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

[Grondsmash]

It should be all characters gain the ASI at 4,8,12,16 & 19

Then the extra ones happen at the level in the class at the appropriate level. In all the games I play, they always house rule it this way. To do it the other way is simply to punish multi-classers for no justifiable reason.

 

[GlassJaw]

It should be all characters gain the ASI at 4,8,12,16 & 19

Then the extra ones happen at the level in the class at the appropriate level. In all the games I play, they always house rule it this way. To do it the other way is simply to punish multi-classers for no justifiable reason.

I certainly don't condone this level of threadmancy but I do agree. Aside from a few niche builds, mutliclassing in 5E is extremely weak. It actually prevents interesting character concepts.

Because ASI/Feats are class-based, it encourages class dipping because players don't want to miss out on ASIs instead of multiclassing because of their character concept.

 

[Grondsmash]

It should be all characters gain the ASI at 4,8,12,16 & 19

Then the extra ones happen at the level in the class at the appropriate level. In all the games I play, they always house rule it this way. To do it the other way is simply to punish multi-classers for no justifiable reason.

 

[Xeviat]

If I were redesigning the edition, I'd go back to smaller feats. The big feats are nice, but I really dislike feats/ability score increases using the same resource and being baked into class abilities. If the feats were broken into 2, then feats could be worked into class progression and ability score improvements could be a fixed part of character progression.

Using the ASI system to rein in multiclassing is not the way I'd go about doing it. If one really needs to rein in multiclassing, I'd use a level 0 system instead.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, it should remain as is. Basing it on character level would further reward using the powergamey sort of multiclassing. Right now you pay a price, in delayed/fewer ASIs, for dipping 1-3 levels. I think that's a good thing.

 

[PrimevalSeeker]

Voted level-based, but I prefer both. I like symmetry so, all classes get the same number of feats at the same levels, so level based. In the case of multiclassing feats are delayed, so class based.

 

[LordEntrails]

No, it should remain as is. Basing it on character level would further reward using the powergamey sort of multiclassing. Right now you pay a price, in delayed/fewer ASIs, for dipping 1-3 levels. I think that's a good thing.

Agreed.

IME, most multi-classing is done for power gaming reasons, hence punishing those players by not giving them class based ASI's is a good thing.

 

[GlassJaw]

Agreed.

IME, most multi-classing is done for power gaming reasons, hence punishing those players by not giving them class based ASI's is a good thing.

I couldn't disagree more. Also bums me out when I hear people have such prejudice reactions towards multi-classing. #badwrongfun

The 5E system actually empowers the powergamers because you need to find the loopholes to make it worthwhile. Then you end up with wonky combos that have nothing to do with character concept instead of rewarding the player that has a cool concept and uses multi-classing to bring it to life.

I also have serious issues with the concept that your class IS your character. If I'm a lawyer, does that mean I can never become a chef?

 

[LordEntrails]

I couldn't disagree more. Also bums me out when I hear people have such prejudice reactions towards multi-classing. #badwrongfun

Yea, well, don't care if it bums you out. When a min-maxer shows up at my table and all they are worried about are what loopholes I will allow so that they can get a slightly higher DPR or some bizarre combo and they have no character concept or theme, that takes the fun away from me and often the other players at the table. So yea, it's not bad wrong fun, it's just not going to be done at my table. They can go play at your table.

 

[Charlaquin]

This thread is older than D&D 5th edition!