Classes that could use one more ASI like the rogue

[Spacehamster]

So just curious if you think there is any base class besides Fighter and Rogue that could do with 1 more ASI and why you think it does? :)

I´ll toss in the Monk, reason its a melee class that needs maxed DEX + WIS for decent armor and still decently high CON meaning the
poor guy will use at least 4 out of his 5 ASI´s on maxing DEX and WIS leaving just 1 puny ASI for a feat, feel in general that any class that
"needs" more than 3 stats high would do fine with an extra ASI.

Tbh in many ways it feels like the Fighter and Rogue needs extra ASI´s the least since they generally need only 2 good stats.

[Fishyninja]

I slightly agree with the Monk, reason....Bias. However the Monk does have some pretty good level capabilities, granted some of these are only really expereinced at higher levels.
If I recall their level 14 ability gives them proficiency in all saving throws.

If I recall Monks get five ASI's?

[Spacehamster]

I slightly agree with the Monk, reason....Bias. However the Monk does have some pretty good level capabilities, granted some of these are only really expereinced at higher levels.
If I recall their level 14 ability gives them proficiency in all saving throws.

If I recall Monks get five ASI's?

Yeah all classes get´s five ASI´s xcpt for Rogue(six) and Fighter(seven). :)

[Fishyninja]

Yeah all classes get´s five ASI´s xcpt for Rogue(six) and Fighter(seven). :)

Sorcerer's maybe, I haven;t played as one but form all my reading they appear to have a bad reputation for not having enough utility or full on attack power so that extra ASI could be sued for a feat?

[Spacehamster]

Sorcerer's maybe, I haven;t played as one but form all my reading they appear to have a bad reputation for not having enough utility or full on attack power so that extra ASI could be sued for a feat?

Yeah Sorcerer could probably do with 1 more feat, they do work well but feel kind of narrow with so few spells known.

[Sception]

Honestly? Any class with more than one attack stat should really get one extra. Paladins, for instance, who have tons of Cha-based offensive spells and abilities, but are mostly a weapon-based class attacking with Strength or Dex. Or Warlocks, specifically Pact Blade warlocks. IMO, either they should be allowed to use cha to hit with their pact weapon or they should get an extra ASI in their progression.

As it is, both classes really need to max both a casting stat and a physical attacking stat i their progression, which only leaves a single open slot for off stats or feats of choice if you're not playing a human. Not a lot to work with when trying to personalize a build.

[Spacehamster]

Honestly? Any class with more than one attack stat should really get one extra. Paladins, for instance, who have tons of Cha-based offensive spells and abilities, but are mostly a weapon-based class attacking with Strength or Dex. Or Warlocks, specifically Pact Blade warlocks. IMO, either they should be allowed to use cha to hit with their pact weapon or they should get an extra ASI in their progression.

As it is, both classes really need to max both a casting stat and a physical attacking stat i their progression, which only leaves a single open slot for off stats or feats of choice if you're not playing a human. Not a lot to work with when trying to personalize a build.

With blade locks I defo agree, could be subclass perk at mid level somewhere, Somewhat agree on Paladins altho they are really powerful as is so with them maybe its good they get too choose between that extra feat or another +2 to CHA?

[Larpus]

There are many classes that'll want 3 stats, I can think of two right now 'cus I like 'em:

Melee Clerics will want Str/Dex so they can hit stuff, but they also want Wis so they're clerically useful and they definitely need Con so they pass the concentration save and have enough HP to stand alongside the melee folk. Easily argued that Clerics need more Con than most other classes except for the Barbarian and tank-focused builds.

Barbarians need Str for damage, Con for soaking damage + AC and Dex for AC as most features don't work with heavy armor. You can argue that Dex Barbarians are a thing, and they definitely are, but the class is really geared towards Str builds, meaning that ideally a Barb will pump the 3 stats while also not completely dumping Wis/Cha (unless they're ok with potentially killing the party) and possibly even having to invest into Cha for strict DMs that don't allow Str Intimidation.

[bid]

Nah, you can stop at Wis18 and have 2 free feats. Anyway, what feature would you drop for that feat?


Barbarian could use the same argument, there's a single feat after Str20 / Con20. In fact, they only get AC17 from Dex14 / Con20, monk has it much easier.
Paladin, after Str20 / Cha20, also a single feat.
Some tempest cleric might want Str20 / Wis20, not enough for a good Con.

Every MAD class will be short on ASI.

[Spacehamster]

Nah, you can stop at Wis18 and have 2 free feats. Anyway, what feature would you drop for that feat?


Barbarian could use the same argument, there's a single feat after Str20 / Con20. In fact, they only get AC17 from Dex14 / Con20, monk has it much easier.
Paladin, after Str20 / Cha20, also a single feat.
Some tempest cleric might want Str20 / Wis20, not enough for a good Con.

Every MAD class will be short on ASI.

Barbarian use armor tho 14 DEX nets him 17 AC with half plate, + the simple fact that barbarians take half damage and got a crap ton of hp. :)

[Vogonjeltz]

So just curious if you think there is any base class besides Fighter and Rogue that could do with 1 more ASI and why you think it does? :)

I´ll toss in the Monk, reason its a melee class that needs maxed DEX + WIS for decent armor and still decently high CON meaning the
poor guy will use at least 4 out of his 5 ASI´s on maxing DEX and WIS leaving just 1 puny ASI for a feat, feel in general that any class that
"needs" more than 3 stats high would do fine with an extra ASI.

Tbh in many ways it feels like the Fighter and Rogue needs extra ASI´s the least since they generally need only 2 good stats.

Given that the other classes have some kind of class feature in lieu of an ASI, I'd say none; I wouldn't want to give up the abilities the classes already have.

[Sception]

There's a difference between wanting a secondary stat because it's useful and needing it to hit with. There's likewise a difference between a cleric who might like to bop stuff on the head for aesthetic purposes, but can just as easily spam cantrips and have only a single attack stat, and a paladin who has no cantrips, or a bladelock, who if he relies on cantrips to hit has abandoned his entire subclass.

Split attack stats were bad design in 4e and they're still bad design now. An extra ASI would go a long way towards smoothing that out, although simply letting Bladelocks hit off their casting stat, and basically redesigning the paladin's spell list from the ground up* would be better.


*it's not just the offensive save-allowing and spell-attack spells on a physical stat attacking class, it's also the big old pile of concentration-burning smite spells, none of which are enough better than a plain old divine smite to be worth burning concentration when regular smites don't. Yes, the paladin is already a strong class, but it's a half casting class where the vast bulk of its spell options are basically irrelevant. Frankly, a paladin is almost exactly the same class if you take all of its spells away and allow those slots for smiting only. I think I've only ever seen non-multiclassed paladins use maybe six different spells, total, across all the paladins I've played or seen played by others.

[BigONotation]

I could see giving Sorcerer another ASI just to differentiate from wizard and throw a weak full caster a bone.

[Fishyninja]

I could see giving Sorcerer another ASI just to differentiate from wizard and throw a weak full caster a bone.

More Con and Cha is always nice.

[Larpus]

There's a difference between wanting a secondary stat because it's useful and needing it to hit with. There's likewise a difference between a cleric who might like to bop stuff on the head for aesthetic purposes, but can just as easily spam cantrips and have only a single attack stat, and a paladin who has no cantrips, or a bladelock, who if he relies on cantrips to hit has abandoned his entire subclass.

I disagree on the Cleric bit.

Depending on domain it's not really "for aesthetic purposes" as only those that get Potent Spellcasting can truly go with just the cantrip (it's a single cantrip without MC/Feat or more books) for damage source.

So yeah, some Clerics do need Str/Dex (and by extension a bunch of Con) to attack properly, in fact, said Clerics need more Con than their caster-focused brethren while having less points to have it.

I reckon it's not as bad as the Bladelock, but it's still detrimental to one of your class features to not invest in the attacking stat.

[Toofey]

I'd like wizard where I got the fighter asi/feat schedule instead of path features.

[MeeposFire]

Monk more so than most only because so much of its basic competency is based off of multiple ability scores.

In my monk change an additional ASI was included gained at 14th level (diamond soul was moved one level, I was originally going to have the ASI at level 15 but I disliked having 2 ASIs back to back as no other class did that).

[Naanomi]

Maybe some new subclass giving one, but I don't think any of the existing classes need one thrown in 'for nothing'... being a 'multiple stat' class isn't justification to get thrown more stat points

[Ziegander]

It's 5e. Does anyone really need a maxed stat in anything? I haven't played beyond 8th level, but, still, I kind of doubt it. The player classes were designed to be able to hang with the monsters with little to no optimization. I've personally wanted to try out a straight Champion Fighter with like a 16 attack stat who takes ONLY feats just to see how he fares against the system. I'm pretty sure he'd rock, and that's one of my favorite things about this edition -- it seems to enable Badass Normals to co-exist and contribute meaningfully alongside crazy planeshifting wizards.

[JNAProductions]

It's 5e. Does anyone really need a maxed stat in anything? I haven't played beyond 8th level, but, still, I kind of doubt it. The player classes were designed to be able to hang with the monsters with little to no optimization. I've personally wanted to try out a straight Champion Fighter with like a 16 attack stat who takes ONLY feats just to see how he fares against the system. I'm pretty sure he'd rock, and that's one of my favorite things about this edition -- it seems to enable Badass Normals to co-exist and contribute meaningfully alongside crazy planeshifting wizards.

It's nice. But agreed-it ain't needed.

[Biggstick]

There's a difference between wanting a secondary stat because it's useful and needing it to hit with. There's likewise a difference between a cleric who might like to bop stuff on the head for aesthetic purposes, but can just as easily spam cantrips and have only a single attack stat, and a paladin who has no cantrips, or a bladelock, who if he relies on cantrips to hit has abandoned his entire subclass.

Split attack stats were bad design in 4e and they're still bad design now. An extra ASI would go a long way towards smoothing that out, although simply letting Bladelocks hit off their casting stat, and basically redesigning the paladin's spell list from the ground up* would be better.


*it's not just the offensive save-allowing and spell-attack spells on a physical stat attacking class, it's also the big old pile of concentration-burning smite spells, none of which are enough better than a plain old divine smite to be worth burning concentration when regular smites don't. Yes, the paladin is already a strong class, but it's a half casting class where the vast bulk of its spell options are basically irrelevant. Frankly, a paladin is almost exactly the same class if you take all of its spells away and allow those slots for smiting only. I think I've only ever seen non-multiclassed paladins use maybe six different spells, total, across all the paladins I've played or seen played by others.

You only need a 16 or 18 in your martial attack stat.

GASP! SHOCK! AWE!!

Yeah, I said it. And so have other people on this thread/forums. Every class can do just fine with 16's and 18's in their attack stat.

As for your view on Paladins, you haven't been playing with very many Paladins then I guess.

Bless
Command
Protection from Evil and Good
Shield of Faith
Wrathful Smite
Find Steed
Lesser Restoration
Magic Weapon
Zone of Truth
Hunter's Mark
Hold Person
Misty Step
Ensnaring Strike
I've seen all 11 of these spells used and prepared for pure Paladin's who don't even have access to level 3 spells yet. Once the pure Paladins have access to level 3 spells, the useful spell list by even more.

[Foxhound438]

I think the design philosophy behind the extra ASI's is to give classes with less going on in the first place more opportunities to customize with feats. Alternatively, I guess it could be that most of the other classes get spells to customize their build with, but in that case, what about barbarians? And monks, too?

[Foxhound438]

I think I've only ever seen non-multiclassed paladins use maybe six different spells, total, across all the paladins I've played or seen played by others.

that's... fine? it's their playstyle, not a symptom of a problem. Some people do exclusively divine smite, but others only smite once or twice at the start of a battle and then hold their slots for actual spells. I find the variety of effects the smite spells give you lands you with enough options that there's always something more effective than just dealing extra d8's.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think the design philosophy behind the extra ASI's is to give classes with less going on in the first place more opportunities to customize with feats. Alternatively, I guess it could be that most of the other classes get spells to customize their build with, but in that case, what about barbarians? And monks, too?

Feats are optional; having more ASI just means that a Fighter or Rogue can have better overall stats than a Wizard or Warlock ever could.

[Foxhound438]

Feats are optional; having more ASI just means that a Fighter or Rogue can have better overall stats than a Wizard or Warlock ever could.

most tables allow feats, for good reason. If all you get from more ASI's is better off stats, you might as well play a paladin or something that gets more benefit from boosting other stats.

[djreynolds]

You only need a 16 or 18 in your martial attack stat.

GASP! SHOCK! AWE!!

Yeah, I said it. And so have other people on this thread/forums. Every class can do just fine with 16's and 18's in their attack stat.

As for your view on Paladins, you haven't been playing with very many Paladins then I guess.

Bless
Command
Protection from Evil and Good
Shield of Faith
Wrathful Smite
Find Steed
Lesser Restoration
Magic Weapon
Zone of Truth
Hunter's Mark
Hold Person
Misty Step
Ensnaring Strike
I've seen all 11 of these spells used and prepared for pure Paladin's who don't even have access to level 3 spells yet. Once the pure Paladins have access to level 3 spells, the useful spell list by even more.

You can live as a paladin with a 16 in strength

[Gastronomie]

None of the classes besides Fighter and Rogue need extra ASIs.

Sure, it would make them stronger. But do they need them? No. Not at all.

MAD classes are meant to be MAD. In exchange for versatility they suffer from ASI tax. Removing that tax will make them broken and will not do good for the game, unless you nerf their abilities to match their stat bonuses.

[Sigreid]

Any class could use more ASI, including rogue and fighter. Their useful to anyone, and no one would complain about having too many. A better question would be "Which classes are lacking enough in options or versatility/options/power that they, and they alone should be given an additional ASI?" IMO the answer to that is none of them. they all get one or two features baked in that are equal or superior to the bonus ASIs that rogues and fighters get.

MAD classes are designed that way to make the player make choices about how to best make use of their range of options. It would be detrimental to the games design to reduce the impact of those choices.

[Logosloki]

Every class could benefit from an extra ASI. Give it out at level one and make a "you can only receive one feat at level one" rule so that if any race, class or subclass begins with a feat they can get a feat and an ASI but not two feats (maybe let them have 2 ASIs, what's the harm?).

The other way to go around it would be to give every class that receives the extra attack feature (from any source) a fighting style, if they don't have it already.

As for who does and does not need ASIs...

Nobody needs ASIs, nobody even needs Racial ASIs. You could play the game with a 10 in every stat (as to have no detriment, you could probably play the game with 8 or less in every stat with difficulty). ASIs are mechanical gifts/incentives for playing an archetype, to provide the player mechanical acumen, and also to provide some measure of psychological comfort.

Same deal with +1 items. You don't typically need them as such, they provide only a small mechanical benefit but you feel, better with one than without.

[D.U.P.A.]

Monk has enough defensive options so he does not need a lot of Con. As for feat, usually uses no particular weapons nor magic, so feats are not mandatory. Maybe Paladin, because it is a melee spellcaster, so it may be more fun to have more combat options as you would not be casting much. Same with Ranger, but Ranger can go ranged so Con can be lower.

[BeefGood]

What does MAD mean?
I searched thread titles in this forum, found a few threads that use it, but couldn't find a definition, or figure it out from context.

[Fishyninja]

What does MAD mean?
I searched thread titles in this forum, found a few threads that use it, but couldn't find a definition, or figure it out from context.

Multi-Ability Dependant I believe.

[Willie the Duck]

None of the classes besides Fighter and Rogue need extra ASIs.

Sure, it would make them stronger. But do they need them? No. Not at all.

MAD classes are meant to be MAD. In exchange for versatility they suffer from ASI tax. Removing that tax will make them broken and will not do good for the game, unless you nerf their abilities to match their stat bonuses.

I tend to agree with this. Are there classes that could use a bit of a boost? Yeah. Is an ASI/Feat necessarily the right way to do it? No. As an example, sorcerer is a bit of a weak, indistinct class. But what it needs most is more spells-- both spells that sorcerers have that wizards don't and each sorcerer needs to know more spells. Another ASI/feat would increase their overall power, but not really address this issue.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think handing out ASIs as needed is the correct approach to balance various classes.


What does MAD mean?
I searched thread titles in this forum, found a few threads that use it, but couldn't find a definition, or figure it out from context.

Multi (or multiple) Ability Dependence - it means that a class (or subclass, or build) requires more than one ability (Con usually being excluded from the analysis since everyone needs hp). For instance, a paladin needs both Cha and an attack stat (Str or Dex), Monks need Wis and usually Dex).

[Fishyninja]

Sorry Willie I should have provided the full explanation, I'm suffering jetlag at the moment, brain no work good.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think you could do well with 10s in every stat. That leaves you very vulnerable to saves, and your attack output is not very good. You could manage, but if the whole party was 10s across the board, you'd suffer a lot.

That being said, you can easily start with a 14 in your stat (or probably even a 12) and so long as you advance it somewhat, you should be fine.