When is this a problem?

[ZorroGames]

So, at what point does MCing and Feats actually impinge on a game?

Start where Variant Humans get one?

Level 4 where everyone can skip an ASI for a feat and VHumans get a second (Sharpshooter and CBE come to mind from my first non -AL gaming.)

Level 6?

Level 8?

Where?

I really want to know where, other than DM “my world design” people see this as a threat... problem

[BurgerBeast]

I DM games that do not use the multiclassing and feat options.

In my opinion the answer to your question is: they don’t.

[ZorroGames]

I DM games that do not use the multiclassing and feat options.

In my opinion the answer to your question is: they don’t.

This is exactly the kind of answer I respect.

I still won’t play a martial in such a game and maybe not at all, depending on how internally coherent your world is maybe I would play a caster.

Thank you.

[Zetakya]

Do we really need 3 simultaneous threads on the same topic?

[Boci]

I've seen lucky banned a few times, enough to assume that for some people at least level 1 Vuman.

[Sigreid]

It all comes to preference. I don't see them as a problem at all.

[ZorroGames]

Do we really need 3 simultaneous threads on the same topic?

It is so as not derail the first thread
So, yes.

[MrStabby]

I think it comes down to what does well at different tiers.

Martial characters tend to rock at T1 and the presence of feats can seriously help them. Some more so than others.

This can be exacerbated by rolling for stats - if someone rolls well and takes a feat, then you can get some big power boosts.

T2 feats kind of work themselves out and by level 9 casters are quickly pulling ahead again.



I find the big issues in T1 are GWM and SS feats as the spike damage goes beyond anything that CR appropriate enemies are likely to be able to sustain in terms of HP. If a resource free attack action is doing more damage than a resource consuming spell then that is a bit of an issue (not a huge one, but its the margin that is the challenge).



On the other hand, feats like resilient (con), a staple for any caster, go from a minor buff to a huge increase in saves as proficiency bonus scales. Less good at low levels but contributing to power at higher levels.

In terms of smoothing out progression and tying together power levels something like banning feats till level 8 then giving a bonus feat would feel about right - although from an RP perspective being able to take two feats at one level might feel like a jarring discontinuity in character.

[Pex]

When a DM tells me he doesn't allow them because they are cheesy or he wants a roleplaying not a rollplaying game I know that DM is not for me.

[Nagog]

Depends on the game and the feats. PAM and GWM by level 4 breaks combat more than any other feat combo hands down (I disallow it in games I DM), and I know the Lucky feat is banned by many DMs for it's widespread use and game breaking potential when combined with Dis/Advantage. On the other hand, feats like Defensive Duelist, Elemental Adept, or even the ever-popular Magic Initiate aren't typically enough to break anything.

Multiclassing is already a costly option, as very few multiclass options will remain competitive to full classes of the same level. Multiclassing is typically used to optimize a build in one specific thing, such as skills, or combat, or interaction. If you feel a MC character has a combo that breaks your game, throw them out of their element.

[da newt]

I'd argue feats and MCs are only a problem if the DM is unwilling/capable of flexing encounters to match the effectiveness of the party, or the party members have issues with a disparity of PC combat effectiveness due to different build optimizations.

[NaughtyTiger]

sharpshooter: level 1 thru 10 in the games i have run.
the bonus damage can one shot an enemy in T1
the removal of penalties massively limits what the DM can adjust for in T2.

[KorvinStarmast]

It all comes to preference. I don't see them as a problem at all.

Feats are not a problem.

Being unable to take the Wis Resilient feat begins to hurts some martials at high levels due to high spell save DCs for Wisdom saves (like ancient dragon frightening presence)

But of course, this is a team game and the casters should be casting buff spells to mitigate that.

Right? Uh, riiiiiiiiiight. :p

As to "breaks the game in Tier 1" the answer is.

No, it doesn't break the game. It simply establishes the PCs as semi heroic and gets them to Tier 2 alive ... but I will say this. If feats bother you in Tier 1, don't allow vHuman; so nobody gets a feat until level 4.
Problem Solved. (Our first DM for 5e did this and things worked out fine.

[Zuras]

Sharpshooter and GWM have the potential to distort things around 5th level, especially with variant humans. Variant Humans with PAM + Sentinel can break entire encounters starting at 4th level as well.

As other have noted, it doesn’t necessarily *break* the game, but it can cause problems if one martial player is optimizing and others aren’t. By 11th level or so, the full casters have so many toys the martials really need feats to keep up, or at least keep things interesting.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

So, at what point does MCing and Feats actually impinge on a game?

Start where Variant Humans get one?

Level 4 where everyone can skip an ASI for a feat and VHumans get a second (Sharpshooter and CBE come to mind from my first non -AL gaming.)

Level 6?

Level 8?

Where?

I really want to know where, other than DM “my world design” people see this as a threat... problem


It's less of a problem and more of an annoyance, when it comes to MC. The game wasn't designed for MC so when you try to balance a session around MC characters you got to remember what they can and can't do and you will forget at some point.

Also, would have been easier to implement as subclasses if the subclasses were uniformed.

Feats are never really a problem for my groups

[BloodSnake'sCha]

In a game I am playing the biggest impact is that our cleric did take them.

His DC is low because he didn't raise his wisdom.

Feats gives options, and options are not a problem.
Abusing options is a problem, but it exists even without feats and multiclassing.

The problem is never the options, the problem is lack of gentleman agreements.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In a game I am playing the biggest impact is that our cleric did take them.

His DC is low because he didn't raise his wisdom.

Feats gives options, and options are not a problem.
Abusing options is a problem, but it exists even without feats and multiclassing.

The problem is never the options, the problem is lack of gentleman agreements.

He's a cleric, spell choice is often and the need for wisdom is not all that much.

Spells like Bless, Shield of Faith, Lesser Restoration, and plenty of other spells (especially domain spells) don't really require Wisdom.

If it's a problem for the player, I would suggest having them explore the low Wis cleric builds. If it isn't a problem for the player it isn't a problem at all.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

He's a cleric, spell choice is often and the need for wisdom is not all that much.

Spells like Bless, Shield of Faith, Lesser Restoration, and plenty of other spells (especially domain spells) don't really require Wisdom.

If it's a problem for the player, I would suggest having them explore the low Wis cleric builds. If it isn't a problem for the player it isn't a problem at all.

If it wasn't a problem for the player I won't mention it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If it wasn't a problem for the player I won't mention it.

Well, you never really said who's problem it was.

I would show them all the spells that don't require Wisdom to make them an effective party member so they feel useful in and out of combat.

[stoutstien]

So, at what point does MCing and Feats actually impinge on a game?

Start where Variant Humans get one?

Level 4 where everyone can skip an ASI for a feat and VHumans get a second (Sharpshooter and CBE come to mind from my first non -AL gaming.)

Level 6?

Level 8?

Where?

I really want to know where, other than DM “my world design” people see this as a threat... problem

Never. Feet are taken at the opportunity cost of not increasing an ability score. all the feeds that are quoted as being too powerful and also limited to only one pillar of play. And either within combat doing more damage is rarely the best option.

Outside of very specific combos multiclassing has appropriate costs
Involved. Even then they are losing something. the exception here is late game dipping into other classes because a lot of the capstone's are utter garbage.

[elyktsorb]

I don't think there is! Though I tend to use multiclassing/feats for more, well, interesting stuff. I'm not making an optimized character, I'm making a Druid/Rogue who's quite frankly awful at fighting people but is amazing at stealth (and tripping people oddly enough) or a Tortle Monk/Barbarian who's doing sick flips. I've never really used multiclassing to make strong builds, but more interesting niche stuff tbh.

[Segev]

It's less of a problem and more of an annoyance, when it comes to MC. The game wasn't designed for MC so when you try to balance a session around MC characters you got to remember what they can and can't do and you will forget at some point.

Also, would have been easier to implement as subclasses if the subclasses were uniformed.

Feats are never really a problem for my groups

How does multiclassing make it harder to remember everything a PC can do than single classing? They still have a litany of abilities, either way.

[AvatarVecna]

I can't speak for anybody else, but in certain respects level 1 - at least for feats. I don't know if it's necessarily that it's overpowered exactly, but there's something I've noticed in a lot of PbP games: if a 5e game starts at level 1 (and like 90% of them do), then Variant Human is the default race choice unless another race is just soooooooo much better for the class I settle on that even a feat can't make up for it...but what really makes it obvious are these occasional games that give every race an additional feat at level 1. When VHuman gets 1 and every other race gets 0, VHuman is default choice. When VHuman gets 2 and every other race gets 1, suddenly it's a relatively even field.

By all accounts, every race was improved the exact same amount, right? Everybody gets one more feat than they would normally. But it feels different. Elves and dwarves and all the rest didn't just increase feats by 1, they went from having none to having some, and that makes them feel more viable than they were (compared to VHuman). The versatility feats offer, and the ability to acquire one three levels early, gives a lot of flexibility to concepts. Now, any race regardless of class could start with extra skills, or a couple extra cantrips, or an expertise skill. Any fighter eyeing Battlemaster can start that part of their build a little early with a couple d6 maneuvers. Every race can take advantage of Heavy Armor Master in the part of the game where it's best.

Everybody has that extra flexibility now - and sure, VHumans have more of it, but now they don't have a monopoly on it, and while I'd consider VHuman to be competitive on most builds, they're no longer the default choice. And that says something, I think, about balance in a normal game where that extra feat isn't there for everybody.

[Keravath]

It's less of a problem and more of an annoyance, when it comes to MC. The game wasn't designed for MC so when you try to balance a session around MC characters you got to remember what they can and can't do and you will forget at some point.

Also, would have been easier to implement as subclasses if the subclasses were uniformed.

Feats are never really a problem for my groups

I'm just curious if you could provide a citation from WotC for that statement.

"The game wasn't designed for MC"

The game has included multiclassing options since it was introduced more than 40 years ago. Multiclassing has always been a part of D&D. Mutliclassing restrictions and requirements have changed over the years but multiclassing has always been a part of D&D. So, I am just curious where the designers stated that the game wasn't designed for multiclassing?

Multiclassing has always been considered "optional" just like EVERY other rule in the game since every DM is free to customize how they want to run their game. There is nothing stating that "Thou shalt use these rules and none other" .. so folks have always been free to use multiclassing or not (or any other feature to be honest ... lots of folks didn't use psionics or AD&D bards for example) since the game was invented.

Anyway, in my opinion, considering how streamlined the classes are in 5e and how easily multiclassing fits into the system in terms of choosing what class to level up in, the game certainly seems to me to have been designed to incorporate that feature if people wish to use it. So, please cite me the reference indicating where the game wasn't designed for MC.


P.S. As for whether an individual chooses to use multiclassing and feats in their specific game, that is entirely the choice of the DM and the players of that specific game (in D&D pretty much every rule is optional though if you change enough it moves away from being D&D and into some sort of hybrid system). If folks don't want to play using those rules, they won't play in the game run by that DM. The same has always been true for house rules (and whatever set of rules a DM chooses to use is perfectly ok for them). Some DMs play with rules I would not find fun to play with so I simply don't play in their games. On the other hand, some DMs are so good that the rules matter less than the experience.

[Dienekes]

Heavy Armor Master is arguably broken at level 1, amazing at level 4, good at level 8, and kinda ok at level 12 and up.

Assuming you’re wearing heavy armor, of course.

I haven’t really seen much of an issue with GWM and SS, the damage is definitely high, but I’ve seen them cause quite a few misses as well. They’re really good, no doubt. But I haven’t seen them break the game like the immortality of a level 1 HAM user.

Though personally, I think the issue with both feats could be solved by making their effects scale with level.

[Keravath]

On the topic of GWM/SS.

In tier 1, I find these a non-issue usually. In most combats at tier 1, due to the lower to hit rolls (unless using rolled stats and you rolled well), the -5 on to hit usually more than compensates for the increased damage. This continues through tier 2 against most opponents until about level 8 when folks start to max out their primary stat and proficiency increases while opponent AC doesn't tend to keep increasing. Yes, you will find that the GWM/SS will have some big numbers on one attack which is easy to remember but folks tend to forget all the times they miss.

SS is a bit more problematic due to the archery fighting style giving +2 to hit which tends to offset the -5 of sharpshooter. However, the reason this is an issue is because many DMs don't use the cover rules. Firing into a melee, through a square containing another creature (eg an ally) to hit a bad guy should be getting at least 1/2 cover or a +2 to AC which counters the +2 from archery. If the target is surrounded they might even get 3/4 cover or +5 to AC. The reason the archery fighting style exists is to help with cover that should be prevalent in most games but in my experience there are a lot of DMs who don't use it.

If a character has a method of generating advantage reliably then the value of both SS and GWM increases. The most common method is vision manipulation using effects like darkness+devils sight. Fairie fire, help action, hiding are other methods but the help and hide options are only good for one attack and thus benefit rogues most. On the other hand, gloomstalker invisibility in darkness where opponents are using darkvision to see can be brutal when combined with SS, Xbow expert and archery.

In tier 3, a reckless GWM/PAM barbarian with 3 levels of champion fighter for increased crit range can also be very impressive. However, most of these don't get going until tier 3. (I was in a party with a couple of these barbarians once, I was playing a bard ... they mopped the floor with melee opponents but were absolutely hopeless against the dragon. I was able to cast wall of force to contain the dragon while the rest of the party (2 barbs, druid, monk) cleared the ground ... but it was hilarious to watch these hyper focused characters try to throw javelins at the dragon.)

[Keravath]

Heavy Armor Master is arguably broken at level 1, amazing at level 4, good at level 8, and kinda ok at level 12 and up.

Assuming you’re wearing heavy armor, of course.

I haven’t really seen much of an issue with GWM and SS, the damage is definitely high, but I’ve seen them cause quite a few misses as well. They’re really good, no doubt. But I haven’t seen them break the game like the immortality of a level 1 HAM user.

Though personally, I think the issue with both feats could be solved by making their effects scale with level.

Level 1 lasts such a short time that I don't find HAM an issue. I also don't really see any issue with immortality of a level 1 character since, as a DM, I really try to avoid killing off level 1 characters since it is too easy to do accidentally and the campaign is just starting. If a player feels good soaking up damage at level 1 then more power to them :)

However, I've found that HAM fairly quickly loses its luster since damage from opponents often seems to scale up much faster than the 3DR from HAM. A brown bear does 2d6+5 (?) which is 12 on average with one of its attacks. HAM reduces the average to 7. So in my experience the fall off in HAM is much quicker than you have described. Usually by level 8 the character would have been far better off with another feat ... PAM/Sentinel/Resilient etc.

[loki_ragnarock]

Level 1 lasts such a short time that I don't find HAM an issue. I also don't really see any issue with immortality of a level 1 character since, as a DM, I really try to avoid killing off level 1 characters since it is too easy to do accidentally and the campaign is just starting. If a player feels good soaking up damage at level 1 then more power to them :)

However, I've found that HAM fairly quickly loses its luster since damage from opponents often seems to scale up much faster than the 3DR from HAM. A brown bear does 2d6+5 (?) which is 12 on average with one of its attacks. HAM reduces the average to 7. So in my experience the fall off in HAM is much quicker than you have described. Usually by level 8 the character would have been far better off with another feat ... PAM/Sentinel/Resilient etc.

HAM is fine against the brown bear; it only has a +5 to hit, meaning that someone wearing heavy armor will probably be mitigating the damage by 100% a little over 50% of the time with starting chain mail. Even more frequency for 100% damage mitigation when paired with a shield or the defense fighting style or better quality armor. But for that less than 50% chance where you do get damage, you still get damage mitigation. In the case you describe you're reducing the average damage by something like 40% on those attacks that do get through. It's not 100%, but it's still going to let you take a bunch more attacks in an adventuring day than you otherwise would.

Where HAM totally falls apart is "non-magical weapons," which adds a layer of complicating bookkeeping about the nature of the source of the damage. Just letting it be what it is without exception would have made it flow better when actually playing, without forcing the DM to look and see if monsters have magic weapons or not. Or if their natural attacks count as magic. Sure, it could be (and probably frequently is) hand waved, but being able to simply say "you take this much of this kind of damage" and letting the PCs handle their own reductions makes life a lot easier.

[Dienekes]

Level 1 lasts such a short time that I don't find HAM an issue. I also don't really see any issue with immortality of a level 1 character since, as a DM, I really try to avoid killing off level 1 characters since it is too easy to do accidentally and the campaign is just starting. If a player feels good soaking up damage at level 1 then more power to them :)

However, I've found that HAM fairly quickly loses its luster since damage from opponents often seems to scale up much faster than the 3DR from HAM. A brown bear does 2d6+5 (?) which is 12 on average with one of its attacks. HAM reduces the average to 7. So in my experience the fall off in HAM is much quicker than you have described. Usually by level 8 the character would have been far better off with another feat ... PAM/Sentinel/Resilient etc.

Well here’s the thing. Brown Bear is either the second or third highest damage dealer per hit at that CR. The average damage of all monsters per attack is closer to an 8 and HAM is still effective during most encounters. Unless your GM is just throwing Brown Bears at you.

As to the effectiveness at later levels, there are two types of effectiveness to keep in mind. How effective something feels, and how effective something is mathematically. Now I agree, HAM does not feel very effective after the early levels. To the point I’ve just seen people forget about it even being there. And that’s a bit of a problem, I personally think feats should be interesting enough that the players should want to engage with them.

But in terms of mathematical effectiveness, HAM holds up better than many people expect. After the initial jump of damage, a lot of monsters damage per attack level out, and instead they tend to get multiple attacks per round come tier 2. At that point HAM gets a bit more effective, to the point that over the course of an encounter the feat should be absorbing enough damage to keep the player up an extra round or two, presuming they are being focused.

So in that way, it is still effective. It doesn’t feel great. Unless the player is continuously doing the math they might not notice just how much damage they’re mitigating. But it’s there.

But eventually of course you’ll be facing a lot of magic attacks that completely ignore the feat. At that point HAM actually becomes useless in those encounters.

[KorvinStarmast]

But in terms of mathematical effectiveness, HAM holds up better than many people expect. Our levle 15 tempest cleric, whose first feat was HAM, still kept track of all of the -3's to damage each hit lost as we went up in level.

It was neat to see how pleased he still was at that level with a bit less damage ...

[rickayelm]

I think it all depends on how you generate your ability scores. The standard array works really well with feats, it stays balanced the whole game. Point buy also works okay, sometimes min maxing with feats thrown in can be a slight problem but nothing to bad. The problem comes with parties that roll for stats, the wide differences between different players starting points is expanded greatly by feats. If someone is playing a paladin that starts with 20 charisma and 19 strength, I saw this happen once with a half elf paladin, they can take a bunch of feats with no real penalty.

[Chronos]

Lack of feats is a problem starting at level 1. A lack of feats (and therefore of the "variant" human) means that there is no mechanical advantage to what should be the most common race choice. The game is essentially saying "If you're playing a human, it's because you're valuing role-play at the expense of power". And whenever the game says that, that there's a choice between role-playing or power, it's a problem with the game. Players shouldn't be forced to make that choice.

The problem gets greater at higher levels, especially with a fighter. A large chunk of the fighter's abilities are that they get more feats. Yes, yes, they could get ability scores instead, but again, there's no mechanical reason to do that.

As for GWM and SS "breaking the game", they really don't. Everyone always thinks of them as "Add 10 to your damage!", but that's inaccurate. When you factor in the decreased accuracy, the actual increase, on average, is more like 2 points. You'd get almost as much increase in damage from just taking +2 to your main stat, and also gain whatever other benefits come with that stat (saving throws, ability checks, AC and initiative if dex, etc.).

[Boci]

Lack of feats is a problem starting at level 1. A lack of feats (and therefore of the "variant" human) means that there is no mechanical advantage to what should be the most common race choice.

That's not correct. There is no reason human should be the most common race choice. Adventures are exceptional and a niche community, composition a fraction of a single percentage of the game world's total population, it makes just as much sense for them to be largely non-human as it does for them to be human.