D&D 5E Ability Score Improvement / Feats: Class-based or Level-based?

[hbarsquared]

I am neither a mathematician nor a statistician. I am a fan of symmetry, though I also recognize when it does not serve a purpose in game design.

Simple question: should the "Ability Score Improvement" class feature, which can optionally be exchanged for a Feat, be gained at the same rate by all classes and all characters, or should it be unique to the class (as per the current Playtest)?

Should the fighter gain 7 "Feats" at levels 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 18 and the wizard gain 5 "Feats" at levels 4, 8, 10, 14, and 19 -- or should all classes use the same Character Advancement Table and gain the same number of Ability Score Improvements / Feats at the same rate at the same levels?

IMO: I'm all for symmetry. same rate, same table, same levels for everyone. If the fighter class needs to include more abilities and more advantages to balance it out: great. If the wizard class needs to have more available Feat options: great. It should be at the same rate.

 

[Atomo]

I think feats should remain class based, because it is intentionally (Mearl's words on Twitter) a feature to prevent multiclassing of just one or two levels per class. Feats/ability improvements require to get levels on a same class.

 

[GravyFingerz]

I think feats/ability improvements that are class based are one of the most elegant solutions to reigning in reckless multiclassing. I think it will influence people to become more concept focused rather than mechanically focused when it comes to building and leveling their characters. I don't think it will necessarily stop a 1-level dip, but it will stop multiple 1-level dips, or multiple 2-level dips, and so on.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Class. It might make sense for some classes to gain feats/ability improvements at a faster or slower rate. It might even be the defining feature of the class (how about and "adventurer" class whose class abilities are primarily feats?).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Definitely level-based. Losing out on feats because of multi-classing (both of which I see as character-defining traits) is probably the biggest thing that's turned me off to 5e thus far. I'd never run it because of this single rule, but I can't say that it'd stop me from playing if someone ran it. Of course, I'm basically always the DM, so that won't happen, but yeah. I could stomach it for the sake of the DM who was nice enough to let me play.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Class based. It gives class design a little more flexibility. I'm not concerned with multiclassing, because multiclass characters are already getting additional breadth and choice, so feats are less necessary.

 

[howandwhy99]

Neither. And Levels should be Class elements, not separate.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Class, even if it means that the progression is the same for every level.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Level based. I don't like some classes getting more ability score increases or feats than others. I think every class should be balanced before even taking feats into consideration. I also hate class-based feat progression because it's one of the main reasons they aren't giving feats at level 1 (as that would greatly screw up multiclassing). As for multiclassing, there are better ways to balance it (which class based feat progression doesn't really do anyway).

 

[Cyberen]

Level based.
Almost every class get them at the same rate, so it doesn't seem to open up new frontiers concerning game design.
Beef up the fighter with new specific nice things, or give it "Extra Ability Score Increase" twice as a Class Feature.
I suscribe to the goal of trading away Feats/Increases for Multiclassing. I find that a blunt, overt Feat Tax (requiring the appropriate dabbler's feat before entering a new class) would be both simpler and more efficient than the actual design.