Can you share your experience with a featless/multiclassless game?

[Ryuu Hayato]

The page 163 of the Player's handbook says:

The combination of ability scores, race, class, and background defines your character's capabilities in the game, and the personal details you create set your character apart from every other character. Even within your class and race, you have options to fine-tune what your character can do. But this chapter is for players who-with the DM's permission-want to go a step further.

This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats. Multiclassing lets you combine classes together, and feats are special options you can choose instead of increasing your ability scores as you gain levels. Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign.

However, even they are an optional rule, feats and multiclasses are allowed in the Adventure League's plays, and some claim they as a core part of the edition. Thus, I want to know how was your experiences without theses optional set of rules. This include gaming balance, martials against spellcasters, fighters without feats and so on.

Thanks in advance.

[Tanarii]

Mostly Tier 1 & Tier 2, later on some rarer low Tier 3 sessions, initially characters retired at level 11. Open table, Long Rest at end of session (and meant ending the session), parties tended to push on to a 3rd or even 4th short rest. Henchmen were available for hire (and got a 1/2 share of XP), typically Berserkers, Champions, some Hunters & Thieves, so those sub-classes were rarer among players as primary PCs. When I allowed Xanathars, Hexblades were not allowed. No SCAG cantrips.

Martials were very powerful until mid-Tier 2. Largely because they usually had the AC that non-Clerics or non-Valor Bards couldn't easily access. Also there was no Resilient (Con) or Warcaster, so concentration checks were harder for anyone but Sorcerers.

Fighters were largely EKs, with some Battle Masters, and XGtE subclasses later on. EKs were most commonly Str/Int builds. IIRC it was fairly common for Battlemasters to have a Cha backgrounds / skills.

Players had a tendency to raise Con at level 8 (or sometimes even 4th). I imagine if I'd run high Tier 3 and low Tier 4 most characters would have ended up with an extra 4 points of Con total, or 2 hps/level. Definitely I saw Con boosts more than I did when I played AL.

[KorvinStarmast]

I want to know how was your experiencie (game balance, martials vs spellcasters, fighters without feats).

That campaign ended as we got to level 7. We didn't miss them.

[Ryuu Hayato]

That campaign ended as we got to level 7. We didn't miss them.

I'm curious to know why.

[Waazraath]

I just want to know how was your experiencie, like game balance, martials vs spellcasters, fighters without feats.

3 campaigns, 1-4, 1-5, 1-6. Game balance: perfectly fine at these levels. So also: no martials vs spellcaster issues. Fighters without feats: we didn't had one, but anyhow not an issue at this level, since the 'worst' what can happen (from a point buy/standard array starting point) is that they have a maxed out primary stat at 20.

What does happen is that some classes or subclasses get a bit better relative to each other. We had a berserker barbarian, the bonus action extra attack is good anyway, but extra if there isn't an option to get one from PAM. Bards, rogues and wizards not being able to use better types of armor (bar some racial exeptions) makes them more squishy. Not being able to get proficient in con saves forces concentration using casters to be more careful, stay more in the backline if possible. But 5e is balanced very well, so I don't think these changes really cause issues.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm curious to know why. There isn't a why. There was no vHuman allowed by the DM (this was 2014 when the game came out) and no feats were on the table until level 4. As it was, all of the players wanted to boost their primary stat first to 18 or 20. (We all rolled up characters). Nobody was interested in MC since we all wanted to get things like the next level of spells or the next class feature sooner. The Lore bard, for example, was overjoyed to get magical secrets at level 6.

MC was irrelevant, and Feats were not perceived to be as valuable as an ASI increase at level 4.

[LudicSavant]

A lot of optimized caster builds don’t multiclass and don’t take anything but stat bumps (and/or half-feats that bump primary stat) until level 12. Monks and Paladins with two stats to max often don’t take anything but stat bumps until level 19!

[Frogreaver]

I just want to know how was your experiencie, like game balance, martials vs spellcasters, fighters without feats.

We have ran featless and the game balance tended to be much better. Magic items also felt much more important and valuable which is a nice side effect IMO.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Which classes get hit most by losing Feats?

Fighters who are not Eldritch Knights: Two distinctive Fighter class features are having the most attacks and the most ASIs. More attacks are always nice, but after boosting Con and either Dex or Str to 20, the other ASIs add little utility or flavor to a class that often needs it.

Moon Druids: After boosting Wisdom, a Moon Druid benefits less from stats than anyone else. Heck, it can be argued that Moon Druids can make do without Wisdom either.

Rogue: One less ASI than Fighters, but one more than everyone else.

Spellcasters who are not Sorcerers or Eldritch Knights, especially anyone hoping to gish: No Resilient Con, no Warcaster. What more need be said?


The relative winners are classes that are MAD and spellcasters with Con proficiency (Sorcerers and Eldritch Knights.)

Anyway,

Ken

[Amdy_vill]

I have played in two featless games. they were bad, to say the least. it's not the game can't be played without feats it just many class choices and subclass choice really need feats to work and without them, it locks you out of really playing them.

I have played many multiclassless games. I have found them to be fine but in my experience, it leads to more character turnover. players getting bored with their character and not having a real way to spice things up and just retiring or killing them off.

I have played one game with both and that game experienced both of these problems but worst than normal. tho I have seen both done well. tho it required the dm to do a lot more work on encounter balancing

[Tanarii]

Hi,

Which classes get hit most by losing Feats?
Probably about equal for casters and martials, if there is no Multiclassing. Resilient (Wis), Warcaster, and no armor feats hurts caster defenses which they could normally take at the cost of early offense via main stat increases. Some of the most egregious offense boosters for Barbarians, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers and Rogues (GWM, PAM, SS, CBE) are typically taken instead earlier Con.

Barbarians probably suffer the most though. GWM is pretty much given for them and a huge offensive boost over even a Str ASI, due to Reckless.

[hitchhike79]

Our DM has explained how hard it is to deal with optimized characters and non-optimized characters in a game.
Power levels of monsters and difficulty of checks are all over the place because some just go over the top, its great but it isnt a balanced game in the end.
So we have went featless and single class for a few campaigns now and we spend a lot more time on background, RP aspects and character development instead of the best stat here or feat there.

Its honestly a very fun way to play, i have ran a Vengeance Paladin and a Rune Knight fighter with great success no feats or other classes.

For counterpoint ive played the Gloomstalker Ranger/Cleric crossbow expert blah blah blah... it was fun but so single purposed.
Ive also played an Abjuration Wizard to lvl 20 and only took a few ASI's and junk feats for utility.

Most classes dont need a feat unless you want the utility or your trying to optimize.
We all love to do the big crits, lock down monsters and take total control of the game but honestly the featless games have been more about the total game rather than all about the combat.

[GravityEmblem]

My game didn't have any Multiclassing--I didn't actually FORBID it, but none of my players felt like doing it. Feats were allowed, but I can't remember a single instance where someone said "I'm going to use my [something] Feat to do this." It was all Passive, if at all. All in all, it went fine. Though, perhaps the borderline broken magic items I provided made up for it, haha.

[Eric Diaz]

I've seen no issues. Played with Barb, Paladin (died, then Rogue), Warlock and Druid, from level 1 to level 10, Curse of Strahd. Found the warlock a bit lackluster, and maybe the barbarian should have improved crit or something, but that's about it.

The only campaign-specific issues I've seen is that having a cleric and wizard would be more useful, and the rogue didn't find a good magic weapon to overcome enemies' defenses.

Also, no issues playing LMoP form level 1 to 5, fighter, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, and rogue.

FWIW, I LIKE feats, and I'm okay with MCing. My players weren't interested, however; the amount of options they had, especially for spell-casters, was already too much to keep track of.

[Imbalance]

My players weren't interested, however; the amount of options they had, especially for spell-casters, was already too much to keep track of.

This echoes my experience as a new DM with players totally new to these kinds of games. My players barely pay attention to their sheets as it is. I find that the options only really matter to players who like to white room the hell out of their character ideas. For all the more we get to actually play the game, they seem to be a long way from exhausting interest in the basics. I haven't banned anything, but I also haven't encouraged them much except for where some flavor might help distinguish between two characters of the same class.

As far as balance, again, the builds haven't mattered much in light of how the players use them. The lone sorcerer has happened to be the overall greatest damage dealer, but is also the most reckless player. The two rangers excel at exploration and terrain control, and no I don't just handwave the party's obstacles. The warlock would rather toss daggers than eldritch blast, but frequently comes up with off-the-wall ideas that have nothing to do with the game - he's just that invested in the world so we roll with it. The rogue frequently cancels her own stealth because she's as loud and boisterous as her player. The paladin is the heart of the party, probably the person at the table staying most true to class, who actually studied the options in the PHB and decided she'd rather have a special magic item to better fit her background, which I happily obliged.

As a player, I prefer having the options, but honestly have very seldom used them. My last fighter functionally got as much use out of PHB background abilities as either of his feats. I've only built towards multi-classing in online games, but have yet to play in one of those that lasted to an ASI. Going forward, I just don't feel like it's worth putting the thought into something that I won't have the opportunity to fully utilize.

[heavyfuel]

Plenty of character concepts are only possible with multiclassing and feats, so not allowing those, you are pretty much setting up for a game of stereotypical characters.

Want to play a pirate? Sure, you can go Swashbuckler and be done. No feats or multiclass needed.

But what if you want to play an arcane spellcaster clad in iron that uses their spells to not only hold the frontline, but also control the battlefield? Well the only to do that is to either spend 3 feats for heavy armor proficiency, or to multiclass into Cleric or Fighter, none of which are possible under these rules.

If stereotypical characters are what you're looking for, that's fine. But after playing RPGs for 20+ years, stereotypical characters have gotten beyond the point of boring for me.

My personal experience with such games were in the early days of 5e, before the PHB existed. My friends and I tried out a premade adventure (Phandelver, I think) and we got bored after two sessions.

[Ogun]

I remember playing gnomes when that was the only way to be a thief/illusionist.
I hated that, options are better.
If there is any restrictions they should come from a well defined game world.

I currently play with people who think that a 16 AC makes them a tank, and thats with multiclassing and feats.
I take my 19 AC, cast Bless from the rear and let them melee, everybody is happy.
I find focusing on team play makes optimal/non-optimal distinctions irrelevant.