What can you build without Feats and MCing?

[ZorroGames]

Actually pretty decent characters it turns out.

Avoiding the whole debate on other threads I decided to build some characters without Feats or MCing to see how they turned out.

Standard Human Wizard
S 10
D 16
Co 14
I 16
W 12
Ch 9
+2 I at levels 4 and 8 to 20
+2 D at 12 and 16
+2 W or Co at 19

Not optimized in some views but certainly an adequate “Wizard by numbers” (reference intended) to do the job.

Hill Dwarf Cleric Medium Armor because he is a dwarf after all
S 10
D 14
Co 16
I 8 (suggested by another to switch this with S?)
W 16
Ch 10
Two ASI gets W 20
Two ASI gets Co 20
One ASI of choice

Melee Martial Mountain Dwarf (you knew this was coming)
S 17
D 14
Co 17
I 8 (a learn by doing style student)
W 14
Ch 8
One ASI to get S and Co to 18 each
One ASI max S
One ASI max Co
Three ASIs max W
One ASI iof choice

Wood Elf Missile Martial
S 10
D 16
Co 14
I 10
W 16
Ch 8
Two AS Is to max D
Three ASIs to max Co
Two ASIs to max W

Mixed Martial Mountain Dwarf just because (Fighter assumed but a variant build for Ranger considered but not listed)
S 16
D 14
Co 16
I 8
W 10
Ch 8
Definitely team dependent because of average W
Two ASIs to S
Three ASIs to max D
One ASI to boost Co to 18
One ASI of choice


Conclusion, Feats not necessary to have a viable build but desired

Conclusion no Multi-classing cramps my choices but TBH, for building a good but bland character making me role play for style is more than possible.

So, what no feat, no multiclassing builds could, not would, I get the player wanting choices, you design for a friend or yourself to play in such a campaign?

Looking forward to designs others present. Hopefully without rancor.

[MrStabby]

Sorcerer, wizard or cleric.

As a caster feats matter a bit less. You need some way to keep those concentration saves up though so cleric armour, sorcerer con saves or wizard access to mage armour, shield etc..

Casters gain higher level spells through single classing and gain less from dips.

[Trustypeaches]

Full spellcasters don't really mind the loss of feats much. Feats provide far more benefits for martial classes and subclasses.

[KorvinStarmast]

What can you build without Feats and MCing?
A Tempest cleric, a Life Cleric, a Moon druid.
Hill Dwarf, given your preferences. :smallbiggrin:

Any Paladin.

[Biggstick]

Full spellcasters don't really mind the loss of feats much. Feats provide far more benefits for martial classes and subclasses.

I'll second that. Any full spellcaster (including Warlock) will be fine without feats or multiclassing, as they can use extra ASIs on Constitution.

Adding in to this, any Monk or Rogue will also be fine without feats or multiclassing. Max out Dexterity and Wisdom for the Monk, then add Constitution. Max out Dexterity for the Rogue, then add either Constitution, Intelligence, or Wisdom based off of your PC's wants/needs.

I'd also like to add SnB Paladins of any Oath, as they can simply max out Strength (or Dexterity) and Charisma. The final ASIs can be spent on Constitution.

All the classes listed will still be quite strong and capable of doing what you'd expect them to do.

[Man_Over_Game]

So far, we've basically come down to the conclusion that it'd work perfectly fine for:
Every class that uses 3 stats (Paladin, Cleric, Monk, Ranger)
Every class that uses spellcasting.



The only thing left, and who'd have the most significant changes, are non-magical martials. Who could have seen this coming.

[Trustypeaches]

So far, we've basically come down to the conclusion that it's:

Every class that uses 3 stats (Paladin, Cleric, Monk, Ranger)
Every class that uses spellcasting.

The only thing left are non-magical martials. Who could have seen this coming.
Barbs also kinda use 3 stats, and they still get jipped pretty hard by no feats.

[Man_Over_Game]

Barbs also kinda use 3 stats, and they still get jipped pretty hard by no feats.

You do pretty fine with just Medium Armor and high Constitution. You're a lot tankier than a Monk with low Wisdom, anyway, and don't really have much that'd dependent on that Dexterity score.

Dropping an enemy's chance to hit you from 70% to 60% takes a lot of investment, and probably not worth it.

[Eldariel]

Well, there's at least some intra-archetype variation this causes. For example, for Wizard Transmuter becomes more alluring as an easy way to gain Con save proficiency. Bladesinger too benefits (MAD builds in general since suddenly your secondary attribute increases are not competing with feats); it can't get Con save proficiency but it'll at least be pretty safe to ace Concentration-checks while bladesinging.

[CTurbo]

Any Monk with a maxed out Dex and Wis and the last +2 in Con
Any Paladin with a maxed Str and Cha with the last +2 in Con
Any Barb with a maxed out Str and Con and the last +2 in Dex
Any Fighter with a maxed attack stat, Con, and then alternate adding +2 to Int, Wis, and Cha

[Zetakya]

I don't see any characters, I just see you posting some piles of stats.

[ZorroGames]

I don't see any characters, I just see you posting some piles of stats.

I do not see you posting any characters. Post one as an example of your desired response.

[opaopajr]

Easiest way to find interesting characters for this is to, well, build a characters rather than a bundle of stats. :smalltongue:

Part of the fun of restrictions is it challenges you to imbue your work with meaningful decisions and dynamic energy elsewhere. It is why color palettes for artists makes sense, why meter, rhyme, or theme for poets matter, and so on. When everything is possible, nothing really interests until inspiration strikes. Aesthetics is its own discipline too, and limitations to overcome give it drive.

So, just like you use Mountain Dwarves as a race limit, similarly a GM could create other limits by Setting Conceits :smallsmile:

And that just might be the inspiration needed to make this topic fun! I used to to similar with trying to make D&D 5e Basic Halflings who are NOT Rogues. It was a fun challenge which really pushed me into looking at Background (and their characterization prompts) and Equipment to shape their personality. You could similarly use a creativity prompt for this topic! :smallcool:

[opaopajr]

Here is an easy 5e Basic unshifted Stat Array example:

Berta Bloombottom, mother-on-a-mission
Stout Halfling Folk Hero Fighter

STR 15, DEX 16, CON 14, INT 12, WIS 10, CHA 08

Skills - Animal Handling 12, Insight 12, Intimidation 10, Survival 12
Tools - land Vehicles, Cooking
Gear - Club (rolling pin), Dagger (big kitchen knife), Daggers (table knives/forks), Trusted Donkey Ooma & her cart, Shovel, Iron Pot, Sacks of Flour & Onions, Letter of Governor Granting Permission to "Go Find Her Baby!" (Last and Youngest Son Who Snuck Off to Go To War).

Ta-dah! Easy. :smallcool:

[Sigreid]

A Tempest cleric, a Life Cleric, a Moon druid.
Hill Dwarf, given your preferences. :smallbiggrin:

Any Paladin.

Friends don't let friends play dwarves.

[nickl_2000]

A Tempest cleric, a Life Cleric, a Moon druid.
Hill Dwarf, given your preferences. :smallbiggrin:

Any Paladin.

I wouldn't bother with a Moon Druid if you are optimizing this. If there ever was a class that didn't need ASIs, it's moon druids.

Personally, I would play a monk, AT rogue, EK fighter, or paladin. Basically one of the more stat hungry classes.

Although, this may be one of the few times I would consider a full class wizard, likely a bladesinger.

[Tanarii]

On the OP, I'd probably have gone with maxing Con for the wizard, not Dex. Personal opinion, putting Dex in an unarmored caster feels like throwing good money after bad. Better to avoid being attacked, assuming your party size and typical enemy group size allows of course. And help your concentration saves.

I get it though. I used to instinctively raise (or suggest to new players that they raise) Dex too, until I saw Con suggested on the forums, followed by seeing it play out well at the table.


Barbs also kinda use 3 stats, and they still get jipped pretty hard by no feats.
Fighters also "need" three stats: Str or Dex, Con, Wis.

Just as casters highly benefit from the shortcut of Resilient (Con), which otherwise only Sorcerers get, Fighters and Barbarians highly benefit from the shortcut of Resilient (Wis).

[Keravath]

Easiest way to find interesting characters for this is to, well, build a characters rather than a bundle of stats. :smalltongue:

Part of the fun of restrictions is it challenges you to imbue your work with meaningful decisions and dynamic energy elsewhere. It is why color palettes for artists makes sense, why meter, rhyme, or theme for poets matter, and so on. When everything is possible, nothing really interests until inspiration strikes. Aesthetics is its own discipline too, and limitations to overcome give it drive.

So, just like you use Mountain Dwarves as a race limit, similarly a GM could create other limits by Setting Conceits :smallsmile:

And that just might be the inspiration needed to make this topic fun! I used to to similar with trying to make D&D 5e Basic Halflings who are NOT Rogues. It was a fun challenge which really pushed me into looking at Background (and their characterization prompts) and Equipment to shape their personality. You could similarly use a creativity prompt for this topic! :smallcool:

I think the point that Zorro is trying to make is that removing feats and multiclassing also removes any "meaningful" decisions in terms of mechanically building the character.

You can role play anything you want to role play but the game is always a combination of mechanics and role playing. It isn't a role playing game where just the character name matters. It is D&D so the numbers matter too.

Without feats and multiclassing the entire arc of your character is decided at level 1. The choices for ASI go to primary stat first, secondary stat if the character has one and then slight increases to skills or saves by boosting tertiary stats. That is ALL the decisions that you will ever have to make for the character in terms of mechanics. Of course, someone could choose to create a fighter with 20 int using their ASIs ... but then they will tend to be a relatively weak fighter but even that isn't much of a decision.

Numbers were all that were listed in the first post since, in terms of mechanics, that is really all that matters.

Any set of numbers can be expanded into a character with name, goals, objective, weaknesses, preferences ... they can play a cowardly or brave fighter ... but they can never play a fighter that can hide on the same turn that they make an attack, they can't make a fighter that is exceptionally stealthy, they can't make a fighter that sneak attacks ... nor a ranger that does these things, nor a barbarian.

If you want to be a wizard in medium armor you have to be a mountain dwarf. A bladesinger can wear light armor.


Is the game playable with such constraints ... ABSOLUTELY :) ... there is nothing wrong with playing this way ... it is a DM/player choice that is always available. However, there is no denying that eliminating MC and feats, using ASIs only for stat increases, really does limit meaningful mechanical character development decisions for the player.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't bother with a Moon Druid if you are optimizing this. If there ever was a class that didn't need ASIs, it's moon druids. Increases to INT and CHA boost a variety of ability checks. Boosts to CON for spell concentration. Druid has a lot of concentration spells.

[Man_Over_Game]

Part of the fun of restrictions is it challenges you to imbue your work with meaningful decisions and dynamic energy elsewhere.



Is the game playable with such constraints ... ABSOLUTELY :) ... there is nothing wrong with playing this way ... it is a DM/player choice that is always available. However, there is no denying that eliminating MC and feats, using ASIs only for stat increases, really does limit meaningful mechanical character development decisions for the player.

To add on to what Keravath was saying, I think the important thing to note is that restrictions are beneficial...when there are already too many options. If we were talking about a game like GURPS, and the DM said you had to be something that is undead or uses mold, that'd be interesting, since each player could find means of making that work without bumping into someone else's concept.

But 5e is fairly limited. Barbarians mostly all play the same. Fighters mostly all play the same. Barbarians and Fighters mostly play the same as each other. Rangers and Fighters mostly play the same as each other.

Even if they aren't identical in thematics, they're often identical in contribution, causing them to be identical in thought-processes and procedures:

Use your most important resource at the start of the fight, prioritizing the biggest enemy. (Rage, Action Surge)
Continue using resources until 50% of the enemy team is defeated, prioritizing enemies that threaten weaker allies. (Superiority Dice, Ranger spells, physical placement)
Once resources are depleted, or the enemy team isn't as much of a risk, resort to using no resources and continue attacking.

That's basically the winning strategy for every character that isn't a full-caster. Even if they aren't the same person, they still feel the same and do the same things.

If you're going to remove a massive amount of the options, make sure there are still enough to satisfy your players.

[strake]

The thing to keep in mind if you're building characters without feats and multiclass is that the race becomes way less important. Play a race/class combo that doesn't gain boosts to your primary stats. You'll get your 20 anyway, and in the meantime you get to play a race that isn't seen as often with that class. Strength based high elf, gnome barbarian, half-orc monk, dwarf wizard, branch out a little. It all evens out by the high levels anyway.

[opaopajr]

strake hits on a big point, eventually ASIs reach you to limits and lets you explore elsewhere in character development. And that brings to my big point: the argument about the need for feats & multclassing to assuage boredom is dependent on Combat pillar dominant and almost in isolation.

As my example Bertha above, she could be a Cleric or even Wizard, just to avoid being another Halfling Rogue, but it is her Background, Gear, and characterization values that flesh her out more. RPGs as I play and run do not guarantee neat strings of encounters, let alone XP budget or upfront fights, so Adventure Paths are not good representations for what we play. They are open sandboxy and expect PC creative approaches to keep us all, players & GM, on our toes. It is the world that is interesting, the roleplaying to manipulate fictional contexts into a characters' favor (PC & NPC, on roughly even-handed capacity), not so much the Combat pillar mechanical turnings. :smallcool:

[sambojin]

Firbolg Moon Druid Pirate.
W/ Perception, Stealth, Athletics, Insight.

27pt buy:
10 Str (9+1)
12 Dex
14 Con
8 Int
16 Wis (14+2)
14 Cha

+2 Wis/ +2 Wis/ make a choice after that of whether you want to face with +Cha, or spell with +Con.

#34: Tiny metal box with two small cups that throws sparks when wet as your trinket. Gotta be something useful to do with that.


6'4" height (so can super-Disguise Self down to 3'4"). And up to 7'4". This includes pretty much every "normal'ish" humanoid species in any world, ever.

Has advantage on talking to animals. Can do it whenever. Just another avenue for world interaction.

Pack-mules well (300lb carry). Can merge tonnes of stuff into wildshape forms too. Even small/tiny forms can carry a basic combat/utility kit within them with a 2x carry capacity (yes, there are strong cats and rats. It's within wildshape's capabilities).

Can do melee tanking/CC or casting or stealth or utility or scouting. Sometimes two things at a time. Can talk a bit too, and help provide anti-deception with Insight. May even be able to do close ranged shooting if there's dinos in the world (or you can use their stat blocks as "templates" for melee and shooting prowess on a "counts as" thing. Giant Honey Badger Deinonychusi, Frilled Deathspitter Dire Skunks, etc).

Has Guidance and Enhance Ability and Pass Without Trace, so can do skill stuff or make others skill easily. Also has detect magic 1/sr for free. And free magic weapons at 6th (or at 1st if you grab Shillelagh as a backup thingo). Has 1/sr 1-turn bonus action invisibility for extra options, shenanigans or tankiness.

Can do all the things adventurers do (punch people without provocation, break things, commit petty crimes) without recrimination. Has also traveled a bit, so knows plenty of wildshapes. Pirates can have whatever backstory they need to have.

Pretty versatile, so you can do lots of stuff, while not getting entirely bored with combat routines. Works well in talky, intriguey or combaty campaigns due to different wildshape, casting and summoning options. Full list caster, so within 8hrs, you do have the tools for the job at hand.

Good short rest and long rest resources. Doesn't really matter too much what kind of encounter-flow your DM wants to play the campaign as, you're fine with either end of the spectrum, but work very well with the "standard" 5-7 encounters/2 short rests/1 long rest a day setup. Certainly not a super powerful character, but you won't really miss feats or mutliclassing playing as one. You can do stuff anyway.

[MaxWilson]

strake hits on a big point, eventually ASIs reach you to limits and lets you explore elsewhere in character development. And that brings to my big point: the argument about the need for feats & multclassing to assuage boredom is dependent on Combat pillar dominant and almost in isolation.

Removing feats from the game, especially for warriors, basically removes the need for character advancement. In a featless game I don't really care if my 5th level Fighter ever advances to 6th level, because nothing really interesting happens after level 5 anyway.

This isn't necessarily terrible--it's essentially how AD&D fighters work, and you can have lots of fun playing. But removing the desire for XP and character advancement will greatly affect the experience of play. Players may still be motivated by the quest for treasure, or relationships with NPCs, or the desire to discover things, but expect to hear loud complaints about e.g. wandering monsters interrupting their rest, instead of rejoicing about the "free XP" they just earned.

[Rynjin]

My question to the OP is..what's to "build"? There's no building going on.

You pick a class and race at first level, and a sub-class at 3rd, then that's it. You didn't "build" anything unless you'd like to make the argument that slapping two rectangle Legos together into a bigger rectangle is also "building".

ETA: Not to say there's anything inherently wrong with not using Feats/Multiclassing (I personally hate multiclassing in general since I like to feel rewarded for sticking with a single class), but this does inherently boil down potential "builds" into something you could randomly roll on a few tables for and get equally satisfactory results no matter what comes up.

[Tanarii]

Randomly rolled race/class/background/personality

Bergen the Beardless
Half-elf Barbarian Folk Hero
S16 D14 C14 I8 W10 Ch14

Skills: Athletics, Stealth, Nature, Animal Handling, Survival, Intimidation
Tools: Leatherworker's, Vehicle (land)
Lang: Common, Elvish, Sylvan

Level 3: Storm Herald
ASIs: Str, Con, Str, Con, Con

Defining Event: A fey creature gave me a blessing.
Personality: I misuse long words in an attempt to sound smarter.
Ideal: There's no good in pretending to be something I'm not. (Neutral)
Alignment: Neutral
Bond: My tools are symbols of my past life, and I carry them so that I will never forget my roots.
Flaw: Secretly, I believe that things would be better if I were a tyrant lording over the land.

Sounds like a fun character to me. Especially the conflicts inherent between my personality and ideal, which seem at odds at face value. And that Flaw would definitely be fun without necessarily being disruptive.

This guy was a hunter and trapper, who had a fey encounter that started him on his path to hero-dom. But he's got a cynical view of 'civilized' people, especially those that look down on him as uneducated, causing him to act out in response. Clearly the world would be a better place if he was in charge! A bit stereotyped, but it'd still be fun to ham it up.

[Man_Over_Game]

Play a race/class combo that doesn't gain boosts to your primary stats...gnome barbarian,

To be honest, Gnome Barbarian is a pretty darn optimal choice. Not in terms of raw stats, but Gnome has some of the best racial features for a front-line defender.

[Joe the Rat]

I generally run single-class unless I need a specific trait, so that's a non-factor.

Featless, I'd probably skip the sharpshooter rangers and fighters, but I'd do alright. Might encourage me to look at more nonhuman options on fighters - that +1 across the board, then an additional 14 points over the career is going to make a numbers heavy character.



To be honest, Gnome Barbarian is a pretty darn optimal choice. Not in terms of raw stats, but Gnome has some of the best racial features for a front-line defender.Not to mention racial Advantage on the traditional Barbarian Weakness: Save vs Hold Person.

[col_impact]

Kobold valor bard or moon druid.

Ghostwise halfling storm sorceror or divination wizard or pact of the blade warlock.

Yuan-ti dragon sorceror or divination wizard or GOO warlock.

[Nagog]

Without MCing and Feats, the playstyles available to the players are determined by the class they choose, and rarely (in the case of Hexblades and some Cleric subclasses) the subclass. The only outliers are Warlocks having their Invocations and Pacts. Beyond that, there's no adjusting your build to a new playstyle, what you choose is what you're stuck with. Good luck.

[col_impact]

Without MCing and Feats, the playstyles available to the players are determined by the class they choose, and rarely (in the case of Hexblades and some Cleric subclasses) the subclass. The only outliers are Warlocks having their Invocations and Pacts. Beyond that, there's no adjusting your build to a new playstyle, what you choose is what you're stuck with. Good luck.

Wizards offer a lot of flexibility. Bards do as well with Magical Secrets.

[Mimersbrønd]

Friends don't let friends play dwarves.

But best friends play only dwarves

dwarf best race

[Willie the Duck]

As usual, it all depends on what you are looking for the game rules to do. It also depends on what you are looking for 'permanent' effects to do. You can create variability by switching between using a greatsword and a pair of axes, or memorizing fewer crowd control and more mobility spells, or the like. As mentioned, much of AD&D (also much of basic/classic/non-advanced TSR-era D&D) didn't have a lot of character 'build' to the system, but individual characters were still differentiated (more than by RP decisions). Oftentimes it was by what magic items you acquired. Other times by what retainers and hirelings you brought with on adventures (in this case considering those as mechanical effects rather than RP effects, although they are both). Joe the fighter with the trident of fish command and a flying carpet who has a retinue of defeated former enemy 'humanoids' as his hirelings was decidedly different from Jim the fighter with the sunblade and ring of spell turning who hired a bunch of family members as his henchmen.


Barbs also kinda use 3 stats, and they still get jipped pretty hard by no feats.

Barbarians and Samuria&Champion fighters (sadly the kind that AD&D-era gamers might most want to play) certainly do miss their -5/+10 feats and the like. Even Eldritch Knight fighters can do pretty well without feats.