Feats tied to class level and not character level?

[Teasel]

So if you create a multi-class you have less feats than a pure class?

[Rabbit]

Yeah, that's how D&D 5e works, though it's 4 levels in one class for a feat, so if you did a multiclass that was 8/4 or 4/4/4 you'd still have your feats

[Doomvora]

Originally posted by subterranean:

So if you create a multi-class you have less feats than a pure class?

Correct, most classes get a feat every 4 levels unless you take into account fighter which gets one at level 6 as well.

[Teasel]

That really sucks.

[Kernest]

Don't do 4/4/4 multiclass, you won't have a single extra attack.

Unless you pick classes that don't get one anyways.

[KingOfFriedChicken]

Honestly some cross classing is far superior to a feat anyway.

[AzureTheGamerKobold]

I always found this weird as well, but that's how they do it in 5e... for better or worse.

[Broan]

As mentioned before - not necessarily. Depending on your Level Split.
If you go 8 Level and 4 Level that's an example of still getting all 3 ASI's/Feats.
Everything you do in Multiclassing or not Multiclassing is about decisions and priorities.
If you want to have Feature X of one class you need to put X Levels into it and potentially miss out on other Things in the other - It's whats more important to you. You don't NEED 3 ASI's, but they can feel really good, you don't NEED to multiclass in one way or another, but it can feel really good. All depends on preference.

A Dip in certain Classes can make a Character really powerful and absolutely worth the Feat/ASI you may exchange for it - probably the most prominent and versatile we have is 2 Levels in Fighter with pretty much any Class you want - Because Action Surge is amazing for any Class.

[Metallicus]

Originally posted by subterranean:

So if you create a multi-class you have less feats than a pure class?

This is just another reason 5e is inferior to other games. They made so many stupid design choices.

[kevin]

just wait till you look through the feat list and realize that there's really only a few that aren't useless.

Originally posted by Metallicus:

Originally posted by subterranean:

So if you create a multi-class you have less feats than a pure class?

This is just another reason 5e is inferior to other games. They made so many stupid design choices.

they wanted to appeal to the wider stupider audience

[Metallicus]

Originally posted by kevin:

just wait till you look through the feat list and realize that there's really only a few that aren't useless.

Originally posted by Metallicus:

This is just another reason 5e is inferior to other games. They made so many stupid design choices.

they wanted to appeal to the wider stupider audience

They succeeded.

[Sentient_Toaster]

You're giving up later features for versatility. Often, a one- or two-level dip will be far stronger than a feat, anyway. Min-maxers often find it a worthwhile tradeoff and it's even better in BG3 because, unlike in tabletop, you can respec and thus don't have to deal with the pain of a build that only comes online late.

You can still finish with four feats, anyway, if eight of your levels are in fighter and the other four are in any one class; or three feats and any two-level dip, if ten of the levels are in rogue.

[Don Montega]

Originally posted by Metallicus:

Originally posted by subterranean:

So if you create a multi-class you have less feats than a pure class?

This is just another reason 5e is inferior to other games. They made so many stupid design choices.

Signed. That being written, feats really are not that interesting, and that is a big shame, they feel... cardboardy. 5E really isn't my jam as RP vet :D