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

[FieserMoep]

This Nerfs Fighters and Rogues, punishes single classes and boosts Multiclasses.

1. Fighters and Rogues have their available Class Abilities designed around the idea of them taking up more ASIs, Feats.
2. Single Classes wont benefit from this.
3. Multiclasses would benefit from this for this removes one of the major drawbacks of Multiclassing (Designed to keep them in Check from Cherry picking).

 

[Horwath]

1. I live feats and their added personal flavor to characters.

2. I hate that they are shared pool with ability increase which is better than any feat until you get 20 in your primary score. That leaves feats delayed until 12th level. How many campaigns go to that level?

3. Racial feats and skill feats from UA are cool but not in the same "power" league as combat feats and primary ability boosts.

4. I hate multiclass dipping.


So, some solutions to this:

1. Added "bonus" feats at levels; 1,5,9,13,17,20. They are from the pool of racial feats, skill feats from UA and non-primary feats from PHB. We all know what primary feats are; GWM, PAM, SS, CE, HAM, etc...

2. Multiclassing can be done only on "1-by-1" levels. But you get dual levels later on. Dual levels give advancements in both classes(average HP for dual class characters). Dual levels are 5,8,11,14,17,20.
I.E. dual class fighter wizard gets 5HPs on dual levels and d8 HD for healing.
5th level dual class has 3/3 class levels, 8th level dual class has 5/5 class levels, 11th has 7/7, 14th has 9/9, 17th has 11/11 and 20th level has class features of 13/13 dual class levels.

 

[5ekyu]

Well you sorta answered your own question there. If I'm taking Sorc 5 to get fireball, that's why I'm doing it. If I want fireball, I can't do that by taking Druid 5. However, every class gets ASI at 4th, doesn't matter which one you pick. I see no need to force someone to take a level in a specific class to get something that every class gets in the normal course of advancement. Like proficiency bonus at certain levels, it's a universal trait, so I don't see why they'd attach it at the hip to character levels of a specific class.

Most classes share ASi at some levels in that class but also get others at different levels in that class.

The point stands, its well established that to get a class feature (ASi are class features) you have to take the levsl of the class that get it. those create choices and trade-offs.

To look at ASI's as "not class features" or at some ASI as "not class features" and try and portray that as something off or limiting moreso than other class features... requires very selective perception that to me seems to be mostly "conclusion first arguing" - IE you dont like having to make the choice so you work backwards top construct the reason cutting out what doesn't fit the conclusion.

However you run your game is up to you *but* the changes you are making to make the players choose thing you like more seems to me to be very frought with imbalancing elements. My bet is over time with this and other changes you ewill likely end up with everyone agreeing with you that under your rules multiclass is the way to go.

So, have fun with that self-fulfilling prophesy thing.

 

[CapnZapp]

How about "Because MCing doesn't fit the character I'm envisioning."?

If balance isn't your concern, there is nothing to say.

Any discussion like this one clearly is about balance concerns, so that is what I am discussing.

So monks & rogues.

No, I said "every non-spellcaster".

But more generally, do you have a point? Mine is that making this change encroaches upon the Fighter's turf, since "every non-spellcaster" will want (and get) Action Surge and Second Wind, not just you.

If this is okay in your group, then go for it. I think most groups are better off without this houserule, however.

 

[Gwarok]

Most classes share ASi at some levels in that class but also get others at different levels in that class.

The point stands, its well established that to get a class feature (ASi are class features) you have to take the levsl of the class that get it. those create choices and trade-offs.

To look at ASI's as "not class features" or at some ASI as "not class features" and try and portray that as something off or limiting moreso than other class features... requires very selective perception that to me seems to be mostly "conclusion first arguing" - IE you dont like having to make the choice so you work backwards top construct the reason cutting out what doesn't fit the conclusion.

However you run your game is up to you *but* the changes you are making to make the players choose thing you like more seems to me to be very frought with imbalancing elements. My bet is over time with this and other changes you ewill likely end up with everyone agreeing with you that under your rules multiclass is the way to go.

So, have fun with that self-fulfilling prophesy thing.

Well that is handled easily enough. For classes that get bonus ASI at certain levels(Rogues/Fighters), if you actually level in that class to that level, you get the ASI. Easy peasy.

 

[Gwarok]

Was this a rhetorical question?

Do you feel as though your question wasn't answered?

Do you just not like the answers you have been given? Do you think you would have liked any answers because you are already set on implementing your house rule?

Well I am set on it, but when people ask questions like this, the responses usually fall into 2 categories.

Category #1 - That's what the rules say, and I have implicit faith in the infallibility of WotC so it must stand as is. Passionate defenses are raised to defend X because that was in the book, and you're a game breaking fool for wanting to change it to Y. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that if X were originally written as Y, those same people would just as passionately defend Y with the exact same arguments.

Category #2 - There is actually a very good reason for it being the way it is, and I just didn't see it.

Most of these responses, all of them actually that have a problem with it, seem to me to be #1 type. I have no doubt that if WotC had put it in as I've suggested, no one currently talking about how it totally screws single classes or classes with bonus feats would have any problem with it whatsoever.

 

[Gwarok]

Because there would no longer be any reason to stay single classed?

I predict every non-spellcaster would pick up two levels of Fighter, for instance.

There are plenty of reasons to stay single classed. When you take a multiclass you are denying your main class whatever next ability jump you get. Staying focused on a class has it's own benefits that you give up to multiclass. Take more than 3 levels in a muticlass you'll never cast 9th level spells, or get captsone abilities. Take those two levels in fighters, you'll lose whatever you'd have gotten with those 2 levels in your other class. The exchange is obvious and has little to do with the ASI. It's a big deal as is.

 

[5ekyu]

There are plenty of reasons to stay single classed. When you take a multiclass you are denying your main class whatever next ability jump you get. Staying focused on a class has it's own benefits that you give up to multiclass. Take more than 3 levels in a muticlass you'll never cast 9th level spells, or get captsone abilities. Take those two levels in fighters, you'll lose whatever you'd have gotten with those 2 levels in your other class. The exchange is obvious and has little to do with the ASI. It's a big deal as is.

I wonder how much of the differing views in MC depend on whether you are talking "a character i am playing thru" vs "a character i am building at a level already multi-classed" and "a theory-crafting 20th level build i may never play thru at all?"

As i am playing thru my sorcerer, the "builder" side of my brain sees all the benefits of the "bard dip" where one level earns me like 2 extra cantrips, 3 extra spells, inspire dice, an extra skill, light armor and loses me one sorcery point and one lvel slower gaining of highest rank spells (but still the same slots since the MC stacks the levels.)

Thats pretty much a no-brainer from the "if i crafted this as mid-tier" or "if i built this as a theory-20" but in actual play i keep level after level going "well, but that next level of sorc is big so how can i delay that when i need it more right now?"

I mean 1-3 - no brainer as that unlocks the sorc stuff at its core... 4th - no way thats the ASi/Feat, 5th... no way thats the fireball and tier 2 spells... delay fireball? heck no.

So now i am to 6th (second set of origin abilities) and 7th (4th level spells and almost to the second ASI do i want to delay that)... etc.... So am i looking at maybe level 10 before i take that bard dip?

If we had started this game at 6th or 7th, its far more likely that bard dip would already be there. But playing thru it and seeing challenges with the party in play... its a different type of decision altogether.

Even more so for making that decision "in character in play".

 

[the Jester]

Category #1 - That's what the rules say, and I have implicit faith in the infallibility of WotC so it must stand as is. Passionate defenses are raised to defend X because that was in the book, and you're a game breaking fool for wanting to change it to Y. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that if X were originally written as Y, those same people would just as passionately defend Y with the exact same arguments.

Category #2 - There is actually a very good reason for it being the way it is, and I just didn't see it.

Most of these responses, all of them actually that have a problem with it, seem to me to be #1 type.

Not really. You're just dismissing the very good reason people are putting forward- multiclass vs. singleclass balance. It has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread, and that's the very good reason you're looking for. You just appear to disagree with it, and disagree that it's a very good reason.

Personally, I do think the single vs. multiclass balance factor is important. I wouldn't change the ASIs as class features bit, but if it seems fine for your game, then go for it! I think you're going to see more multiclass dipping for mechanics than you would otherwise, though. And like I said, if that's fine for your game, awesome, go for it.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are plenty of reasons to stay single classed. When you take a multiclass you are denying your main class whatever next ability jump you get. Staying focused on a class has it's own benefits that you give up to multiclass. Take more than 3 levels in a muticlass you'll never cast 9th level spells, or get captsone abilities. Take those two levels in fighters, you'll lose whatever you'd have gotten with those 2 levels in your other class. The exchange is obvious and has little to do with the ASI. It's a big deal as is.

Why are you talking as if I don't know these things already?

Why are you mentioning spellcasters as if I didn't specify non-casters?

Why do you bring up capstone abilities as if they matter when almost noone plays at 20th level.

If we instead look at the facts there is nothing a class can give you that matches Action Surge. All classes benefits from it. All non-casters will take it.

Again, not saying using the proposed house rule is a mistake. Just go into it with your eyes open - single-classed fighters will lose a bit of their uniqueness, and the core rule is there to prevent it.

It is only if you keep denying this that using the house rule will be a mistake.