D&D 5E (2024) House Rule: Feats/ABIs are gained at certain character levels for multiclass characters

[Kobold Avenger]

I think this would be a straightforward house rule for multiclass characters, they starting gaining feats/ABIs at character levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and an epic boon at 19th the moment they get a level in a 2nd class and ignore the ABIs/Feat/Epic Boons on their class levels tables at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19. Much like how it worked in 3e where it was character level based.

I know that some think that progression based on class and not character levels is supposed to be a guard against cherry-picking multiclass power builds, but I feel those are white room ideas that sound good on paper. I'm more interested in the ideas of pursuing a character concept with the idea of not trying to advance 4 levels at a time in 1 class and then another to not lose this sort of progression.

If you feel there needs to be some guard against rampant multiclass level cherry-picking for certain builds, then introduce restrictions like:
-Only 2 (or 3) classes
-Can't have class levels in any of their classes more than 2 levels apart from another class' levels
Where they are forced to take a level in a class to meet these requirements in leveling up.

 

[Shiroiken]

The issue with this (as is the issue with extra attack based on character level) is the high possibility of dead levels, where you get nothing. If you're okay with players occasionally having dead levels, then it's fine.

 

[RageKage2250]

This idea is terrible for any semblance of game balance (not saying 5e or 5.5 prioritize game balance above all else). Getting rid of one of the few downsides of multiclassing is not a good idea for widespread table use.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I think multiclassing is fine where it is, no need to give MC characters an arbitrary power boost and mess with the general progession of characters. If you multiclass, you get broader abilities, but delay mainline abilities, and this just seems like trying to bypass some of that without any drawback. If you decide to multiclass, at level 4 you have a subclass in one class and all of the first level stuff of another, while a straight classed character just gets a feat at 4. With this change, at level 4 the multiclass character gets all that they did before, plus exactly what the single classed character does. Doesn't seem like a reasonable tradeoff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

These all seem to be completely fine house rules for your table. Run with it and see where it goes.

I just wouldn't expect others to follow suit (as we have already seen in the thread). But that doesn't matter. You are doing it for yourself and your game, not trying to make a universal rule for everyone.

 

[Amrûnril]

I don't think missing out on feats/ASIs is a major issue for multiclass characters. You're not losing a feat and getting nothing in return, you're sacrificing a feat to gain an additional set of level-up features in one of your classes. Sometimes, this may not be worth it, but sometimes it very much is. My experience is that 3rd level (for subclass features) and 5th level (for extra attack or 3rd level spells) are often higher priorities than 4th level in a given class when leveling multiclass characters. If feats/ASIs were based on character level, I think this would actually create a larger balance issue by allowing characters who switch out of a class after three levels to still gain four levels worth of benefits.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I'll also point out that this seems to be a sweeping rule with broad effects (notice all of the potential limits stuff at the end) to make one specific build that you have in mind more powerful. I'd be much more inclined to just special-rule a single character if I wanted them to just be arbitrarily better than 'standard' than to make a wide rules change that affects lots of potential builds and try to manage that. Though I'd also probably say no on something like this, "I want a multiclass character that is just better than standard" isn't appealing to me, unlike something like "I want to play a shephard druid but the changes to conjuring spells make it not work in 5.5, can we change how it works with the new ones?" or "I want a lightning themed sorcerer but the spell list for non-fire is kind of light, can we change the damage type on some spells?".

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I really don't think it makes multi class characters better than single level. They're still losing out on higher level spells and get many other features delayed.

Vertical power increases I feel goes further than horizontal power increases which come more with multi classing.

I don't think the Sorcadin for example is that powerful, as there's better things to use 9th level spell slots for beyond smites.

 

[Distracted DM]

3e had feat gains character level-dependent, but 5e made it class-level dependent- I can't personally say the reasoning, I imagine it was because it filled out the level chart so there appeared to be no dead levels, and because they didn't think multiclassing would be the standard at tables at the time.

Personally my experiences with multiclassing have been players solely looking to optimize/power up, and 5e's multiclassing was quite abusable because class features could combo and MCing wasn't taken into consideration during 5e's class design.
All this to say that the idea is fine, it gets rid of one of the negatives of multiclassing, if you want to make multiclassing more appealing it's a good idea.

 

[Clint_L]

Multi-class characters are already potentially much stronger than single-class characters (in the hands of a min-maxxer, anyway), and this makes them stronger still, so it basically discourages single class characters. Which is fine if that's the intent. If you're really into multi-class characters and aren't bothered by the power creep, then it's a good change.