D&D 5E ASI's at Character Level instead of Class Level

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sunseeker]

Very little "breaks," in 5e but I don't think this DM has really thought this houserule through very well.

As a threshhold issue, this ruling greatly privileges multiclassing over singleclassing. Especially those who multiclass multiple times (more than dual-class; in other words, there is no real detriment to "dipping" in many classes).

By itself, that's no big deal. If a DM wants a campaign with a lot of multiclassing, that might even make sense to houserule.

The reason it's poorly thought out is because of the Fighter. It doesn't make sense. You can't both say that it's tied into generic class level, and also a special fighter bonus. That doesn't work together.

Does that mean that a multiclass fighter gets the benefit of both the "class level" ASI as well as their own ASIs?

If a player makes it to, say, Fighter 6/Wizard 6, how many ASIs do they get? They should get the three from being level 12 (per the DM's system)- how many additional one from being a fighter? Just the one at level 6? If that's the case, then suddenly making it to level 6 in a fighter becomes a huge bonus in this system.

I think some more thought needs to be put into it, but no, it doesn't break anything. It's just a strange houserule.

4 feats by level 12 is not exactly "privileged" as anyone can achieve this with a single class and variant human. Aside from that, the full-caster classes are almost all invariably superior at level 12 than any sort of Fighter 6/X combination.

I also don't see how you're finding the "general" feats and "fighter feats" to be incompatible. General feats clearly come from general training and experience, the act of leveling up. A Fighter 6/Wizard 6 had the same amount of experiences as any other class and therefore gets the same "general feats". A fighter however, gets specific training which allows him to pick up more feats.

The 5E feats may not be explicitly labeled as such, but they are clearly "Fighter Bonus Feats", just without restriction on which feats you can take, you clearly get them because you're a fighter.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some classes get ASIs at a rate faster than one per four levels.

Not at a faster rate, 1:3 would be a faster rate than 1:4. Rather, they get an ASI or two, at specific levels, in addition to 1:4 levels everyone gets. The OP mentioned that, and the DM in question counted those ASIs as class features.

So the result would have been ASIs for character level and ASIs for class level. Seems unnecessary.

It'd've been simpler, really. Only two classes would have had ASI's on their tables.

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.

Extra Attack is a problematic mechanic, as it's always been, of course. But, it's how weapon attacks scale with level. Cantrips also scale with level, character level, take one level of a caster class and your attack cantrip scales, but that's apparently not 'too much.'

As with calculating slots for MC'd casters, Extra Attack could count levels of different classes differently. Fighters 1:1, classes that get fewer extra attacks would have to count for less.

3e caster multiclassers were a mess. The thing is, with Bounded Accuracy, how much does it matter to lose an extra attack

Quite a lot, actually. With BA flattening d20 scaling, hp/damage scaling is extremely important, and weapon attacks only scale with level by getting Extra Attacks (and, much less substantially, by boosting STR or DEX). MCing currently makes the progression of both those inconsistent. That's not ideal.

That depends. Do they want to make D&D, or a completely different granular system like Runequest?
D&D is inherently class-based.

No, they want D&D to be bad in confortably familiar ways.

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.

That's the problem, really. W/o MCing, class-level scaling is in synch with character-level scaling. Throw MCing into the mix, and some things, like cantrip damage and proficiency stay in synch, and others, like ASIs and extra attacks are thrown out of synch.

I hate to sound like Capn Zapp, but, at this point, it's looking like just plain "bad design."

That depends. Do they want to make D&D, or a completely different granular system like Runequest?

Obviously that's not on the table, but...

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.

That's not actually the case, precisely because D&D is not a granular design, but a class-based system. Some levels of some classes are strictly much better than others, because they deliver on something that prior levels have been building towards. Extra attack is a perfect example. You don't get extra attack for taking a level of fighter, you get it for taking 5 levels of fighter, all 5 of those levels are paying for it.

 

[Razamis]

While I happen to agree with you first statement (that this particular houserule seems poorly thought out), I strongly disagree with your second statement.

The rules are not some sacred text handed down from on-high; the very genesis of D&D was a culture of DIY. Different tables will have different types of fun, and the best way to achieve that is to customize the games to the tables, not to make everyone play with with the same banal strictures. Homebrew, reskinning, houserules, creativity? This is the essence of D&D, not the dusty words in a book.

I disagree with you strongly. That is the very intention of adventurers league.

The fact is, most DMs are just casual normal people, they are not game designers and have no capability to understand why certain mechanics work the way they do. I am not suggesting that rules can't be modified, but that from my experience, DMs house ruling things typically ends up adding more annoyance then benefit. Oh you don't like bards? House rule they can't use spells past 5th level. You think barbs dmg resistance is op? House rule, it doesnt apply vs magic weapons. All kinds of crazy nonsense stuff that players have to put up with because they are just grateful to have found someone to DM.

Just take this thread for an example, ASI at character level? Why? How does it work with fighter/rogue ASI? totally unnecessary change, likely sparked because the DM, or a player friend of the DM couldn't get the multi-class option they wanted without sacrificing some ASI.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

The fact is, most DMs are just casual normal people

I may dress casually, but aside from that, don't resemble your remark, at all.
Most DMs have gamed for along time. Heck, most D&Ders have. 'Casuals' are a comparatively new phenomenon, drawn in by the Encounters program that eventually was subsumed into AL.

And, yes, AL does have to account for such players, and has it's own set of rulings and variations (like using feats & MCing even though they're optional), of necessity. Hopefully, though, inexperienced/casual players aren't trying to run AL games too often.

they are not game designers and have no capability to understand why certain mechanics work the way they do. I am not suggesting that rules can't be modified, but that from my experience, DMs house ruling things typically ends up adding more annoyance then benefit.

That's not a very DM-Empowerment, rulings-not-rules, make-the-game-your-own, 5e-zietgiest kind of attitude.
You're entitled to hold onto it, of course, but it's much more fitting to the 3e RAW-uber-alles era.

Just take this thread for an example, ASI at character level? Why?

Consistent scaling of overall ability between MC'd and single-classed PCs. Something 5e delivers with respect to cantrip damage, proficiency bonus, number of HD, and spell slots, but not with ASIs nor Extra Attack.

How does it work with fighter/rogue ASI?

The OP observed that the DM in question simply counted them as 'bonus' ASIs gained at their respective levels.

totally unnecessary change

Actually, the DM considered it an interpretation, rather than a change.

likely sparked because the DM, or a player friend of the DM couldn't get the multi-class option they wanted without sacrificing some ASI.

DMing isn't like rolling up a character unobserved, the DM doesn't benefit from making it possible to create a hypothetically 'more powerful' MC'd character. OTOH, more consistent PC scaling might make it just a bit easier to design challenges. Just a bit, maybe a very little bit, not that it could ever be easy...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

And what makes "game designers" special?

They work in a very, very small industry?

Do they have a special game designing certificate? Do they have a PhD in game design?

Quite possibly, though it was probably focused on designing video games.

And why is this on the DM?

Flip side of Empowerment. Anything that's less than perfect about your game is all your fault.

In fairness, the DM is wrong on that. It's not an interpretation, it's a houserule.

I don't believe there's such a clear line between the two in 5e. If the DM rules her house rule is actually an interpretation, it is.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*