Linking feats/ability improvements to Character level, any good reasons not to?

[Gwarok]

So I have any number of house rules for my campaign, and one I'm considering is just linking feats/ability scores to class level like is done with the proficiency bonus. The main reason is multiclassing is a nice way to do things when you want to achieve a desired effect on a character that isn't well represented in just the core classes. Plus dips and a little bit of min/maxing I think is a fun aspect of any game where mechanics can be selected as players proceed. Also, I really like Feats, they ad some very interesting customization options. When I made an INT rogue with Observation and Keen Mind to make a guy like Sherlock Holmes, he was not only effective in combat but made for some really neat out of combat sessions that simply would not have happened otherwise.

But I see players always ending up taking that othewise useless 4th level here, or 8th level there, sinking several levels more than they need to into a class to achieve whatever effect they wanted just to not get chapped by losing a feat or ability adjustment. Seems needlessly rigid to me. So, was there some rational other than "we said so" behind it I'm missing? And for what it's worth, any classes that get bonus feats at certain levels still would get them, just not until they reach that level with that class.

 

[CTurbo]

I've done it before and it works out ok. They're so few and far between anyway, and over-multiclassing already puts off important class features for a long time.

 

[5ekyu]

So I have any number of house rules for my campaign, and one I'm considering is just linking feats/ability scores to class level like is done with the proficiency bonus. The main reason is multiclassing is a nice way to do things when you want to achieve a desired effect on a character that isn't well represented in just the core classes. Plus dips and a little bit of min/maxing I think is a fun aspect of any game where mechanics can be selected as players proceed. Also, I really like Feats, they ad some very interesting customization options. When I made an INT rogue with Observation and Keen Mind to make a guy like Sherlock Holmes, he was not only effective in combat but made for some really neat out of combat sessions that simply would not have happened otherwise.

But I see players always ending up taking that othewise useless 4th level here, or 8th level there, sinking several levels more than they need to into a class to achieve whatever effect they wanted just to not get chapped by losing a feat or ability adjustment. Seems needlessly rigid to me. So, was there some rational other than "we said so" behind it I'm missing? And for what it's worth, any classes that get bonus feats at certain levels still would get them, just not until they reach that level with that class.

Any reason not to - see your own post - the bold -

you turn quite a few levels of quite a few classes into "otherwise useless" and how does that help at all the folks who may not share your love of multiclassing or whose character concept doesn't fit the minmax multi-classing meme?

if you want them to have more feats and ASI without having to make a tough choice on "how long will i stay in this class" just give them more feats and ASI.

IMO.

But on the broader scale - how is this different from say " i will stay with sorc until 5th so i can get fireball" or "i will stay with bard until 5th so i can get short rest inspire dice recovery"? Every class has key element built in at 5th, 11th etc as class features - just like every class has the 4th, 8th, 12th, etc feat/asi.

Are those "class level major items" also "needlessly rigid" to you?"

Obviously, it would not be a route i would take.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I believe the rationale was exactly the issue that you are seeing. Tying them to classes means that some classes (like the Fighter) can get more. And it is an option that you may have to give up or put off if you decide to multiclass. It was designed to be something that is affected in some way by choosing to multiclass.
That being said, if it fits your table, go ahead and change it. I don't think it would make a huge difference, other than maybe some slightly more powerful characters. And you would have to make sure you take into account the extra feats/ASIs that Fighters get (and off the top of my head, Rogues may get one as well), because they progress differenly than the other classes. Unless you don't have Fighters, and then it's not a problem.

 

[CTurbo]

It's really no worse than rolling for stats and starting with an 18 or 20 in your main stat or having four 16s as that trivializes ASIs anyway.

 

[Blue]

I'm a big fan of 5e multiclassing, and in my opinion linking ASI/feats to class levels is to help avoid certain types of abuses. There are a lot of things that advance by character level or stack like spellcasting slots. Having some important things that advance by class level gives a real reason to continue to advance in a class and acts as a checkpoint against using multiclassing just to cherry pick here and there.

Second, moving ASI/feat to character level means that multiclass characters will have dead levels where they get nothing at all. Not a fun thing to advance to a new level of a class get no no features whatsoever.

I would recommend against doing it.

 

[77IM]

This makes certain multiclassing combos more powerful than single-classing; possibly too much more powerful. The risk is that the player with the Fighter gets constantly outclassed by the Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer. YMMV.

If you really just like feats, then I'd just give everybody more feats, possibly tied to character level (rather than class level). That way it doesn't unbalance some characters more than others.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's very punishing to single classed characters.

You're making levels 4, 8, etc. 'dead' levels. Most classes won't get much at 4th level.

If you want to have a feat heavy game then give everyone a feat at 1st level. Personally I'm not a fan of that because I would like feats to create special characters. If everyone has them then they don't make for memorable characters.

For example, if every campaign you played had a character with Keen Mind and Observant then you would probably not be as enthusiastic about that character. The problem with making special things common is that they are no longer special. This is also why characters should start with no higher than a +3 in a stat, if all the characters are already going to start with 20s then there is nowhere to go.

 

[leogobsin]

It's very punishing to single classed characters.

You're making levels 4, 8, etc. 'dead' levels. Most classes won't get much at 4th level.

If you want to have a feat heavy game then give everyone a feat at 1st level. Personally I'm not a fan of that because I would like feats to create special characters. If everyone has them then they don't make for memorable characters.

For example, if every campaign you played had a character with Keen Mind and Observant then you would probably not be as enthusiastic about that character. The problem with making special things common is that they are no longer special. This is also why characters should start with no higher than a +3 in a stat, if all the characters are already going to start with 20s then there is nowhere to go.

Wouldn't this not affect single classed characters at all? They get their ASIs at character level 4, 8, etc. which if you're single-classes is also class level 4, 8, etc. Under these rules single class characters would work exactly the same as they do currently. The only dead levels introduced would be for multiclassed characters.

 

[ad_hoc]

Wouldn't this not affect single classed characters at all? They get their ASIs at character level 4, 8, etc. which if you're single-classes is also class level 4, 8, etc. Under these rules single class characters would work exactly the same as they do currently. The only dead levels introduced would be for multiclassed characters.

The class gives them nothing. I suppose it is how you look at it.

And yeah that will be a problem with multiclassed characters too, the 4th level in one of their classes also won't do anything.