D&D 5E ASI's at Character Level instead of Class Level
- Thread starter SubDude
- Start date
Nah, it's a bad rule, because single-dipping is made more powerful. There is a clear level-by-level progression in character ability, ASI's were planned for specific 'dead spots' where the characters are otherwise flat, and when you dip into classes for 1-3 levels you gain in power as much as if you had an ASI or feat to begin with.
It's the most balanced multi-classing the game has ever had, because it's so hard to make a choice - you always have to give up *something*. I do this, I get that, but I give up this... and vice versa. That means it's balanced. If it was an easy choice that means it's imbalanced.
Tony Vargas
Legend
The only time MCing was arguably better-balanced, was the one time it was clearly under-powered, yeah.
Thing is, even if, in theory, the character who eventually gets each of his levels divisible by 4 in each of his classes, is not 'getting away' with anything, nor being 'penalized' at the end of it, he's still spending some levels, maybe most of his career, behind the curve, relative to those advancing in one class or in neat blocks of for at a time.
If it were any actual feature well, you're just taking the features you want in the order you want them, level by level, that's how it is. But 5e has a progression, Proficiency permeates it, HD are very important, max slot level & extra attacks and cantrip scaling are all critical to it and so are stats - and all those things advance on character level, except ASIs and Extra Attack, they advance on class level.
It's the same problem that plagued 3e MCing in multple areas, but /particularly/ in spellcasting. 5e neatly fixed the problem for casting - spell slots, spell save DCs, cantrip attack & damage, all scale with character level. That is vast improvement over the kludged together caster-level PrCs that 3e used to compensate for how badly it bungled MCing casters together. Yet, while 3e neatly handled BAB & itterative attacks stacking together, 5e botches Extra Attack the same way 3e did caster level.
It's perplexing, because it wouldn't have been so hard to stick to their guns and make the 1/4-level ASI run on character level, and arrange class features to suit from the ground up.
No, those dead spots were cleared out for ASIs. It's not like no class had ever gotten stuff at 4th level before.
Horwath
Legend
I solved this by adding bonus feats at 1st, 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th and 20th character level.
They cannot be taken for ASI, if you take half-feat you must take 2 half feats without ability increase.
Certain 1st tier feats are banned from this list: Greatweapon master, polearm master, sharpshooter, crossbow master, heavy armor master, resilient, spell sniper,
They cannot be taken for ASI, if you take half-feat you must take 2 half feats without ability increase.
Certain 1st tier feats are banned from this list: Greatweapon master, polearm master, sharpshooter, crossbow master, heavy armor master, resilient, spell sniper,
clearstream
(He, Him)
I believe that is exactly correct.
That depends on how you change the rule, would be a better way of putting that.
Multiclassing is already strong, and becomes stronger. One of the few downsides is obviated completely.
clearstream
(He, Him)
Some classes get ASIs at a rate faster than one per four levels. So the result would have been ASIs for character level and ASIs for class level. Seems unnecessary. The current system is fine: multiclassing is strong enough as is.
Extra attacks correctly don't scale with character level. Else Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin or Ranger 5th, then change to whatever the hell you like all become far too good.
3e caster multiclassers were a mess. The thing is, with Bounded Accuracy, how much does it matter to lose an extra attack, when you are instead casting a Faerie Fire, or Bless, or throwing down a Channel Divinity-boosted attack? The game is much, much 'flatter', and I've talked to people that multi-classed quite evenly to pretty high levels and had a lot of fun and felt effective.
It may not work great at 16th level, but if the table only gets to 10th-12th, and it works that high, isn't that good enough? 3E fell apart even before 8th, from personal experience.
That depends. Do they want to make D&D, or a completely different granular system like Runequest?
D&D is inherently class-based.
Tomayto, tomahto. The design intent is still that it's an incremental boost at a specific time, and by moving them out of sync with the rest of the design will create other traps and un-obvious optimization loopholes.
Moving from 2nd to 3rd level in most classes gives you stuff that's equivalent power to a feat. Moving from 4th to 5th is the same. That's what I mean, is that Feats are not some amazing thing that completely changes your power; it's part of a smooth power progression.
Xaelvaen
Stuck in the 90s
The rule is more than fine - it's what we play with at most of my tables, and have pretty much since 5E launched. Most of my players are a happy middle of Role-players and min-maxers, caring more about their story than their power, but at the same time wanting to maintain relevance. With the given power of Feats and necessary use of Ability Score Increases, and the fact I enforce standard array character creation (or point buy from time to time), using character level to assign increases is more than fine. As far as Fighter/Rogue getting their own innate ability score increases, it really is as simple as tying those to class level.
In fact, I also stack classes with Extra Attack to a maximum of the lowest number of attacks between them. A Barbarian 3 / Fighter 5 will have two attacks with extra attack. However, the Fighter will not get his third strike until he is an 11th level fighter as normal, because barbarian only has 2.
That's just what my players like - I also run a weekly game that is as strict by the book as it gets, so both versions are valid, so long as the players like what's happening and how the game runs - that, and as long as the DM can keep up with the balance issues that may arise. Not much else matters =)
In fact, I also stack classes with Extra Attack to a maximum of the lowest number of attacks between them. A Barbarian 3 / Fighter 5 will have two attacks with extra attack. However, the Fighter will not get his third strike until he is an 11th level fighter as normal, because barbarian only has 2.
That's just what my players like - I also run a weekly game that is as strict by the book as it gets, so both versions are valid, so long as the players like what's happening and how the game runs - that, and as long as the DM can keep up with the balance issues that may arise. Not much else matters =)
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
