Party without Feats or Multiclassing - what would you play?

[Wasp]

Hi everyone

this is more of a theorycrafting question than an actual play question. I was wondering how would the optimization game change if you cannot use feats or multiclassing (after all those are optional rules). Especially for melee characters the lack of feats would be a huge nerf and maybe the balance between the weapon types would change qzite a bit without GWM, PAM or Sentinel.

What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA).

Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?

[MaxWilson]

No feats means Fighters are definitely out.

No multiclassing means wizards will be squishy, and paladin/sorc/bard damage will be lower than usual (no warlock invocations).

I'd play a goblin Moon Druid. Too bad about no Skulker but the class is still very playable, a good tank, a good scout, and a good summoner. Their damage is anemic in most games, but without Sharpshooter or warlock dips in play it is more competitive than usual.

However, if it were Eberron I'd play a Mark of Storms Hexblade instead. Tons of elemental spam and the best featless DPR in the game.

[nickl_2000]

Variant (High) Half-Elf Swashbuckler Rogue with cantrip Booming Blade. Plenty to boost in stats due to Dex, Con, and Charisma and it's a good class on it's own.

[kobo1d]

Hi everyone

this is more of a theorycrafting question than an actual play question. I was wondering how would the optimization game change if you cannot use feats or multiclassing (after all those are optional rules). Especially for melee characters the lack of feats would be a huge nerf and maybe the balance between the weapon types would change qzite a bit without GWM, PAM or Sentinel.

What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA).

Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?

Most classes don't change much, for casters Concentration might be harder.

As you said, pure martial classes get hit the most. Two Weapon Fighting and Sword and Board both get better in comparison. Monk is almost completely unaffected.

[Habber_Dasher]

Probably same as I always do, a full spellcaster. It's nice to have war caster or resilient con, but other than that they aren't really reliant on feats and multiclassing is often more of a cost than a benefit.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

A Wizard or Sorcerer would want to be a Goblin to regularly use their bonus action hide or disengage to avoid being attacked. On the down side they won't get a bonus to their casting stat from race, so spell attacks and DCs will be at least one point lower until they max that out with ASIs. This will still be one of the best choices under these circumstances IMO, even without war caster. I would even include one of each class.

I'll agree that Moon Druid would would be a great choice.

A Lore Bard should be fine under those circumstances. Pick the Criminal or Urchin background for thieves' tools proficiency, and probably go Half-Elf for even more skills and amazing stats.

Paladin is always a strong choice, I'm particularly fond of Oath of Ancients.

[OldTrees1]

How well does the DM handle the skill subsystem?

Rogue (Arcane Trickster) is a nice single class even without feats. Also it shines most out of combat, so there is little competition (except from the Bard).

[imperialspectre]

I usually don't multiclass when I have the opportunity to roll a character (I almost always DM). I like most of the caster suggestions, above - with no feats at all, I think Lore Bard would almost have to be my choice, although I can somewhat see playing a Forge Cleric and just not using much in the way of concentration spells.

I probably just wouldn't play in a game where feats are banned, though. It smells of "fighters can't have nice things" and a poor understanding of game balance, and life isn't long enough for me to play in games I don't enjoy playing in.

[cutlery]

I think zero feats really sucks for fighters.

Probably an open hand monk, vengeance paladin, horizon walker, or death cleric, and various wizards are all fine.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Slightly off topic but on the subject of not allowing multiclassing, I don't really like heavy-handed approaches like that. In the game I'm running I allowed everyone to take a bonus feat at 1st level, but if they did so they're not able to multiclass. So characters who intend to multiclass are no worse off for it, but those who are staying single-classed anyway get an added benefit for doing so.

[Man_Over_Game]

Mmm...probably:

Any Full Caster
Any Monk
Any Paladin

Or basically any class that isn't defined by what they get in the first two levels, gets resources that scale per level, and has a reason to invest in more than 2 stats.

Because of the lack of versatility this causes against martials, you should try to pick something more melee-oriented, either to compensate for an expected lack of martial characters in the team, or to compensate for their lack of adaptability for any that are being played.

[Unoriginal]

I would play a Fighter.


Probably a Cavalier, 'cause they're awesome.


I know many consider the Fighter out of the game without Feat, but no one with Feats mean all the Fighter's ASIs can be used for patching up any stat weakness they have, and that is not to be underestimated.

[Eldariel]

Lore Bard, Diviner Wizard, etc. are all good. Any sort of Cleric too. Most non-martial classes are fine, really. Special mention goes to Transmuter, Bladesinger and Sorcerer for keeping Con save proficiency for Concentration (or Int to Concentration in the case of Bladesinger).

[Foxydono]

Obviously a druid, unlimited wild shapes. Wizards don't need feats and a cleric is also very good. So you have two tanks, a healer and utility. I'd also add a paladin, Conquest probably for battlefield control. Maximize Strength/Dexterity and Charisma. Now you also have a face and battle field control.

Lastly I'd probably take a lore bard, it's just so versitile and skill monkey.

[x3n0n]

I would play a Fighter.


Probably a Cavalier, 'cause they're awesome.


I know many consider the Fighter out of the game without Feat, but no one with Feats mean all the Fighter's ASIs can be used for patching up any stat weakness they have, and that is not to be underestimated.

Cavalier and Eldritch Knight (among Fighters) have a lot to be gained from lots of ASIs because they have relevant subclass features that can benefit from multiple abilities. In a world without Sentinel, Cavalier offers a big comparative advantage.
Then again, in a world without Resilient, Samurai looks pretty good too.

That said, Paladin and Monk both feel ASI-starved as it is, so removing feats feels like it hurts them less. Credit to Artificer for Con proficiency and Flash of Insight as well.

[MaxWilson]

I know many consider the Fighter out of the game without Feat, but no one with Feats mean all the Fighter's ASIs can be used for patching up any stat weakness they have, and that is not to be underestimated.

That's kind of a backhanded compliment. Featless fighters are so bad that it's practically impossible to underestimate them. Even if you think the Fighter is only 50% as good as a Moon Druid... You're actually still overestimating the Fighter, not underestimating it.

The bulk of a high-level Fighter's best tactics are usually rooted in feats which their SADness and extra feats enable. Without feats their survivability and DPR and in- and out-of-combat options suffer terribly, by maybe 30-65% overall depending on the table DMing style.

[sithlordnergal]

I'd likely play a Moon Druid. Feats aren't needed nearly as much when you're a full spell caster with the ability to turn yourself into a decent tank at will.

[nickl_2000]

I'd likely play a Moon Druid. Feats aren't needed nearly as much when you're a full spell caster with the ability to turn yourself into a decent tank at will.

I find the comments about Moon Druid interesting. Frankly, a moon druid is the class that depends least on stats in the game

[sithlordnergal]

I find the comments about Moon Druid interesting. Frankly, a moon druid is the class that depends least on stats in the game

Well, it relies on its mental stats, plus its useful to have a decent con if you are knocked out of wild shape. Not only that but in Tier 2, you use your casting far more than your wild shape.

[cutlery]

Come to think of it, in a world without feats, I bet a warlock built for it makes a better ranged character than anyone else does. Those invocations look nice without feats available, too.

[nickl_2000]

Well, it relies on its mental stats, plus its useful to have a decent con if you are knocked out of wild shape. Not only that but in Tier 2, you use your casting far more than your wild shape.

I'm not saying you are wrong (I played one through level 11 so I certainly know the peaks and valleys there), it's just interesting to consider.

[MaxWilson]

I find the comments about Moon Druid interesting. Frankly, a moon druid is the class that depends least on stats in the game

Agreed, but they also don't really need feats either, although they benefit from them. E.g. Warcaster + Resilient lets you use tank in wild shape at the same time as a spell like Conjure Animals or Entangle. Without feats, you have to kite instead while concentrating on a spell, which is why I'd go goblin Moon Druid in this case.

Valor Bard would be respectable too, and Hexblade, and Bladesinger, and perhaps any kind of wizard who survives through mobility instead of AC. (I dislike clerics but they'd be better than usual in this kind of game, too.) I can also see playing the classic armored Necromancer who wears heavy armor and shield despite not having proficiency, because he already cast all of his spells in advance.

[MadBear]

Playing a straight up Cleric. Preferably one with heavy Armor.

[Aaron Underhand]

Hmmm, interesting

Valor Bard is the arcane full caster with decent AC

For the rest of the party

Paladin still has good nova for when you need it
Hexblade is front loaded, and with eldritch blast as well can go ranged or melee.
Moon Druid is mighty
Arcana Cleric to round out (or Light for more blast, or War for more melee)

Using standard array means that half elf is preferred for all characters - you can even all stats, and place two stats plusses where you wish. I see the stats as:




Bard
Warlock
Paladin
Cleric/Druid


Str
8
8
16
10


Dex
16
14
8
14


Con
14
16
14
14


Int
12
10
10
12


Wis
10
12
12
16


Cha
16
16
16
10











I would take the Bard, Warlock and possibly the Paladin as Drow Variant half elves for the extra spells, and leave the Cleric and the Druid with the extra skills.

Everyone except the paladin is in medium armor, though the bard can drop to light armor if there is a good magical option, and the Paladin takes heavy armor. All can use shields. Bard will start with light crossbow, warlock will be using Dx14 with longbow until level 2 when eldritch blast takes over

Edited to add: Pact of the Tome Warlock for all the rituals as well

[CTurbo]

Paladins and Monks are strongest classes in games with no feats or multiclassing. Neither of them rely on feats and both of them IMO are best full classed. I've played both 20 Str/20 Cha Paladins and 20 Dex/20 Wis Monks and they're just great.

Rogues are probably next best. They are SAD, but also don't really demand any specific feats to work.

I'd say Sorcerers get a little better than normal with their Con saves, and Clerics get a bit worse without the ability to boost their Con saves at all.

The other full casters remain about the same. They all would like to have ways to boost Con saves, but don't rely on it as much as Clerics do. The Bard is still the strongest full caster option here with or without feats and multiclassing.

Fighters get a lot of flack, but with the extra ASIs, they can have some really boosted stats. Best time to play a naked Barbarian is under these restrictions. The worst part about Fighters and Barbs is their complete and total lack of anything to do outside of combat, but nothing is stopping you from roleplaying still despite not having specific OoC features.

Archer Ranger's get hit harder than melee Rangers, but really archers in general suffer from no feats.


I've played a bunch of campaigns with no feats or muticlassing and it's just as fun really. Characters tend to have much higher ACs, anybody that can use a shield, typically uses a shield and the squishy caster all end up with 18-20 Dex. All Clerics become Hill Dwarves with 20 Con haha

[jas61292]

Wouldn't really effect what I would pick. I never really focus on feats or multiclassing when making a character, so it would not really make a difference. Whatever I'm feeling at the time, or whatever the party needs. That said, I think people really put too much emphasis on the martial characters missing out on feats. In my experience, the "must have" feats for martials are not actually taken anywhere near as frequently as people might think, whereas non-sorcerer casters almost invariably grab either War Caster or Resilient (Con). Losing more concentration spells would end up having a much bigger impact on the game than anything.

[LudicSavant]

Paladins and Monks already wanted to just max stats for most of their progression, so they lose the least. And full casters lose the second least. Other martials lose the most.

For the most part, no feats/multiclassing just widens existing power gaps. Paladins and full casters get even better relative to the competition.

[Amnestic]

Finally, we're going to take this Warlock to 20.

[Vogie]

If I was going in blind, I'd pick one of the subclasses that does all possible jobs.

Celestial Warlock
Moon Druid
Tempest, War or Death Cleric
Valor Bard

[Man on Fire]

I would play a Fighter.


Probably a Cavalier, 'cause they're awesome.


I know many consider the Fighter out of the game without Feat, but no one with Feats mean all the Fighter's ASIs can be used for patching up any stat weakness they have, and that is not to be underestimated.

Same, I was thinking that or a Monk.

[MaxWilson]

Wouldn't really effect what I would pick. I never really focus on feats or multiclassing when making a character, so it would not really make a difference. Whatever I'm feeling at the time, or whatever the party needs. That said, I think people really put too much emphasis on the martial characters missing out on feats. In my experience, the "must have" feats for martials are not actually taken anywhere near as frequently as people might think, whereas non-sorcerer casters almost invariably grab either War Caster or Resilient (Con). Losing more concentration spells would end up having a much bigger impact on the game than anything.

In this passage, bolded emphasis mine, you're talking about popularity.

People who say fighters need feats to differentiate themselves are talking effectiveness.

Apples and oranges. I for one have never claimed that ineffective fighters are uncommon. I get the impression from forum threads that they are actually rather common, but it doesn't matter because as long as feats are allowed it is possible to build a very fun and effective fighter by Tier 2 at the latest.

It is possible to play ineffectively-built fighters in a moderately effective way, and in a game where feats, multiclassing, monks, and spellcasting were all banned, Fighters would obviously be perfectly fine and fun and would have a fair number of gameplay options--but only because you've banned everything more effective than featless Fighters.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Kobold Dragonspear Monk (if given the option) bc I love Final Fantasy Lancers.

https://www.dmsguild.com/product/324365/Monastic-Tradition-Way-of-the-Dragon-Spear

[cutlery]

Actually, I thought about this a bit more, and yeah - in a featless game, a level 2 Warlock can have twice the range with Eldritch Blast (without disadvantage) that a ranger or fighter has with a longbow; and is more effective than they are between 150 and 300 feet; and that's before adding all the other juicy invocations later.

That seems sort of wrong to me.

[MaxWilson]

Actually, I thought about this a bit more, and yeah - in a featless game, a level 2 Warlock can have twice the range with Eldritch Blast (without disadvantage) that a ranger or fighter has with a longbow; and is more effective than they are between 150 and 300 feet; and that's before adding all the other juicy invocations later.

That seems sort of wrong to me.

Yep. Plus, warlocks get up to four attacks on a Readied Action whereas Fighters only get one. (At least by RAW.)

[Dessunri]

I know I may be in the minority here; but, I like to play pure-class characters. Unless I have a really compelling, RP reason to mulitclass I don't do it. At my table there is one powergamer type who loves to multiclass to be "optimal" but he's actually the exception. Most of us just enjoy the story and working within the confines of what our class and subclass provides. Last adventure we played was ToA and I played a Knowledge Cleric the whole way. Even the powergamer was stuck not multiclassing because his first character died pretty quick and he had to use a surrogate which, according to the "rules" does't allow multiclassing (granted, the DM could have allowed it since it's a home game but I think he enjoyed forcing the player to stick with one class).

[MaxWilson]

I know I may be in the minority here; but, I like to play pure-class characters. Unless I have a really compelling, RP reason to mulitclass I don't do it. At my table there is one powergamer type who loves to multiclass to be "optimal" but he's actually the exception. Most of us just enjoy the story and working within the confines of what our class and subclass provides. Last adventure we played was ToA and I played a Knowledge Cleric the whole way. Even the powergamer was stuck not multiclassing because his first character died pretty quick and he had to use a surrogate which, according to the "rules" does't allow multiclassing (granted, the DM could have allowed it since it's a home game but I think he enjoyed forcing the player to stick with one class).

Multiclassing is more valuable to pure casters than to Fighters because it's the easiest way to get high AC. It's also valuable for sorc/bard/paladin DPR via warlock dips, and two of those are pure casters.

Feats are more vital to fighters than to pure casters, although both can benefit.

Banning both of them has different effects than just banning multiclassing.

[jas61292]

In this passage, bolded emphasis mine, you're talking about popularity.

People who say fighters need feats to differentiate themselves are talking effectiveness.

Apples and oranges. I for one have never claimed that ineffective fighters are uncommon. I get the impression from forum threads that they are actually rather common, but it doesn't matter because as long as feats are allowed it is possible to build a very fun and effective fighter by Tier 2 at the latest.

It is possible to play ineffectively-built fighters in a moderately effective way, and in a game where feats, multiclassing, monks, and spellcasting were all banned, Fighters would obviously be perfectly fine and fun and would have a fair number of gameplay options--but only because you've banned everything more effective than featless Fighters.

See, I would debate the use of the word ineffective. I have never seen a fighter that failed to be effective, regardless of which feats they picked. My point was largely that, in a white room, pure optimization setting, where no one does anything but the most mechanically optimal things, as determined by online forums, the shift from a feat and multiclassing game to a feat-less single class only game would hurt martial characters most. But looking at how the game is actually played, at least in my experience, the shift would actually hurt casters the most, since in practice they are the ones always using the things they would lose.

[cutlery]

Yep. Plus, warlocks get up to four attacks on a Readied Action whereas Fighters only get one. (At least by RAW.)

Man. That plus some of the invocations make the warlock the most customizable class really, in a featless no-mc game.

[MaxWilson]

See, I would debate the use of the word ineffective. I have never seen a fighter that failed to be effective, regardless of which feats they picked. My point was largely that, in a white room, pure optimization setting, where no one does anything but the most mechanically optimal things, as determined by online forums, the shift from a feat and multiclassing game to a feat-less single class only game would hurt martial characters most. But looking at how the game is actually played, at least in my experience, the shift would actually hurt casters the most, since in practice they are the ones always using the things they would lose.

My counterpoint is that the OP in this thread didn't ask how you think other, hypothetical people who aren't you would change their play in response to no feats/no multiclassing. The question asked was "what would you play?", followed by "What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA). Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?"

Yes, the people who play pure-classed sword-and-mace fighters (and then are bothered because the party Paladin is outshining them at DPR) maybe aren't taking feats anyway and won't miss them. The people answering this thread are probably not those people.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Bard or warlock for customization.
Probably bard because bard.

[king_steve]

What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA).

Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?

I think this would reduce the effectiveness of Fighters, but I think some of the subclasses would still do okay. For example, an Eldritch Knight would probably still work pretty well since they could focus on multiple stats instead of taking a feat.

Outside of combat, that makes Wizards and Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets Warlocks more useful, since no one else will be as effective at ritual casting.

I think that would make some of the MAD closer to the SAD classes in terms of combat prowess. In a game with feats and multiclassing, to pick on one example, a Monk would be more similar in terms of power to other martial classes without Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master.

I think the party composition wouldn't change drastically though. You'd probably see fewer Fighters and Barbarians and you'd probably see more Rangers and Monks. Ranger's have access to additional utility from their spells and without feats to take they can use their ASIs on more stats to improve their spell casting. They're still limited by their spell list, but I think they're still more likely to be in play at a table without feats or multiclassing to give players a half caster martial option. Monks are pretty MAD so in a game without feats or multiclassing they'd be able to focus on their stats.

My gut says you'd see fewer Sorcerers because they'd have fewer options to help improve their defenses (no Fighter 1 dip for armor and second wind for example or Paladin 2 for smites and some heals).

I feel like many of the casters would be relatively unaffected, maybe slightly more squishy and it would change their spell choices to move away from concentration based spells without Warcaster or Resilient (Con).

[Kemev]

What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA).

Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?

Honestly, I'm not sure the optimized party is that much different than playing with feats. I'd say that in normal circumstances, the strongest party mix is paladin, bard, druid, and wizard, with some sort of gish as the 5th wheel.

None of the first four members really need feats/multiclassing... the only person that's really affected is the 5th member. The gish is more likely locked into cleric (or maybe an arcane trickster), as opposed to some sort of sorcerer/warlock/other Cha class hybrid. Maybe an Eldritch Knight too; I think it probably ends up playing more wizard-ly and less fighter-ly, which would be different but not necessarily worse than a typical build.

[pr4wn]

Tortle Druid Circle of the Shepherd...

AC 19 (with shield) makes a good stop gap for Resilient Con or War Caster. Other than that, lean into minionmancy and cook 'n book...

-pr4wn

[Naanomi]

Somewhat depends on what level I expected to get to... if I had to plan for it to potentially go all the way to 20; then Paladin, Monk, Sword Bard, Swashbuckler... Barbarian, Assassin, Spore Druid to a lesser degree... all start looking nice start looking like a really good way to not have any wasted ASIs

[Tanarii]

The thing I notice is characters had higher Con, so more hit points. Especially martial characters. They're prone to putting their second ASI in Con. That means level 8 characters (6 for Fighters) can take an extra hit, can recuperate a little more from HD, and the party as a whole can push on a bit further.

Edit: oh, and the lack of Resilient (Constitution) really hurts casters.

Personally, I'd play an EK. High Str & Int, with ASIs to spare for Con.

[Naanomi]

A fighter without feats is pretty functional, I don’t worry about that... what bothers me is what you do when your attack stat and CON are capped and you still have one or two levels to look forward to where you... throw it in WIS or choose to get a +1 Initiative and just feel bad. A disappointing 19th level

[Tanarii]

A fighter without feats is pretty functional, I don’t worry about that... what bothers me is what you do when your attack stat and CON are capped and you still have one or two levels to look forward to where you... throw it in WIS or choose to get a +1 Initiative and just feel bad. A disappointing 19th level
That's really only a problem for Fighters, and it's really only a problem for maybe 2 late game ASIs.

But hey, you've got 28-42 more hit points than a feats game Fighter at level 14, and the gap keeps widening. An issue with 2 late game ASIs is bearable. :smallamused:

Having an extra 25-35% ablative defense is no joke. Many people don't realize what they're giving up to get those 2-3 feats.

[Vogie]

You'd also look into the classes that have certain feats built into their feature kit. For example, Drunken Master Monk has Mobile incorporated into its kit, and both Samurai Fighter and Gloom Stalker Ranger gain Resilient - Wisdom as their 7th level class feature.

[nickl_2000]

You'd also look into the classes that have certain feats built into their feature kit. For example, Drunken Master Monk has Mobile incorporated into its kit, and both Samurai Fighter and Gloom Stalker Ranger gain Resilient - Wisdom as their 7th level class feature.

That's actually one of the reasons I went with Swashbuckler Rogue, the Fancy Footwork level 3 ability is mobility as well. It gives a lot of flexibility without having to take a feat.

[Naanomi]

That's really only a problem for Fighters, and it's really only a problem for maybe 2 late game ASIs.

But hey, you've got 28-42 more hit points than a feats game Fighter at level 14, and the gap keeps widening. An issue with 2 late game ASIs is bearable. :smallamused:

Having an extra 25-35% ablative defense is no joke. Many people don't realize what they're giving up to get those 2-3 feats.
One of which could be ‘tough’ in a game with feats if you felt you needed it

[MaxWilson]

One of which could be ‘tough’ in a game with feats if you felt you needed it

Or things that obviate the need for some of those HP, like Alert or Lucky or Defensive Duelist or Mobile.

At most the HP gap is going to be +/- 60 HP or so at 20th level (raising Con from 14ish to 20ish), which at that level is less than the value of three Lucky-negated crits (although you probably won't take three crits in one day, and will spend some of your Luck on other things like failed saves instead).

[Naanomi]

Or things that obviate the need for some of those HP, like Alert or Lucky or Defensive Duelist or Mobile.

At most the HP gap is going to be +/- 60 HP or so at 20th level (raising Con from 14ish to 20ish), which at that level is less than the value of three Lucky-negated crits (although you probably won't take three crits in one day, and will spend some of your Luck on other things like failed saves instead).
That being said, playing a pile of HP(Hilldwarf Barbarian with Tough and 20/24 CON) sounds like it could be a fun time

[Tanarii]

Or things that obviate the need for some of those HP, like Alert or Lucky or Defensive Duelist or Mobile.

At most the HP gap is going to be +/- 60 HP or so at 20th level (raising Con from 14ish to 20ish), which at that level is less than the value of three Lucky-negated crits (although you probably won't take three crits in one day, and will spend some of your Luck on other things like failed saves instead).
A 37% durability gain for a fighter, both in maximum and per HD spent, it massive at any level. And it can "come online" at level 14 with a reasonable boost of Str first. You're hugely underrated it.

[Eldariel]

Pick 5:

Moon druid
Divine soul sorc
Hexblade warlock
Lore/swords/valor bard
Zealot barbarian
Open hand monk
Vengeance paladin

Where's the Transmuter/Bladesinger Wizard?

[MaxWilson]

A 37% durability gain for a fighter, both in maximum and per HD spent, it massive at any level. And it can "come online" at level 14 with a reasonable boost of Str first. You're hugely underrated it.

But you gave up three feats to get it! With Con 14, you'll have 14 * 8 + 4 = 116 HP at 14th level. With Con 20, you'll gain 42 more HP and have 158 HP. Or you could have for example Resilient (Wisdom), Lucky, and Defensive Duelist (+5). Or if you want offense, you could have Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Prodigy (Athletics) to increase your damage AND reduce your damage taken.

Do you really believe that featless fighter is going to survive more Beholders, Mind Flayers, or Adult White Dragons than the Lucky fighter or the Sharpshooter fighter, simply by virtue of those extra 42 HP? I don't.

[Cybren]

I would play a half-orc berserker and enjoy my bonus action attack

[noob]

Four bards.
That or four clerics.
Or four druids.
Four wizards might have problems in tankyness early on so I do not advise quad wizard.(Unless you use tricks like gnome abjurer or somehow cast shield 50 times a day with your war wizard)
Then after taking 4 cool things you can grab one of the standard useless things like a glass cannon or a corpse or a waste of space or a big target or grab a fifth cool character.

[Eldariel]

Four bards.
That or four clerics.
Or four druids.
Four wizards might have problems in tankyness early on so I do not advise quad wizard.(Unless you use tricks like gnome abjurer or somehow cast shield 50 times a day with your war wizard)

Meh, I definitely think 4 Bard would have way more trouble than 4 Wizard (Wizards have Shield + Mage Armor + familiar for surprisingly robust low level combat ability, Bards have ****e for armor and no defensive spells).

[noob]

Meh, I definitely think 4 Bard would have way more trouble than 4 Wizard (Wizards have Shield + Mage Armor + familiar for surprisingly robust low level combat ability, Bards have ****e for armor and no defensive spells).

Valour bards wear medium armour which lasts all day long unlike the spells you specified.
so your wizard cast the defensive spells then have like two offence or shield and then 9 hours later at the next encounter that interrupts a short rest again the wizard is out of defensive spells.

[Eldariel]

Valour bards wear heavy armour which lasts all day long unlike the spells you specified.
so your wizard cast the defensive spells then have like two offence or shield and then 9 hours later at the next encounter that interrupts a short rest again the wizard is out of defensive spells.

Aye but Valor Bards only do it from level 3. Wizard does it from level 1. Bladesingers and Abjurers are plenty tanky from level 2.

It really is rare enough to run into N encounters and then nothing and then just when you try to rest into one. Maybe 1/2 times per game, certainly not often enough to make it a problem.

[noob]

Aye but Valor Bards only do it from level 3. Wizard does it from level 1. Bladesingers and Abjurers are plenty tanky from level 2.

It really is rare enough to run into N encounters and then nothing and then just when you try to rest into one. Maybe 1/2 times per game, certainly not often enough to make it a problem.

It is mostly people intending to prevent the wizards from restoring their resources and doing stuff like interrupt and flee(Ex: shoot a burning arrow from far on a tent then flee and the commotion probably counts as an interruption to the short rest) which is a good strategy when far from towns. (hence why some adventurers hates wilderness adventures)

[Eldariel]

It is mostly people intending to prevent the wizards from restoring their resources and doing stuff like interrupt and flee(Ex: shoot a burning arrow from far on a tent then flee and the commotion probably counts as an interruption to the short rest) which is a good strategy when far from towns. (hence why some adventurers hates wilderness adventures)

That requires that you have an active enemy you let get away. Bad mistake. Need to kill them dead and not let any survivors pass the word: else you get attritioned to death regardless of class (Wizard is really no more susceptible than other classes: any class will run out of resources with a sufficient number of subsequent encounters especially on low levels). Though partially counteracted by Mold Earth/Shape Water-fortified camps/holes/bases and on 5 Tiny Hut.

It's worth noting that offensively Wizard 1-4 with L. Crossbow is little worse of an at-will fighter than any other class and better with Familiar Help than any. So Wizard actually has substantial at-will power (even more-so for Drow Bladesinger Wizard with Crossbow Expert).

[noob]

That requires that you have an active enemy you let get away. Bad mistake. Need to kill them dead and not let any survivors pass the word: else you get attritioned to death regardless of class (Wizard is really no more susceptible than other classes: any class will run out of resources with a sufficient number of subsequent encounters especially on low levels). Though partially counteracted by Mold Earth/Shape Water-fortified camps/holes/bases and on 5 Tiny Hut.

It's worth noting that offensively Wizard 1-4 with L. Crossbow is little worse of an at-will fighter than any other class and better with Familiar Help than any. So Wizard actually has substantial at-will power (even more-so for Drow Bladesinger Wizard with Crossbow Expert).
How do you prevent from fleeing opponents which never wanted a fair fight and have higher move speed than you?

[Eldariel]

How do you prevent from fleeing opponents which never wanted a fair fight and have higher move speed than you?

Cast a spell to make them fall down or shoot them dead before they get out of range. Really your only options. No enemy wants fair fights: it's up to you to be a better, more perceptive sneak than they and to maintain the information advantage picking fights on your terms instead of those of the enemy until you have bled the enemy dry enough that you can take their whole force at once while they have potential surprise and preparation advantage.

If you do get spotted, you must lose them and stay ahead. This actually mirrors real far patrol behaviour very well (which is for all intents and purposes what adventurers are: small groups of special ops operating in foreign territory surrounded by hostile creatures and environment).

[noob]

Cast a spell to make them fall down or shoot them dead before they get out of range. Really your only options. No enemy wants fair fights: it's up to you to be a better, more perceptive sneak than they and to maintain the information advantage picking fights on your terms instead of those of the enemy until you have bled the enemy dry enough that you can take their whole force at once while they have potential surprise and preparation advantage.

If you do get spotted, you must lose them and stay ahead. This actually mirrors real far patrol behaviour very well (which is for all intents and purposes what adventurers are: small groups of special ops operating in foreign territory surrounded by hostile creatures and environment).

Except that you can see that it is subject to randomness and that you will be unable to catch all the opponents if you are unlucky.

[Tanarii]

Do you really believe that featless fighter is going to survive more Beholders, Mind Flayers, or Adult White Dragons than the Lucky fighter or the Sharpshooter fighter, simply by virtue of those extra 42 HP? I don't.
They're more likely to survive the 6 encounters total in the adventuring day overall. They're more likely to easily push on well past that.

Edit: I take that back. Any class is likely to survive a typical adventuring day. But IMO they're more likely to easily handle exceeding it by a large margin.

I know your preference is for multiple times deadly individual battles. My experience is running much longer than typical adventuring days, but not (usually) far over deadly difficulty for individual encounters. That's definitely going to change our view of the value of certain feats (especially Lucky) and hit points.

[Eldariel]

Except that you can see that it is subject to randomness and that you will be unable to catch all the opponents if you are unlucky.

Of course, but that's true for all classes and enemies and an inherent part of the dynamics of a CAW game. This is where the secondary defenses like stealthy movement and camping, defensive fortifications, misleading and false traces, etc. come in.

[MaxWilson]

They're more likely to survive the 6 encounters total in the adventuring day overall. They're more likely to easily push on well past that.

Edit: I take that back. Any class is likely to survive a typical adventuring day. But IMO they're more likely to easily handle exceeding it by a large margin.

I know your preference is for multiple times deadly individual battles. My experience is running much longer than typical adventuring days, but not (usually) far over deadly difficulty for individual encounters. That's definitely going to change our view of the value of certain feats (especially Lucky) and hit points.

I'll run a simulation. 14th level, four point buy standard-human Champion fighters, in one case featless and with maxed attack stats and Con, in the other case a mix of feats (2 x Resilient (Wis), Lucky, Defensive Duelist, and 2 x Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Mobile), against a Kobold.club-generated adventuring day (60,000) of random Medium encounters:

2 Bone Nagas and 2 Werebears (5800/11,600)
1 Drow Inquisitor (11,500)
Short rest
1 Gorgon, 1 Spawn of Kyuss, 2 Yuan-ti Nightmare Speakers (5800/11,600)
1 Tyrannosaurus Rex and 1 Young Green Dragon (7800/11,700)
Short rest
1 Night Hag, 1 Triceratops, 1 Young Remorhaz (5400/10,800)
1 Drow Elite Warrior, 1 Mindwitness, 2 Yuan-ti Nightmare Speakers (5800/11,600)

3200 left over, so final fight will be 1 Bone Naga and 1 Owlbear (1800/2700) and 500 budget will go unused.

All monsters fight to the death in a simple featureless room 10' x 60' dimensions with no furniture. (To keep things simple.)

I'll report HP remaining and HP % remaining and lucky drive remaining, and any deaths, for both parties.

I'm not sure yet whether to do a computer simulation or a pen-and-paper one. I'll try computer first because there are benefits to being able to show source code and do thousands of runs, but will ultimately do whichever is easiest.

[Tanarii]

I'll report HP remaining and HP % remaining and lucky drive remaining, and any deaths, for both parties.

I'm not sure yet whether to do a computer simulation or a pen-and-paper one. I'll try computer first because there are benefits to being able to show source code and do thousands of runs, but will ultimately do whichever is easiest.
Knock yourself out if you want to write some code. At the very least it'll tell us if my statement about any party being able to survive a standard adventuring day is correct. :smallamused:

[Waazraath]

- any cleric
- any paladin
- any druid
- any monk
- any artificer
- dragon sorcerer
- hexblade warlock
- berserker barbarian
- eldritch knight fighter

[Pikkle]

Dwarven Life Cleric. Heavy Armour, great big hammer and spells. I can support, front line, tank, whatever is needed.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmmm, what would I play?
Featless, I go Vengeance Paladin or Devotion Paladin.

For a party of four:
Paladin
Tempest or Life Cleric
Rogue (AT)
Shadow Sorcerer

For a party of Five:

Monk (Shadow with Criminal Background)
Knowledge Cleric
Paladin
Any Sorcerer
Ranger (Either Hunter or Gloom Stalker)

Three Player Party

Moon Druid
Paladin (Ancients)
Ranger or Fighter (Dex based with Criminal/Spy background for thieve's tools)

[Edea]

I'd probably play a Hexblade Warlock.

[Hael]

Classes that are a little MAD benefit here, so eg an already strong class like a paladin doesn’t lose all that much.

Oath of conquest/vengeance/oathbreaker. Bladesingers etc

[MaxWilson]

Knock yourself out if you want to write some code. At the very least it'll tell us if my statement about any party being able to survive a standard adventuring day is correct. :smallamused:

Followup:

The computer angle hasn't worked out because I keep thinking of tactics that would be logical for the monsters to try under these circumstances, and how the players would logically respond, and that becomes a new requirement for the simulator, and that pushes it to a level of complexity that is beyond me right now. Basically I think I have to choose between realistic tactics and computerized automation.

If you don't mind I'm going to radically simplify the computerized version: take the first two encounters (2 Bone Nagas and 2 Werebears, and 1 Drow Inquisitor), give them some simple and straightforward tactics (Bone Nagas will randomly either Lightning Bolt the whole party or Hold Person III two PCs until they run out of 3rd level slots, then Hold Person II, then either Ray of Frost or attack in melee depending on whether or not there is room; Inquisitor will just Hold Person V whenever no one is paralyzed and attack a paralyzed target if someone else), and give the PCs very simplistic tactics in response (front line attack front-liners; archers prioritize spellcasters concentrating on a spell, then spellcasters not concentrating, then whoever the front line is attacking; the PCs will use half their collective action surges in each combat).

Then I'll give everybody a short rest and throw them at the same two fights all over again until everyone dies, and measure how many fights it took. I'll do that simulation 1000x or so.

That will give us reliable numbers about simplistic tactics. Then I'll run a real fight vs. all seven encounters using actual good tactics on both sides (such as front-line Fighters grappling+proning a werebear and moving them into position such that the Nagas can't Lightning Bolt the party without hitting at least one werebear), and summarize the results. Luck will still play a big role in the outcome but hopefully we'll learn something interesting anyway.

[SVamp]

I would play a bladesinger wizard. They lose the least with no feats while still being tanky as heck since you can’t rely on sentinel and other such things to keep heavy melee away from you. You can also off-tank and off-dps. If I were designing a party of 5, I’d go with:

- fear paladin to ‘tank’ by freezing in place. Sword and board. aasimar for powers Or half-elf for more skills. Probably dex-based.

- moon Druid to off tank and help with healing (good berry, healing word, healing spirit) , decent melee dps in a feat-less game. Without sentinel to trap enemies, imho brings more to the table than the spirit guardian cleric, though that’s still a decent option

- hexblade ranged dps: one of the highest non-feat non-multi ranged dps with easy permanent advantage or hex + hexcurse.

- blade singer wizard, CC, AoE, non-squishy wizard, can double as dps dual wielding shadow blade+ flame tongue rapier, or haste or polymorph or animate objects or greater invisibility or tensers or ....

- rogue or bard for face and skills. Tough choice, but perhaps rogue (arcane trickster, or swashbuckler) might work better for combat dps . Truthfully, paladin can do face too so any high dps with dexterity and thief tools fits the bill. Even a plain ole dex fighter isn’t terrible: max dex early, archery style, bracers of archery, action surge.. you might not be a sharp shooter monster but you can still bring in the pain and hit very reliably by using precision maneuvers when it seems you’re going to miss the shot or free advantage (samurai). Ranged Ranger gloomstalker is probably better at lower to mid levels, and adds extra healing (healing spirit)

Party of 3? Pali, wizard, ranger detailed above.

[Lyracian]

Followup:
The computer angle hasn't worked out because I keep thinking of tactics that would be logical for the monsters to try under these circumstances, and how the players would logically respond, and that becomes a new requirement for the simulator, and that pushes it to a level of complexity that is beyond me right now. Basically I think I have to choose between realistic tactics and computerized automation..
I will be interested to see the results.


What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA). Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?

If it was not standard array I would be tempted by Monk. I would happily take a Cleric, Wizard, Bard, Paladin or Rogue to Level 12 without a problem. With Standard Array I will be using two ASI for main stat anyway. Will mainly miss out on Resistance.

For a party of Five
Half-Elf Paladin. Tank with Aura
Dwarf Forge Cleric. Str 8 high con and Wisdom. 22 AC possible at Level 6 without magic items. Minimize concentration saves by minimizing hits.
Celestial Tomb-Lock. Our Eldritch Blast 'archer' with all the rituals
Half-Elf Sorcerer (Shadow,Draconic or Divine). Starts with Con Save. Blaster or Controller
Half-Elf Bard with Criminal background or High Elf Arcane Trickster. Skill Monkey. I probably take the Rogue if we have a Controller Sorcerer or the Bard if we have a Blaster.

[Xihirli]

Transmutation wizard... or a Rogue.
Or! Crazy idea time! Storm Herald Barbarian. I’ve got nothing else to use my bonus action on, let’s spam a minor buff to me and my allies EVERY round.

[nickl_2000]

Transmutation wizard... or a Rogue.
Or! Crazy idea time! Storm Herald Barbarian. I’ve got nothing else to use my bonus action on, let’s spam a minor buff to me and my allies EVERY round.

The lack of feats does make the Storm Herald more interesting.

[Asisreo1]

ASI's are incredibly good, much better than the vast majority of feats. The reasoning is that upping 1 stat with an ASI gives it a +1 to all related skills, the saving throw, any DC calculation involving it, any other calculation (HP, AC, DMG, encumberance) associated with it, and any attack roll associated with it.

It usually takes a character 2 of these ASI's to get their primary stat up and another 3 to get their secondary stat up. Fighters do still benefit from the 2 extra ASI's since you can always give yourself added wisdom to cover saving throws (+2 to any save permanently is pretty good).

[nickl_2000]

ASI's are incredibly good, much better than the vast majority of feats. The reasoning is that upping 1 stat with an ASI gives it a +1 to all related skills, the saving throw, any DC calculation involving it, any other calculation (HP, AC, DMG, encumberance) associated with it, and any attack roll associated with it.

It usually takes a character 2 of these ASI's to get their primary stat up and another 3 to get their secondary stat up. Fighters do still benefit from the 2 extra ASI's since you can always give yourself added wisdom to cover saving throws (+2 to any save permanently is pretty good).

Counterpoint. You can take +2 Wisdom or Resilient Wisdom for +1 Wisdom and a minimum +2 to Wisdom saves. In general, I would rather take Resilient Wisdom. The other nice thing about feats is that they help with action economy, if you are a class that doesn't have bonus actions often (say a Paladin) something like PAM can fill in that gap and make it more effective.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with using ASIs, especially if you are a dex based martial who gets +2 Dex.

[cutlery]

Counterpoint. You can take +2 Wisdom or Resilient Wisdom for +1 Wisdom and a minimum +2 to Wisdom saves. In general, I would rather take Resilient Wisdom. The other nice thing about feats is that they help with action economy, if you are a class that doesn't have bonus actions often (say a Paladin) something like PAM can fill in that gap and make it more effective.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with using ASIs, especially if you are a dex based martial who gets +2 Dex.

I'd guess that after maxing a main stat for a SAD class, the remaining ASIs are less exciting. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, but gaining level 12 and tacking on 2 more con doesn't feel as fun as 2 more main stat. I don't think it's a problem, but there are for sure some classes that get little else at some ASI points, and these are late enough that they've likely capped a main stat already.

I think they're more exciting with MAD classes.

I'd be sorely tempted to let the fighter buy two feats with their bonus ASI's (same goes for rogue).

[LordCdrMilitant]

Hi everyone

this is more of a theorycrafting question than an actual play question. I was wondering how would the optimization game change if you cannot use feats or multiclassing (after all those are optional rules). Especially for melee characters the lack of feats would be a huge nerf and maybe the balance between the weapon types would change qzite a bit without GWM, PAM or Sentinel.

What do you think would be an optimized party of 5 that uses the standard array and mostly plays first and second tier - maybe a bit of third tier? All sources except UA (nobody that would disallow feats would allow UA).

Which classes, fighting styles etc would come out on top?

Well, that would kill any semblance of an ideal of playing a martial at all for me, because like "having feats" is basically the premise of them.

So maybe Wizard or Cleric. Maybe Sorcerer so that even if I'm a worse Wizard, I at least cast on CHA so I also don't have to deal with the standard array's lack of optimality.

[MaxWilson]

I'd guess that after maxing a main stat for a SAD class, the remaining ASIs are less exciting. I don't think that's necessarily a problem, but gaining level 12 and tacking on 2 more con doesn't feel as fun as 2 more main stat.

I believe this is primarily because "main stat" is something you use proactively and constantly. Secondary stats, unless you are multiclassing, are used only occasionally and reactively against things that happen to target that stat. They're inherently less relevant.

[cutlery]

I believe this is primarily because "main stat" is something you use proactively and constantly. Secondary stats, unless you are multiclassing, are used only occasionally and reactively against things that happen to target that stat. They're inherently less relevant.

Which could (and probably does) mean that the fighter is even weaker relative to other classes in a featless/no MC game.

[Naanomi]

Which could (and probably does) mean that the fighter is even weaker relative to other classes in a featless/no MC game.
For sure, assume you played a STR/CON race... once you've maxed out both STR and CON... where do the last 2-3 ASIs even go that doesn't feel like just throwing them away? 'what do I want this level, +1 Initiative, or +1 Perception?'

[MaxWilson]

Which could (and probably does) mean that the fighter is even weaker relative to other classes in a featless/no MC game.

That's what Tanar'ri and I are experimenting with, yes. I should have results by Saturday.

[Frogreaver]

We currently run a no feat game. We allow multiclassing but no one has done it.

We have:
Necromancer Wizard
Life Cleric
Battle Master Fighter
Open Fist Monk
Oath of the Crown Paladin

The Melee beatdown that's dished out because of enemies being prone so often is really impressive.


That said, for this question I would probably go with:
Divination Wizard
Lore Bard
Shepherd Druid
Life Cleric
Vengeance Paladin

[jaappleton]

Open Hand Monk.

Some self healing, battlefield control, automatic magical weapons, Evasion.... It offers a lot of you have to absolutely pure class.

[Frogreaver]

In reply to featless fighters being weak:

Assuming 1-2 short rests per day and a decent magical weapon (say one with +1d6 damage) a battlemaster fighter is back to being one of the most impressive damage dealers. His abilities don't just scale well with GWM and SS, they also scale very well with magic weapons.

Riposte when you are missed and have a high chance to hit. Precision when you just barely missed. Trip attack for when you are going to action surge to try and get advantage on your attacks.

[Maxilian]

Most likely a Warlock, maybe Celestial or something along those lines.