Discussion: Game with no multiclassing and no feats

[Necrosnoop110]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was your experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Why or why not?

Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

[dafrca]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was you're experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

I have not played in such a game but I would love to give it a try if for no other reason than have have the experience. I think it woudl be great to see how it really impacts things rather than just the theorycrafting the idea is for me right now. :smallbiggrin:

[Angelalex242]

You will see more 20s in more stats. Probably higher constitution scores in particular...Because after you max your main attribute, con is probably next, except for guys like Paladins and Monks who have better places to put their stat bonuses.

Barbarians might well actually hit those 24s in str and con if they get to level 20, as they may well have maxed out their stats at 20 with ASLs.

[olskool]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was your experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

To prevent "min-maxing," we went "old school" on multiclassing, treating it like getting a double major in college. To multiclass, you must have scores of 15 in your Primary Stats needed for each Class. You advance in each Class simultaneously and MUST split your Experience points between the two Classes. This means your progression will be half as fast as your single classed party members but since multiclassing greatly expands your capabilities, the lower progression is balanced out by your increased range of capabilities.

You can also "triple class" but now you need a 15 in THREE Primary Stats (unless two classes use the same stat) and must divide your Experience Points between THREE Classes (progressing at 1/3 the speed of your single-classed companions).

I would like FEATS to be set up to require either Class or Attribute requirements to have. In addition, I would like to see FEATS as a set of skills or bonuses that "level up" as the PC levels up. So a FEAT would start weak and become powerful as its user levels up.

[Bobthewizard]

I am playing in one now. It's also PHB only. A few thoughts.

No one makes humans. We have a lot of dwarves.
Paladins and clerics are great.
Fighters notice the lack of feats more than other martial classes.
Wizards and bards are hurt more than sorcerers, since they don't get CON save proficiency.
Spellcasters are all squishy. It's harder to make a good gish.

But mostly, during play you don't really notice it. You're just playing the character you have and immersing in the story and combats. It's only during character building and at level up that you notice it.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

To prevent "min-maxing," we went "old school" on multiclassing, treating it like getting a double major in college. To multiclass, you must have scores of 15 in your Primary Stats needed for each Class. You advance in each Class simultaneously and MUST split your Experience points between the two Classes. This means your progression will be half as fast as your single classed party members but since multiclassing greatly expands your capabilities, the lower progression is balanced out by your increased range of capabilities.

You can also "triple class" but now you need a 15 in THREE Primary Stats (unless two classes use the same stat) and must divide your Experience Points between THREE Classes (progressing at 1/3 the speed of your single-classed companions).

I would like FEATS to be set up to require either Class or Attribute requirements to have. In addition, I would like to see FEATS as a set of skills or bonuses that "level up" as the PC levels up. So a FEAT would start weak and become powerful as its user levels up.

I don't hate this idea, as I like multiclassing and find the 'dip' thing just irritating. I do think multi-martials would need an option instead of wasting multi-attack that prevents level 5 from being a dead level; probably an extra ASI or 1/2 ASI is the simplest to employ.

[stoutstien]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was your experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?
I've ran a few now with neither, either/or, and both variants active. It really depends on the table of players in question as far as response goes. Then you have see where the toggles as far as combat as sport/game and challenge/tension expectations are.

I will say the most successful games as far as player engagement goes had feats but no multi-classing.

[HPisBS]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was your experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

I don't really multiclass anyway, just because I don't want to give up the higher level goodies.

But no feats, either? I'd only play a MAD class like Monk under those circumstances.

[sithlordnergal]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was your experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

Hmmm, I don't think I'd ever play such a game. My builds tend to require multiple core class abilities to be used, and those builds tend to define a character. For example, I have one character named Barry. He is a Tabaxi Monk/Fighter/Elk Totem Barbarian mix, and the one thing he does really well is move really far.

Now sure, a pure Monk has a high speed, but my build effectively maxes out movement speed. To the point where it easily out-speeds pure Monks.

That or my Cleric/Wizard, where my build revolves around how the Tempest Cleric maxes out Thunder damage and the Order of Scribe can change damage types on the fly.

The only class I have ever not multiclassed was a Moon Druid that I knew was going to reach level 20.

[Naanomi]

At low level play it should be fine; but I feel sorry for those high level characters who get a 'bonus ASI' instead of a real class feature and are already at the point where they are throwing them into marginally useful abilities. 'do I want +1 initiative or +1 perception' isn't an exciting level

Heck, some Dwarven Fighters may be at that point by level 12; and even the fighter with the worst stat boosts (assuming no Tasha's Stat Shuffling) would likely end up with a wasted level 19 ASI

[OldTrees1]

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

Willing? Yes. However it drastically reduces the chance that I will have a compatible character concept.

Pro: It is a campaign

Con 1: I might not have a character to play. No multiclassing (or no feat to a much lesser effect) dramatically reduces the character concepts that can be mechanically instantiated to my desired fidelity threshold. Sure 5E is already severely limited in that regard, but multiclassing dramatically increases the chance it can support a character concept.

Con 2: Characters might/would have fewer interesting features. Since all else would be equal, the character could be less interesting to play.

[Angelalex242]

Since the Fighter has 7 ASIs and no feats to specialize with, he might as well get to STR 20 AND DEX 20, and be equally proficient at range and melee. In theory, he also can get Con 20, if he started his stats with all physicals as high as possible. I'm kind of envisioning the classic min maxed Str 20 Dex 20 Con 20 Int 8 Wis 8 Cha 8 Fighter.

[Pildion]

I think your going to see alot of casters, without GWM, PAM, SS then martials will not be doing much in the way of damage, other then pally/Hexblade smites. I think you'll see alot of pally's though, If i had to play in a game like this as a melee I would definitely go Paladin. Hexblade wouldn't be bad for a melee, but no tough feat will hurt them more then the pally's as they don't have good HPs for a martial.

Casters wont feel the pain as much, Caster wise your game might not even look that different. you might see alot of Moon Druids and Bladesinger Wizards, and Clerics, Druids of any type really wont lose much. Even straight no feat wizard, warlock or sorcerer are not bad.

[HPisBS]

I think your going to see alot of casters, without GWM, PAM, SS then martials will not be doing much in the way of damage, other then pally/Hexblade smites. I think you'll see alot of pally's though, If i had to play in a game like this as a melee I would definitely go Paladin. Hexblade wouldn't be bad for a melee, but no tough feat will hurt them more then the pally's as they don't have good HPs for a martial.

Casters wont feel the pain as much, Caster wise your game might not even look that different. you might see alot of Moon Druids and Bladesinger Wizards, and Clerics, Druids of any type really wont lose much. Even straight no feat wizard, warlock or sorcerer are not bad.

Paladins, Monks, even Rangers would likely see more play. Certain varieties of Fighter and Rogue, too. Sword and Valor Bards. Every MAD class and subclass where improving stats could arguably be equally or even more important than feats would retain all their usual shine. (And be that much more appealing when compared to PCs who can only dump their lvl 12+ ASIs into much lower priority areas.)


I expect players' thought process would go something like this:

"I may as well play a [I]in this campaign, and save my more interesting / customized character concepts for other games."

[Waazraath]

Have any of you played in a game with no multiclassing and no feats? Please describe what was your experience like?

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Additionally, what do you suspect such a game would be like, please describe the likely pros vs cons?

I played several, it works fine. It makes life more difficult for certain casters due to the unavailability of armor/shields and/or con save proficiency, and it makes life more difficult for martials who normally rely on SS/GWM/CBE/PAM for damage.

I think it evens out, and on average the game gets better balanced due to it (e.g. subclasses who are normally maligned like the berserker barbarian suddenly become really good when PAM/GWM isn't on the table).

[Sparky McDibben]

This sounds cool as hell to be honest!

[Dark.Revenant]

subclasses who are normally maligned like the berserker barbarian suddenly become really good when PAM/GWM isn't on the table

Berserker is really bad even in a featless game. A moderate damage bump on round 2+ of combat is not worth having an useless lv10 feature and constantly dealing with Exhaustion.

[Naanomi]

Though barbarians tend to have good places to spend their ASIs even without feats. Fighters and... Clerics/Druids?... Are the ones that really run out (and only fighters have too many to spare before end-game)

[Elric VIII]

I've never played in one of these games, but my kneejerk reaction to such a suggestion would be to assume the person proposing it is one of the people that feels RP and competence are mutually exclusive. I'd rather a game with some well thought-out rules regarding feats and dips that cause issue and/or skew balance. I honestly have no issue with modifying things like GWN/SS or simply saying "no hexblade dips" without needing some overarching generic rule that addresses those things while preventing numerous other innocuous combinations.

[Gtdead]

The thing that I would miss more would be the initiative boosters. In my mind, Vhuman is +1/+1 +5 Initiative race. It's also what I miss the most when I play non starting feat races.
Some pros I can think of. I don't want to do this a pro vs con thing because I like both feats and multiclassing, and I wouldn't choose to play in a game without them if I had an alternative.

- More even progression curve, easier to plan and I feel that this situation makes the DM more likely to give magic items which are fun.

I'm not one to care about even progression curves but there is value in predictability when encounters are created by people without extensive design experience. Unlike videogames that offer choice of difficulty settings and you can reload a save, in PnP it's better to err towards the side of easier encounters, gradually increasing the challenge till a balance point where encounters are interesting enough with some risk but not beyond the capabilities of characters and the player skill, because the TPK tends to be of the permanent sort and it's not really the goal of the DM.

- Minimizes martial disparity because it irons out the difference between power attack compatible builds and non powerattacking ones.

Let's be honest, dpr is king where martial charop is concerned. For some players it's so important that they will choose abysmal dpr increases over very efficient defensive abilities. Powerattacking feats are the main drive behind the prevalence of certain subclasses. When you combine these feats with a reliable hit chance boost, they offer an unreasonable increase compared to the majority of martial class features. Additionally some (sub)classes are very frontloaded that some dips are worth more than the rest of the singleclass progression.

The problem with this type of optimization is that it's lazy. It doesn't increase the player's understanding of the game as demonstrated by many misguided attempts at "ultimate dpr builds" that either come online at a very high level, the builder omits hit chance calculations or the action economy doesn't work out.

For casters it tends to work backwards. Eliminating feats and mc accentuates the key differences between classes and subclasses, no matter the role.

- Eliminates some multiclassing traps for newbies.

Multiclassing is a very advanced optimization tool because it requires enough meta knowledge to understand how to beat a curve. The worst offenders are the dipped fullcasters, since people tend to avoid dipping on martial classes pre level 5. No, Cleric 1/Wizard X isn't a better build than Wizard X. It's a build that trades spellcasting potency for armor. Fighter 2 is terrible dip for every class based on limited resources and Warlock 2 is straight up trading level 3 spells for 25% more cantrip damage.

Calculating the value of staying on the progression curve for spells is very difficult and requires many assumptions, unlike AC and Eldritch Blast which are exceptionally easy to calculate. Whenever in doubt, choose to not multiclass IMO.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

While I haven't played in a game like this I am currently in a game with only 3 characters playing through Rime of the Frostmaiden. The common thread with a featless game is that we are down some power compared to a group of 4. The end result is that the mod is more challenging for us and is less work for our other DM who is running RotFM. Most of the time we have a group of 4 or 5 experienced players and end up having to do a lot of work just to make published content balanced. I also take the point of the poster who mentioned that magic can always be used to buff a character or party if needed, and as an old 2nd Edition player I appreciate that.
So the short answer is a yes; I like the idea of something that keeps character power more in line with published content both as a DM and a player.

[Ogre Mage]

I have not. I would be happy to play in a no multiclassing game. But it would be hard to play with no feats -- I would be resistant to that.

[Schwann145]

Such a game would be plenty fun, but you *could not* play it the same standard way most 5e games are played.
Attention to detail in the world and player interactions has to be really played up to distract from the utter lack of modularity available from the rules themselves. Things like tracking ammo, weight limits, rations, etc are very at-home in a game like this. Making expensive spell components into missions/quests rather than available at ye olde magick shoppe on every city corner can keep spellcasters engaged when otherwise they may not be.

Players want to be distracted, and a lot of that distraction comes from character planning. Remove most of the planning options, and you have to distract them in different ways.

[Foxydono]

I never played in a game like that, but it does sound fun. I would probably play a bearbarian. You can end up with 24 Str, 24 Con and 18 Dex! Conquest Paladin is another fun class to play as you can finally focus on Str and Cha.

Lastly I'd consider a bladesinger or war wizard. You can focus on another main stat after Int. And going full caster is probably your best bet if you don't have feats. Although straight paladin is a close second, certainly from a party perspective.

[dehro]

the campaigns I have played over the last decade have mostly been non multiclass, but with feats... as far as I am concerned, the 5e lends itself to playing proficiently with a single class, and I can't see that not adding feats would ruin that aspect..so.. I would be willing and I think there would be no major difference, at least not for our playstyle

[JonBeowulf]

A no-feats and no-multiclass game works great for folks new to roleplaying and possibly for a first-time DM.

My group's first three 5e "campaigns" ended up that way simply because no one did it. Most of us were experienced gamers but were interested in truly understanding the base game before messing with the optional stuff.

My last 5 characters have taken feats but the only time I've multi-classed was a dwarf fighter/thief way back in 2e. I don't like forcing the party to carry me while I'm slowly leveling toward some feature that fits my concept. I work with what I have by using skills to attempt things not covered by the abilities and features on the sheet.

[nickl_2000]

Sure as long as I knew from the beginning. I would just play one of the single classed concepts I have running around in my head.

I could easily do it with a Way of Mercy Monk, Twilight Cleric, Aberrant Mind Sorcerer, or any Paladin.

[Pildion]

Paladins, Monks, even Rangers would likely see more play. Certain varieties of Fighter and Rogue, too. Sword and Valor Bards. Every MAD class and subclass where improving stats could arguably be equally or even more important than feats would retain all their usual shine. (And be that much more appealing when compared to PCs who can only dump their lvl 12+ ASIs into much lower priority areas.)


I expect players' thought process would go something like this:

"I may as well play a [I]in this campaign, and save my more interesting / customized character concepts for other games."

I think right about seeing alot more MAD classes this way, but most MAD classes are at least half casters, if not full caster. Bards for sure, you can max your Dex now and get a good Con score. Clerics will probably get to max Str/Con as well, my forever 16 Str Forge Cleric would get up to 20 Str. But it's still showing that most people will go with casting of some kind to try and make up for the damage they will no longer be doing.

[Gecks]

I honestly prefer games without multi-classing. I feel like the 5e multiclassing rules are kind of undercooked and make small class dips too appealing. I don't really think multiclassing is needed for 99% of character concepts.

I would be less enthused about a no-feats game, but would still be happy to play in one. Despite being an optional rule, excluding feats kind of feels like a bit of a soft-ban on the fighter class, but I think any of the other classes would be doable and fun, with the balance between classes changing a fair bit but really not breaking. Would be kind of neat seeing a truly squishy wizard who needs to be careful to stay away from the front lines, a melee cleric choosing to cast blindness over spirit guardians because one hit from that giant and they'd loose concentration anyway, or a sorcerer who gets to feel powerful and special because their concentration is so much harder to break than the other casters in the party.

All that said, with the optimization level I've seen at most real-world tables (including my own), the impact of excluding these rules would probably be lower than one might think.

[Waazraath]

Berserker is really bad even in a featless game. A moderate damage bump on round 2+ of combat is not worth having an useless lv10 feature and constantly dealing with Exhaustion.

Stongly disagree here. The damage buff from lvl 3 is very significant if you use it; it's 50% more damage. Of course, you should only use it 1 or 2 times/day, but save it for the big fight and it's huge. The level 6 ability is amazing: immunitity against fear and charm when needing it, in a game where you cannot pick resilient (wis)!. Level 10 is indeed not too strong, mostly for out of combat though imo. But 14 is amazing again: another attack (conditionaly, but condition isn't to hard to meet).

The combination of a strong defensive feature (where the logical feat that normally covers that weakness is not available) and (a lot of) extra damage where the usual sources of damage increase aren't available (PAM/GWM) makes it in my experience a strong subclass in a featless game. Of course, in the hand of a player that doesn't overuses frenzy.

[JLandan]

I like the idea of a campaign with no variant rules. It would have some of the feel of 1e D&D, not Advanced, original White Box.

I would consider upping the cap on abilities from 20 to 24.

[stoutstien]

Maybe it's just me but I get more requests for games not including the variant rules for multi-classing and or feats from rather experienced players. I think it's almost like a palette cleanser and allows them more opportunity for open-ended action resolutions.

[Tanarii]

I like the idea of a campaign with no variant rules. It would have some of the feel of 1e D&D, not Advanced, original White Box.
Yup. It’s also popular when offered as an alternative to “anything goes” adventurers league in the same game stores, particularly where optimization is heavily emphasized at those tebles.

[Leon]

I haven't but I would be fine with playing it as so. Since it was by default written to be that way with the listed things being an option.

[Dark.Revenant]

Stongly disagree here. The damage buff from lvl 3 is very significant if you use it; it's 50% more damage. Of course, you should only use it 1 or 2 times/day, but save it for the big fight and it's huge. The level 6 ability is amazing: immunitity against fear and charm when needing it, in a game where you cannot pick resilient (wis)!. Level 10 is indeed not too strong, mostly for out of combat though imo. But 14 is amazing again: another attack (conditionaly, but condition isn't to hard to meet).

The combination of a strong defensive feature (where the logical feat that normally covers that weakness is not available) and (a lot of) extra damage where the usual sources of damage increase aren't available (PAM/GWM) makes it in my experience a strong subclass in a featless game. Of course, in the hand of a player that doesn't overuses frenzy.

It's nearly a 100% boost at that level, but it has a huge downside.

Anyway, the comparison is most favorable at level 3-4:
Berserker Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 10d6+30 (21.7/rd) potential damage and Exhaustion
Beast Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ claw + shield: 6d6+36 (19.0/rd) potential damage and +2 AC
Zealot Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ dual hand axes: 8d6+28 (18.7/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is magic
Storm Herald (Sea) Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 9d6+18 (16.5/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is ranged, magic, and save-based
Totem Warrior Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ dual hand axes: 5d6+22 (13.2/rd) potential damage and nearby melee allies have automatic advantage OR you're resistant to nearly everything

Beast and Zealot aren't far behind, and they lack any drawbacks. If you're only getting in one big fight in a day, Berserker will probably come ahead of course, but if you need to Rage up to the maximum 3 times, Berserker must skip at least one Frenzy lest he enter combat with half speed (2 levels of exhaustion); this would make Zealot pull ahead overall. Beast is about 15% behind in damage, but has higher AC to make up for it. Totem won't match DPR with Berserker, but the advantage for allies could make up the difference.

At level 10:
Berserker Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 16d6+64 (40.0/rd) potential damage and Exhaustion, plus immunity to charm/fear and a ribbon
Zealot Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 15d6+63 (38.5/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is magic, plus a save reroll and the option to give all your allies advantage
Storm Herald (Sea) Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 18d6+48 (37.0/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is ranged, magic, and save-based; plus various ribbons
Beast Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ claw + shield: 9d6+72 (34.5/rd) potential damage and +2 AC and all of that damage is magic, plus various ribbons and the potential to burst an additional 8d12 damage (51.8/rd total)
Totem Warrior Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 12d6+48 (30.0/rd) potential damage and nearby melee allies have automatic advantage OR you're resistant to nearly everything; plus various ribbons

The gap narrows a lot; Zealot has nearly matched the Berserker's peak damage output and has comparably good 6th/10th features. Meanwhile, the Berserker still can't Frenzy with impunity; the party Cleric can only cast Greater Restoration twice, and even then it uses up a slot that could have gone to Holy Weapon—which adds way more DPR to the class than Frenzy does, at this point. Hell, even the rather undercooked Storm Herald is less than 10% behind in damage. One-encounter days will still be good for the Berserker, but the Beast's now the best at those; it can nova hard enough for up to a 30% DPR lead, while having innate magic damage and more AC.

Overall, Berserker is what we'd call a "stat stick". It has the biggest plain damage number, but falls short in most of the other ways that can make a character good.

[Waazraath]

It's nearly a 100% boost at that level, but it has a huge downside.

Anyway, the comparison is most favorable at level 3-4:
Berserker Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 10d6+30 (21.7/rd) potential damage and Exhaustion
Beast Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ claw + shield: 6d6+36 (19.0/rd) potential damage and +2 AC
Zealot Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ dual hand axes: 8d6+28 (18.7/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is magic
Storm Herald (Sea) Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 9d6+18 (16.5/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is ranged, magic, and save-based
Totem Warrior Lv4 over 3 rounds w/ dual hand axes: 5d6+22 (13.2/rd) potential damage and nearby melee allies have automatic advantage OR you're resistant to nearly everything

Beast and Zealot aren't far behind, and they lack any drawbacks. If you're only getting in one big fight in a day, Berserker will probably come ahead of course, but if you need to Rage up to the maximum 3 times, Berserker must skip at least one Frenzy lest he enter combat with half speed (2 levels of exhaustion); this would make Zealot pull ahead overall. Beast is about 15% behind in damage, but has higher AC to make up for it. Totem won't match DPR with Berserker, but the advantage for allies could make up the difference.

At level 10:
Berserker Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 16d6+64 (40.0/rd) potential damage and Exhaustion, plus immunity to charm/fear and a ribbon
Zealot Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 15d6+63 (38.5/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is magic, plus a save reroll and the option to give all your allies advantage
Storm Herald (Sea) Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 18d6+48 (37.0/rd) potential damage and some of that damage is ranged, magic, and save-based; plus various ribbons
Beast Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ claw + shield: 9d6+72 (34.5/rd) potential damage and +2 AC and all of that damage is magic, plus various ribbons and the potential to burst an additional 8d12 damage (51.8/rd total)
Totem Warrior Lv10 over 3 rounds w/ greatsword: 12d6+48 (30.0/rd) potential damage and nearby melee allies have automatic advantage OR you're resistant to nearly everything; plus various ribbons

The gap narrows a lot; Zealot has nearly matched the Berserker's peak damage output and has comparably good 6th/10th features. Meanwhile, the Berserker still can't Frenzy with impunity; the party Cleric can only cast Greater Restoration twice, and even then it uses up a slot that could have gone to Holy Weapon—which adds way more DPR to the class than Frenzy does, at this point. Hell, even the rather undercooked Storm Herald is less than 10% behind in damage. One-encounter days will still be good for the Berserker, but the Beast's now the best at those; it can nova hard enough for up to a 30% DPR lead, while having innate magic damage and more AC.

Overall, Berserker is what we'd call a "stat stick". It has the biggest plain damage number, but falls short in most of the other ways that can make a character good.

Thanks for providing the math, I mostly agree with what you write. Going with this, I still wouldn't call the 'a really bad subclass' (the claim to which I responded). Highest dpr, even if only occasionally, is nothing to sneeze at. While it is campaign dependent how long the adventuring day lasts, it means there are campaigns where this counts for a lot.

But imo you don't pay enough (or any) attention to the awesomeness of the lvl 6 and lvl 14 abilities. Immunity to charm and fear is great, since a lot of the annoying wis-based spell work on those (hypnotic pattern, charm, suggestion, dominate) as well as a lot of powerful monsters (vampires, mummies, dragons, fiends). In a lot of campaigns, this ability is the diffference between active participation in a fight or doing nothing - which is important for fun as well as dpr imo. And the level 14 ability tilts the subclass again in the direction of 'best dpr'.

I'm not gonna claim it's the best bbn subclass or anything. But it gets better in a game without feats/mc, due to a good action economy (regular use for bonus action and reaction, normally provided by feats or mc) and mental defenses which other subclasses can't get. Just like the storm herald and ancestral guardian get comparatively better btw due to the action economy and not having to compete their subclass features with those of e.g. PAM.

[Sindal]

I personally take feats very rarely unless they are flat our offered as a bonus (I've had dms who believed they were important)

And I've never, ever wanted to multiclass.

So yeah. I'd be totally down.

I've never played a game were it is the rule for all involved but would have no issues doing so.

[Tanarii]

Berserker is really bad even in a featless game. A moderate damage bump on round 2+ of combat is not worth having an useless lv10 feature and constantly dealing with Exhaustion.


Level 10 is indeed not too strong, mostly for out of combat though imo.

The level 10 feature is neither useless nor out of combat. It's a very strong feature for locking down one target while your ranged attackers wipe the floor with them. It's conditional, but powerful.

[Burley]

In most 5e games, maybe all, actually, I've been the only one to take feats and I don't multiclass because it hasn't made sense for the character.

I'll say that my characters tend to land hits less often because I prefer feats to stats. I never think that extra <5% difference between a +3 and a +4 to hit will matter. I generally just roll poorly, rather than being 1 away from hitting, so, I know it's just a confirmation bias. My current-ish Artificer character is built around me not having to make attack rolls often and took feats at 4 and 8.

[Dark.Revenant]

Thanks for providing the math, I mostly agree with what you write. Going with this, I still wouldn't call the 'a really bad subclass' (the claim to which I responded). Highest dpr, even if only occasionally, is nothing to sneeze at. While it is campaign dependent how long the adventuring day lasts, it means there are campaigns where this counts for a lot.

But imo you don't pay enough (or any) attention to the awesomeness of the lvl 6 and lvl 14 abilities. Immunity to charm and fear is great, since a lot of the annoying wis-based spell work on those (hypnotic pattern, charm, suggestion, dominate) as well as a lot of powerful monsters (vampires, mummies, dragons, fiends). In a lot of campaigns, this ability is the diffference between active participation in a fight or doing nothing - which is important for fun as well as dpr imo. And the level 14 ability tilts the subclass again in the direction of 'best dpr'.

I'm not gonna claim it's the best bbn subclass or anything. But it gets better in a game without feats/mc, due to a good action economy (regular use for bonus action and reaction, normally provided by feats or mc) and mental defenses which other subclasses can't get. Just like the storm herald and ancestral guardian get comparatively better btw due to the action economy and not having to compete their subclass features with those of e.g. PAM.

I'll concede that the Berserker is far from the worst Barbarian subclass. Mechanically, it does hold its own, despite having a really bad design. My main complaint is that you give up any nuance short of "will I need Frenzy this fight?" when taking the subclass. Everyone I've ever seen play (including myself, twice) it has ultimately been disappointed by it.

A lot of this is that the Barbarian itself has poor design and needs a lot of help from the subclass (or judicious use of feats like Skill Expert or Shield Master) to do more than RAAAAGH I HIT YOU!! While most of the other subclasses offer ways to branch out, Berserker doesn't and it makes the flaws of the class stand out more, except I guess for the low Wis save.


The level 10 feature is neither useless nor out of combat. It's a very strong feature for locking down one target while your ranged attackers wipe the floor with them. It's conditional, but powerful.

I'd rather grapple with at minimum a +9 modifier (likely with advantage), giving up only one attack, than use my whole action to impose a DC probably 13 Wis save against the frightened effect. The latter doesn't even deprive them of their action, and it has really easy exit conditions.

[heavyfuel]

For those of you who haven't, would you be willing to play in such a game? Why or why not?

I haven't and I wouldn't, at least not in general.

5e - even with all the options allowed - is very simplistic to play. This isn't a bad thing, it's what the designers were going for, and they achieved it.

However, this means that any and all complexity is relegated to character creation. Removing Feats and Multiclass drastically removes the complexity in character creation, which is not something I like.

I'd be technically willing to go for a no-feat no-multiclass game if it were a short campaign created to introduce new players, something 3 levels long at most. But for a "serious" campaign, it'd be a definite "no"