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

[Tony Vargas]

Game 1 "Standard Game": Wiz 2, Ftr 2. ASI =0.
Game 2 "Houserule Game:" Wiz 2, Ftr 2. ASI =1.

In the standard game, any and every 4th-level character has 1 ASI.
In a game using optional MCing, single class characters all get an ASI at 4th, and MC'd characters do not. They're penalized an ASI for MCing in any way other than 4-levels of one class, followed by 4 levels of another, etc...
In the proposed variant, MC'd characters are no longer penalized.

And it will carry through to the end of the end too. If the eventually become Wiz 18, Ftr 2, in Game 1 they have 4 ASIs, and in Game 2 they have 5.

Sure seems like a bonus ASI to me. With the houserule they one extra ASI than without. That's a bonus.

Single-class characters always get 5 ASIs, without the house-rule, some multi-class characters get 5 ASIs, some get 4 or fewer.

How is it a 'bonus' when normally - standard rules, no MCing, /everyone/ gets it?

How is that not a bonus ASI?

It's a semantic distinction between 'a bonus' and 'not a penalty.' It doesn't really hold because of the way the classes were designed, the 4th level of each class gets little beyond an ASI, so the level becomes 'dead' under the variant.

MCing is an optional system and it doesn't work as smoothly as it might had it been designed into the standard game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

In the standard game, any and every 4th-level character has 1 ASI.
In a game using optional MCing, single class characters all get an ASI at 4th, and MC'd characters do not. They're penalized an ASI for MCing in any way other than 4-levels of one class, followed by 4 levels of another, etc...
In the proposed variant, MC'd characters are no longer penalized.

Yes thank you for once again restating what every single person in this thread knows. It's the topic, after all.

Single-class characters always get 5 ASIs, without the house-rule, some multi-class characters get 5 ASIs, some get 4 or fewer.

Yes

How is it a 'bonus' when normally - standard rules, no MCing, /everyone/ gets it?

Because without this rule they would, as you just restated, often be getting fewer. If you get more than you got before, it's a bonus. Or extra. Or "not getting a penalty they used to get". Or whatever equivalent word or phrase you want to use.

It's a semantic distinction between 'a bonus' and 'not a penalty.' It doesn't really hold because of the way the classes were designed, the 4th level of each class gets little beyond an ASI, so the level becomes 'dead' under the variant.

MCing is an optional system and it doesn't work as smoothly as it might had it been designed into the standard game.

This is the crux of our dispute. You think it's just some accident or for ease of use and lacks eloquence which should be rectified. I think it is highly intentional and part of the balance of the game due to the unintended consequences of multiclassing and therefore one reason they built in this small disincentive to multiclass or to multiclass frequently.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. Or "not getting a penalty they used to get". Or whatever equivalent word or phrase you want to use.

Obviously, getting a bonus and removing a penalty aren't the same in connotation, and the variant is arguably a matter of the latter.

This is the crux of our dispute. You think it's just some accident or for ease of use and lacks eloquence which should be rectified. I think it is highly intentional and part of the balance of the game due to the unintended consequences of multiclassing and therefore one reason they built in this small disincentive to multiclass or to multiclass frequently.

You can't really intentionally balance unintended consequences - I mean, you can, but you'll end up getting it wrong, one way or the other, except by the odd happy accident.

MCing's an optional sub-systems, so I don't think it was carefully balanced (heck, the standard game isn't particularly balanced). Tweaking it isn't something I'd be overly cautious about, though simply not using it is, IMHO, the best option.

A lot of people don't like houserules (or 3PP, or reskinning, or what have you) because of this- fear. Fear of the "bad DM." But ... and this may come as a shock to you ... but a bad DM is a bad DM no matter what the rules are. That's right! A bad DM can screw over players, play favorites, and make your life miserable without exercising any creativity whatsoever.

There's graduations of bad. There's also a world of difference between bad in the sense of lacking competence, and bad in the sense of malice.

In the extreme, no rule system can stop a malicious DM from intentionally ruining the play experience. Nor a malicious player, for that matter. That doesn't mean that a system can't be decent or terrible on its own merits, just that it can be tossed aside by a DM if it doesn't fit his agenda.

A good table requires buy-in and trust from everyone. I acknowledge that not all table have that, but the rules don't protect you from a bad table.

Rules can foster a better table, though. For instance, a system that's transparent aids communication about it. A system that's balanced minimizes conflicts among character concepts and promotes agency among all the players.

To me, that's a sad statement. D&D should be about empowering your own creativity!

If you're the DM, 5e D&D is about just that, yes.

But the flip side of people not liking or accepting house-rules for fear of the bad DM is players happily embracing house rules as alternatives to bad standard rules....

 

[Aenorgreen]

So what happens using this method if a you have 2 levels in say Warlock and are going to 6th as a fighter? Does the person now get 2 feats at this level (one from fighter and another from 8th character level?) Seems like a pretty massive boost.

 

[cbwjm]

So what happens using this method if a you have 2 levels in say Warlock and are going to 6th as a fighter? Does the person now get 2 feats at this level (one from fighter and another from 8th character level?) Seems like a pretty massive boost.

They would. The fighter feat at 6th is a bonus feat for the fighter reaching 6th level which falls outside the standard feat gain of 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Personally, I don't see this as a massive boost, the PC would have the exact same amount of feats as an 8th level fighter but they were more easily able to multiclass to fit their character concept without feeling penalised by missing out on an ASI or feat. I think I prefer the freedom that this houserule gives players in character creation but it seems many people on these boards hate multiclassing in general so will hate any houserule that allows them to keep their standard ASI/feats.

 

[Tony Vargas]

They would. The fighter feat at 6th is a bonus feat for the fighter reaching 6th level which falls outside the standard feat gain of 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19.

Just like 3e, really - you'd end up with more 'dead' levels that way. Though there were dead and double-feat levels in 3e, even for the single-class fighter (5th was dead, while 6th got two feats).

but it seems many people on these boards hate multiclassing in general so will hate any houserule that allows them to keep their standard ASI/feats.

It's not like MCing has ever worked well, and the most iconic D&D multi-class, the elf fighter/magic-user, can be done with EK or Bladesinger, without bringing MCing into it, at all.

 

[Aenorgreen]

They would. The fighter feat at 6th is a bonus feat for the fighter reaching 6th level which falls outside the standard feat gain of 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Personally, I don't see this as a massive boost, the PC would have the exact same amount of feats as an 8th level fighter but they were more easily able to multiclass to fit their character concept without feeling penalised by missing out on an ASI or feat. I think I prefer the freedom that this houserule gives players in character creation but it seems many people on these boards hate multiclassing in general so will hate any houserule that allows them to keep their standard ASI/feats.

Then that makes the Ftr/War dramatically more powerful than the straight fighter 8. Both characters have 3 ASI. The MC has all the powers of getting 2 levels of warlock for just losing the level 7 archetype feature. That houserule makes multiclassing better than doing a single class.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Then that makes the Ftr/War dramatically more powerful than the straight fighter 8. Both characters have 3 ASI. The MC has all the powers of getting 2 levels of warlock for just losing the level 7 archetype feature. That houserule makes multiclassing better than doing a single class.

X level Fighter vs. X/Y level fighter/warlock at certain levels might not have parity in balance. Many single classes don't have parity with each other at certain levels either. In that example the 11th level fighter would probably outdo a 9/2 fighter/warlock since an extra attack could bring more raw power than just 2 spell slots and 2 invocations.

 

[Aenorgreen]

X level Fighter vs. X/Y level fighter/warlock at certain levels might not have parity in balance. Many single classes don't have parity with each other at certain levels either. In that example the 11th level fighter would probably outdo a 9/2 fighter/warlock since an extra attack could bring more raw power than just 2 spell slots and 2 invocations.

It might possible have more damage, but that is questionable. The ftr/war would be getting 3 beams of eldritch blast, so it could very well be comparable, while they still get all the extra options. The straight fighter might be better in certain conditions. I would still say the MC is stronger overall, which is the effect I see in this change.
I am not saying this is objectively a bad change. Just that the consequences of it should be thought through.