| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1warpiggletSep 08, 2014 11:27:48 | I have been wondering if others are planning to use feats and/or multiclassing.
I generally want to give and receive player choice no matter the side of the screen I am looking at. However I have some misgivings about feats at this time.
For or one thing many give tangible benefits to power, but don't seem to add much flavor. How do I really wear armor better? How would I picture that? Conversely I would like to be on par with other player groups so as to know the relative difficulty of challenges or to be competitive in a non good aligned group should infighting occur.
I wanted to hear from others about their reasons to use/not use these options! |
| #2SaelornSep 08, 2014 11:35:58 | I plan to allow multiclassing, but not feats.
I wouldn't worry too much about how the inclusion of feats would change the difficulty of any encounters, since characters will gain ability score boosts instead. |
| #3melloredSep 08, 2014 11:41:14 | Multiclassing gives you versatility, but not really more power.
Feats give you power on in a narrow area, but not the broad bonus that boosting your stats would.
Overall, it's pretty balanced. And there's no reason to shy away from them, except for simplicities sake. |
| #4ChakravantSep 08, 2014 11:49:11 | Personally, I feel the PHB presents an incomplete game, so I do not understand the rationale behind intentionally playing half of an incomplete game. If I want that kind of "basic" experience, I can do it without dice, paper or rules better than any TTRPG written. Seriously, when the game is broken down to a Cops and Robbers simplicity, isn't it just easier and cheaper to play Cops and Robbers? I buy a book for a reason. Why would I then want to go and diminish that reason after buying the book? |
| #5DemoMonkeySep 08, 2014 11:57:33 | "I buy a book for a reason. "
What's the reason? |
| #6melloredSep 08, 2014 12:30:00 |
|
| #7ChakravantSep 08, 2014 12:31:38 |
|
| #8ChakravantSep 08, 2014 12:33:02 |
|
| #9BW0222Sep 08, 2014 12:36:16 |
|
| #10MechaPilotSep 08, 2014 12:36:54 | I plan to use both feats and multiclassing.
I plan to allow PCs to use the training part of the downtime system to learn additional feats, and to improve their ability scores.
I also plan to ignore the version of multiclassing that is the default in 5e. I despise 3e-style multiclassing. Instead, I will implement AD&D 2e-style multiclassing. |
| #11spelleySep 08, 2014 12:41:49 | I plan to allow Feats. Multiclassing will exist, but only if certain story/roleplaying concessions are made for it to make sense. I also plan to allow downtime rules to provide extra proficiencies and custom Feats. |
| #12Ath-kethinSep 08, 2014 12:45:18 | I have no problem with the feats, but I detest 3e+ multiclassing with a heated passion. I'm withholding final judgement until I see the DMG, but for the time being multiclassing - at least RAW - won't happen at my table. |
| #13SaelornSep 08, 2014 12:48:08 |
|
| #14CEBedfordSep 08, 2014 13:08:29 | Multiclassing is fine; why wouldn't a character be able to change his profession? Feats are fine too, sure out of context some are definitely stronger than others, but that's why I DM in reaction to how a player builds his character. It's not all that hard to insert an item here, or an event there that helps a player get more use out of a feat if need be.
I saw nothing in either of them that bothered me at all.
As for how a character can wear armor better? Why not? A character could be better trained to maximize it's effectiveness. A seasoned warrior might better know the weak spots of his/her armor, and be better prepared to prevent their exploitation. They might be more comfortable in the armor, or have made (or payed for) slight modifications that allow the armor to better serve them. Perhaps they are better at caring for their armor, which translates to more effective use of the equipment. Some people chaff more wearing armor, and that could impact their effectiveness. |
| #15setiSep 08, 2014 13:14:38 | I'd allow both.
Feats give 5e PC's much more customization options. I've toyed with giving everyone a level one feat too. (Obviously then I'd have to not allow the variant human who gets a feat at level one.)
MC if perfectly fine by me if anyone wants to do it. I do pretty much require the player to fluff it out, though...Why do they have 2 classes? It's gotta make some sense to me and the whole group.
But, I will change multi-classing so you get statbumps/feat choices in line with everyone else. ie: a 3/1 fighter/rogue would get their level 4 goodies like everyone else. That has got to be an error in the MC rules, IMO. It hobbles an MC PC way too much. They already are hobbled enough by never being able to get all the abilities of any one class.
Anything and everything that gives PC's options and the ability to machanically make their character concept as accurate as possible to their mind's picture of it are good and necessary things. I also never say no to PC's unless there's a damn good reason. (ie: No, you cannot start with all 18's. Or no, you cannot play as Demogorgon.) |
| #16FFSAASep 08, 2014 13:29:13 | If you're planning on not allowing the entire section of the book on customizing your character, why even play an RPG? |
| #17sailoroswaldSep 08, 2014 13:37:21 | While I'm fine with the multi-classing rules, I hope more dabbler subclasses come out (like Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster).
I see no reason to get rid of feats, they seemed fairly balanced compared to the stat bumps. |
| #18SaelornSep 08, 2014 13:38:14 |
|
| #19MechaPilotSep 08, 2014 14:04:31 |
|
| #20ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 14:10:39 | Allowing feats atm, no multiclassing. Kind of leaning towards no feats the only reason I allowed them was to make strength based characters viable and so humans would not suck. |
| #21Emerikol.Sep 08, 2014 14:11:20 |
|
| #22SaelornSep 08, 2014 14:21:18 |
|
| #23ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 14:20:53 |
|
| #24MechaPilotSep 08, 2014 14:21:44 |
|
| #25souldoubtSep 08, 2014 14:28:16 |
|
| #26ChakravantSep 08, 2014 14:28:17 |
|
| #27TheLyonsSep 08, 2014 14:29:27 | I allow both and see no reason to ban either.
Multiclassing really doesn't make one more powerful. There are some neat combos, but they certainly aren't overpowered. In fact, the multiclass threads where people try to find the most OP builds don't make anything that's strictly just OP. There's no MC options that I would want to take as a straight caster (other than maaaaybe level 1 cleric of life or knowledge, then the rest wizard), but there are some neat martial types I would like. Still, since the higher level abilities of classes are so great, I would be hard pressed to MC too deeply into anything.
Feats aren't really OP either. I've made a ton of NPCs at level 6 just to get used to the system and I forced myself to pick a feat for all of them. I made one of every subclass. And I found that I didn't always want to choose a feat, and would rather have ABI but had forced myself to choose feats.
You could make any of them flavorful. In your Heavy Armor Mastery example, one could definitely wear heavy armor better than another. The description says "You can use your armor to deflect strikes that would kill others." Take full plate, for example. There would be a difference between someone who was proficient in it, and someone who mastered it. Mechanically it reduces bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage (non magical) by 3. Flavorfully, when you know you are about to get hit (which one who's mastered the armor would be able to see), you have just enough time to move slightly in a way to minimize the impact or avoid a small portion of the full force. Medium armor mastery would flavorfully be one who's gotten so good with medium armor, he can move silently and has a greater range of movement in the armor than one who is merely proficient.
A feat like Lucky you have to make flavorful on the fly. Lets say you roll a 1, decide to use a luck point, then roll another die thats a 20. You slightly trip when going to attack and they accidentally move right into your blade. Or you throw a dagger, it misses them and hits a nearby tree richocheting and somehow luckily hits them. Since other characters wouldn't have these types of abilities (other than halflings, or a few other ways to reroll), it definitely stands out. I think every feat can have flavor if you want it to. |
| #28DemoMonkeySep 08, 2014 14:34:55 | "When people claim they desire simplicity, I wonder why they then want rules."
Why don't people put everything on their pizza? There's like 30 choices on the menu, why would anyone want just cheese and pepperoni. That's crazy. In fact their pizza should have 10,000 toppings!
... Does that help? |
| #29ChakravantSep 08, 2014 14:49:40 |
|
| #30FFSAASep 08, 2014 14:57:13 |
|
| #31Cyber-DaveSep 08, 2014 14:57:35 | I plan to use both. |
| #32SaelornSep 08, 2014 15:05:36 |
|
| #33Plaguescarred1Sep 08, 2014 15:12:36 | We use both in my campaign because we like the customization level it brings. |
| #34Plaguescarred1Sep 08, 2014 15:12:36 | We use both in my campaign because we like the customization level it brings. |
| #35Plaguescarred1Sep 08, 2014 15:12:38 | We use both in my campaign because we like the customization level it brings. |
| #36Plaguescarred1Sep 08, 2014 15:12:39 | We use both in my campaign because we like the customization level it brings. |
| #37TiaNadiezjaSep 08, 2014 16:01:03 | I'm using both. I love megafeats and the multiclassing this edition handles my issues with prior edition multiclassing. The default appears to be single-classed characters with a small number of feats that help define their mechanical archetype - in fact, I appear to be the only person in any of my groups who plans to multiclass any of her characters. |
| #38warpiggletSep 08, 2014 16:08:39 |
|
| #39TheLyonsSep 08, 2014 16:13:42 | How about allowing feats but heavily suggesting new players stick to ABIs? They were made a choice for many reasons including that one. |
| #40LawolfSep 08, 2014 16:16:46 |
|
| #41TheLyonsSep 08, 2014 16:23:04 | I don't see the feats as complex but for DMS banning them for new players due to added complexity, or players thinking that reading the feat list will take several hours to make the appropriate decision (my players read WAY faster than that) even if the game allows feats there is a choice for ABIs. One could even choose all of those as ABIs and build an extremely effective character. |
| #42ChakravantSep 08, 2014 19:01:01 |
|
| #43TheLyonsSep 08, 2014 19:18:59 | I personally can't fathom why someone wouldn't allow feats or multiclassing in the game. I'm not saying it is wrong but I am saying I wouldn't play in a game with those restrictions, at all. |
| #44grendel111111Sep 08, 2014 20:44:28 | Because and I really do stress this. D and D is a tool kit of options that you use to create the level of rules that you and your players want. Why do people keep telling people to go and play other games? It makes no sense at all. i have not seen anyone from the rules light side of the table tell people to go away and play MERPS if they want a complex game. I like a game with as many option in it as possible so we can choose which ones to use. I susspect that when the DMG comes out there will be a bunch of rules that are totally incompatable with each other (3 healing modules, choose which ones you want). This is great, why would you not want choices?
If I multi-classed any character I would have them advance equally in both classes. Feats might be not used if we are doing a quick one off with high level characters that we don't want to spend more time on character building than the adventure is going to take. |
| #45ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 20:54:26 |
|
| #46souldoubtSep 08, 2014 21:05:52 | Chakravant, I'm still not sure what your point was when you initially posted in this thread, or how it was relevant, but you've devolved into accusations of badwrongfun.
If someone likes everything about 5e but doesn't like multiclassing, or feats, then it makes perfect sense to excise those parts and... 5e is specifically designed so that many such parts are easy to remove or modify.
Telling someone they shouldn't play D&D if they don't like 5e's multiclassing (or whatever) is like telling someone not to eat ice cream if they don't like sprinkles. |
| #47MiladoonSep 08, 2014 21:15:02 |
|
| #48ChakravantSep 08, 2014 21:22:14 |
|
| #49ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 21:27:19 |
|
| #50ChakravantSep 08, 2014 21:30:13 |
|
| #51Huntsman57Sep 08, 2014 21:33:14 | One combo that seems a bit overpowered is a barbarian fighter with just a single level in barbarian. You give up a single attack per round (by 20th level), and your AC will be 1 point lower on average...and that's not inconsequential, but that single level in barb gives the char what basically amounts to stoneskin on steroids that can be "cast" as a bonus action, protects against magical weapons as well...and gives the player and extra +2 to damage to boot!
I suppose the DM counter to this is to bury the party in more numerous weaker attrition fights and widdle the player down..basically force the char to eventually use his rages against cheapies that are starting to take their toll...but my style of DMing tends to focus on a lot of roleplaying punctuated by fewer more dangerous fights. Filler "random encounters" always kinda irked me. |
| #52ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 21:37:16 |
|
| (Reply to #48)grendel111111 |
|
| #54ChakravantSep 08, 2014 21:57:27 |
|
| #55ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 22:07:12 |
|
| #56ChakravantSep 08, 2014 22:07:21 |
|
| #57smbakeresqSep 08, 2014 22:54:05 | Both.
I think people are missing the interplay between feat/ ABI and multiclassing. Feats/ABI are class specific, they are not tied to you character level. Any level 3/3/3 triple multi class would have no feats or ability increases. Multi classing 2 levels or more will always cost at least one feat/ABI, all the classes get the last one at level 19 in that class.
its clear they were designed to be used together, the penalty for multi classing was your class capstone at least, and a feat or ability bump if you went 2 levels or more. |
| #58ZardnaarSep 08, 2014 22:58:52 |
|
| #59UnknownMournerSep 08, 2014 23:17:25 | To the OP, how is a feat less flavorful than sprouting +2 Wisdom? |
| (Reply to #7)arnwolf666 |
|
| #61AcrilosSep 09, 2014 4:19:24 | I plan on using both (more options for characters are always cool), but I hope the DMG will bring more options for multiclassing. Right now, mutliclassing needs some coherent design as to explain why suddenly a character gets a level of wizard (for example or any other class) in the middle of an adventure when the party's wizard had to learn how to use magic for years. That is why I prefered multiclassing in ADD. You had two or three classes from the start but you leveled slower among them, dividing your gained experiences among all your classes. Mutlclassed characters were by this fact more powerful from the start (and fragile at the same time because of hit points increasing less quickly than signle-classed characters), compared to single-classed characters but in the end it balanced out quite nicely. I hope the DMG brings this kind of multclassing option. |
| #62LeugrenSep 09, 2014 5:25:18 | There are two reasons why I feel that feats cannot be removed without having a strong negative impact on the game.
1. Without the extra feat granted by the Variant human feature, humans seem like a pretty weak and flavorless choice compared to other races.
2. Concentration is really tough to maintain if you are a spellcaster who primarily engages in melee combat and if your class does not grant you proficiency with Constitution saves (e.g. Circle of the Moon Druids, Paladins, Clerics). Without the War Caster and/or Resilient (Con) feats, a significant number of the spells available to you when you play such classes are next to useless. "Umm, ok, you switch to dire wolf form and charge in. You get hit three times in the first round and fail your Concentration check on the second hit, so your Barkskin spell goes poof!". As such, I feel that War Caster and/or Resilient (Con) have a borderline feat tax status for such classes. Additionally, I feel that certain classes, such as Circle of the Moon Druids, benefit a lot less from ability score improvements than others.
Without these two issues, I would have no problem playing in a game without feats. I would also have no problem playing in a game without mutliclassing, since nothing about the game really breaks or becomes unbalanced without multiclassing. Having said all of that, the campaigns that I currently play in use both feats and multiclassing. |
| #63TimmeeSep 09, 2014 5:25:30 | We use both and love it. I hope they add themes to the mix somewhere down the road. I have to wonder if some folks refuse to use the given materials out of fear it will ruin the experience without ever trying them in the first place. One should always try something at least twice (you may have been in a bad mood the first time). |
| (Reply to #24)1eejit |
|
| #65LeugrenSep 09, 2014 5:43:18 |
|
| #66smbakeresqSep 09, 2014 6:18:45 |
|
| #67smbakeresqSep 09, 2014 6:28:36 | As far as feats themselves, they all seem ok, with nothing to overpowered with one exception.
The observant feat might be. The +5 bonus to passive perception and investigation seems a little high. A human rogue at first level with 12 int and wisdom and investigator and perception trained will 18 passive perception and investigator skills. Have to see how DMG handles skill checks and such, otherwise Indiana Jones above detects and figures out traps, secret doors, ambushes and such at a huge rate
That seems well worth a feat to me. |
| #68souldoubtSep 09, 2014 6:37:07 |
|
| (Reply to #65)1eejit |
|
| #70LeugrenSep 09, 2014 7:38:44 |
|
| #71FaerieGodfatherSep 09, 2014 8:00:39 | Not only am I allowing multiclassing and feats, I'm house-ruling them to make them more attractive. |
| #72FFSAASep 09, 2014 8:17:29 |
|
| #73RastapopoulosSep 09, 2014 8:35:09 |
I'm not running a 5th edition game at the moment, but whenever I do I'll allow feats and multiclassing, yes.
Ability Score increases are out, though. I'd probably have to rework some feats too as some of them still give ability score increases despite the fact that they should be an alternative to that. |
| #74Sword_of_SpiritSep 09, 2014 9:02:39 | I allow both feats and multiclassing. As others have pointed out, feats don't change the power dynamic of the game, and multiclassing is hard to abuse.
I guess, given the existence of Basic D&D for a simpler approach, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to play with all 12 PHB classes and 40 subclasses and not allow feats. Not allowing multiclassing seems a bit more reasonable to me, but again, it seems like the PHB is designed for a certain level of complexity, and multiclassing and feats fit right into that level of complexity. Leaving them out would be a little like allowing the PHB, but limiting each class to a single subclass.
That said, I have no problem with other DMs doing any of those things. That's just my thoughts on why I allow both in a PHB game.
|
| #75LeugrenSep 09, 2014 9:09:39 |
|
| #76draegnSep 09, 2014 9:10:14 | In our game feats are reduced in number and content to resemble The edges and flaws of Shadowrun and the quirks of Talislanta.
Players can only multiclass using AD&D rules at creation or can take divine classes only at later levels using standard multiclass rules, however, no additional levels may be taken in their previous class. |
| (Reply to #30)Jbickley00 |
|
| #78SaelornSep 09, 2014 14:45:04 |
|
| #79melloredSep 09, 2014 14:50:37 |
|
| #80RastapopoulosSep 09, 2014 15:01:09 |
|
| #81SaelornSep 09, 2014 14:59:19 |
|
| #82melloredSep 09, 2014 15:39:46 |
|
| #83MechaPilotSep 09, 2014 15:40:13 |
|
| #84SaelornSep 09, 2014 15:58:26 |
|
| #85souldoubtSep 09, 2014 19:18:22 |
|
| (Reply to #13)Ath-kethin |
|
| #87ZardnaarSep 10, 2014 5:32:40 |
|
| #88Ath-kethinSep 10, 2014 6:21:45 | I suppose I should add that I have no problem with a character changing careers if that's what they want to do. My issue is with multiclassing; I simply don't like the 3e+ version of it. My simple house rule is derived from the "apprentice level characters" sidebar in the 3.0 DMG, but characters advance on both classes at once, with twice the xp required to reach each new level. So far, nobody has gone for it, but nobody has complained, either. I would also be happy with feats that mimicked various class features; allowing sneak attack as a feat, for example. Though I would limit its progression or freeze it at its base level. If you want rogue abilities, play a rogue. |
| #89Ath-kethinSep 10, 2014 6:33:22 | Zardnaar: I did the same for a while, but in truth I have found very few situations where cultural and similar differences couldn't be addressed by reflavoring a class ability or changing a description. And isn't it interesting how many players have more fun the more you LIMIT their options? But maybe its a generational thing. |
| #90arnwolf666Sep 10, 2014 8:14:32 | I always liked the idea that magic was so hard to learn that one could not multiclass into it. It took decades of training to learn the basics to cast a first level spell (starting age for magic users was 35 in some earlier editions). So I am not a fan of multiclassing. I think backgrounds and skills allow for enough customization. |
| #91ORC_CricketSep 15, 2014 23:42:12 | We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone. |