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

[Tony Vargas]

Eh ... at some point, you're doing violence to the language.

Absolute power, etc, etc...

It's not a pejorative, by the way- I am a huge fan of customizing the game to the table!

... I guess the point is that "but that's a house rule" /isn't/ an objection, even if the DM isn't calling it a house rule, it's the rule you're going to be using if you're going to sit at that table, symantically-wrong label or no.

 

[Razamis]

And what makes "game designers" special?...

What makes any profession special? Unless you are trying to say that game design is a non-profession I guess, but I certainly don't buy that. I respect what real game designers do quite a bit.

And why is this on the DM? If you have a decent table, there is this little thing called "communication." This isn't about DM fiat; the vast majority of homebrew and houserules occur because players communicate needs to the DM, and the table works together to accommodate those needs.

Maybe you have had a lot better luck with DMs and players then me. My current group has 5 players and 1 DM. One player is a life long friend with the DM, he is playing a Champion Fighter that uses a Great sword, two weapon fighting style, and has the great weapon master feat. He petitioned the DM to allow the optional Exploding dice and flanking rules and the DM allowed it. This guy now has advantage almost every time he swings because of flanking rules, he crits on a 19 or 20 because of champion, he rolls 2 dice because of his weapon, he rerolls 1s or 2s because of his fighting style, and with great weapon master and exploding dice the guy is critting for 51+ damage at level 2, killing monsters before other players even get a chance to attack it. I had to drop Faerie Fire on my bard because there was little point when all the melees have advantage anyway. Our barbarian player doesn't even bother using reckless attack, he has advantage already anyway. Everyone at the table plays a character that can make good use of GWM or SS because of how broken those feats are, which means rogues/monks/etc.. are not choices that will allow you to remain relevant. It's fairly frustrating but another player and I are out voted when we suggest fixing the silliness. Oh well, at least I am finally playing again after moving to a new city =P

But circling back to the original point- D&D has always been a DIY game.

Yeah, that may be the case, but in my experience, most DIY jobs are shoddy low quality hacks, farmer fixes, or end in disaster. I like when professionals build the house, and then I can be creative decorating and setting it up, but I certainly won't monkey around with the walls thinking that I am going to improve it. I will hire someone to come in and do it for me and do it right, and then everyone in my house has a much better time (just ask my wife! lol).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Nah, it's a bad rule, because single-dipping is made more powerful. There is a clear level-by-level progression in character ability, ASI's were planned for specific 'dead spots' where the characters are otherwise flat, and when you dip into classes for 1-3 levels you gain in power as much as if you had an ASI or feat to begin with.

It's the most balanced multi-classing the game has ever had, because it's so hard to make a choice - you always have to give up *something*. I do this, I get that, but I give up this... and vice versa. That means it's balanced. If it was an easy choice that means it's imbalanced.

No class gains an ASI before 4th level, and under the proposed house rule level-dipping (as in taking less than 4 class levels) isn't going to get anyone a bonus ASI (bonus being the levels on classes that grant ASI on levels that aren't 4, 8, 12, 16, 19).

I'm of the opinion that the only reason why ASI/Feats were tied to class levels in the class table, was to make everything less confusing and less having to look up 2 tables like you did back in 3e.

 

[Mistwell]

No class gains an ASI before 4th level, and under the proposed house rule level-dipping (as in taking less than 4 class levels) isn't going to get anyone a bonus ASI (bonus being the levels on classes that grant ASI on levels that aren't 4, 8, 12, 16, 19).

I'm of the opinion that the only reason why ASI/Feats were tied to class levels in the class table, was to make everything less confusing and less having to look up 2 tables like you did back in 3e.

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

How is that not a bonus ASI?

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.

 

[cbwjm]

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

How is that not a bonus ASI?

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.

Because a single class at level 4 and a multiclass 2/2 each have only a single ASI. It doesn't seem like a deal breaker to me and it might see some more creative use of multiclassing. Honestly, I feel like a lot of the opposition to this is that many people seem to have some great opposition to multiclassing.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

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

How is that not a bonus ASI?

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.

It's not a "bonus" under the house rule, only ASI's on levels like 6 and 14 for the Fighter and level 10 for the Rogue are "bonus".

And seeing as how you're confused about the idea, it's more proof to me that they put the ASI's on the class table to cut down on confusion (or possible future-proofing) rather than balance.

 

[schnee]

I'm of the opinion that the only reason why ASI/Feats were tied to class levels in the class table, was to make everything less confusing and less having to look up 2 tables like you did back in 3e.

There's also the fact that classes are still front-loaded, even with the new rules. Taking 2 levels of Rogue gets you a HECK of a lot of value that auto-scales over time (i.e. Expertise), so with math being so flat, it becomes sub-optimal not to multi-class for many builds.

It's become increasingly clear to me that the biggest problem this edition tried to tackle was how to go back to a 'class-based' game, with all of it's flaws (Hi, Tony!), and flatten the power curve enough so it became 'linear' and they didn't create accidental 'square' or 'cube' progressions that plagued 3E.

Intending that every single part of the system is on a smooth power slope is part of it. So, the ones that scale with character level and class level are carefully placed.

- - -

- 3E spellcasting MC sucked because of being capped to low level spells? Make those scale with character. Oh, now they don't have spells that they can cast with those slots? Create rules for up-casting within each spell, balanced for the fact that MC casters will have a lot more spells known.

- Cantrips lose value almost immediately for characters without multi-attack? Make those scale with character. Oh, Shillelagh can be taken by a martial with a single feat, and become monstrous? Nerf!

- Single-dipping a class is too powerful? Reduce what they get when they take the second class.

- Feats can be combined with class abilities to create monstrous combinations? Make those tied to class level and always come out in predictable times so their value.

I could go on.

- - -

IMO I agree with the reason this thread is here - the game *does* feel a bit feat-starved, and the one at 16th level feels like too little too late.

So instead of tying feats by character level, I'd just give everyone a free Feat at 1st level. (At my table, I'd encourage UA Racial or Skill feats, and Variant Human feat choices would be with DM approval.)

 

[Xaelvaen]

As an alternative, you can take the 'Talents' approach. In my game, I made a list of talents available at certain levels (some games it's every level, others its first and every 3 levels). These are baby feats that just add flavor and new capabilities for customization. I believe someone on the DM's guild has a pdf you can buy for like 10 bucks that does this as well. Then you can keep class ASI tied to class level instead of character level, but still have options for your characters chosen from a list.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/214641/Character-Options-Talents-5E

They seem to be constantly tweaking balance and taking input, so might be worth looking into, or making your own approach with your DM.

 

[Mistwell]

It's not a "bonus" under the house rule, only ASI's on levels like 6 and 14 for the Fighter and level 10 for the Rogue are "bonus".

And seeing as how you're confused about the idea, it's more proof to me that they put the ASI's on the class table to cut down on confusion (or possible future-proofing) rather than balance.

I am not confused about the idea. You're confused about my use of the word "bonus". You seem to be under the mistaken impression there is a rule called "bonus feats" in the core books. There is not. It's just common parlance on this message board. Bonus is just an English word. It means "extra" or as the dictionary defines it, "something in addition to what is expected or strictly due". That's how I am using it. There is no "rogue bonus feat" or "fighter bonus feat" in this game as far as a "rule". Some classes just get more feats than others and people on this board (mostly due to 3e and 4e) have taken to calling some of them "bonus".

WOtC said the reasons for it during the playtest I seem to recall, because they do not want to add encouragement to multiclassing and in fact made multiclassing an optional rule because it tends to cause more unintended results than straight classes. It didn't have anything to do with confusion. Multiclassing isn't expected in the adventure assumptions at all. Much like feats are not expected in the assumptions nor are magic items.

But bottom line this system, relative to the core rules system, results in "bonus" (meaning EXTRA) feats. And it does. 1 is a bigger number than 0. Getting 1 when normally you'd get 0 is a bonus, meaning something in addition to what is expected or strictly due.

I am not saying you cannot use this house rule, but I am making it clear it does change game assumptions in a meaningful way, by resulting in more ASIs for most multiclass characters than the rules intended (and it does that - I am not sure why people keep dancing around that...multiclass characters will in fact usually end up with more ASIs under this house rule than they would under the core rules). And I don't think it was done in that way for anything having to do with confusion. But, you should ask Mike Mearls on Twitter if you want to clarify that.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Under the RAW the optimal method of multiclassing is to go 4 levels at a time, and having a 12/8 split (in non-fighter non-rogue classes) at 20 they'd still get 5 ASIs like single class characters, other than an ASI at level 20 instead of 19, it's not really punishing a multiclass character that progresses in that method.

So for the most part trying to progress in the classic way alternating levels 1 by 1, which is sort of a callback to when multi-classing was divide your XP between 2 classes XP tables (2e and earlier), is the most sub-optimal way progressing. Under the current rules progressing in that method of taking 2 classes, it'll be 7th level before there's an ASI, and a 10/10 split has 1 less ASI. I know they aren't trying to perfectly balance every class when in comes to multi-classing, and multi-classing shouldn't be the first thing that even comes up when designing a class, but I feel that it restricts character concepts. Yes it shows that I come from a time when there were wacky things like THAC0 and racial level limits, and because there were racial level limits non-humans were sort of encouraged to multi-class.