Level Up (A5E) Reworking ASI's and feats by giving "ASI" points every character level, instead of 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th level.

[Stalker0]

At the end of the day, its all about flexibility vs complexity. 2 levels of feats is easier but limits the amount of flexibility, 6 levels of much more flexible but more complicated.

What is the best number: 2, 4, 6.... not sure. Considering that level up is going for more crunch, this seems like a decent place to look. It provides a lot more options, but the crunch is done during "level up" (see what I did there, so its not that you are greatly increasing the complexity of running the game. That to me is the best kind of added complexity, so I am on board with the concept.

As I'm reading through the list (I ignored the racial ones for the moment), my notes. In general I like everything I did not comment on, it could be easy to think I'm being critical looking at this long list, but there is a lot I didn't comment on because I thought it was ready to rock.


Close Quarters Shooter vs Crossbow Expert: I would generally rank the later ability higher than the former.

Duel Wielder: I feel in the spirit of other feats you have broken up you could do the same here.

Durable: My table generally thinks this feat is pretty weak, so I would recommend 3 pts for it.

Elemental Adapt: A lot of people don't like the idea of negating immunities. My fire is so hot I burn fire elementals. I would make this a cheaper feat that just ignores the resistance.

Armor Proficiencies: I would prefer just one feat that combines these together. Aka a feat you can take up to 3 times and it raises your level of proficiency by 1 each time. Also, I think the strength prereqs are too high. I don't mind so strength needed, but a 16 for heavy armor? A lot of NPC warriors may not have those numbers.

Inspiring Leader: This is a strong feat normally that my table has used often. This one feels like a 6 pt to me.

Mage Slayer: This is a good full feat in the base game. Now you took away the save bonus which is a thing, but I think this is still worth at least 4 pts.

Magic Initiate: Another good full feat in the base game. Cantrips are the best part of the feat (the 1st level spell is nice but at will casting you will get much more mileage out of. I would change this to 4 pts.

Martial Adept: That last sentence is a bit confusing, could just use some language cleanup.

Observant: Should be 4 pts minimum, its a solid feat in the core game.

Polearm Master: When you consider the 5 pt fighting style is basically +2 damage (or less with two handers), adding a +1d6 (aka 3.5 avg) damage for 4 pts seem underpowered. 5 pts at least. Honestly I think this is a bad option, your just pushing bounded accuracy. The vast majority of the other options I have liked because they add flexibility, or if they add power its power within the usual scope. This one just feels like power creep.

Power Attack: What THW user is not going to take this?

Resilent: I think you could go even more granular with this. Make it 3 pts for Str, Int, or Cha save... 4 pts for Dex, Con, or Wis save. We know there is a difference in the save strengths, so we might as well use your granular system for that benefit.

Sentinel: This means I get an OA every time someone moves next to me as written. That's simply too good for a feat, even at 6. I think you could drop this feat to 5 pts, and just have a clause that moving "through" your reach provokes an OA.

Skill Expert: I think this can be 4 pts, heck maybe 5. Expertise is rare in 5e right now, and its special because of its bounded accuracy breaking. Trust me the skill players in my group would still eat that up at a 4.

Tavern Brawler: Unless there is a specific reason you don't want unarmed strikes to interact with finesse benefits, you could just change the language to make unarmed strike finesse weapons. I would also remove the note about making an unarmed strike as a bonus action....players can already do that with TWF...so adding it here I think just muddies the rules waters.

Tool Expertise: Should be no cheaper than Skill Expert, even if the range of useful tools is limited, a good player will still just pick the best tools and get just as much benefit as a skill would.

Warcaster: Should be 6 pts, its already too common imo.

 

[NotAYakk]

there are no dead levels. Most classes get somethnig at every level that has no ASIs.

And you would get dead level only by your own choice at current ASI levels if you want to save for something bigger for next level as you didn't save something from level sooner.

A system that encourages you to choose to have a dead level still sucks.

And feats are balanced better if you have room for more variable cost, rather "take it or leave it".

No, shredding things into coleslaw doesn't improve balance.

Generally, coleslaw style mechanics -- everything broken down into small chunks -- have worse balance, for the same reason why cable companies have packages of channels and don't let people buy channels one-off.

For a concrete example, take a powerful feat like crossbow expert.

1. Melee-range ranged attacks
2. Multiple attacks with XBow in an action
3. Bonus action hand-xbow attack

If you split this into 3 pieces, characters can cherry-pick the ones that boost their build more per unit cost. Suppose we judge all 3 pieces to be 1/3 of the feat, and the feat combined is 3 points. If we set each piece to 1 point, then PCs can buy whichever their build specifically needs and be more efficient.

You'd then do the same with SS:

1. Ignore cover
2. Ignore long range
3. -5/+10

Here, it might break down to 1 / 1 / 2

A level 1 hand crossbow character would buy XBE 3 then SS 3. Until level 5, XBE 2 is worthless. They might then choose between XBE 1 and SS 2 to deal with the short range of the hand crossbow.

By dicing up a feat, you make cherry-picking the parts that work together cheaper, or you have to inflate the parts to deal with every possible cherry-pick and thus make them too expensive for builds who aren't doing the cherry-picking combo.

Chunked larger, you can still go for combos; but the extra pieces means that the price of the combo goes up significantly, as you have to pay for pieces that aren't part of your combo.

---

Cost-wise, this just means you need to make your feats big and chunky.

I mean, it isn't that hard to take a worse feat at the scale of 5e feats and make it better. (Keeping it simple at the same time is, in my experience, the hard part).

In my opinion, I'd rather go back over feats and have the following rule. Have some piece of each feat that you would be happy to build a character around, and looking forward to getting it when you reach level 4.

Feats that fail that rule get rewritten. As an example, linguist. Building a character around knowing more languages? Seems a stretch. Even as a half-feat.

Scholar

• Add +1 to your intelligence score
• You know 3 additional languages
• When making an intelligence attribute check or saving throw, if you don't already add your proficiency modifier, add 1/2 of your proficiency modifier. If you already add your proficiency modifier, add +1.
• You can attempt to cast spells from scrolls that aren't on your class spell lists. When you try to, make an intelligence ability check against DC 10 plus twice the spell level. On a failure, the spell fails and the scroll is ruined.

I could build a character's identity around that, and there is some serious crunch to hang onto. And it fits together thematically.

 

[ccs]

This sounds like a lot of fiddling about every time I lv up.

 

[Stalker0]

This sounds like a lot of fiddling about every time I lv up.

Again, the assumption is because Levelup is meant to be a "crunchier" addition to 5e, we must assume that the players who use it, are players that want more crunchiness in their gaming.

So the idea of having to "fiddle" with the character at each level up to me is not an immediate detraction, you could in fact say that is giving the reader what they paid for. The real question is...is the fiddle worth it....or we giving players the customization they desire in a package they find useful and balanced?

 

[ccs]

Again, the assumption is because Levelup is meant to be a "crunchier" addition to 5e, we must assume that the players who use it, are players that want more crunchiness in their gaming.

So the idea of having to "fiddle" with the character at each level up to me is not an immediate detraction, you could in fact say that is giving the reader what they paid for. The real question is...is the fiddle worth it....or we giving players the customization they desire in a package they find useful and balanced?

Certainly there's room for something crunchier than current 5e. Or crunchier optional rules.
But I think reinventing every spoke of every wheel is excessive.

 

[Eric V]

Certainly there's room for something crunchier than current 5e. Or crunchier optional rules.
But I think reinventing every spoke of every wheel is excessive.

That's not at all what's happening here, though.

I think @Horwath is really on to something, here.

 

[tetrasodium]

A system that encourages you to choose to have a dead level still sucks.

No, shredding things into coleslaw doesn't improve balance.

Generally, coleslaw style mechanics -- everything broken down into small chunks -- have worse balance, for the same reason why cable companies have packages of channels and don't let people buy channels one-off.

For a concrete example, take a powerful feat like crossbow expert.

1. Melee-range ranged attacks
2. Multiple attacks with XBow in an action
3. Bonus action hand-xbow attack

If you split this into 3 pieces, characters can cherry-pick the ones that boost their build more per unit cost. Suppose we judge all 3 pieces to be 1/3 of the feat, and the feat combined is 3 points. If we set each piece to 1 point, then PCs can buy whichever their build specifically needs and be more efficient.

You'd then do the same with SS:

1. Ignore cover
2. Ignore long range
3. -5/+10

Here, it might break down to 1 / 1 / 2

A level 1 hand crossbow character would buy XBE 3 then SS 3. Until level 5, XBE 2 is worthless. They might then choose between XBE 1 and SS 2 to deal with the short range of the hand crossbow.

By dicing up a feat, you make cherry-picking the parts that work together cheaper, or you have to inflate the parts to deal with every possible cherry-pick and thus make them too expensive for builds who aren't doing the cherry-picking combo.

Chunked larger, you can still go for combos; but the extra pieces means that the price of the combo goes up significantly, as you have to pay for pieces that aren't part of your combo.

---

Cost-wise, this just means you need to make your feats big and chunky.

I mean, it isn't that hard to take a worse feat at the scale of 5e feats and make it better. (Keeping it simple at the same time is, in my experience, the hard part).

In my opinion, I'd rather go back over feats and have the following rule. Have some piece of each feat that you would be happy to build a character around, and looking forward to getting it when you reach level 4.

Feats that fail that rule get rewritten. As an example, linguist. Building a character around knowing more languages? Seems a stretch. Even as a half-feat.

Scholar

• Add +1 to your intelligence score
• You know 3 additional languages
• When making an intelligence attribute check or saving throw, if you don't already add your proficiency modifier, add 1/2 of your proficiency modifier. If you already add your proficiency modifier, add +1.
• You can attempt to cast spells from scrolls that aren't on your class spell lists. When you try to, make an intelligence ability check against DC 10 plus twice the spell level. On a failure, the spell fails and the scroll is ruined.

I could build a character's identity around that, and there is some serious crunch to hang onto. And it fits together thematically.

Acknowledging that not every feat has the same value & "pricing" them accordingly does not mean that those feats can not also have attribute/skill/feat prerequisites needed before any accumulation of points can purchase any given feat.

 

[Horwath]

This sounds like a lot of fiddling about every time I lv up.

you look up a feat that matches your character story and /or mechanics.
See the cost of the feat,
You get 2 feat points per level,
Calculate how many levels you need for that feat. This should take you about 2 seconds.
Decide if you want to save for that feat or get cheaper one right away.

 

[Lanefan]

This is basically dead levels as a design policy.

As a general principle I have no problem with this: if there's going to be so many levels, either you give out some sort of bennie at each level and end up with ridiculously overpowered (and complicated!) characters by the end-game or you have some levels where all you get is a hit point boost.

The other, and IMO cleaner, option is to reduce the number of levels in the PC-expected range (to maybe 10 or 12 instead of 20), leaving anything higher in the DMG for use on either NPC foes or as a foundation for DMs who want to design that part for themselves.