sheet doesn't entitle you to be powerful. Etc. etc.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ok, I guess we're getting into semantics, but "high" is a relative term. If everyone's level 20, it's not level 20. It's level 1. I understand the game has absolute levels and you could say a lot of people know 9th level spells and therefore 9th level spells aren't "rare" in the context of the people in that world. But unless that's a recent development, they wouldn't be considered high-level spells. They'd just be spells.

If high power isn't rare, then (most) everyone has it, so how do you define it as "high?" I mean, it took an evolutionary jump for creatures on earth to be able to breathe oxygen. Doing so gave those creatures a significant energy advantage over previous generations. It represented high power using metabolism as a metric. But we all do it now, so it's not really a high power feature any more.

Olympic sprinters are fast ("high" speed). But if someone flipped a switch and we could all run like that, we wouldn't consider that to be especially fast any more. It would just be the speed normal people can run.

In a game world where 9th level spells were commonplace, the baseline standard for power and quality of life would move up. "High" would no longer mean "can use 9th level magic" but something beyond even that. "Low" would mean "can use no more than 9th level."

First, you're trying to convince people of a fallacy. When X = X, then X =/= X... And that is a logical fallacy.

You're not getting it. The terms low and high power are based on real world comparison to the capabilities of the charactes and world. Within the contexts of the game, high power is high power and low power is low power when compared to what real world humans can do. The closer to real humans, the lower the power of the game.



Tangent... You're also seem to be preaching a message based on Incredibles that is based off flawed logic. I suggest looking up how utterly wrong that sort of logic is.

I'm out of this conversation at this point because it seems like you just "don't get it" and have some weird philosophy from the weird world you're attempting to apply to a game setting.

[Deathtongue]

Low-powered fantasy that tops out at Conan the Barbarian is by far the most common TTRPG genre. For every Exalted there's like five Torchbearers.

I'm extremely glad that 5E D&D stepped away from that direction.

[ad_hoc]

I would be wholly uninterested in playing at all without multiclassing or feats. There aren't enough choices to make in character building without them, especially for martials (as has been said numerous times throughout the thread). Honestly it's not really up for discussion. It makes the game worse to not have those choices, period.


Millions of people disagree with you.

Their fun is not wrong.

[Aaedimus]

I've played in games with no multiclassing and no feats,

I've played in games with both

They were both fun! I think not having the option would have been the mistake, but definitely making it an optional rule was a good idea. It provides DMs the ability to craft the system to their own (and their groups') playstyles.

[47Ace]

Millions of people disagree with you.

Their fun is not wrong.

OK but is there fun of multiclassing and feats wrong?

[Dork_Forge]

Millions of people disagree with you.

Their fun is not wrong.

Wait where do we have those kinds of numbers? I'd be surpised if such a large proportion of people didn't use either at all.

[ad_hoc]

Wait where do we have those kinds of numbers? I'd be surpised if such a large proportion of people didn't use either at all.

Well there are likely over 20 million 5e players and Mike Mearls once stated that over half of all tables don't use feats.

He didn't comment on multiclassing in that video but I can't imagine it being more popular than feats.

I don't think it is a stretch at all to guess that millions of players aren't using either multiclassing or feats.

To say that their game is 'worse, period' is both wrong and insulting.

[Dork_Forge]

Well there are likely over 20 million 5e players and Mike Mearls once stated that over half of all tables don't use feats.

He didn't comment on multiclassing in that video but I can't imagine it being more popular than feats.

I don't think it is a stretch at all to guess that millions of players aren't using either multiclassing or feats.


A quick google gave 10 million as a ball park for 5e, so are your numbers just what you're guessing not based on an actual poll or study?


To say that their game is 'worse, period' is both wrong and insulting.

To clarify, I have said nothing of the sort I was just curious about the statistics.

[ad_hoc]

A quick google gave 10 million as a ball park for 5e, so are your numbers just what you're guessing not based on an actual poll or study?


There have been various numbers put out there throughout the years.

One such number was 12-15 million players in 2017 (some citations I haven't double checked on the Wikipedia page).

Every year is D&D's best sales year ever by leaps and bounds (2019 sold much more than 2018, which sold much more than 2017, etc.). This has been stated by WotC but I'm too lazy to look it up.

From Wikipedia:

D&D 5th edition sales "were up 41 percent in 2017 from the year before, and soared another 52 percent in 2018, the game’s biggest sales year yet".

WotC stated that 2019 was the biggest year ever too though I can't remember if they gave a growth amount.

I don't think it is a stretch to say that the number has grown to over 20 million in the last 3 years considering the astronomical growth in sales.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons




To clarify, I have said nothing of the sort I was just curious about the statistics.

Oh for sure, that was just the original comment that I'm responding to.

[djreynolds]

I have played many games without.

The game is still fun.

But feats and multiclassing are fun too.

There are so many variables.

For instance, someone in my COS campaign wanted to switch out a feat.. they had taken GWM. I said the feat isn't always going to work, you could've chosen strength. Is the PC unplayable... no.

I took sharpshooter at first level for a fighter build.... I missed more than I hit... by a huge margin.

I took resilient con at 1st level and still failed con checks and saves... I took resilient wisdom at 12th and still failed wisdom saves.

I took a level of fighter and then progressed as a wizard.... IMO it was a bad move as I was seriously behind in just getting to use spells the party needed.

The dice in 5E are very swingy for a reason, failure still occurs often. The proven idea of getting to 5th level straight away to extra 3rd level spells or an extra attack is very much valid

Taking PAM over strength at 4th... is probably an even draw. Really?

A paladin taking a level of hexblade is now one level back of aura of protection and improving the charisma stat

[Pex]

I don't mind the multiclass optional rules but I dislike classes that have sharp fall offs which make it more attractive than single classes. My personal solution was to buff higher level class/subclass features to make the choice more of an actual choice.

I like feats and I think it was a good move to attach it to the ASI advancement system. I have an aversion to any "feat tax" for PC concepts. I addressed this by moving the bulk of those feats onto the weapons/armors as special features.

That I can get behind. Make the choice between staying single class or multiclass be as hard as the choice of ASI or feat is now. Some classes are lacking in high level incentives, but I'm not sure if that's subjective to the individual or objective fact. Maybe one or two are objective. It's a win-win. Players have their choice of juiciness and DMs have relative consistency in the increase of power. Trouble is you'd think it being the 5th edition they'd have gotten it right by now, thus showing it's more difficult to do it than to say it's wanted. For any edition what some people say is too powerful others say is just fine, while those same people would say something is just fine when the others say it's too weak. They have different tolerance levels of acceptable power. (Near) universal happiness is probably unobtainable.

[Dork_Forge]

There have been various numbers put out there throughout the years.

One such number was 12-15 million players in 2017 (some citations I haven't double checked on the Wikipedia page).

Every year is D&D's best sales year ever by leaps and bounds (2019 sold much more than 2018, which sold much more than 2017, etc.). This has been stated by WotC but I'm too lazy to look it up.

From Wikipedia:

D&D 5th edition sales "were up 41 percent in 2017 from the year before, and soared another 52 percent in 2018, the game’s biggest sales year yet".

WotC stated that 2019 was the biggest year ever too though I can't remember if they gave a growth amount.

I don't think it is a stretch to say that the number has grown to over 20 million in the last 3 years considering the astronomical growth in sales.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons




Oh for sure, that was just the original comment that I'm responding to.

Sales doesn't really translate that well into number of players unless you look directly at the PHB, their increase in sales can be affected by more people being comfortable with Dming so buying multiple adventures, the DMG, MM etc.

Wikipedia is also... questionable? If you take that number at face value that means 12-15 million people played 5e in2018 in JUST THE US. I found this article/ (https://dungeonvault.com/how-many-dnd-players-are-there-worldwide/) that links to a Twitch stream where WoTC say it was played by 9.5million people in 2017, that's a far cry from 12-15 million in just the US. The Seattle Times article used also says the D&D brand has that many players, which would include older editions of D&D and doesn't even explicitly rule out other mediums such as the board games and video games.

In general I would avoid stringing together different sources like this, especially something like an offhand comment in a live stream vs more prepared and specific statements. How many of those tables don't use feats simply because they don't get the opportunity to, not just through DM banning but because the majortiy of play is in the lower levels where you have less chance to pick up a feat or dip into a multiclass?

[Anymage]

You're not getting it. The terms low and high power are based on real world comparison to the capabilities of the charactes and world. Within the contexts of the game, high power is high power and low power is low power when compared to what real world humans can do. The closer to real humans, the lower the power of the game.

This. A setting with superheroes has two ways it can go; either handwave that it's just a bit of silliness that shouldn't be thought about too deeply, or acknowledge all the ways in which superhumans would significantly change our world. A world with one person who can summon up hurricanes on a whim will be very much shaped by this godlike figure, and a world where multiple people can summon up hurricanes on a whim will have a very different climate than one where people top out at "can hit things with a sword a bit harder than usual".


But I also think that certain multiclasses should be objectively better performance-wise than single-classed characters in general. I'm not referring to any specific multiclasses, and I don't think they should be superior to the extent of Sorcadin shenanigans, but there ought to be somewhat of a gap. Games ought to reward players who opt to learn about the game's rules and systems, and those who take the time to learn ought to outperform those who don't. Or at least, some system that provides more complex build choices, some better than others, needs to exist, to this end.

I mean, buying a guitar doesn't entitle you to be able to play it. The act of writing numbers and such on a character sheet doesn't entitle you to be powerful. Etc. etc.

Ehhhh. If you want the game where system mastery and "learning the rules" (read: browsing some internet forum to see someone else's cheap builds) are the keys to power, we already have that. My kobold will be waiting for you.

I kinda liked 4e where tactics and synergistic party builds were more important power ups than individual build. Tactics and teamwork should matter more than rolling well at chargen or picking the right few poorly written feats/spells. But we saw how adamant people were about keeping their legacy elements of D&D, so I don't expect that to happen again anytime soon.

[Deathtongue]

Trouble is you'd think it being the 5th edition they'd have gotten it right by now, thus showing it's more difficult to do it than to say it's wanted. For any edition what some people say is too powerful others say is just fine, while those same people would say something is just fine when the others say it's too weak. They have different tolerance levels of acceptable power. (Near) universal happiness is probably unobtainable.My gut feeling is that 5E players looking past the sweet spot of levels 4-9 tend to think that the upper levels of power don't give enough -- especially to martials.

And the people who have a low tolerance level of acceptable power (and thus wouldn't be onboard a project of backloading classes) don't play in that level range anyway.

[KyleG]

Slightly off topic but relates to the earlier discussion on high/low power
1. At what level disparity could a spellcaster take on a martial character

2. (Asked earlier but possibly lost) what feats skew the balance? Ie what feats make feats less problematic to a game?

[ad_hoc]

Sales doesn't really translate that well into number of players unless you look directly at the PHB, their increase in sales can be affected by more people being comfortable with Dming so buying multiple adventures, the DMG, MM etc.

Wikipedia is also... questionable? If you take that number at face value that means 12-15 million people played 5e in2018 in JUST THE US. I found this article/ (https://dungeonvault.com/how-many-dnd-players-are-there-worldwide/) that links to a Twitch stream where WoTC say it was played by 9.5million people in 2017, that's a far cry from 12-15 million in just the US. The Seattle Times article used also says the D&D brand has that many players, which would include older editions of D&D and doesn't even explicitly rule out other mediums such as the board games and video games.

Those Wikipedia articles cite other articles, I just found it easier to link to Wikipedia.

The numbers are something I've been interested in so I've been looking at the articles throughout the years.

The article you cited takes the Roll20 figures and then extrapolates them to face to face tables which I don't think is possible. The idea that there are currently 9.5 million 5e players but 3.2 million 3e players is absurd to me.

The site is also not journalistic in nature. Looks like someone who creates content for DrivThruRPG. So you're just citing some guy basically.




In general I would avoid stringing together different sources like this, especially something like an offhand comment in a live stream vs more prepared and specific statements. How many of those tables don't use feats simply because they don't get the opportunity to, not just through DM banning but because the majortiy of play is in the lower levels where you have less chance to pick up a feat or dip into a multiclass?

Mike Mearls is a lead designer of the game. He is one of the only people who actually has reliable data concerning the matter.

The truth is that the D&D community(ies) that you are part of is a very very small part of the population and doesn't represent the trends and values of that population as a whole. The 5e sales could not have possibly occurred due to players of the past. New people are playing and they bring with them new tastes.

The people who care about "builds" are such a small number of the population. Most players don't think in those terms. The standard human is by far the most popular race and it's not because those players think it is the most powerful race and will be part of their build combo.

[Boci]

Mike Mearls is a lead designer of the game. He is one of the only people who actually has reliable data concerning the matter.

He's also part of the corporation though, and corporations will very rarely openly admit, "Yeah our old discontinued product is just as popular as our newest". Now I don't think that's the situation, 5e has many advantages going for it, from circumstances to system design, but it is worth bearing in mind that corporations can have a slant too.

[Brookshw]

The people who care about "builds" are such a small number of the population. Most players don't think in those terms. The standard human is by far the most popular race and it's not because those players think it is the most powerful race and will be part of their build combo.

There's definitely something to be said about this. Of the two games I'm running right now, maybe 1/4 of the players really care about their builds. Even in 3e/etc, maybe only half did, and that's rounding up. A substantial factor I suspect is the level of system complexity, in a less complex system people don't seem to care as much and there's less ROI on system mastery; while simultaneously more casual players are attracted to it, and are less interested generally in pursuing significant time into gaining mastery. However I'm sure people have a wide spectrum of experiences with different groups.

[Dork_Forge]

Those Wikipedia articles cite other articles, I just found it easier to link to Wikipedia.

The numbers are something I've been interested in so I've been looking at the articles throughout the years.

The article you cited takes the Roll20 figures and then extrapolates them to face to face tables which I don't think is possible. The idea that there are currently 9.5 million 5e players but 3.2 million 3e players is absurd to me.

The site is also not journalistic in nature. Looks like someone who creates content for DrivThruRPG. So you're just citing some guy basically.




Mike Mearls is a lead designer of the game. He is one of the only people who actually has reliable data concerning the matter.



yes, I read the article, it was some seattle news site, you didn't really address my issues with it. It doesn't say 5e has that many players, it doesn't even say tabletop has that many players. It says the D&D BRAND does. That can encompass all editions, board games and video games. Do you REALLY think there's 12-15 million 5e players just in North America alone back in 2017?

That website links you to a Twitch stream, where a WoTC staff member gives the 9million number in a prepared presentation to the media. All the guy did was try and work out how much the online community added to that WoTC number, he didn't generate the entire thing himself.

Mike Mearls is a key figure in design, he also made that comment off the cuff in a live stream, which seems like it would hold more validity: a prepared statement to the press or a offhand comment to a livestream by someone on the design team?


The truth is that the D&D community(ies) that you are part of is a very very small part of the population and doesn't represent the trends and values of that population as a whole. The 5e sales could not have possibly occurred due to players of the past. New people are playing and they bring with them new tastes.

The people who care about "builds" are such a small number of the population. Most players don't think in those terms. The standard human is by far the most popular race and it's not because those players think it is the most powerful race and will be part of their build combo.

Okay, I feel like you're just talking about this as an emotional thing rather than backing it up with any actual numbers. The 2019 Dev update from D&D Beyond showed that standard Human was the most popular option at 11.8% HOWEVER Variant human was next at 11% and half Elf was next up with 9.1%. There's no huge gap there and the only attraction to Variant over Vanilla is the feat.

You're also ignoring other factors:

Humans are the simplest race to play and most relatable, that makes them very attractive as people's first time characters before they branch out. The same applies with not MC or using feats when you first start playing.

Younger players tend to be more tech inclined and more likely to seek something like Beyond out, where as older players would be less likely to do so but would bring with them both more experience in general and more attached tropes from older literature (Dwarf and Elf characters).

The evidence doesn't support what you're saying as far as I can see and you're not taking into consideration many factors.

[Fable Wright]

Well there are likely over 20 million 5e players and Mike Mearls once stated that over half of all tables don't use feats.

He didn't comment on multiclassing in that video but I can't imagine it being more popular than feats.

I don't think it is a stretch at all to guess that millions of players aren't using either multiclassing or feats.

To say that their game is 'worse, period' is both wrong and insulting.

Oh for the love of—

This statistic has been debunked. Repeatedly. When Mike Mearls made that statement, the statistic he was looking at was, in fact, "half of all characters on D&D Beyond do not have any feats". He spoke, and then suddenly it became gospel to people who do not like feats.

I want you to consider, briefly, that:

1. There are a lot of tables in tier 1, and of the characters from level 1 to 3, only humans can have a feat;
2. That even if a table does offer feats, players may be prioritizing ASIs;
3. A table can allow feats but not require them;
4. There are people who make more characters than they have tables to play at;
5. That Adventurer's League, the largest play network around, does allow feats across the board, and yet quite a few players there who store their sheets on D&D beyond do not have feats.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Oh for the love of—

This statistic has been debunked. Repeatedly. When Mike Mearls made that statement, the statistic he was looking at was, in fact, "half of all characters on D&D Beyond do not have any feats". He spoke, and then suddenly it became gospel to people who do not like feats.

I wouldn't consider D&D beyond's metrics to be all that accurate anyway. You can make inferences from them, sure, but to say that a statistic they've brought up is definitely accurate is far from reasonable.

For example, this is purely hypothetical from my point of view by the way, there were statistics released that put Dragonborn as one of the most popular races to play according to D&D Beyond stats. My reasoning for this being the case is not because Dragonborn are actually popular, but because if you play on D&D Beyond with only the basic rules (which is the default option for free accounts) Dragonborn is at the top of the list for character creation.

I have more than a handful of Dragonborn (and Aarakocra) in my D&D Beyond campaigns because of Content Share, not because these players are actually playing these characters.

[ArtIzon]

Millions of people disagree with you.

Their fun is not wrong.

Sure. Fun can't be right or wrong, and I'm not intending to insinuate otherwise. But I wasn't talking about fun. I'm talking about how cohesive a game is as a system, how well-balanced it is, and how much variety it offers. But a game being less balanced (no feats increases caster vs. martial disparity) or having less variety (no multiclassing means fewer overall character building choices) makes that game worse, in every scenario, insofar as those elements avoid conflicting with each other. It also doesn't matter whether X number of people agree with me, unless you're trying to make an appeal to popularity.

It's possible you're not interested in speaking in objective terms about the quality of a game, in which case there's not much point in discussing. Not saying that's your perspective, just trying to preempt a possible rabbit hole.



Ehhhh. If you want the game where system mastery and "learning the rules" (read: browsing some internet forum to see someone else's cheap builds) are the keys to power, we already have that. My kobold will be waiting for you.


Well, to be fair, tabletop games don't have much of an execution requirement. I wish they did, because you'd need to do more than learn the rules to excel...

[JNAProductions]

Sure. Fun can't be right or wrong, and I'm not intending to insinuate otherwise. But I wasn't talking about fun. I'm talking about how cohesive a game is as a system, how well-balanced it is, and how much variety it offers. But a game being less balanced (no feats increases caster vs. martial disparity) or having less variety (no multiclassing means fewer overall character building choices) makes that game worse, in every scenario, insofar as those elements avoid conflicting with each other. It also doesn't matter whether X number of people agree with me, unless you're trying to make an appeal to popularity.

It's possible you're not interested in speaking in objective terms about the quality of a game, in which case there's not much point in discussing. Not saying that's your perspective, just trying to preempt a possible rabbit hole.

But making the game simpler DOES make the game better, if it comes at no cost to anything else.

And, for a player who's perfectly happy to play a Champion Fighter from 1-20, adding in a bunch of options they should learn about is going to make the game less approachable.

[Boci]

Sure. Fun can't be right or wrong, and I'm not intending to insinuate otherwise. But I wasn't talking about fun. I'm talking about how cohesive a game is as a system, how well-balanced it is, and how much variety it offers. But a game being less balanced (no feats increases caster vs. martial disparity) or having less variety (no multiclassing means fewer overall character building choices) makes that game worse, in every scenario, insofar as those elements avoid conflicting with each other. It also doesn't matter whether X number of people agree with me, unless you're trying to make an appeal to popularity.

It's possible you're not interested in speaking in objective terms about the quality of a game, in which case there's not much point in discussing. Not saying that's your perspective, just trying to preempt a possible rabbit hole.

If you want to talk about objective quality of the game, would you also need to prove that multiclassing and feats never conflict with other aspects of the game?

[ArtIzon]

If you want to talk about objective quality of the game, would you also need to prove that multiclassing and feats never conflict with other aspects of the game?

Yeah, I typed that while having a (spoken) conversation with a friend on Discord about a different topic and don't really know where my train of thought was going so I don't even know how to edit it to be closer to what I was actually trying to say. Kind of new to this forum jazz. Sorry.

I'm...actually talking less about 5e and more about what I want to see in games in general (video games, TTRPGS, sports, everything). Multiclassing and feats definitely do conflict with other aspects of the game, and multiclassing presents balance issues since so many of them are unplayable. I mostly just have an issue with any system where people who put in more effort than others, or those who have more knowledge, aren't rewarded accordingly.


But making the game simpler DOES make the game better, if it comes at no cost to anything else.

I agree, but the operative phrase here is "if it comes at no cost to anything else." I mean, chess is simple and it's one of the better games in existence. But it also has a very high knowledge barrier for the highest levels of play. I really don't know how that would work in 5e because it's cooperative.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, I typed that while having a (spoken) conversation with a friend on Discord about a different topic and don't really know where my train of thought was going so I don't even know how to edit it to be closer to what I was actually trying to say. Kind of new to this forum jazz. Sorry.

I'm...actually talking less about 5e and more about what I want to see in games in general (video games, TTRPGS, sports, everything). Multiclassing and feats definitely do conflict with other aspects of the game, and multiclassing presents balance issues since so many of them are unplayable. I mostly just have an issue with any system where people who put in more effort than others, or those who have more knowledge, aren't rewarded accordingly.

I can understand that perspective, but at the same time, for a game like D&D, there shouldn't be such a massive gap between those who put in enough to be competent and those who go the extra mile. Because it's an RPG. A Role-Playing Game, not just a game.

[ArtIzon]

I can understand that perspective, but at the same time, for a game like D&D, there shouldn't be such a massive gap between those who put in enough to be competent and those who go the extra mile. Because it's an RPG. A Role-Playing Game, not just a game.

Oh, I edited my previous post with a reply to what you said before. Oops.

I don't think I suggested the gap should be massive. In my original post, for example, I said the sorcadin multiclass was "too much." But I think there should still be some gap because otherwise what is the point of trying to learn more and improve? And why do anything if you can't learn more about it or improve at it?

[Boci]

I can understand that perspective, but at the same time, for a game like D&D, there shouldn't be such a massive gap between those who put in enough to be competent and those who go the extra mile. Because it's an RPG. A Role-Playing Game, not just a game.

Plus in the age of the internet, you can put 10 hours worth of "effort" in and be less rewarded than someone who spends an hour reading the forum posts of someone who spent 200 hours+ of "effort". So the idea of rewarding work put it is tricky to begin with.


But I think there should still be some gap because otherwise what is the point of trying to learn more and improve?

Because system tinkering is fun? Because it allows you to take weaker options yet still balance out next to other party members?

[Dork_Forge]

Plus in the age of the internet, you can put 10 hours worth of "effort" in and be less rewarded than someone who spends an hour reading the forum posts of someone who spent 200 hours+ of "effort". So the idea of rewarding work put it is tricky to begin with.

Shouldn't it be more a case of rewarding investment? If a player sacrifices higher overall stats for synergistic feats shouldn't there be a significant reward for that sacrifice?

[ArtIzon]

Plus in the age of the internet, you can put 10 hours worth of "effort" in and be less rewarded than someone who spends an hour reading the forum posts of someone who spent 200 hours+ of "effort". So the idea of rewarding work put it is tricky to begin with.

Well, yes. That's a TTRPG thing, I guess, because of the lack of execution barrier in most games that don't feature a real-time component. I guess I shouldn't use the word "effort." Meritocracy has nothing to do with one's efforts, and everything to do with the outcomes of one's efforts. Most of my "general" game experience is from video games, where barring situations with a high degree of randomness, the player with better systems knowledge and pattern recognition comes out on top 9 times out of 10. The reason I joined this forum in the first place was to get a different perspective, actually.

Out of curiosity, how would you assess the objective merit of a game?

[Boci]

Shouldn't it be more a case of rewarding investment? If a player sacrifices higher overall stats for synergistic feats shouldn't there be a significant reward for that sacrifice?

Sure, but that's a discussion of are feats balanced compared to a state increase, which is a different is somewhat related subject.

[Mr. Wonderful]

Y'all keep missing the influence of the DM on the game.

If a party is inefficient, the DM needs to introduce NPCs or what have you to mitigate this effect.

Likewise, if the party is hyper efficient, the DM increases the number of baddies or their HP.

It's a self-correcting problem folks.

[JNAProductions]

Y'all keep missing the influence of the DM on the game.

If a party is inefficient, the DM needs to introduce NPCs or what have you to mitigate this effect.

Likewise, if the party is hyper efficient, the DM increases the number of baddies or their HP.

It's a self-correcting problem folks.

If you've got a good DM with a solid grip on the system.

What if you have a new DM?

[Pex]

There's definitely something to be said about this. Of the two games I'm running right now, maybe 1/4 of the players really care about their builds. Even in 3e/etc, maybe only half did, and that's rounding up. A substantial factor I suspect is the level of system complexity, in a less complex system people don't seem to care as much and there's less ROI on system mastery; while simultaneously more casual players are attracted to it, and are less interested generally in pursuing significant time into gaining mastery. However I'm sure people have a wide spectrum of experiences with different groups.

I find it's more about awareness than complexity - system mastery if you will. To my optimization self I want 16 in my prime and at least a 14 in CO at 1st level. Using Point Buy it will happen, every time. It never fails though when a player absolutely new to RPGs in general brings in a character it will have 14 in their prime and 10 CO. I cringe. I don't expect my level of optimization, but I expect competence. I know the math of the game. That character is doomed. I don't mean killed but rather the character will miss, a lot. Monsters will make their save, a lot. The character will drop to making death saves, a lot. That character's turn is a waste. The player doesn't use class features because he/she doesn't know them. If he/she does use them it doesn't work because they fail to hit/monster saves. The character doesn't multiclass and takes no feats.

I get it. The player has to learn the game. However, when the player learns the second character is different. The player goes "ooh" and "wow" when I take my turn in his/her process of learning. Not just my turn, anyone who knows the game. That player's second character - there's the 16 in the prime, 14 in CO, a feat is taken. If not multiclassed the third character will be.

Players new to 5E but not RPGs/D&D only need to learn the rules of play. For character creation they know what they're doing. If they only have 15 in their prime instead of 16 it's because they have a 15 in CO or some cases DX ready for both to become 16 at level 4. A few utilize the +2 of their race to have 17 and 13 to become 18 and 14 or want a +1 and stuff feat to make the 17 an 18. They take feats. A few multiclass.

[Boci]

I find it's more about awareness than complexity - system mastery if you will. To my optimization self I want 16 in my prime and at least a 14 in CO at 1st level. Using Point Buy it will happen, every time. It never fails though when a player absolutely new to RPGs in general brings in a character it will have 14 in their prime and 10 CO. I cringe. I don't expect my level of optimization, but I expect competence. I know the math of the game. That character is doomed. I don't mean killed but rather the character will miss, a lot.

They have 1 less to hit than you with your 16 prime state will. Last session my 1st four attacks all missed, the highest was a 7. The amount of atatcks a character makes are small enough to be subject to non-standard clusters, and even if they weren't, most people aren't paying attention enough to truly notice. I could secretly deduct 1 from all attack rolls you made through out the game and its entirely possibly you wouldn't notice.

[Misterwhisper]

Y'all keep missing the influence of the DM on the game.

If a party is inefficient, the DM needs to introduce NPCs or what have you to mitigate this effect.

Likewise, if the party is hyper efficient, the DM increases the number of baddies or their HP.

It's a self-correcting problem folks.

No, that just means that it doesn't matter if your any good at your job or not, the dm will hand hold you enough to not kill you even though you should because your character sucks.

I put a TON of work into my characters, detailed backstories, reasons for stats that are either above or below normal range, even family details.

If I my character dies because some idiot decided it would be fun to play a melee lore bard and starts fights because he wants more EXP or they have cool stuff, I will have a major problem with that.

The same way I would have an issue with a DM that would make sure that character doesn't die because it would hurt their feelings.

When I run a game, I treat NPCs as people who are alive, and would try to live just as much as any PC would.
NPCs have just as much world knowledge as anyone else.

Perfect example was from a game from last year:

PC group of 4: all level 3 at the time.
An archer ranger Elf
A moon druid Elf
A bear barbarian Dwarf
and
A human wizard with a 13 dex, did not know mage armor, and had a 12 con.

The group is moving down some tunnels looking for a fugitive.

The group gets surprised by 3 kobold archers they completely missed seeing.
All 3 of the archers shot at the wizard.

Wizard: Why are you targeting me, I am just a guy in robes with an obvious barbarian, a stealthy looking ranger, and a pretty obvious woodsy kind of caster.
Me: Because you are the idiot holding a torch, in no armor, in the dark, with a spellbook at your waist. Kobolds are not stupid, the guy with the greataxe is not chasing them down in these tunnels, they will play cat and mouse with the archer if they have too, the naturey guy with a walking staff could be anything, you are the easiest to hit, and are obviously a caster of some kind, if the group has to protect you, they are not coming to kill them.

Many DMs would have had the kobolds aim for the druid with the shield or the angry looking dwarf because they want to start a fight, not actually kill anyone.

Carebear DMing just leads to people doing stupid crap in game because they know you won't pull the trigger when it comes for them to pay for it.

[Nagog]

I disagree. Most of the Martial classes all revolve around the Attack Action.

Part of this could be simplicity, but I think it was designed around expecting multiple Attack features to be utilized together. Otherwise, why limit the Rogue to only Finesse or Ranged weapons from Sneak Attack, when those are basically the only weapons the Rogue could use in the first place?

Why grant Fighters an extra Action instead of extra attacks? That certainly seems easier to balance.


I agree that removing multiclassing improves the caster-portion of the game, but casters generally don't multiclass too much to begin with (usually due to the faulty design behind multiclassing casters). They don't really get too much out of it, and they already have a much larger number of options to choose when they level up compared to martials.

This really hurts martials (who I believe deserve every advantage they can get to stand out against casters) and Warlocks (who isn't weakened by multiclassing, since they'll just get 0 levels instead of 3), without really giving anything to anybody else. Casters won't play any differently, but this instead forces everyone else to play like them (without any of the benefits, like upper-level casting effects).

Personally, I feel that most of the difficulty in rulekeeping doesn't come from multiclassing or feats, but from spell effects. Removing those for the sake of complexity would be like trying to simplify Sneak Attack to deal a flat 2 damage per Rogue level, while the Druid is trying to get specifics on dragging Moonbeam over someone vs. dragging them into Moonbeam.

Who are you helping, and what needs the help?

This right here is where it's at. Looking at the full list of feats, the majority of them are built for martial classes, and nothing else connects to that more than Fighter's and Rogues having more ASIs than any other classes. Removing those abilities from them hobbles the fighter greatly, and martials become even more trapped in the "One Trick Pony" tent.

As for multiclassing, I've found that most multiclasses tend to optimize a character for a specific task, most of the time combat, but also occasionally skills and interaction. Hence why Bard multiclasses are so rare despite being one of the Charisma based classes you called out for being so promiscuous with their multiclassing; Bards are not inherently built for any one role. Their nature as jacks of all trades makes them an overall poor choice for multiclassing if you're looking to make an optimal build (even if Sorcerer/Paladin is less sensible than Bard/Paladin for spell slots). If you feel a MC character is stealing the spotlight too much, throw them out of their element. The Sorcerer/Paladin is trivializing your combat encounters? Throw them into a skill challenge. Or a puzzle-based dungeon. Or even a roleplay situation that can't be solved by a simple roll of the dice for a Cha skill.

[sithlordnergal]

They have 1 less to hit than you with your 16 prime state will. Last session my 1st four attacks all missed, the highest was a 7. The amount of atatcks a character makes are small enough to be subject to non-standard clusters, and even if they weren't, most people aren't paying attention enough to truly notice. I could secretly deduct 1 from all attack rolls you made through out the game and its entirely possibly you wouldn't notice.

Mmm, that one less to hit does actually matter thanks to bounded accuracy. Though it is felt a lot more keenly as a caster that starts with a 14 in their primary then a martial class. And I say this from experience.

I once tried playing a Half-Orc Cleric in Out of the Abyss. I started with a 14 to Wisdom thanks to point buy. My experience was that Tier 1 is somewhat balanced around having a 14 in your casting stat...my spells usually hit, and enemies generally failed their save.

But once I reached tier 2, I came to the realization that having a 16 in your casting stat is just not enough. Most creatures made their saves by a single point, because their ability mods had grown enough to where they needed a 9 or higher.

I can't count how many times the DM would roll and he would just barely make it. And he rolled in the open, so its not like he was cheating. Its just that the game gives creatures better saves at that level. It was bad enough that I scrapped the character and brought in a Paladin/Druid, which did far better because I had focused on Wisdom with Shillelagh and a Quarterstaff.

[Waazraath]

Mmm, that one less to hit does actually matter thanks to bounded accuracy. Though it is felt a lot more keenly as a caster that starts with a 14 in their primary then a martial class. And I say this from experience.

I once tried playing a Half-Orc Cleric in Out of the Abyss. I started with a 14 to Wisdom thanks to point buy. My experience was that Tier 1 is somewhat balanced around having a 14 in your casting stat...my spells usually hit, and enemies generally failed their save.

But once I reached tier 2, I came to the realization that having a 16 in your casting stat is just not enough. Most creatures made their saves by a single point, because their ability mods had grown enough to where they needed a 9 or higher.

I can't count how many times the DM would roll and he would just barely make it. And he rolled in the open, so its not like he was cheating. Its just that the game gives creatures better saves at that level. It was bad enough that I scrapped the character and brought in a Paladin/Druid, which did far better because I had focused on Wisdom with Shillelagh and a Quarterstaff.

While I don't want to discredit your experience, I have problems with the math on this. It's only 1 extra number on that d20 that makes a difference (either hit or miss, or save or no save). It should come up once every 20 attacks (or saves). How many times do you attack in a session? Would you really notice the difference? I have the idea in 5e that, due to lower modifiers compared to lets say 3.x, the roll of the d20 is much more defining the success than a 14 or 16 in a primary stat. Which is the reason that 'non-optimal' builds can work just fine.

[Yora]

Feats absolutely were a mistake. Of all the errors that third edition made, feats were the biggest. That thing alone caused the whole optimization nonsense in the first place. Prestige classes only really came into the picture later. (Multiclass XP penalties were even dumber, but nobody ever used these and they didn't cause any harm.)

5th edition having feats as entirely optional is a big selling point.

[sithlordnergal]

While I don't want to discredit your experience, I have problems with the math on this. It's only 1 extra number on that d20 that makes a difference (either hit or miss, or save or no save). It should come up once every 20 attacks (or saves). How many times do you attack in a session? Would you really notice the difference? I have the idea in 5e that, due to lower modifiers compared to lets say 3.x, the roll of the d20 is much more defining the success than a 14 or 16 in a primary stat. Which is the reason that 'non-optimal' builds can work just fine.

It actually does make a difference. So, lets say you have two characters at Tier 2. One has a 15 for their save DC, the other has a 14. Now at around this time, you'll find a lot of creatures have saving throws between +4 to +6 at the most.

Now, lets say you're facing that low end of 4. The DM only needs a 10 or higher to beat the DC 14 save, which has about a 55% chance of being rolled. In order t0 beat the 15, the DM needs to roll an 11 or higher, which is a 50% chance.

Sure, the 5% percent increase might not seem like much on paper, but it is a big deal. As both a player and DM, that 5% can matter a whole lot. The monsters almost seem like they're created around casters having a DC 15 Saving throw in tier 2. A majority of the enemies that are cr 6 and above seem to have one or two saves that are at least +4 or higher

[sithlordnergal]

Feats absolutely were a mistake. Of all the errors that third edition made, feats were the biggest. That thing alone caused the whole optimization nonsense in the first place. Prestige classes only really came into the picture later. (Multiclass XP penalties were even dumber, but nobody ever used these and they didn't cause any harm.)

5th edition having feats as entirely optional is a big selling point.

Ehhh, I wouldn't say feats were the big issue in 3e. I'd say it was the spells and the amount of splat books. If you look at the 3e feats in the PHB, they're actually not that bad. A lot of them cover things that 5e did away with, such as being unable to move and make a full attack without a feat, or increase a fighter's skill with a specific weapon.

Edit: There were also a lot more traps in 3e, and I mean actual trap options. Now, it has been a while since I last played, but Monks and Rangers were not good classes back then. And Fighters weren't all that great either. Sure, Beastmaster Ranger may get flack for being a weak subclass, but it can still work.

[Skylivedk]

To OP:
I think the mistake was to make feats and multiclassing optional.

I'd much rather have the system built around feats being there than not. In my opinion the end result is a bad mix of both where neither version is very well balanced. I would probably not play a feat less game as a fighter or a barbarian ever (or maybe at all). To me, it seems way too bland.

I have yet to try PF2, but there's a lot of their changes that I like a lot.

[Willie the Duck]

To OP:
I think the mistake was to make feats and multiclassing optional.

I'd much rather have the system built around feats being there than not. In my opinion the end result is a bad mix of both where neither version is very well balanced.

There's some truth to this. Trying to have it both ways might be the biggest problem. From a marketing perspective, however, there was great value to making one new edition (no advanced and regular) to be sold to both the late-2e through 4e crowd that demand character crafting tools like his and those who cut their teeth on the earlier versions. And for that reason, I really can't call it a mistake.

[MaxWilson]

There's some truth to this. Trying to have it both ways might be the biggest problem. From a marketing perspective, however, there was great value to making one new edition (no advanced and regular) to be sold to both the late-2e through 4e crowd that demand character crafting tools like his and those who cut their teeth on the earlier versions. And for that reason, I really can't call it a mistake.

If you design a system around feats and multiclassing and just tell people they're optional, you get the same marketing benefits.

[Willie the Duck]

If you design a system around feats and multiclassing and just tell people they're optional, you get the same marketing benefits.

To some level, yes. Some people have posited that that's exactly what they did (I'd believe that more about feats than multiclassing). You have to be somewhat convincing in the statement that they are optional, though.

[Aaedimus]

Well there are likely over 20 million 5e players and Mike Mearls once stated that over half of all tables don't use feats.

He didn't comment on multiclassing in that video but I can't imagine it being more popular than feats.

I don't think it is a stretch at all to guess that millions of players aren't using either multiclassing or feats.

To say that their game is 'worse, period' is both wrong and insulting.

Than again, the tables I've played with that do and don't use multiclassing and feats: Have the same players and DM's, so I don't think that has as much to say about one being better than the other, as is does to say both styles have their virtues

[Pex]

They have 1 less to hit than you with your 16 prime state will. Last session my 1st four attacks all missed, the highest was a 7. The amount of atatcks a character makes are small enough to be subject to non-standard clusters, and even if they weren't, most people aren't paying attention enough to truly notice. I could secretly deduct 1 from all attack rolls you made through out the game and its entirely possibly you wouldn't notice.

I would notice because I see it all the time. When a player rolls a Natural 17 to hit or the DM rolls a Natural 5 for a monster's save the PC's prime doesn't matter. That's pure luck. It's those middle numbers: Natural 9, Natural 10, Natural 11, etc. That's where it makes all the difference. Whether the 9 or 10 succeeds highly depends on the game math - player character statistics, monster statistics, encounter statistics such as cover or previously cast spell effects. A +1 difference is critical.

[Boci]

I would notice because I see it all the time. When a player rolls a Natural 17 to hit or the DM rolls a Natural 5 for a monster's save the PC's prime doesn't matter. That's pure luck. It's those middle numbers: Natural 9, Natural 10, Natural 11, etc. That's where it makes all the difference. Whether the 9 or 10 succeeds highly depends on the game math - player character statistics, monster statistics, encounter statistics such as cover or previously cast spell effects. A +1 difference is critical.

I disagree. If I'm deducting 1 from your rolls and you'd normally need a 12 to hit, you will only ever notice if you roll an 11 and you have figured out the monsters AC (and can reasonable assume it can't adjust its AC somehow, though this last one is relativly minor since its not a common ability). There is a good chance that will not happen and you will never notice. There's a decent chance it won'y even come up, because you will never roll an 11, only less and more.

[Segev]

Every now and again, somebody at my table rolls a low-ish number and is surprised that it hits. Then, they roll a high number and ask if it hits, and my reply is usually, "Oh, no, sorry, while a 13 hit, a 21 just doesn't work. They have a really weird armor class." I'm joking, of course, but it makes all of us snicker a little. Or at least they're humoring their DM's bad jokes.

But then again, a caster might get hit on a 14 by somebody they assume they can take the hit from, be surprised by how much damage it did, and then decide to cast shield, which makes the subsequent 17 miss.

[Dork_Forge]

I disagree. If I'm deducting 1 from your rolls and you'd normally need a 12 to hit, you will only ever notice if you roll an 11 and you have figured out the monsters AC (and can reasonable assume it can't adjust its AC somehow, though this last one is relativly minor since its not a common ability). There is a good chance that will not happen and you will never notice. There's a decent chance it won'y even come up, because you will never roll an 11, only less and more.

In 5es bounded accuracy a +1 is significant, look at it this way: a +1 is a signigicant enough difference that it is used as: an invocation, a subclass ability, various infusions, many magic items. A player with a +2 is behind the expected by the game curve (+3 to start then +4 at 4th and +5 at 8th) and that will have knock on effects for anyone that isn't a Str based character. Skills and saves will be lower and across three aspects of play now that player needs to roll 5% higher just because they didn't pump their primary stat, that's not even min maxing that's just playing a game with common sense.

[Boci]

In 5es bounded accuracy a +1 is significant, look at it this way: a +1 is a signigicant enough difference that it is used as: an invocation, a subclass ability, various infusions, many magic items. A player with a +2 is behind the expected by the game curve (+3 to start then +4 at 4th and +5 at 8th) and that will have knock on effects for anyone that isn't a Str based character. Skills and saves will be lower and across three aspects of play now that player needs to roll 5% higher just because they didn't pump their primary stat, that's not even min maxing that's just playing a game with common sense.

And a player in none bonded accuracy will likely need to roll 5% higher too. With a few exception, in D&D 2 is not enough and 19 is, and as long as those are true, +1 matters equally, bonded accuracy doesn't come into it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd agree, but I'd much rather have designated skills provide combat advantages to do the same.
If you are going to do that, then Fighters, Rangers, Barbarians, Paladins, and Monks should all have proficiency in "Initiative" as a class feature.
And maybe Rogues.
And Valor Bards.

[Eldariel]

And a player in none bonded accuracy will likely need to roll 5% higher too. With a few exception, in D&D 2 is not enough and 19 is, and as long as those are true, +1 matters equally, bonded accuracy doesn't come into it.

That's not how percentages work. Every number is 5 percent points, yes, but going from only hitting on a 20 to hitting on a 19 as well is a 100% increase in your hitting chances (and thus effective damage). While the absolute increase is the same for every point of die you get, the relative increase is much higher when going from hitting only on 20 to hitting on 19 (discounting crits) than when going from hitting on 3 to hitting on 2. Hitting on 3 vs. hitting on 2 will not have a meaningful impact on how long killing an enemy takes on average, while going from hitting only on 20 to hitting on 19 as well suddenly doubles the rate.

[Boci]

That's not how percentages work.

I was using the same phrasing as Dork_Forge, who I quoted. My point remains that there is only a 5% chance for a +1 to matter on any given roll, and that is how %-tage works.

Besides, combat doesn't last that long in D&D, so even if we take kinda redicolous premise of a character only hitting on 20s now hitting on 19 and 20s, yes theoretically their damage output has doubled, but in a 5 round combat there's a good chance it actually remains unchanged from the +1.

[Misterwhisper]

I was using the same phrasing as Dork_Forge, who I quoted. My point remains that there is only a 5% chance for a +1 to matter on any given roll, and that is how %-tage works.

Besides, combat doesn't last that long in D&D, so even if we take kinda redicolous premise of a character only hitting on 20s now hitting on 19 and 20s, yes theoretically their damage output has doubled, but in a 5 round combat there's a good chance it actually remains unchanged from the +1.

No, again, that is not how percentages work.

Ex.

Player 1 needed to roll an 8 or better to hit, adding a to hit of 1 makes it a 7 or better. That is a 12.5 percent increase in chance to hit, not 5 percent.

It is basic 7th grade math.

[Boci]

It is basic 7th grade math.

But it will only matter 5% of the time. Which is what I'm saying. And that's basic maths too. You're either agreeing with me, or saying someone has a 12.5% chance to roll a 7 on attack. Take your pick.

[Man_Over_Game]

No, again, that is not how percentages work.

Ex.

Player 1 needed to roll an 8 or better to hit, adding a to hit of 1 makes it a 7 or better. That is a 12.5 percent increase in chance to hit, not 5 percent.

It is basic 7th grade math.

That's not quite right, either.

You've described the numbers relative to one another, (8 is 13% more than 7), but that's not what's really being reflected with an ASI.
The issue with Boci's is that it only takes perspective of a 1d20, not relative to what you had vs. what you will have.
What you described is how 8 compares with 7, but without taking into account of the D20. Without a d20, the +1 does nothing.

That is, an 8 is actually representing a 65% success chance. A 7 represents a 70% success chance.

Compare the two chances of success, and the growth is actually a 7.69% increase.

The lower your chance of success, the more impactful the ASI. Increasing your chances from rolling a 16 down from 17 is a 25% gain in success, where 4 from 5 is only a 6% gain. The more you fail, the better the ASI.

[Mr. Wonderful]

If you've got a good DM with a solid grip on the system.

What if you have a new DM?

If you're an experienced player with a new DM you either do your best to help, or you don't.

I imagine that most of the thrill of using feats and multiclassing is to solve the puzzle, whether its cranking out a little more damage or creating an interesting concept. Last night I used Ritorix' The Passive Soul (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=23910069&postcount=95) build to roleplay a pacifist. It was great fun to do zero points of damage and still be a solid contributor to combat. Thanks, Ritorix!

Anyway, if a player uses their experience to take advantage of a new DM then there isn't much a ruleset can do about it. Modern psychiatry, maybe.

[Boci]

Anyway, if a player uses their experience to take advantage of a new DM then there isn't much a ruleset can do about it. Modern psychiatry, maybe.

But maliciously taking advantage is not the only reason things can go wrong. The more expirienced, by no means unfallable, may have mistaken the balance impact of feats. This happens, expirienced players on the forum disagree on aspects of game balance, so clearly expirience does not inevitable elad to one conclusion. The DM is still responsible for the game, and if the player is wrong its still ultimatly the DM who is responsible. So no, a new DM should not be oblidged to let the expirienced player handle the intriduction of feats. The expirienced player should accept that DMing is hard enough and feats can wait until the second or third game is the new DM isn't comfortable with them from the get go.

[opaopajr]

Not unpopular to me. :smalltongue: Feats and Multiclassing is optional and I rarely turn them on in my campaigns. But then I also curate everything in my camapigns, down to available races, classes (archetypes), backgrounds, spells, and equipment.

Control your game and paint your beautiful world. :smallcool: The tools are there to support your creativity, not define it. Just like artists SELECT from all the art supplies, techniques, and colors to make art, you as GM do the same for your SETTINGS. The Players then get to romp around (within reason) in your beautiful creation! :smallsmile:

[47Ace]

Not unpopular to me. :smalltongue: Feats and Multiclassing is optional and I rarely turn them on in my campaigns. But then I also curate everything in my camapigns, down to available races, classes (archetypes), backgrounds, spells, and equipment.

Control your game and paint your beautiful world. :smallcool: The tools are there to support your creativity, not define it. Just like artists SELECT from all the art supplies, techniques, and colors to make art, you as GM do the same for your SETTINGS. The Players then get to romp around (within reason) in your beautiful creation! :smallsmile:

Wow, that's a bold statement. Are you sure you want to be DMing and not writing novels. I mean if your players are fine with that then all the power too you but, wow.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Wow, that's a bold statement. Are you sure you want to be DMing and not writing novels. I mean if your players are fine with that then all the power too you but, wow.

I've been staring at the same comment trying to find words to respond with. "Bold Statement" puts it pretty lightly, it's too far into the "My World, you're just pawns in my game" mentality that I loathe to see DM's go for.

There's nothing wrong with curating your game on content that you don't believe will fit well with the setting, but portraying it in this way almost makes it seem less like you're restricting it to keep your setting cohesive and more like you're giving permission to the players to play what you've allowed them. It's an aggressive stance to be sure, I can't fully get behind it.

[MaxWilson]

Not unpopular to me. :smalltongue: Feats and Multiclassing is optional and I rarely turn them on in my campaigns. But then I also curate everything in my camapigns, down to available races, classes (archetypes), backgrounds, spells, and equipment.

Control your game and paint your beautiful world. :smallcool: The tools are there to support your creativity, not define it. Just like artists SELECT from all the art supplies, techniques, and colors to make art, you as GM do the same for your SETTINGS. The Players then get to romp around (within reason) in your beautiful creation! :smallsmile:


Wow, that's a bold statement. Are you sure you want to be DMing and not writing novels. I mean if your players are fine with that then all the power too you but, wow.


I've been staring at the same comment trying to find words to respond with. "Bold Statement" puts it pretty lightly, it's too far into the "My World, you're just pawns in my game" mentality that I loathe to see DM's go for.

Er, no. opaopajr said nothing at all about controlling the plot, just the rules. Choosing to run a game involves choosing a game system. If it's an RPG, you might pick GURPS or FATE or 5E vanilla or 5E with no demihumans and only Fighters and Monks as PC class options.

Taking responsibility for the rules of the game you choose to run doesn't imply that the DM is invested in particular game outcomes, a la writing a novel. The outcome belongs to the players or it wouldn't be a game.

Am I right or wrong, @opaopajr, about your game philosophy?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Er, no. opaopajr said nothing at all about controlling the plot, just the rules. Choosing to run a game involves choosing a game system. If it's an RPG, you might pick GURPS or FATE or 5E vanilla or 5E with no demihumans and only Fighters and Monks as PC class options.

Taking responsibility for the rules of the game you choose to run doesn't imply that the DM is invested in particular game outcomes, a la writing a novel. The outcome belongs to the players or it wouldn't be a game.

Am I right or wrong, @opaopajr, about your game philosophy?

I wasn't saying anything about the plot either, just pointing out that the degree of the restrictions going so deep as backgrounds seems less about maintaining a setting (this is opaopajr's own rationale) and more about restricting for the sake of restricting. I could be off base, it just seems a bit much. There is a line that you cross where restricting too much within a game system begs the question of whether you should or want to play this system to begin with.

It could just be a difference in what we're looking for exactly. When I sign up to play a DND game (or run one) I would prefer to start restrictions light so that I can get as many interested parties involved and happy with their choices. opaopajr's way of playing reads to me like setting hard restrictions in an attempt to create a specialized experience (limiting backgrounds and equipment leads me to believe that they may try to fit stories within specific historical periods into the game system) and finding players to fill those selective slots, which is not wrong by any means, just different than my own experience.

Perhaps I phrased my response poorly, I'm just personally against setting arbitrary restrictions. I'm not saying that opaopajr's restrictions are, just that the way they were communicated came off as a more controlling attitude than I'm used to. If I had to pin it on anything specific, it would be the very last line more than anything else.

[47Ace]

Er, no. opaopajr said nothing at all about controlling the plot, just the rules. Choosing to run a game involves choosing a game system. If it's an RPG, you might pick GURPS or FATE or 5E vanilla or 5E with no demihumans and only Fighters and Monks as PC class options.

Taking responsibility for the rules of the game you choose to run doesn't imply that the DM is invested in particular game outcomes, a la writing a novel. The outcome belongs to the players or it wouldn't be a game.



Maybe but, this part


The Players then get to romp around (within reason) in your beautiful creation! :smallsmile:


makes me worried.

Also, there is a difference between a group deciding what game to play and with what rules and one person trying to force those decisions on others. On the other hand I have only ever played D&D with my close friends so I have never been the play who desperately wants to play a game any game. On yet another another hand I did have relatively strict role and race rules with bladesinger banned for my first campaign. I now feel that those restrictions were pointless and would probably even let someone play a bladesinger. The tone of it is my world and you blessed with the opportunity to play in it is worrying to me.

Edit: I think I am trying say that maybe I was too harsh with my initial evaluation. Or perhaps wow I did a ****ty job with my first campaign. Probably both. I also want to add that the seeming consideration of players as little more then colours of paint is weird.

[opaopajr]

:smallbiggrin: You guys are funny! What is this "plot" you refer to? :smalltongue: You as players are guests to my lovely setting to make meaningful decisions with your PC's fictional lives, just like a host makes a buffet and does not force feed their guests. :smallcool:

I am GM and the books are tools for me to make my setting and provide a place for player's PCs to romp. :smallsmile:
Reading any more into that assumes plotting characters like an author does puppets. Again, where is the meaningful decision? Just like Adventures structured like a string of encounters where the Combat pillar becomes the be all, end all -- and PC combat builds become the main thrust of supposed creative -- again, where is the meaningful decision? :smallbiggrin: Let players play their PCs to the logic of the fictive world! :smallcool:

[MaxWilson]

:smallbiggrin: You guys are funny! What is this "plot" you refer to? :smalltongue: You as players are guests to my lovely setting to make meaningful decisions with your PC's fictional lives, just like a host makes a buffet and does not force feed their guests. :smallcool:

I am GM and the books are tools for me to make my setting and provide a place for player's PCs to romp. :smallsmile:
Reading any more into that assumes plotting characters like an author does puppets. Again, where is the meaningful decision? Just like Adventures structured like a string of encounters where the Combat pillar becomes the be all, end all -- and PC combat builds become the main thrust of supposed creative -- again, where is the meaningful decision? :smallbiggrin: Let players play their PCs to the logic of the fictive world! :smallcool:


Perhaps I phrased my response poorly, I'm just personally against setting arbitrary restrictions. I'm not saying that opaopajr's restrictions are, just that the way they were communicated came off as a more controlling attitude than I'm used to. If I had to pin it on anything specific, it would be the very last line more than anything else.


Maybe but, this part

makes me worried.* snip*

Edit: I think I am trying say that maybe I was too harsh with my initial evaluation. Or perhaps wow I did a ****ty job with my first campaign. Probably both. I also want to add that the seeming consideration of players as little more then colours of paint is weird.

Meh. Sounds to me like you're worried about nothing. That last sentence is just a bit of light-hearted self-mockery. Overall, opaopajr leans very heavily on giving the players meaningful choices to make. He's a sandboxer at heart, certainly does not have a "you guys are just pawns" mentality.

The thing you're worried about isn't happening.

[47Ace]

Meh. Sounds to me like you're worried about nothing. That last sentence is just a bit of light-hearted self-mockery. Overall, opaopajr leans very heavily on giving the players meaningful choices to make. He's a sandboxer at heart, certainly does not have a "you guys are just pawns" mentality.

The thing you're worried about isn't happening.

OK, I really don't have anything to base my opinion of them besides those two posts. I see no particular reason not to take your judgement of this at face value and reverse my opinion of what I though he was describing.