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

[Tony Vargas]

Again, though, it helps to make sure we are on the same page.

A person is entitled to their opinion. But ASIs are not part of the way 5e scales. That's the RAW.

Actually, in the standard game, they are. Because there's no MCing, so without exception, every character gets an ASI every 4th level, period. That's part of how 5e scales. Same is true of HD. Technically, each HD is a function of class level, but you'll always have 1 HD per level. The optional MCing system potentially distorts ASI scaling, but not HD scaling.

But there is every indication that this is a deliberate choice and not some accident that by the designers

I honestly don't care if a problematic design is deliberate or accidental, of if the 'fault' lies with the class design or the MC system.

I can understand not trying to 'fix' it with errata though, as (a) errata is virtually moot under 5e's rulings-not-rules philosophy, and (b) there's no simple fix. The OP's DM came up with the obvious/simple way to address it, but it introduces dead levels.

OK, there is actually a simple fix: don't opt into MCing.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[jgsugden]

Once again, if you like the idea of ASIs coming at character levels, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19 rather than at certain class levels, it is pretty easy to fix.

Each class gains a mix of abilities as they progress. They can general be broken down into two categories: 1.) Abilities that are gained once at a particular level (One Time Abilities), and 2,) Abilities that advance every level as the character advances in the class (Advancing Abilities).

One Time Abilities are gained when a PC advances to a certain level, but generally remain static after gained. Let's look at a fighter for examples. At first level they gain a fighting style which is a perfect example of a One Time Ability. At second level they gain the ability to use Action Surges once per short rest. This is another One Time Ability gain. We'd classify the 'bonus' ASIs that rogues and fighters get as One Time Abilities.

Advancing Abilities may begin at a certain level, but once gained they advance every level. The prototypical example is spellcasting abilities. A wizard learns spells for their spellbook every level, gains more spell slots every level, and can prepare more spells every level. Going back to the fighter, Second Wind is an example of an ability gained at level one that advances every level (in terms of the hps healed advancing by one each level) and is thus an advancing ability.

If you want to have a character gain ASIs at character level 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19 - rather than at those class levels - you do the following:

1.) When a character advances through character levels 1 to 3, 5 to 7, etc... (non-ASI levels), they gain one time and advancing class abilities as normal, except they skip over the levels where ASI are presented in the class progression for the class they are taking.
2.) When they gain an ASI level (4,8,12,16 and 19), they select the class in which they are advancing and only gain the Advancing Ability benefits (and the ASI). You cannot start a new class at an ASI level.

Example: Bob is a fighter 2, wizard 1 (3rd character level). Under both the normal approach to character advancement or my modified one, the character will be the same at this point. Let's say that he is going to advance to level 4 under my system. As this is an ASI level, he can't choose a class in which he has no levels, so he must advance either fighter or wizard. He would advance to either fighter 3 or wizard 2.

Under the normal rules, if he advanced to fighter 3, he would gain his martial archetype and his second wind would increase to d10+3. Under my system, he instead gets an ASI and only gets the benefit of the increase to second wind. When he next advanced a fighter level after this point, he would gain that martial archetype and the second wind would advance to d10+4.

Under the normal rules if he instead advanced to wizard 2, he would have added an arcane tradition at this level, would have added 2 spells to their spellbook, would have been able to prepare an extra spell, and would have been able to cast one additional first level spell. Under my system, he gains an ASI and gains all of those benefits EXCEPT the arcane tradition. When he next advanced a wizard level, he would gain that arcane tradition and see all of those other benefits advance a level (gaining 2 second level slots as well as once more first level slot).

Note that if Bob advances to fighter 4 / wizard 1, he'll be back in the same position he'd have been in had he not used my system. He'd have one level of ASI abilities, 3 levels of one-time abilities from fighter, 4 level of advancing fighter abilities (second wind), and one level of wizard abilities across the board. For the next two levels he'd stay in 'synch' with the normal rules, btu might fall out of them again at level 8 if he doesn't balance his fighter and wizard levels at 4/4 at that point.

This works. I've used it once and it didn't break anything. It wasn't necessary, but it made the player feel better about his Fighter 3/Barbarian 3/Ranger 3/Paladin 3.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But again, it's your assertion (you belief, etc.) that ASI scales. Which is fine, for you belief and all, but I don't agree with that.

ASI is part of scaling. That's not a belief or an opinion, it's a fact. Every class, every 4th level, ASI. Fact. Whether it's intentionally designed as such or just a coincidence doesn't change the fact.

That MCing 'shouldn't' disrupt that might be an opinion. That it is or is not intended to do so, a belief. Sure.

Or, use the RAW (which seems to work for many people).

There is no RAW. There's a starting point the rules present in natural language, then there's what the DM actually does with them. The latter is where the game can actually be played. The former is virtually moot.

 

[neogod22]

It entirely depends on how you look at it, I guess. If you think that multiclass combinations should always be the equal of, if not better, than single classing, then it's not a problem.

If you think that the advantages of multiclassing (which exist, because, um, obvious reasons) need to be balanced with singleclassing, then it's a huge problem.

So let's look back at this example. We say 4, 8, 12, 16; what we really mean is 4, 8, 12, 16, 19.

At this point, I constructed the character to maximize ASIs- the OP didn't necessarily differentiate the DMs ruling, so it could be as much as 9, or as few as 6, which you say isn't that different than the base of 5.

In the best possible circumstances, we will call it a difference of 1.

Now, this character under normal circumstances is ineligible for the class 19 ASI. But here, they are eligible! So that's a further difference of 2 in ASIs. And that would allow them to further MC into a third (or more) class as they see fit. The differences would be more severe if the DM has a bizarre take on the rules, but, you know.

In effect, a multiclass character (this one) would have the same number of ASIs from taking Fighter 6 as a single class, 19th level fighter would. Even though extra ASIs are a defining trait of the fighter (allowing customization, extra feats, and so on).

As I already stated several times, if the DM is running a campaign where the idea is to privilege and encourage all the characters to multiclass, then the DM should feel free to homebrew the rules as they want. Or they can move to a more gestalt-style system, which ignores the class system. Make the game what you want.

But when you're changing things, it helps to understand the purpose of the change, and the effect if will have on the game. If you want the single-class characters to be less viable compared to multi-class characters, then this is a good way to do it. (And note that given most campaigns rarely reach the highest levels, it's not much of an incentive to say that a single class character can still take advantage of capstone abilities, etc., compared to the advantages gained by MCing at early levels).

I don't know where you keep coming up with 9 ASIs. He said the DM, says it's by character level except in the situation with fighters and rogues when they get their extras at those levels. A 19th level fighter will have 7 ASIs, everyone forgets they get anither one at 14. I never said anything about favoring multiclass over single, I simply stated that they will only have 1 more ASI at that level by using her system. I personally always run it as RAW.

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's nihilistic and not true.

Hardly. Nothing nihilistic about accepting the reality that natural language is ambiguous.

Seriously, though, there's a useful taxonomy between
RAW (Rules as Written)
RAI (Rules as Interpreted)
RAP (Rules as Played)

Sure, it's useful for instance, in understanding how the community attitude and comparative functionality of d20 rules made RAW king in the 3e era, or how ambiguous natural language writing and DM-Empowering (DM dependent) rules make RAW moot in 5e.

And how both those considerations are minor compared to the rubber-meets-the-road of how a given table actually plays and what works for them.

It's only once you get some sort of agreement on the RAW that you can have a meaningful conversation about what is, and isn't, RAI (those rules that might change depending on interpretation or interaction with other rules).

What the 5e rule /are/ is written in ambiguous natural language. There are only interpretations, bucking to have one interpretation enshrined as RAW is counter-productive.

The question isn't which interpretation is RAW, the question is what ruling works best for your game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bah. Look, we can go all Wittgenstein or Gusdorf on this, but acknowledging that all language has some ambiguity does not mean that there is not such thing as the RAW.

All language has some ambiguity, but natural language has a lot more than subject-specific jargon. And, where there's sufficient ambiguity, there's no one 'as written,' there's ambiguity, and several ways of interpreting or resolving it.

Even at it's height in 3e, 'RAW' was really just a sort of consensus RAI. It's always been fictitious to a degree, it's just such a great degree in 5e that it's really pointless to hang any weight on it at all.

What the rules /say/ we can easily agree on, they're all there in black & white, we can quote them at eachother. That's a fact.

What they mean is up to each DM.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*