Poll: How long and for often have you played in games without multiclassing OR feats?

[Deathtongue]

Note: this isn't supposed to be judging the style, this highly informal poll is just to see where things sit. If you think your situation is unusual (i.e. you play a lot of Adventurer's League) it'd be helpful to note it.

As far as my situation? I play about 50% of games face-to-face AL, 40% of online home games organized on apps like Roll20/Facebook/Meetup.com, and 10% face-to-face home games. I've been playing since 2016 and took an 8-month break that I ended two months ago. Except for the break I averaged a little more than a game a week, even in our current health situation.

During that time, I have never played in a game without multiclassing or feats. Never. Granted, I would not have stuck around for a game that didn't, but the DMs never even floated the possibility. The non-AL DMs had session zeroes devoted to topics like violent content and sandboxing and theme and homebrew options, but multiclassing and feats were always assumed.

Now, I have been with some DMs who don't care for theoretical excesses of multiclassing and would rather it not be there, but I have never experienced an out-an-out ban.

[ad_hoc]

Now, I have been with some DMs who don't care for theoretical excesses of multiclassing and would rather it not be there, but I have never experienced an out-an-out ban.

Not using optional rules isn't a ban.

It's simply not adding in extra rules.

[nickl_2000]

Never banned outright for either.

Multi-classing has been restricted to logical to the PC and the story (I.e. there has to be a reason for a dip or a PC taking levels in cleric domain needs to be following a Diety where that make sense).

Also, this wasn't asked, but we have had races banned from campaigns based on location. The current one we were in before locking ourselves in our houses for the betterment of humanity, required that at least 1 PC be human and only 1 PC be one of the rare races. This was done because it's a city campaign and the rare races are not going to show up in the city.

[Deathtongue]

Not using optional rules isn't a ban.

It's simply not adding in extra rules.

To my perception, multiclassing and feats are a de-facto assumption of a 5E D&D game and not allowing this optional rule amounts to, on a practical level, a ban. However, I might be wrong. If* disallowing multiclassing/feats is a majority or even common occurrence, I'll reword that part. But I suspect that this 'optional' rule isn't really by-and-large optional in 5E D&D games as they are played.

* This poll has the mother of all selection biases because the GiantITP population is unrepresentative of D&D at large, but it's the best we can do.

[Magicspook]

In 3 campaigns so far, it's not been banned but nobody's done multiclassing either. One of my players wanted to multiclass wizard and cleric, but ended up switching to star druid before 3rd level. My own warlock wanted to multiclass to bard after level 5 but that campaign ended just before the next level up. There have been some feats here and there.

[ad_hoc]

To my perception, multiclassing and feats are a de-facto assumption of a 5E D&D game and not allowing this optional rule amounts to, on a practical level, a ban. However, I might be wrong. If* disallowing multiclassing/feats is a majority or even common occurrence, I'll reword that part. But I suspect that this 'optional' rule isn't really by-and-large optional in 5E D&D games as they are played.

* This poll has the mother of all selection biases because the GiantITP population is unrepresentative of D&D at large, but it's the best we can do.

During one of Mike Mearls' Happy Fun Hour design sessions someone asked him why not just make features he wants available for a subclass into a feat. His response was something like 'over half of all tables don't use them so we can't design as though they are going to be in use'.

There are likely over 20 000 000 5e players right now.

You've pointed out the selection bias here. The player population on this site is at a very extreme end of the spectrum. You're not going to get data on anything here that is representative of the player base at large.

[47Ace]

I have never played a game where multiclassing or feats has been banned (or the optional rules not used). In all cases besides the one that didn't go past one session someone has multiclassed once it was me for optimization reasons, once another person for RP/we could use healing resons, and once that same player to let his sorcerer become more effective in a country that didn't like magic. I was DM that last campaign, pro-tip in D&D dislikes all magic is not an interesting feature of a country, particularly when the first 5 levels of the adventure take place there.

[Trask]

You've pointed out the selection bias here. The player population on this site is at a very extreme end of the spectrum. You're not going to get data on anything here that is representative of the player base at large.

This. GitP is heavily focused on optimization and build science, naturally people with that inclination also consider multiclassing and feats an integral part of the game.

But for what it's worth, I've ran and played in several games where I didn't use either and there are a few key observable effects.

- PCs tend to be much more evenly matched to CR, and CR equal challenges tend to be more of a challenge rather than the "speedbump" they often feel like in feat and multiclass heavy games.

- Certain playstyles, like fighting with heavy weapons, are just not very good. But martials in general are certainly not bad, they just tend to default to using a weapon and shield.

- This one will naturally vary from DM to DM, but I found that in a featless and multiclassing-less game, I, and DM's ive played with, were more willing to provide us opportunities to get unique powers, blessings, learn hidden techniques, and create more powerful magic items because I and they weren't afraid of making our already potent characters, overwhelmingly potent. I think its Mike Mearls that talks about the concept of the "complexity budget" a class or character has, and that part of their design goals is to not overspend on that complexity budget and make any one class too dense to be played without trouble or slowing down the game. Well I think that not using the optional feats and multiclassing rules lets the DM splash some extra and unique stuff in that budget, because its easier to predict the power curve of a party. So these days when I'm not running something published, I dont allow those optional rules.

[Drascin]

None of the two games I've been in have had multiclassing.

Feats, on the other hand, appeared once or twice, mostly due to people picking Variant Human.

[Keravath]

In all my play experience across D&D from AD&D to 5e, I've never played in a game that disallowed multiclassing or whatever the equivalent was for feats in different versions. In 5e however, I play mostly AL (90%) where multiclassing and feats are allowed by default. The other 10% though still allowed multiclassing and feats. In addition, from watching occasional online streams, most of those also appear to allow multiclassing and feats.

[Kane0]

The majority of my games, easily 80% or more, dont feature multiclassing PCs. It’s not disallowed, it just doesn’t really happen. Feats are the exact opposite.

[Misterwhisper]

Never once have I ever seen agame that did not allow multiclassing, I have seen 2 games total with no feats and those games died fast because nobody would play martials.


This is over years of being involved with organized play in 6 different locations over every certified location with about 90 miles.

[stoutstien]

2 games out of just shy of 50 I've ran didn't have multiclass or feats as player options. One was my very first run at 5e and the other is a long standing campaign that would have reached it's 40th session before we called a hold on in person games.

[Lupine]

Longest I’ve gone without multi-classing/ fests: til level 4. Shortest: vhuman, multiclass at level two.

Personally, feats and multiclassing are tools useful for creating the character idea you have. Not allowing them detracts from the creative value of the game.

[Dienekes]

All of my games have allowed for multiclassing and feats. I would not be surprised if most games you'll find by people on this forum allows multiclassing and feats. But I wouldn't really consider that to be a particularly accurate distribution of 5e players as a whole. This is a gaming forum with a strong homebrew and optimisation element that goes back to 3rd edition and pathfinder.

There certainly will be some, maybe even many, who don't use either. But on the whole, I'd think these boards would make high use of each.

[sithlordnergal]

I have yet to play in, or see, any game that did not allow you to use Multiclassing or Feats. Yes, it is technically an optional rule...but its such a common rule that you can generally assume that they are in use.

That said I have some bias. I have played in several AL games, I run most of my home games, and the one game I don't run is run by a DM with an AL background who feels feats and multiclassing is just fine.

I also wouldn't play in a featless/multiclassless game

[JNAProductions]

On the forums? Multiclassing and feats are allowed and common.

At the gaming store? Multiclassing and feats are allowed, but not particularly used.

[Zevox]

My group's been playing for probably six years now, across four major campaigns and several smaller adventures in between. Feats have been allowed but not especially common - our first character to take one did so at level 8, towards the end of our second campaign, IIRC (a Druid with infamously bad luck who took the Lucky feat to try and help with that... it didn't go as well as he'd hoped), and overall actual ASIs have typically been more commonly taken. Though in our current group I think all of us are looking at feats instead of ASIs for our next time getting one.

Multiclassing has been disallowed - at first because our then-new DM wanted to keep things simple while we all learned the game, later because he saw the kinds of things some people online do with multiclassing to create cheesy builds, and one of our players asked about doing just such a thing. I suspect if any of us really objected to it and put forth a multiclass character idea that made sense story-wise and wasn't obviously just designed to be mechanically powerful we could convince him to allow it, but so far nobody has wanted to.

Personally, I feel a lot less interest in multiclassing in 5E than I did in 3E, since subclasses tend to cover a lot of what I liked multiclassing for back then. I usually liked it for mixing in some amount of spellcasting with a more martial class, and now we've got options like Eldritch Knight, College of Valor, Bladesinger, Bladelocks, and Arcane Trickster for varying degrees of that, so I can do that while still playing single-class anyway.


To my perception, multiclassing and feats are a de-facto assumption of a 5E D&D game and not allowing this optional rule amounts to, on a practical level, a ban. However, I might be wrong. If* disallowing multiclassing/feats is a majority or even common occurrence, I'll reword that part. But I suspect that this 'optional' rule isn't really by-and-large optional in 5E D&D games as they are played.

* This poll has the mother of all selection biases because the GiantITP population is unrepresentative of D&D at large, but it's the best we can do.
An optional rule doesn't cease to be optional even if it's commonly used. The Player's Handbook itself explicitly refers to multiclassing and feats as optional rules right at the start of the chapter devoted to them, therefore, they are optional rules, pure and simple.

[Addaran]

Pretty much every game i've done had feats. Either from variant humans, people wanting something cool at 4 or 8. Or just because we rolled stats so we didn't need as much ASI.

Multiclass has always been allowed except maybe in the first game i participated in. I think i've only ever seen one character that did, a barbarian that didn't feel excited for the higher levels ( stopped at 8 i think) and went battlemaster fighter.

That's 6 real games and a few one-shots.

[Deathtongue]

An optional rule doesn't cease to be optional even if it's commonly used. The Player's Handbook itself explicitly refers to multiclassing and feats as optional rules right at the start of the chapter devoted to them, therefore, they are optional rules, pure and simple.I don't care much for this line of argumentation. It's a technical equivocation to dismiss a (supposedly) pivotal feature of how D&D games are actually played when convenient.

[Daphne]

I've played with my close friends since 5e was released and they never took a feat or multiclassed.

They don't interact with the game outside our session.

[Misterwhisper]

My group's been playing for probably six years now, across four major campaigns and several smaller adventures in between. Feats have been allowed but not especially common - our first character to take one did so at level 8, towards the end of our second campaign, IIRC (a Druid with infamously bad luck who took the Lucky feat to try and help with that... it didn't go as well as he'd hoped), and overall actual ASIs have typically been more commonly taken. Though in our current group I think all of us are looking at feats instead of ASIs for our next time getting one.

Multiclassing has been disallowed - at first because our then-new DM wanted to keep things simple while we all learned the game, later because he saw the kinds of things some people online do with multiclassing to create cheesy builds, and one of our players asked about doing just such a thing. I suspect if any of us really objected to it and put forth a multiclass character idea that made sense story-wise and wasn't obviously just designed to be mechanically powerful we could convince him to allow it, but so far nobody has wanted to.

Personally, I feel a lot less interest in multiclassing in 5E than I did in 3E, since subclasses tend to cover a lot of what I liked multiclassing for back then. I usually liked it for mixing in some amount of spellcasting with a more martial class, and now we've got options like Eldritch Knight, College of Valor, Bladesinger, Bladelocks, and Arcane Trickster for varying degrees of that, so I can do that while still playing single-class anyway.


An optional rule doesn't cease to be optional even if it's commonly used. The Player's Handbook itself explicitly refers to multiclassing and feats as optional rules right at the start of the chapter devoted to them, therefore, they are optional rules, pure and simple.

The only reason it is optional is so they can always use the excuse of “well it is an optional rule” anytime someone complains about imbalance.

Also it is pretty freaking stupid to do all your play testing for balance without feats and multiclassing and not taking them into consideration when the OFFICIAL gaming setup used for sanctioned play and modules does use it.

Also the numbers he keeps using is based on data from dnd beyond. However he also assumes every character that is built is a pc that is being played, and assume that any character that did not click on use of feats at creation or that did not multi class didn’t have that rule.

Also the same reason they they think fighter is by far the most common played class. It is just because lots of them are made on there as grunt npcs and things but they assume they are players.

Also they assume every character built is played despite probably half of them being people building things to see what it looks like.

[Zevox]

I don't care much for this line of argumentation. It's a technical equivocation to dismiss a (supposedly) pivotal feature of how D&D games are actually played when convenient.
I'm not dismissing them - I have no problem with either, personally. Just pointing out that factually, that is what they are in this edition, by the core rulebook's own explicit words.

[Waazraath]

Since 5e came out: 4 campaigns, all face 2 face home games, 2 with feats/multiclass, 2 without.

[Trask]

I don't care much for this line of argumentation. It's a technical equivocation to dismiss a (supposedly) pivotal feature of how D&D games are actually played when convenient.

I think what it actually is it preserving the original intent of the rules, which states that they are optional. For a dm who doesnt want to use feats and multiclassing, the books support them on that decision and help them to not be bullied into using optional rules they dont want to use just because a bunch of people on the internet use them.

[king_steve]

So far, about 50% of the games I’ve been in included feats and multi classing. The games that did allowed them also always allowed both.

[47Ace]

I think what it actually is it preserving the original intent of the rules, which states that they are optional. For a dm who doesnt want to use feats and multiclassing, the books support them on that decision and help them to not be bullied into using optional rules they dont want to use just because a bunch of people on the internet use them.

Quick question if the original intent of the rules is to not have feats then why in your opinion do fighters have extra ability score improvements when the can't effectively use them all on relevant stats(str/dex and con)?

[ZorroGames]

In all my play experience across D&D from AD&D to 5e, I've never played in a game that disallowed multiclassing or whatever the equivalent was for feats in different versions. In 5e however, I play mostly AL (90%) where multiclassing and feats are allowed by default. The other 10% though still allowed multiclassing and feats. In addition, from watching occasional online streams, most of those also appear to allow multiclassing and feats.

This seems pretty consistent from my 5e AL experience.

[Boci]

This seems pretty consistent from my 5e AL experience.

Its literally can't not be. Unless I've missed something AL DMs have to allow multiclassing and feats, because AL strives for rule consistancy and they decided that those two optional rules were allowed.

I've played mostly in online games, about 7 in total, and I'm pretty sure all allowed feats, but I can't be certain since I often didn't use them. Plus most started from level 1 and didn't last the multiclassing often didn't come up. One DM I played for even gave all players a bonus feat at level 1. I remember cheekily asking if I could play a Vuman and get two, and I believe he said no. Another DM, in a game I just started and hit level two literally yesterday, allows both feats and multiclassing, and even let me multiclass my hexblade as a fighter, even though I lacked the minimum stat requirements.

When I DM, I allow both feats and multiclassing. Feats are typically snapped up by half or so pf my groups. Multiclassing is rarer, but it happens.

[ZorroGames]

Its literally can't not be. Unless I've missed something AL DMs have to allow multiclassing and feats, because AL strives for rule consistancy and they decided that those two optional rules were allowed.

Right, though there was that recent thread... moving on, my last two campaigns were not AL (shock, horror, gasp, disbelief 🤯 etc.,) and the first clearly was Wild Wild West level of open gaming with DMM as background while I entered the newest campaign as a Ghostwise Halfling Rogue 1/Trickery cleric 4 mid campaign at the non-AL shop without an eye being blinked.

So not sure how that helps your polling.

[Deathtongue]

I think what it actually is it preserving the original intent of the rules, which states that they are optional. For a dm who doesnt want to use feats and multiclassing, the books support them on that decision and help them to not be bullied into using optional rules they dont want to use just because a bunch of people on the internet use them.And that's literally what I mean by saying that this line of argument is an equivocation. It's a rhetorical escape hatch that allows people to avoid defending why they hold a position of no feat/no multiclassing.

[pragma]

I'm running a 5e game right now that bans multiclassing because 1-2 level dips for power boosts make the monsters less fun and the classes less unique.

Feats are allowed, but I banned crossbow expert and sharpshooter (to make ranged combat more tactically interesting) and polearm master (because the easy access to a bonus action attack is a huge damage spike that supersedes more tactically interesting options like two weapon fighting).

[pragma]

That said, I've been a player on-and-off in a few home games, and the default assumption is feats + multiclassing, and everyone uses feats and no one multiclasses. I saw one person trying to pull of a bladelock/fighter back before any sourcebooks got released, and that's it.

[JNAProductions]

And that's literally what I mean by saying that this line of argument is an equivocation. It's a rhetorical escape hatch that allows people to avoid defending why they hold a position of no feat/no multiclassing.

Why does it need defense? It's a decision on how to enjoy your magical elf games.

If you don't like feats/multiclassing, then don't use them. Don't be a jerk about it to others, but for your own game, as a DM or player? Who cares?

[Boci]

Why does it need defense? It's a decision on how to enjoy your magical elf games.

If you don't like feats/multiclassing, then don't use them. Don't be a jerk about it to others, but for your own game, as a DM or player? Who cares?

Because on the topic of DM vs. Player. DMs don't like feats, but they're not the one taking them. The player wants to. Presumably therefor the player will have more fun with that. How much fun is the DM getting by not allowing feats, compared to how much fun the player is missing out on?

On the other hand, DMs absolutly do (and should) build a world for the game, and whilst they are free to take suggestions on that from the players, they are the final aribtors. But even this gets confusing too. Say the DM wants gothic horror, whilst all the players would rather political thriller? (Yes I'm aware those two aren't mutally exclusive). How can the group solve that? Dm's final world, or majority decides?

[Unavenger]

Man, remember how prestige classes were an "Optional rule" back in 3.5?

...Yeah.

[JNAProductions]

Because on the topic of DM vs. Player. DMs don't like feats, but they're not the one taking them. The player wants to. Presumably therefor the player will have more fun with that. How much fun is the DM getting by not allowing feats, compared to how much fun the player is missing out on?

On the other hand, DMs absolutly do (and should) build a world for the game, and whilst they are free to take suggestions on that from the players, they are the final aribtors. But even this gets confusing too. Say the DM wants gothic horror, whilst all the players would rather political thriller? (Yes I'm aware those two aren't mutally exclusive). How can the group solve that? Dm's final world, or majority decides?

If a DM sets up a game that you don't find fun, don't play in it. Now, a good DM will work with the players to find a middle ground where everyone has fun, but if the players all want hack-and-slash, kick the door down action-packed monty haul game, and the DM wants a slow-paced, characterful and roleplay heavy game... They shouldn't be gaming together. At least one person is gonne be dissatisfied.

While I would agree that a DM banning feats or multiclassing isn't a particularly good sign, it's not a red flag that'd make me ignore a game. It'd change what I'd play, possibly, but it's not the end of the world.

[Boci]

If a DM sets up a game that you don't find fun, don't play in it. Now, a good DM will work with the players to find a middle ground where everyone has fun, but if the players all want hack-and-slash, kick the door down action-packed monty haul game, and the DM wants a slow-paced, characterful and roleplay heavy game... They shouldn't be gaming together. At least one person is gonne be dissatisfied.

See, this is I chose gothic horror vs. political intrigue, and not grimdark vs. slapstick, because I specifically wanted to avoid the cliche reduction of the disagreement down to two opposing ends of the sprectrum where the only possible conclusion is the two parties agree to find other geoups. You can have preferences that bristle without being mutally exclusive, and feats feel like a good example of this. Think about it, just how many DMs who would rather not play with feats genuinly couldn't endure a game with their players taking feats?

[JNAProductions]

See, this is I chose gothic horror vs. political intrigue, and not grimdark vs. slapstick, because I specifically wanted to avoid the cliche reduction of the disagreement down to two opposing ends of the sprectrum where the only possible conclusion is the two parties agree to find other geoups. You can have preferences that bristle without being mutally exclusive, and feats feel like a good example of this. Think about it, just how many DMs who would rather not play with feats genuinly couldn't endure a game with their players taking feats?

Which is why I said a good DM will work with the players. (Or recognize where they can't work.)

I do believe that most DMs who ban feats would find that opening up to them wouldn't ruin anything, but equally, I believe that most players would be fine without feats. (And multiclassing.)

To put another way, you don't need to justify why you do your gaming a certain way to anyone but those you game with. If someone on a forum says "You're gaming wrong!" you're free to ignore them, but if a player at your table says "I'm not having fun," or even "I could be having more fun," that is something you need to pay attention to.

[ProsecutorGodot]

All of the games I've played in have used feats but I am the only player in each one of them that is typically multiclassing.

The DM is very open to adding additional content. To my knowledge, the only content he explicitly doesn't allow is Mystic and it's not because of the balance issues, it's because he doesn't want to comb through 23 pages of class features.

[ZorroGames]

Man, remember how prestige classes were an "Optional rule" back in 3.5?

...Yeah.

Only heard it second hand but I get your point. Make something good optional and it stops being optional.

[Boci]

I do believe that most DMs who ban feats would find that opening up to them wouldn't ruin anything, but equally, I believe that most players would be fine without feats. (And multiclassing.)

That is likely true yes, but, not having feats vs. having feat, undeniably affects the player more. They only have their character. The DM has their world and their NPCs and their plots. So its not an unreasonable argument that when it comes to feats vs. no feats, DMs should allow them, because it really doesn't effect them too much one way or another.


Only heard it second hand but I get your point. Make something good optional and it stops being optional.

I recall it being in the DMG, which is where the first prestige classes were. It may not have said optional literally, but it definitly said word to the effect of restrict them in your games, and recommended them representing in game organizations.

Part of it was too good, but also it was that, PrC helped customize a character. Without archetypes, there wasn't so much you could do beyond feats to tweak a character class, until racial substitution levels came in later. Pathfinder has archetypes in their game (the only difference being they are optional and ideally are a balanced trade. Haha!) and prestige classes certainly seem way less relevant in that game. Plus it was also about numbers printed. Every new book practically introduced another 6-12 prestige classes, so they really stopped looking like optional content.

[Trask]

Quick question if the original intent of the rules is to not have feats then why in your opinion do fighters have extra ability score improvements when the can't effectively use them all on relevant stats(str/dex and con)?

To achieve their maximums faster than everyone else, mimicking the faster attack bonus progression they would get in other editions (although usually that didnt include the rogue but thats just the way it was hashed out now). And when they achieve their maximums, it lets them have higher scores in general than everyone else, contributing to their feel as "pure" martial classes. A strength fighter also has a good dexterity, or vice versa, or perhaps also has a high charisma for a heroic leader feel. Ability scores are not only mechanics, they determine the limitations and scope of your character in roleplaying as well. Fighters and rogues get extra ASI's to contribute to their "martial hero" feel, unreliant on magic. Of course the fact that it happens to mesh very well with feats is no accident im sure, but its not the only way it benefits them.

[JNAProductions]

That is likely true yes, but, not having feats vs. having feat, undeniably affects the player more. They only have their character. The DM has their world and their NPCs and their plots. So its not an unreasonable argument that when it comes to feats vs. no feats, DMs should allow them, because it really doesn't effect them too much one way or another.

As a DM, I allow feats.
As a player, I like feats.

My main point is that someone who DOESN'T like feats isn't wrong. If they're both insistent on no feats AND feats are such an important part of your character, you two aren't compatible for 5E gaming. That's not the end of the world.

I do generally believe feats should be allowed-but I'm not going to curse someone's name because they feel differently.

[BurgerBeast]

To my perception, multiclassing and feats are a de-facto assumption of a 5E D&D game and not allowing this optional rule amounts to, on a practical level, a ban. However, I might be wrong. If* disallowing multiclassing/feats is a majority or even common occurrence, I'll reword that part. But I suspect that this 'optional' rule isn't really by-and-large optional in 5E D&D games as they are played.

* This poll has the mother of all selection biases because the GiantITP population is unrepresentative of D&D at large, but it's the best we can do.

What are you talking about? “To your perception...”? It’s an objective fact that the rules are optional. This means they are not assumed de-facto. So, no, it’s not a ban. You are wrong. Period.

If they are or are not a majority occurrence has nothing to do with objective reality. I don’t care if you re-word it or not. You have the right to be wrong.

Edit: and moreover...


I don't care much for this line of argumentation. It's a technical equivocation to dismiss a (supposedly) pivotal feature of how D&D games are actually played when convenient.

Facts don’t care about your feelings, i.e. what you “care for.”

[Boci]

My main point is that someone who DOESN'T like feats isn't wrong.

Yes it isn't wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't ask. People can make mistakes about their own preference, and can often dig their heels in rather than try and maybe see they were wrong. This goes for both sides. The DM who says they couldn't possibly run a game with feat, and the player who shakes their head at the idea of making a charatcer without feats. Asking either for why they feel that way isn't neccissarily bad, you may even help them realize they're overreacting. You probably won't, but you can always try.

[JNAProductions]

Yes it isn't wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't ask. People can make mistakes about their own preference, and can often dig their heels in rather than try and maybe see they were wrong. This goes for both sides. The DM who says they couldn't possibly run a game with feat, and the player who shakes their head at the idea of making a charatcer without feats. Asking either for why they feel that way isn't neccissarily bad, you may even help them realize they're overreacting. You probably won't, but you can always try.

I... I think we're arguing, at most, semantics. Because I am in 100% agreement with that statement.

[Zetakya]

I have played in games where I reached the mid-teens without Multiclassing (my Dwarven Drunken Master) and so did the rest of the party.

I have played games where I was the only multi-class character (Swashbuckler Rogue 7 / Battlemaster Fighter 3) in the party

In general about half of the characters I can recall multi-classes and half did not.

[BurgerBeast]

Yes it isn't wrong. But that doesn't mean you can't ask. People can make mistakes about their own preference, and can often dig their heels in rather than try and maybe see they were wrong. This goes for both sides. The DM who says they couldn't possibly run a game with feat, and the player who shakes their head at the idea of making a charatcer without feats. Asking either for why they feel that way isn't neccissarily bad, you may even help them realize they're overreacting. You probably won't, but you can always try.

This more or less summarizes the futility of such discussions. It’s a matter of preference. Nobody is wrong. Everyone is right, because they are talking about their own opinion. It’s a literal waste of time.

However, as soon as you (and by you I don’t mean you - I mean the OP) cross the line into suggesting that majority opinion or majority action can change the fact of the matter, you are categorically wrong.

[Boci]

I... I think we're arguing, at most, semantics. Because I am in 100% agreement with that statement.

Because wasn't Deathtongue's origional point was how "They're optional" sucks as a justification for not allowing feats? They were being quite militant about it, and yes it does seem possibly they could end up on the path of demanding justification for everything the DM does, but the origional point seems in line with your, that a DM should probably offer more than "They're optional" when explaining to a player they can't use feats. "I'm new to DMing and its hard enough", "I worry about the balance of allowing them", "I like oldschool games and feats don't fit that theme for me" and are fine justifications, but just "Theyre optional"? I would (hopefully politely) ask a DM to elaborate on that one.

[BurgerBeast]

Because wasn't Deathtongue's origional point was how "They're optional" sucks as a justification for not allowing feats? They were being quite militant about it, and yes it does seem possibly they could end up on the path of demanding justification for everything the DM does, but the origional point seems in line with your, that a DM should probably offer more than "They're optional" when explaining to a player they can't use feats. "I'm new to DMing and its hard enough", "I worry about the balance of allowing them", "I like oldschool games and feats don't fit that theme for me" and are fine justifications, but just "Theyre optional"? I would (hopefully politely) ask a DM to elaborate on that one.

Then you’re the one who is treating these optional rules in an unusual way.

Do you request an explanation for why DMs don’t use the flanking rules? The variant encumbrance rules? The spell point system? The aarokocra race?

Of course not. The DM decides what the rules of the game will be. The players decide if they want to play.

[JNAProductions]

Because wasn't Deathtongue's origional point was how "They're optional" sucks as a justification for not allowing feats? They were being quite militant about it, and yes it does seem possibly they could end up on the path of demanding justification for everything the DM does, but the origional point seems in line with your, that a DM should probably offer more than "They're optional" when explaining to a player they can't use feats. "I'm new to DMing and its hard enough", "I worry about the balance of allowing them", "I like oldschool games and feats don't fit that theme for me" and are fine justifications, but just "Theyre optional"? I would (hopefully politely) ask a DM to elaborate on that one.

Yeah, that's a fair statement.


Then you’re the one who is treating these optional rules in an unusual way.

Do you request an explanation for why DMs don’t use the flanking rules? The variant encumbrance rules? The spell point system? The aarokocra race?

Of course not. The DM decides what the rules of the game will be. The players decide if they want to play.

I will say to you, BurgerBeast, that both feats and multiclassing are common enough that you can show up to a game with a feated/multiclassed character and generally expect to play. Especially since, for variant encumbrance and spell points, those are replacements for EXISTING SYSTEMS-not new additions, but changes to the default systems already in place. (Flanking isn't, but it's also completely and totally broken, so.)

You're not wrong to expect a DM to allow feats and multiclassing, or to be surprised if they're not allowed.

[Boci]

Of course not. The DM decides what the rules of the game will be. The players decide if they want to play.

A DM will (hopefully) invest more time in the game that I as a player will, but I will still invest time in it and as such I am entitled to ask a few polite "whys" of the DM to help me decide if I want to join the game.

I mean just imagine that attitude with any other aspect of the game:

"I'm running a gothic horror game. Do you want in?"

"Why gothic horror?"

"Because I can. Do you want in?"

Probably not with that answer, but "I saw a vampire movie recently and loved it" and sure I'll probably give it a try (insert obvious Twilight joke).

[Chronos]

I've played with one group since 5e came out; we've taken twoish parties from low level to 14 or 15, and soon to start on a third party. We allow feats, but do not allow multiclassing. This is largely because our table has a significant disparity of player skill, and multiclassing can both somewhat increase PC power if done effectively, or significantly decrease it if done ineffectively. And there's enough variety in the existing classes and subclasses that banning multiclassing doesn't seem to have a significant impact in the thematic choices open to a player.

[Devils_Advocate]

Why does it need defense? It's a decision on how to enjoy your magical elf games.

The DM decides what the rules of the game will be.
That's equally true for the removal, addition, or alteration of any rule.

All of the rules of Dungeons & Dragons are optional, because no one with the power to force anyone to use particular tabletop game rules is sufficiently interested in doing that. A group can play a game where d20 rolls are replaced with 3d6 rolls. They will not be hunted down and stopped by an always-watching surveillance state deeply dedicated to making sure that everyone is playing D&D the right way.

We all know that all of the rules of D&D are optional, and we all know that we all know that. Given the context of that mutual knowledge, it can safely be inferred that when a rulebook or a person says that a particular rule is optional, the point isn't to inform the reader that the rule is optional. The point is all in the subtext.

[BurgerBeast]

I will say to you, BurgerBeast, that both feats and multiclassing are common enough that you can show up to a game with a feated/multiclassed character and generally expect to play.

Agreed.


You're not wrong to expect a DM to allow feats and multiclassing, or to be surprised if they're not allowed.

Yes, you are. It’s wrong to assume anything is true when you don’t know if it is true or false. You should check if you’re not sure. You should never make a character and assume that it meets the requirements. If you’re not sure, ask.


A DM will (hopefully) invest more time in the game that I as a player will, but I will still invest time in it and as such I am entitled to ask a few polite "whys" of the DM to help me decide if I want to join the game.

I mean just imagine that attitude with any other aspect of the game:

"I'm running a gothic horror game. Do you want in?"

"Why gothic horror?"

"Because I can. Do you want in?"

Probably not with that answer, but "I saw a vampire movie recently and loved it" and sure I'll probably give it a try (insert obvious Twilight joke).

So. Your interest in gothic horror will change based on the explanation of the DM? That seems more ridiculous to me. You’re either interested in something or you’re not.

We obviously have different value systems but for me it’s pretty simple. The DM is taking the time to put together a game for the players. I will tend to play the game as designed, not ask questions, and if I don’t like it I wouldn’t presume to expect it to change. To expect an explanation from the DM about why they did or don’t include rules is absurd.

Note that simply asking out of curiosity is not the same thing as expecting an explanation. How much different is “There are no dragonborn in this universe” than “there are no multi-classed characters in this universe.” There just aren’t.


That's equally true for the removal, addition, or alteration of any rule.

Agreed, which is fundamental to my point.


All of the rules of Dungeons & Dragons are optional, because no one with the power to force anyone to use particular tabletop game rules is sufficiently interested in doing that. A group can play a game where d20 rolls are replaced with 3d6 rolls. They will not be hunted down and stopped by an always-watching surveillance state deeply dedicated to making sure that everyone is playing D&D the right way.

We all know that all of the rules of D&D are optional, and we all know that we all know that. Given the context of that mutual knowledge, it can safely be inferred that when a rulebook or a person says that a particular rule is optional, the point isn't to inform the reader that the rule is optional. The point is all in the subtext.

Right. So what are you driving at, because this appears to be driving at my point. The authors specified that multi-classing and feats are optional in 5e. Why would they specifically call those rules out? It appears that they anticipated the attitudes exhibited by people who insist that these rules are not optional.

[47Ace]

To achieve their maximums faster than everyone else, mimicking the faster attack bonus progression they would get in other editions (although usually that didnt include the rogue but thats just the way it was hashed out now). And when they achieve their maximums, it lets them have higher scores in general than everyone else, contributing to their feel as "pure" martial classes. A strength fighter also has a good dexterity, or vice versa, or perhaps also has a high charisma for a heroic leader feel. Ability scores are not only mechanics, they determine the limitations and scope of your character in roleplaying as well. Fighters and rogues get extra ASI's to contribute to their "martial hero" feel, unreliant on magic. Of course the fact that it happens to mesh very well with feats is no accident im sure, but its not the only way it benefits them.

I would definitely argue that in any D20 game (i.e. one where every action is resolved by roll a D20 and add you ability score and proficiency (basically D&D 3.0 and its descendants) ) ability scores are just mechanics and not fluff but, that is not a common opinion I believe. I will ask why you think that Barbairians don't get extra ASIs and would also point out that fighters got the same to hit bonuses as Paladins, Rangers and Barbarians in 3.5e but they did get many more feats.

[Boci]

So. Your interest in gothic horror will change based on the explanation of the DM? That seems more ridiculous to me. You’re either interested in something or you’re not.

Ofcourse it will. Depending on the answer I will make a regular character, throw some cheap blood on them and maybe add that they murdered their parents, or actually do some research, gothic literary, remind myself of the common motiffs and trends, how can those be represented in a D&D game. Maybe I don't feel like doing the latter at the time because I'm looking for something else. I may also realize that the DM is really passionate about gothic horror while I have more of a passing interest, and so maybe they will be dissapointed with my character. And yes, there is also the DM quality question. I live in a capital city with over 2 million over people. I am not desperate for games, and so I will ask some questions to get a better feel because "its a gothic horro game" is not that descriptive.


We obviously have different value systems but for me it’s pretty simple. The DM is taking the time to put together a game for the players. I will tend to play the game as designed, not ask questions, and if I don’t like it I wouldn’t presume to expect it to change. To expect an explanation from the DM about why they did or don’t include rules is absurd.

To me its absurd that the time the player will need to invest and that they're not allowed to ask for some details about the DM, their style, and the game.

I listed several examples of what I would consider fine justifications. "I'm new to DMing and its hard enough", "I worry about the balance of allowing them", "I like oldschool games and feats don't fit that theme for me" Hardly a 2,000 word cost-benefit analysis, nor is there any expection from me that the DM change it, I just want to hear a reason. If a DM can't spare me a dozen words to explain why they choose to run their game in a particular fashion, then yeah, that's not a good look. Why would I play with someone who doesn't think I'm worth a dozen words? I do have some self-respect.

[Sigreid]

I personally rarely mlticlass. Another in our group does it nearly every time.

[Keravath]

From some of the comments in this thread there are games that allow multiclassing and feats but they don't seem to see much use.

I think the reason for this is the pretty common thought that using an ASI to bump your primary stat to 20 (if you are using either point buy or standard array or start with a 16 from rolled stats) can be a better use of the ASI than getting a feat. This is particularly true for casters since it increases the DC, increases the spells prepared or known, and increases associated skills. However, even for the martial classes, increases stats is a competitive choice. Paladins want high strength and charisma, rogues and ranged characters want 20 dex, a monk wants 20 dex and 20 wis. So, if your games don't typically go much past 8th level, there will likely be far more folks bumping stats that taking feats in most cases.

Similarly, multiclassing always involves a trade off. If a caster multiclasses even one level then all of the spells they get will be one level behind any other pure caster in the group. A level 5 1 cleric/4 evoker wizard won't have fireball while the 5 divination wizard will, a 5 cleric has all their third level spells. By the time you hit level 7 or 8 the cost of a level or two dip into a mutliclass is usually far less significant in my experience. However, if you are playing in a campaign that ends in the level 7-9 range the player could feel that their character is lagging behind everyone else especially around level 5/6 if they decide to multiclass. As a result, players expecting the campaign to not run to high levels may often forego multiclassing.

So, I think that the expected level that the characters will be played to can be a significant factor in whether feats and multiclassing are used even if they are available.

This goes particularly for favorites like GWM and Sharpshooter. The -5 to hit is a significant and more or less balanced penalty in tier two especially if you have taken the feat instead of bumping your attack stat. Unless the character has a good, reliable way to generate advantage on their attack rolls, the -5 will mean that GWM and SS will not be the best choice except against "yard trash" with a lower AC. In tier 3, with increased proficiency, maxed stats, more ways to obtain advantage and the fact that monster AC doesn't tend to keep pace, both GWM and SS can represent a significant increase in DPS. However, in tier 2, not so much.

------

I also wonder at the folks who are opposed to feats and multiclassing since I find that they only usually become an actual balance issue in higher level games. Do the folks who oppose these always play to tier 3 or 4?

In many cases, the most "effective builds" that appear popular don't really start to be really effective until level 8+. Leaving out feats and multiclassing has a minimal impact on games that are likely to end by level 9 (e.g. a shadow monk 6/ swashbuckler 3 would really start to see the rogue contribution about level 9 with the mini mobile ability and charisma to initiative rolls ... but if the game is going to end a 9/10 ... the player probably figures they are much better off going pure shadow monk ... at least I would). Most of the multiclass characters I have played have had to "suffer" a bit in terms of being a bit less effective than their pure class counterparts for at least a level or two before catching up ... they are also usually not necessarily more powerful or effective in combat than their counterparts but they are typically more versatile, survivable and (in my opinion) fun :)


e.g.

Paladin/hexblade ... usually needs 6 paladin for aura and 2 levels of hexblade ... needs to be level 8 BUT also delays Improved Divine Smite by 2 levels.
Paladin/sorcerer
... paladin 2 + sorcerer X ...delays ASIs by 2 levels and paladins typically need so many stat increases that they don't have much room for feats anyway
... paladin 6 + sorcerer X ... delays ASIs ... doesn't get IDS ... the so called "smite" power from all those extra spell slots really doesn't start showing up much until level 11+ ... a level 11 paladin is a 6th level caster (since the tables round up for a pure paladin) while a 6 paladin/5 sorcerer is an 8th level caster. The 8th level caster has 2 x 4th level spell slots /day that a level 11 paladin doesn't, the level 11 has IDS and the other paladin features. Anyway, the multiclass doesn't have much more ability to smite than the regular paladin until well into tier 3.
Bard/warlock ... spells always run behind
Sorcerer/warlock ... classic sorlock ... through tier 2 they don't typically have enough sorcery points to cast quickened eldritch blast very often and even if they do, it only has 2 bolts. However, entering tier 3 the cantrip has 3 blasts and the sorcerer starts off with both more and higher spell slots that can be converted to sorcery points and a larger sorcery point pool so that the 2SP cost for quicken becomes more manageable to use on a more regular basis. However, again, the build really doesn't start to function that well until well into tier 3.

The point being that feats and multiclassing really don't disrupt much through tier 1 and 2 in terms of balance and both may put a character "behind" another character that chooses to max their relevant stat.

[BurgerBeast]

Ofcourse it will. Depending on the answer I will make a regular character, throw some cheap blood on them and maybe add that they murdered their parents, or actually do some research, gothic literary, remind myself of the common motiffs and trends, how can those be represented in a D&D game.

I’m not sure how you think this sounds. It sounds immature to me.


Maybe I don't feel like doing the latter at the time because I'm looking for something else.

So the DM has to earn your participation? Who do you think you are?


I may also realize that the DM is really passionate about gothic horror while I have more of a passing interest, and so maybe they will be dissapointed with my character. And yes, there is also the DM quality question. I live in a capital city with over 2 million over people. I am not desperate for games, and so I will ask some questions to get a better feel because "its a gothic horro game" is not that descriptive.

What do questions about the theme of the campaign have to do with the rules included or excluded? Gothic horror can proceed independently of feats and multi-classing.


To me its absurd that the time the player will need to invest and that they're not allowed to ask for some details about the DM, their style, and the game.

I agree, which is why I never said anything like this.


I listed several examples of what I would consider fine justifications. "I'm new to DMing and its hard enough", "I worry about the balance of allowing them", "I like oldschool games and feats don't fit that theme for me"

And I’m saying you are not owed an explanation. Do you ask why it’s a D&D campaign and not some other RPG? Are you expecting some answer you haven’t thought of? Have you ever heard something called “the benefit of the doubt”?


Hardly a 2,000 word cost-benefit analysis, nor is there any expection from me that the DM change it, I just want to hear a reason. If a DM can't spare me a dozen words to explain why they choose to run their game in a particular fashion, then yeah, that's not a good look. Why would I play with someone who doesn't think I'm worth a dozen words? I do have some self-respect.

You seem to think the answer contains more depth that it ought to. It’s an arbitrary choice. Not every choice is deep and meaningful.

If “I thought it would be fun” is a good enough reason, then what could possibly be a bad reason? Because whatever answer you get is either going to be “I felt like it” or “I wanted to try it” or “I thought it would be fun” or it will be a better answer.

So you are literally wasting the DMs and your own time. And if the allowance of feats and/or multi-classing makes or breaks your decision, then you are not providing the same courtesy that you are demanding of the DM.

Imagine if the DM held you to the same standard, and maybe you’ll see the absurdity of your position.

“Why did you make an elf? Why a wood elf? Why a Druid? Why the outlander background?”

And if you say “What’s the difference?”

The DM says to you: “Well, I don’t necessarily mind that type of character, if you can justify it to me.”

Joey can play that character because I like his reasons. You, however, cannot, because your reasons do not satisfy me.

Again. Who do you think you are?

[BurgerBeast]

I also wonder at the folks who are opposed to feats and multiclassing since I find that they only usually become an actual balance issue in higher level games. Do the folks who oppose these always play to tier 3 or 4?

You continue to make the incorrect assumption that just because feats and multi-classing are not allowed in a game, the DM must be “opposed to” them.

It’s just a choice.

How many people criticize WOW for not allowing multi-classing? Whatever the answer is, I think it’s safe to say that it’s pretty low. That’s because multi-classing was not assumed to be an option in the first place.

Someone coming from fourth edition might have been disappointed if Dragonborn were not in the PHB. I wouldn’t have been. It’s about expectations.

You might have expected, like many people, that feats and multi-classing would be standard rules in 5e. You are wrong.

The only reason you’re disappointed about it is because of past expectations.

If every game of 5e you’d ever played included all splat books, you might be disappointed by a core-only game. That would be your fault, not the DM’s. Nothing about “I’m going to host a game of D&D. Would you like to play?” Implies that Ravnica material is allowed. Nothing about it implies that Eberron material is allowed. Nothing about it implies that any splat books are allowed. Nothing about it implies that any optional rules are in use.

If you don’t know, you should ask. if you don’t like it, that’s your problem.

If you think that feats and multi-classing are standard, then you are wrong. No amount of wanting to be right can make you right. If you don’t like it, take it up with WotC. It’s not the DM’s fault that the rules are what they are.

[Boci]

I’m not sure how you think this sounds. It sounds immature to me.

So tailoring my character, specifically how intensly gothic horror-y they are, to a conversation I have with the DM who will be running the gothic-y horror game, is immature? Yeah, no. That makes you sound immature.

"Oh my god! Boci considers the DM's stance on the campaign theme when making a character. What a loser!"


So the DM has to earn your participation? Who do you think you are?

No. The DM doesn't automatically get my participation for saying "I have game". I don't live in a place where that is enough to draw my attention. I'm in 5 games. Even if I lost one I'd have to be very interested to join another, and I to determine my interest

You can't be offended when a adult player needs some more imformation before they decide whenever or not to join a game. Its just...well, wow.


What do questions about the theme of the campaign have to do with the rules included or excluded? Gothic horror can proceed independently of feats and multi-classing.

So now suddenly it is okay for me to ask about the gothichorror aspect? Because your initial stance was that too was unnacceptable of me. And I'm allwoed to be interested in multiple aspects of the game.


I agree, which is why I never said anything like this.

Yes you did. Dm style includes rulings the DM makes.


And I’m saying you are not owed an explanation. Do you ask why it’s a D&D campaign and not some other RPG? Are you expecting some answer you haven’t thought of? Have you ever heard something called “the benefit of the doubt”?

No, the answer imforms me about the game. I might not feel like playing in an old-school style game at the moment, in which case I'll pass. For example.


You seem to think the answer contains more depth that it ought to. It’s an arbitrary choice. Not every choice is deep and meaningful.

See above.


If “I thought it would be fun” is a good enough reason, then what could possibly be a bad reason?

As mentioned "Theyre optional", and a refusal to talk about it. If a Dm won't talk to me, why would I want to play in their game?


Because whatever answer you get is either going to be “I felt like it” or “I wanted to try it” or “I thought it would be fun” or it will be a better answer.

No it wouldn't. See above about how the answer can help.


So you are literally wasting the DMs and your own time.

No, you're jsut desperatly trying to paint me as the bad guy


Imagine if the DM held you to the same standard, and maybe you’ll see the absurdity of your position.

“Why did you make an elf? Why a wood elf? Why a Druid? Why the outlander background?”

That's a terrible comparison, for several reasons. For 1, the details you mentioned don't impact the DM's expirience nearly as much as the DMs game will impact me. For 2, I will happilly tell fellow gamers about how I'm always drawn to elven races and the like because I'm strong and not particularly graceful. As a child I really wished I was different. As an adult I'm now more okay with it, being strong or graceful doesn't really impact my day to day life as a teacher, but when it comes to fantasy I much prefer races and builds that have precision and finesse over strength. So yeah, I wouldn't berudge that question, because, it something I freely discuss with my friends. Sorry to dissapoint.

[flat_footed]

The Fullmetal Mod: Locked for review.