Would this break anything? ASI ponders

[Spacehamster]

So unlike 3.5 where every 4 levels meant a ASI and every 3 levels a feat. You now got ASI or a feat every 4 class levels not char levels. Would it hurt balance much to make it every 4 char levels instead? MC already got it harder due to MAD anyways.

[Demonic Spoon]

So unlike 3.5 where every 4 levels meant a ASI and every 3 levels a feat. You now got ASI or a feat every 4 class levels not char levels. Would it hurt balance much to make it every 4 char levels instead? MC already got it harder due to MAD anyways.

depends on your definition of "break", but it would certainly create balance issues. For one, ASI levels are now dead levels for every class. For two, you're giving some already-strong multiclass builds extra ASIs, which will take multiclassing from 'Good, if planned well' to 'Categorically better than single-classing if planned well'.

[Ralanr]

So unlike 3.5 where every 4 levels meant a ASI and every 3 levels a feat. You now got ASI or a feat every 4 class levels not char levels. Would it hurt balance much to make it every 4 char levels instead? MC already got it harder due to MAD anyways.

My group does this as a houserule (with the exception of fighter and rogue bonus feats, which are treated as class features). I'm not sure if it's really broken anything, I've only single classed barbarian (because I'm not sure if the capstone lose is worth action surge and fighting style or smites or expertise). Only two people multiclassed, one did it because he had not accepted the subclass concept, the other for RP reasons.

One drawback I've noticed is that it makes you more likely to experience an empty level. Which doesn't sound fun at all.

[Spacehamster]

My group does this as a houserule (with the exception of fighter and rogue bonus feats, which are treated as class features). I'm not sure if it's really broken anything, I've only single classed barbarian (because I'm not sure if the capstone lose is worth action surge and fighting style or smites or expertise). Only two people multiclassed, one did it because he had not accepted the subclass concept, the other for RP reasons.

One drawback I've noticed is that it makes you more likely to experience an empty level. Which doesn't sound fun at all.

Can live with one empty level for gaining the normal 5 feat/ASI. :) and one ASI should not make any major difference imo but let players try bit more unorthodox builds. :)

[Daishain]

Depends on how likely the players are to abuse it. If the answer is 'not at all', than the answer to the OP question is no.

[Ralanr]

Can live with one empty level for gaining the normal 5 feat/ASI. :) and one ASI should not make any major difference imo but let players try bit more unorthodox builds. :)

One empty level?

You misunderstand. When I say empty levels are more common, I mean that classes that don't get empty levels will start getting empty levels depending on how many class levels they multiclass. Theoretically your max level could be an empty level (AFB and I suck at math).

It does allow for some unorthodox builds, and it makes multiclassing seem more like an interesting option since the cons aren't as high. But it also makes any multiclassing pass level 3 an automatic dead level, same with 8, 12, 16, and 19.

So if you try to avoid dead levels, then multiclassing stops at level 3 in a class for you.

Edit: if I'm not making sense, I blame lack of sleep.

[Vogonjeltz]

So unlike 3.5 where every 4 levels meant a ASI and every 3 levels a feat. You now got ASI or a feat every 4 class levels not char levels. Would it hurt balance much to make it every 4 char levels instead? MC already got it harder due to MAD anyways

There were already multi-attribute dependencies, which don't matter if you multiclass into two things that rely on the same attribute anyway.

The obvious change would be that any level with an ASI would become less valuable than a multi-classed level by way of comparison. So, yeah, it's probably needlessly imbalancing.

Also they don't occur every 4 levels, the last ASI is at level 19 which is only +3 levels, so there's that.

[twas_Brillig]

I wonder how well it would play to add extra ribbon abilities at empty levels--abilities that add flavor or tweak exploration and interaction might be motivating to a group we're already assuming isn't purely focused on being the absolute most powerful. What those look like might have to depend on your specific campaign and characters, though.

[Ruslan]

It won't break anything, but will make some builds strictly better than others. As a result, the worse builds will not be played, and the overall space of char-building will become smaller. Overall, in the long term, the game will become more predictable and less rich.

Edit: that's in the long term. In the short term, while the players are figuring out the system, imbalances will tend to occur, as described by Shining Wrath below.

[Shining Wrath]

It will make MC stronger, and will make player skill at MC more important. The risk of having two characters in the same party of grossly different power levels becomes greater.

[djreynolds]

So unlike 3.5 where every 4 levels meant a ASI and every 3 levels a feat. You now got ASI or a feat every 4 class levels not char levels. Would it hurt balance much to make it every 4 char levels instead? MC already got it harder due to MAD anyways.

Yeah it might because some builds require sacrificing as ASI for a class feature and it seems they land on odd levels to persuade players from not multiclassing, a level 11 character will most likely want the ASI/feat at level 12 but another player is willing to sacrifice that ASI for another classes feature or some characters will forgo ASI after getting out what they want, such as just taking three levels of assassin or battlemaster.

But for characters such as the barbarian and even ranger, it is tough to wait for 20 levels for those really cool capstones. Paladins kick a** from level one on, so I don't care about them, I should just play one.

[PoeticDwarf]

My group does this as a houserule (with the exception of fighter and rogue bonus feats, which are treated as class features). I'm not sure if it's really broken anything, I've only single classed barbarian (because I'm not sure if the capstone lose is worth action surge and fighting style or smites or expertise). Only two people multiclassed, one did it because he had not accepted the subclass concept, the other for RP reasons.

One drawback I've noticed is that it makes you more likely to experience an empty level. Which doesn't sound fun at all.

Why would you then if you take one level in non-ranger, not two levels. Or with rogue or monk. I still prefer the normal class ASI.

[Ralanr]

Why would you then if you take one level in non-ranger, not two levels. Or with rogue or monk. I still prefer the normal class ASI.

Personally I like grabbing subclasses. But I might misunderstand your question.

[Naanomi]

Probably wouldn't break anything but would encourage dips in classes; I'm playing a (not in this order) fighter 2/rogue 3/warlock 5/sorcerer 10... I gave up a lot to be highly specialized, but without feat loss it would be fairly powerful without losing much.

Also variant human (as a way to mitigate feat loss from excessive multiclassing) would lose some value

Over all though wouldn't 'break' much except (as note by others) making boring dead levels