Replacing Ability Score Improvements?

[Gwazi Magnum]

Basically, I'm a bit bothered by that ASI's are locked behind Class Level, rather than being based on Player Level like Proficiency, because it sort of forces (or at least restricts) the player in investing into one Class, or Multi-Classing during very odd levels.

So I'm looking at making it so they are automatically provided at certain levels, the question though then being what do I replace it with?
I've looked through a ton of homebrew classes for ideas for extra abilities, but going that route started to feel a little forced and tacked on, so I was wondering if other's here had an idea what players could get on those levels?

Ideally, it should be something that fits with whatever class they are choosing to level in.

[Cybren]

why does it need to be replaced with anything?

[BurgerBeast]

Apologies if it's not in line with what you're looking for, but why not just change the class-locked ASIs to Feats (and only feats), and grant ASIs by character level at the already determined levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 19 - or whatever they are).

[imanidiot]

Apologies if it's not in line with what you're looking for, but why not just change the class-locked ASIs to Feats (and only feats), and grant ASIs by character level at the already determined levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 19 - or whatever they are).

This is good. Feats only by class level and ASIs only by character level. Keep in mind that you will have significantly more powerful PCs. But, decoupling ASIs from class level was going to do that anyway so no big deal

[Jerrykhor]

Wouldn't that make multiclassing more powerful?

[Spiderguy24]

Wouldn't that make multiclassing more powerful?

Not necessarily. Considering how many feats there are in both UA and the official books, you're still looking at about five feats per character, maybe six. Some multiclasses would get you only four.

[imanidiot]

Not necessarily. Considering how many feats there are in both UA and the official books, you're still looking at about five feats per character, maybe six. Some multiclasses would get you only four.

In this system I would go single class Fighter, V human. 8 feats + 5 ASIs, yes please.

[Gwazi Magnum]

why does it need to be replaced with anything?

So you don't get empty levels.


Apologies if it's not in line with what you're looking for, but why not just change the class-locked ASIs to Feats (and only feats), and grant ASIs by character level at the already determined levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 19 - or whatever they are).

That... Is actually pretty ingenious/simple.
Keeps the core/build reliant ability scores kept, but allows further customisation/variation within an individual class should you choose to go that route.

I'd just need a bigger collection of feats to gather.

[Moosoculars]

To balance it out a bit you could always reduce the starting standard array or do a 24 point buy.

[danksteel]

To balance it out a bit you could always reduce the starting standard array or do a 24 point buy.

Could also consider reducing the ASIs down from +2 or +1/+1 to just +1.

[Vaz]

Apologies if it's not in line with what you're looking for, but why not just change the class-locked ASIs to Feats (and only feats), and grant ASIs by character level at the already determined levels (4, 8, 12, 16, 19 - or whatever they are).

This has been a regular houserule since inception. That, 32pt buy, and random HP roll, with a guaranteed minimum of half HP on the dice when levelling up (round down).

[strangebloke]

Isn't it even easier?

You just give out ASI's/feats by character level, and if, say, the fighter gets more, then those are class specific.

[BurgerBeast]

Isn't it even easier?

You just give out ASI's/feats by character level, and if, say, the fighter gets more, then those are class specific.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, then no. This is not easier.

How does it work for multi-classed fighters?

[Vaz]

Easily? How is it difficult to understand?

[Ruebin Rybnik]

First thank you for this, i agree ASI feel weird connected to class level, and not based on how long you've been adventuring(character level). I like the idea of filling the gap with Feats, but not just an open one. I would tailor them to the PCs. For example the 4th level Lore Bard might get Actor or Inspiring Leader, While the Champion Fighter could get Defensive Duelist or Tough. This way it feels more in line with the class and less meta-gamey like " Well my strength is already maxed, but i suck with wisdom so ill take Resilient." This isn't to say that a martial player couldn't take Resilient, just that it wouldn't be from the class feat. As the PC not the Fighter they could work to get better at wisdom. Flavored as meditation or self reflection, and then mechanically trade one of their ASIs for Resilient.

[BurgerBeast]

Easily? How is it difficult to understand?

Let me put it like this: does a rogue/fighter get feats at these levels?

Rogue 3/Fighter 1?

Rogue 4/Fighter 1?

Rogue 4/Fighter 2?

Rogue 4/Fighter 4? One or two?

Rogue 4/Fighter 6?

Either I understand it, in which case it doesn't solve the problem because each class still has blank levels at 4, 8...

Or I don't understand it, but it works. Not sure how.

[strangebloke]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, then no. This is not easier.

How does it work for multi-classed fighters?

fighters get ASI's at:
4,6,8,12,14,16,19
everyone else gets ASI's at
4,8,12,16,19

So, what I'm saying is that ASI's get tied to character level, but that fighter also has ASI's that are tied to class level.
Specifically, they have ASI's at 6 and 14.

So, a paladin 6/fighter 6 would get ASI's at character levels 4, 8, 12. He would also get an ASI at fighter level 6. A paladin 6/fighter 14 would have as many ASI's as a fighter.

It is a little clunky. You end up with empty levels. I guess I didn't read OP closely enough to realize that this was his primary issue. Frankly I don't really understand why this is a problem, but I've heard people say that it is. I know that it encourage certain breakpoints in multiclassing, but you can't really get away from that?

Like, this is sort of what I'm hearing here:
'ASI's shouldn't be tied to class level, because that's an important feature and discourages players from multiclassing at certain levels'
'So make it tied to character level'
'But then we have empty levels, which encourage multiclassing at certain levels.'
'So we'll give them new features at those empty levels...'
*a year passes*
'Feats shouldn't be tied to class level, because they're important features and they discrourage players multiclassing at certain levels.'

More to the point, it just seems to me that giving players 3-5 feats goes against 5e's design. Feats are supposed to be core character aspects. Having 5 ASI's and 8 feats is just silly.

[Vaz]

Let me put it like this: does a rogue/fighter get feats at these levels?

Rogue 3/Fighter 1?

Rogue 4/Fighter 1?

Rogue 4/Fighter 2?

Rogue 4/Fighter 4? One or two?

Rogue 4/Fighter 6?

Either I understand it, in which case it doesn't solve the problem because each class still has blank levels at 4, 8...

Or I don't understand it, but it works. Not sure how.
ASI's are divorced from Class levels. Bonus ASI's above the norm such as Rogue 10 and Fighter 6 and Fighter 14 are essentially part of class abilities, and are additional to the 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 pattern every other class follows.

I'm trying to work out if you're obtuse, or trolling. Because that is the most obvious to me.

Also, the fact that a stat increase is considered a Class Feature at all is a joke, right? They are basically dead levels anyway. And no, they're not dead, because that's where you let people take feats, instead.

So, lets say Rogue 4/Fighter 6 has 3 Feats and 2 ASI's.

[BurgerBeast]

ASI's are divorced from Class levels. Bonus ASI's above the norm such as Rogue 10 and Fighter 6 and Fighter 14 are essentially part of class abilities, and are additional to the 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 pattern every other class follows.

I'm trying to work out if you're obtuse, or trolling. Because that is the most obvious to me.

Let's not go there.


Also, the fact that a stat increase is considered a Class Feature at all is a joke, right? They are basically dead levels anyway. And no, they're not dead, because that's where you let people take feats, instead.

So, lets say Rogue 4/Fighter 6 has 3 Feats and 2 ASI's.

So then every class has an empty level at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19.

So this doesn't solve the problem. This is one of the specific things we are trying to avoid. (Edit: As strange bloke noticed.)

[Mongobear]

Everyone starts play with a Feat at 1st level.

Variant Human is banned.

At the levels where Cantrips improve(I think 5/11/17, might be off since I haven't played a caster in awhile) everyone gets another Feat.

ASIs gained a 4/8/12/16/19 can only be used to increase ability scores.

ASIs outside of those levels (Rogue 10, Fighter 6/14) may be either a normal ASI or a Feat.

"Half Feats" which gives a mechanical effect and increase a stat by +1 no longer provide the stat increase. Exception - Resilient still gives the +1 stat, since it's sort of reliant on how it functions.

_________________________


By level 20, a standard character will get 4 Feats and 5 ASIs. This will result in stronger PCs, especially with optimizers, so reducing the starting power by enforcing the standard point buy or standard array is recommended. If you roll stats, this will likely result in characters with 3-4 max'd out stats by higher levels.

[Vaz]

Let's not go there.



So then every class has an empty level at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19.

So this doesn't solve the problem. This is one of the specific things we are trying to avoid. (Edit: As strange bloke noticed.)

A Feat. As has been stated in numerous posts.

[BurgerBeast]

A Feat. As has been stated in numerous posts.

And you're accusing me of being obtuse or trolling? You need to read-read the thread, carefully.

[Vaz]

You mean the bit where you get ASI's every 4th character level leaving a dead level, so instead someone suggested feats and the OP 'well yes, that's a good idea, but I need more feats'; well i've just checked DM's guild and there a load available for free or pay what you want.

[strangebloke]

You mean the bit where you get ASI's every 4th character level leaving a dead level, so instead someone suggested feats and the OP 'well yes, that's a good idea, but I need more feats'; well i've just checked DM's guild and there a load available for free or pay what you want.

Confused. If you're taking about my proposed solution,I wasn't arguing for feats at dead levels.

[rudy]

The home game I run uses a variant that you might find interesting.

First of all, you don't want to get rid of the ASI's at class levels 4, 8, etc., because that usually all that makes those levels worth taking.

If you don't mind having a more powerful game, though, what I do is additionally award feats at *character* levels 3, 7, 11, 15, 19. The reason I chose those levels is that they lie exactly in between the proficiency boosts at levels 5, 9, 13, 17, and so "spread out" the feeling of progression that the players receive.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Figured now might be a good time to add some of my Homebrew feats. See what people think about them in tandem to the variants being proposed here.


Alchemist
During a Long Rest you may craft any assortment of Potions, Poisons or Chemical-based equipment whose material cost goes up to 25gp, paying the required material cost
Poisons you craft add your proficiency bonus to the DC and the poison damage inflicted.
Potions of Healing you craft heal additional Hit Points equal to your proficiency bonus.

Cleave
Prerequisites: Strength or Dexterity 13 or higher
Once on your turn, when you reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee weapon, you can immediately make an attack against another creature within reach with the same weapon.

Combat Reflexes
Prerequisites: Dexterity 13 or higher
You gain an additional reaction each round.
Your opportunity attacks with weapons are made at advantage.

Domain
Prerequisites: The ability to cast at least one spell, Wisdom of 13 or higher
You may select a Divine Domain from the Cleric and gain access to it's 1st Level Abilities. If you are already a Cleric you may use this for a Domain you have not already selected. If as a Cleric both Domains provide Proficiency for Heavy Armour this becomes a Half-Feat.

Extra Attack
Prerequisites: 5th character level, Strength or Dexterity 13 or higher
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. This does not stack with Extra Attack provided from a class. If you ever do obtain Extra Attack from a class, retrain this Feat immediately.

Improved Critical
Your weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20. Once you reach level 15 you score a critical hit on a roll of 18-20. This does not stack with other sources (Ex: Champion Fighter), if another source is obtained, retrain this Feat immediately.

Metamagician
Prerequisites: The ability to cast at least one spell
You have one sorcery point. You may add this sorcery point to any sorcery points you already have. You recover spent sorcery points on a long rest.
You know one metamagic option of your choice from the list available to sorcerers on page 102 of the PHB. You can spend your sorcery point on this or any other metamagic option you know.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can expend any one spell slot and gain extra sorcery points equal to the level of the spell slot expended.

Scout
You gain advantage of Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) checks
You can move at full travel speed when travelling stealthily. Others travelling with you also gain this effect.

Thrown Weapon Master
Prerequisites: At least one martial weapon proficiency
You may treat any light weapon as though it had the Thrown property with a range of 20/60 feet, and may draw any light weapon freely as part of the attack you make with it.
You do not suffer disadvantage on thrown weapon attacks at ranges greater than short.
If a creature within short range of your thrown weapon attacks an ally and misses, you may use your reaction to make an opportunity attack against that creature.



What's a Half Feat?

A Half Feat is like a regular feat, except it's been deemed low enough in power/function to not be valued the same as a full feat. Whenever you as a Player gain the option of purchasing a Feat, you may choose instead to do one of the following:
Purchase Two Half Feats
Purchase One Half Feat, and +1 to any Ability Score

Additionally, any feat from any other source, may it be the Players Handbook, Unearthed Arcana, other Homebrew etc that provides +1 to a specific ability score (for example Athlete's +1 to Strength or Dexterity) is ignored, and that Feat may now also be treated as a Half Feat.

Drunken Master
You are immune to any poison effect that would subject you to a penalty to your attacks, armour class, or any strength, dexterity or constitution checks or saves.
When you consume an alcoholic beverage you may immediately roll a Hit Die to regain Hit Points. You may do this as a Bonus Action.

Evocation Mage
Prerequisites: The ability to cast at least one spell
You can add your Spell-Casting modifier to the damage roll of any spell you cast. This does not stack from other sources. If you later gain access to such an ability from another source you may retrain this Half-Feat immediately.

Expertise
You choose one of your skill or tool proficiencies, your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check that uses the chosen proficiency.

Fighting Style
You adopt a particular style of fighting as your speciality. Choose one of the following options. You can't take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.
(Note: Additional Options are also granted to any Class that may already be granted a Fighting Style)

ARCHERY
You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.

CAVALIER
Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Animal Handling roll to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Animal Handling check result is greater than the opponents attack roll. You may use for Dexterity for Animal Handling checks used for this purpose.

DEFENSE
While you are wearing armour, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

DUELING
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand, and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls and a +1 bonus to AC as well as attack rolls with that weapon.

FAST RELOADING
You ignore the loading property of crossbows.

GREAT WEAPON FIGHTING
When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.

PROTECTION
When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.

TACTICIAN
You may take the Help action as a bonus action on your turn or as a reaction. You also gain a +2 bonus to all weapon attack rolls you make as part of a Reaction.

TWO WEAPON FIGHTING
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability score modifier to the damage of the second attack.

Seductive
Prerequisites: Charisma 13 or higher
You gain advantage on Charisma (persuasion) and Charisma (deception) checks when used against creatures that are sexually attracted to you.

Skilled
You gain proficiency in any combination of two skills or tools of your choice.
(Note: This replaces the Skilled Feat in the Players Handbook).



First thank you for this, i agree ASI feel weird connected to class level, and not based on how long you've been adventuring(character level). I like the idea of filling the gap with Feats, but not just an open one. I would tailor them to the PCs. For example the 4th level Lore Bard might get Actor or Inspiring Leader, While the Champion Fighter could get Defensive Duelist or Tough. This way it feels more in line with the class and less meta-gamey like " Well my strength is already maxed, but i suck with wisdom so ill take Resilient." This isn't to say that a martial player couldn't take Resilient, just that it wouldn't be from the class feat. As the PC not the Fighter they could work to get better at wisdom. Flavored as meditation or self reflection, and then mechanically trade one of their ASIs for Resilient.

I'm not sure if I'd lock certain feats to certain classes.

I get the logic behind it, but they don't really have another way of getting feats, so this would essentially remove their ability to create a number of interesting combinations/character types.


Everyone starts play with a Feat at 1st level.

Variant Human is banned.

At the levels where Cantrips improve(I think 5/11/17, might be off since I haven't played a caster in awhile) everyone gets another Feat.

ASIs gained a 4/8/12/16/19 can only be used to increase ability scores.

ASIs outside of those levels (Rogue 10, Fighter 6/14) may be either a normal ASI or a Feat.

"Half Feats" which gives a mechanical effect and increase a stat by +1 no longer provide the stat increase. Exception - Resilient still gives the +1 stat, since it's sort of reliant on how it functions.

_________________________


By level 20, a standard character will get 4 Feats and 5 ASIs. This will result in stronger PCs, especially with optimizers, so reducing the starting power by enforcing the standard point buy or standard array is recommended. If you roll stats, this will likely result in characters with 3-4 max'd out stats by higher levels.

I don't ever roll ability scores in my games, I find they open too much of a power issue across the party.

The suggestions I bolded are those I'd probably add, (Half Feats I was already working on as part of a bigger homebrew conversion actually).

Though it's more the Ability Score upgrades I want to remove from Class Levels than the feats.
Cause the feats are fun, but not usually reliant to make a functional character (especially with a free level 1 feat). ASI's though go directly into how a party's power level scales against enemies, so it basically act's as a debuff for Multi-Classers.


The home game I run uses a variant that you might find interesting.

First of all, you don't want to get rid of the ASI's at class levels 4, 8, etc., because that usually all that makes those levels worth taking.

If you don't mind having a more powerful game, though, what I do is additionally award feats at *character* levels 3, 7, 11, 15, 19. The reason I chose those levels is that they lie exactly in between the proficiency boosts at levels 5, 9, 13, 17, and so "spread out" the feeling of progression that the players receive.

This idea is also interesting, helps diversify/vary player balance.

Though, I think I'd probably reverse these and make the ASI's on 3, 7, 11 etc. and the feats on class levels.
Most Classes if you truly plan to Multi-Class a lot I don't think you should feel obligated to stay for longer for something like an ASI. Meanwhile if you want to stay in the class for the long haul... Well, you're going to stick for those things in future levels anyways.

Besides, feats are still pretty powerful. If I collect a decent list it's not a really wasted.

[DivisibleByZero]

why does it need to be replaced with anything?

This.
And furthermore, why do they need to exist at all?
The Grognard in me remembers a time when your ability scores never increased at all, ever, without the help of magic or DM intervention.

[BurgerBeast]

This.
And furthermore, why do they need to exist at all?
The Grognard in me remembers a time when your ability scores never increased at all, ever, without the help of magic or DM intervention.

I'm not sure the increase of ability scores is the point of disagreement here. The concern expressed was dead levels. The fact that there is a desire to eliminate dead levels is not necessarily an argument for increasing ability scores.

The OP is looking for class abilities to fill in the dead levels.

ASIs/feats were suggested as a simple fix to avoid the problem of having to create new class features for every class and balance them.

Some people want to argue that the endeavour is pointless. Well, that's not really relevant since the OP is asking the question on the presumption of said point.

Now you're suggesting that ASIs are unnecessary. Fine. Dead levels are not technically a problem other. Except that the OP has a problem with dead levels and is looking for a solution. Even those who do not think that dead levels are a problem can at least understand what dead levels are and that the removal of class-level based ASIs, applied to the 5e class tables, will leave some very noticeable dead levels.

[Cybren]

I mean, generally speaking, I don't see the problem with ASI levels being natural breakpoints in multiclassing, because there will always be different incentives regarding break points anyway. but if ASIs were by character level you could just give generalized bonuses at the class level that are what most people wold consider a "flavor" ability, like a language, tool proficiency, or even something more general like an npc contact.

[DivisibleByZero]

Even those who do not think that dead levels are a problem can at least understand what dead levels are and that the removal of class-level based ASIs, applied to the 5e class tables, will leave some very noticeable dead levels.

The Grognard in me grew up with *nothing but* dead levels, so I have zero problem with them. I still fail to see the problem.
I understand the problem that people have with it, because we live in a Burger King society where you get it Your way, Right away, and everyone needs instant gratification to feel like a special snowflake.
I just fail to agree that it was ever or is currently a problem.

[Gwazi Magnum]

Except that the OP has a problem with dead levels and is looking for a solution.

why do they need to exist at all?


To answer/clarify this.

The reason I'm avoiding dead levels is two-fold:

1. There aren't clearly obvious Multi-Class levels because of getting nothing otherwise
2. It just isn't as engaging to gain a level and then get... nothing.

I get that some people are nostalgic about the old days/systems where that isn't the case. But for my own personal style for play that's not something I'm looking to do, just like how in other people's games they may not be looking to do other things that newer editions introduced.

[rudy]

Though, I think I'd probably reverse these and make the ASI's on 3, 7, 11 etc. and the feats on class levels.

Oh, I wasn't clear I don't think. I actually let players choose either feats or ASIs at the class level points, but require the ones at character levels 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th, 19th to be feats. Nothing stops them from being feats that also boost ability scores, though.

[BurgerBeast]

The Grognard in me grew up with *nothing but* dead levels, so I have zero problem with them. I still fail to see the problem.
I understand the problem that people have with it, because we live in a Burger King society where you get it Your way, Right away, and everyone needs instant gratification to feel like a special snowflake.
I just fail to agree that it was ever or is currently a problem.

I don't believe you. Look at the fighter table on PHB 71. Replace the ASI levels with nothing. Surely you can see this is different. Surely you can see that it makes levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 objectively less powerful. You can see the problem. You just don't think it is a problem.

Which means you are contributing nothing to this conversation, at all. This conversation is asking how to solve a problem that you think does not exist. You cannot engage in this conversation on a meaningful level. It's not possible. Repeatedly saying "I don't think it's a problem and you should see it the way I do" is not meaningful contribution.

Now, granted, if you are okay with dead levels, you can play the grognard card and say, "So what? I used to play with every level being dead." And this would be fine, except that the whole point of this thread is that the OP wants to tie ASIs to character level. Once you do that, dead levels become significant because they change the interplay of incentives to multi-class in specific ways. For example, levels 3, 7, 11, 15, and 18 become more attractive levels to exit classes. The OP saying that he doesn't want to change the balance of incentives. Thus, he needs a way to maintain incentives at character levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 in order to solve his problem.

If you can't see this, then you're not even looking/listening, and the grognard card will not serve you here. You can try to help, or you can be useless white noise.

[Khrysaes]

This was probably mentioned, but here are my thoughts, and I only read the first 10 or so posts.

All characters get ASI at 4, 8, 12, 16, 19.

Fighters get bonus ASI at Class levels 6, and 14.

Rogue gets bonus ASI at Class level 10.


This will make multiclassing more powerful because instead of level 4/8/12/etc, as levels to change, it now becomes 3/7/11/etc without losing the benefits.

If you in addition to making all characters get ASI and only ASI at character level rather than class level while ADDITIONALLY granting Feats and only Feats, at class level, the characters will be even more powerful, Unless of course you make changes, either breaking the bigger feats into multiple feats, and removing the ASI from half feats, and/or reducing the ASI from +2 or +1/+1 to just +1.

Or while still being more powerful than as is, but not as significantly so, just keep both feats and ASI gained as is(one or the other), but just tied to character level rather than class level as I outlined above.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't believe you. Look at the fighter table on PHB 71. Replace the ASI levels with nothing. Surely you can see this is different. Surely you can see that it makes levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 objectively less powerful. You can see the problem. You just don't think it is a problem.
You don't beleive me?
Look not at 5ePHBpg71.
Look at oD&D or AD&D.
Every. Level. Was. A. Dead. Level.
I don't really care if you believe me or not. I'm used to it, and I don't see a problem with a random dead level here or there.
It's not something that triggers me, because it isn't a big deal. It's only a problem if you want it to be a problem.... because everyone needs it Your Way, Right Away just like I said.
"Boo hoo! I have a level every once in a while where all I get is more HP and potentially better proficiency bonus (which fuels pretty much everything). Boo hoo!" Many of us have been used to it for a long time. This is nothing new. Casters have dead levels as well. It's not the end of the world.

So once again, I fail to see the problem.
I understand that some of you perceive it as a problem, and I understand what the problem that you perceive amounts to. I just don't see it as a problem in any way, shape, or form.

[coolAlias]

I just don't see it as a problem in any way, shape, or form.
And I believe BurgerBeast's point is that no one in this thread cares that you don't consider it to be a problem - discussing whether it is or isn't a problem is not the point.

Of course, attacking the premise of a thread is a time-honored tradition, but don't you think you've beaten it to death already here? Let it go.

[DivisibleByZero]

As to tying ASI to character level instead:
The design team made a conscious decision to move away from that, and in my opinion this was for the betterment of the game.
It creates a cost/benefit situation. A choice. You can dip 3 levels of X class to gain subclass features, but it costs you one of your ASIs to do so.
That's intentional, and it's a GREAT way to handle the ridiculous multiclassing shenanigans that were present in 3e. The more classes you want to throw into the mix, the higher the cost.

[coolAlias]

As to tying ASI to character level instead:
The design team made a conscious decision to move away from that, and in my opinion this was for the betterment of the game.
I agree with this, and it is very evident in this thread that trying to re-tie them to character level leaves a lot to be desired.

If you give an ASI at character level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 and are unwilling to accept dead levels, then what do you give all of the character classes on those levels? Not just fighters - pretty much every class has this problem.

If you give them a feat for sticking to the class (as opposed to an ASI which could be spent on either), then you are going to be running a game where every character ends up like a Greek hero. This might be fine, or it might not.

If you don't give them a feat, what else can you give them that makes sticking to that class worthwhile in the context of multiclassing? Perhaps an extra skill proficiency, or Expertise in a 'class' skill, or something else such as a watered-down version of a Boon. I'm not really sure what to give that would be enticing yet not balloon the power level or step on other characters' toes.

[BurgerBeast]

You don't beleive me?
Look not at 5ePHBpg71.
Look at oD&D or AD&D.
Every. Level. Was. A. Dead. Level.

Now you're just being willfully arrogant. I never said I don't believe that there were dead levels in OD&D. Believe it or not, I've played OD&D. You're not the only grognard in the house. I said I don't believe that you can't see the problem that the OP presented.


I don't really care if you believe me or not.

You could start by addressing what I actually said I don't believe, instead of intentionally answering something else.


I'm used to it, and I don't see a problem with a random dead level here or there.

Not what we're talking about.


It's not something that triggers me, because it isn't a big deal. It's only a problem if you want it to be a problem.... because everyone needs it Your Way, Right Away just like I said.

You're dismissing the problem. I get that. That's a separate point form whether or not you see the thing that he thinks is a problem. But the very fact that you can dismiss it means that you can see it.


"Boo hoo! I have a level every once in a while where all I get is more HP and potentially better proficiency bonus (which fuels pretty much everything). Boo hoo!" Many of us have been used to it for a long time. This is nothing new. Casters have dead levels as well. It's not the end of the world.

This is whole new gear for you. Pointing to something and saying it's objectively worse is not the same as whining.


So once again, I fail to see the problem.

No, you don't. And quite frankly, you're being stubborn. As someone who is a proud grognard, I can say that people like you are the reason we have a bad name.


I understand that some of you perceive it as a problem, and I understand what the problem that you perceive amounts to. I just don't see it as a problem in any way, shape, or form.

This is what I said. This is not what you initially said. I suppose we agree. Thanks for wasting my time.


As to tying ASI to character level instead:
The design team made a conscious decision to move away from that, and in my opinion this was for the betterment of the game.

FFS. We know that. The OP wants to try something new. He is asking how to best do it. You are not helping. Here's a thought, Captain Arrogant: maybe the OP has also thought about it, and he also thinks it's a good design choice, but he wants to try something new. Is it really so hard for you to understand that you don't need to be a whiny b@#%&h to hold his view? Are you really that dense? It's not like you're bringing in an incomprehensible intellect here. This isn't rocket science.


It creates a cost/benefit situation. A choice. You can dip 3 levels of X class to gain subclass features, but it costs you one of your ASIs to do so.
That's intentional, and it's a GREAT way to handle the ridiculous multiclassing shenanigans that were present in 3e. The more classes you want to throw into the mix, the higher the cost.

And the OP wants to try something new, but maintain that same level of choice. If there are dead levels, then it doesn't cost an ASI, so the multi-class problem becomes worse.

It's spectacularly amazing that you can't understand this.

1. Imagine if you preferred for general increases such as proficiency bonus and ASIs to be tied to character level instead of class level.
2. Take the view that you articulated above: "It creates a cost/benefit situation. A choice. You can dip 3 levels of X class to gain subclass features, but it costs you one of your ASIs to do so."
3. Recognize that (1) destroys (2)
4. Consider that you want (1) and (2), so you need a way to address (2)
5. Get to work on solving it.

Done. It's that simple. You should think about it more. If it's "not a problem for you" then go spend time somewhere that you actually can be productive. If you can imagine what it's like to have the OP's problem, and have something positive to contribute, do it. Otherwise you're just incessantly wasting everyone's time. It's rude.

[strangebloke]

I agree with what DivBy0 is arguing for, but not the argument he's using.

I don't think OP can actually get what he wants, and I think that the cure is worse than the disease.

Let's look at what he wants:


Basically, I'm a bit bothered by that ASI's are locked behind Class Level, rather than being based on Player Level like Proficiency, because it sort of forces (or at least restricts) the player in investing into one Class, or Multi-Classing during very odd levels.

So. ASI's being locked behind class level means that players can miss out on them if they multiclass in such a fashion as to ignore them.

Ok. Full disclosure, I'm actually not sure why that is a problem. If you only multiclass once, you'll miss out on one ASI at worst. Even then, it's not really multiclassing at a 'weird level' if you choosing to switch after a certain level because you wanted a good feature at that level. You want to get your ASI before multiclassing, just like you want to get your extra attack or spell slot or whatever before multiclassing.


the question though then being what do I replace it with?

Ok, so... you have a problem with dead levels. Sure, I get that, sort of. Dead levels encourage people to multiclass just before those levels. However, while 5e doesn't have dead levels per se... some levels basically only give you a ribbon. Can you ever imagine going to paladin 10 when you planning on multiclassing into warlock, fighter, or sorcerer, just to get aura of courage?

But I'm confused. You're annoyed that people have to (currently) multiclass keeping in mind that they get very powerful class features (ASI's) at certain levels... and you want to give them ASI's for free and replace them with other powerful class features.

Which leaves you with the exact same problem you started with.

[BurgerBeast]

(snip)

Edit: if you agree with DBZ, then you're saying you agree that this should not be a thread. So why are you in it?

Let me try putting it this way: is it currently a problem, for you, that that proficiency bonus scales by character level? That cantrips scale by character level?

I'm going to assume the answer is no. So, generally speaking, there is no problem with scaling particular progressive abilities by character level. (Nobody has complained to me that a 20th character with 4 levels in 5 different classes should have a +2 proficiency bonus or else they're totally OP.)

Doing the same with ASIs isn't particularly problematic.

However, doing so leaves dead levels. Simply leaving the dead levels at 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19 presents no major balance issues (it might slightly favour MC characters more than they are currently favoured).

As a totally separate issue: the OP doesn't want dead levels. As a result, he doesn't like this. What can be done to preserve ASIs tied to character level, and inject some life into the dead levels?

If you answer is (a) leave it how it is, or (b) dead levels are not problem so accept my answer, then you're not helping.

[Khrysaes]

As a totally separate issue: the OP doesn't want dead levels. As a result, he doesn't like this. What can be done to preserve ASIs tied to character level, and inject some life into the dead levels?

If you answer is (a) leave it how it is, or (b) dead levels are not problem so accept my answer, then you're not helping.

The easiest, while maybe not being the best solution, is tie a weakened ASI to Character levels, with the exception of the bonus ASI for Fighter 6/14, and Rogue 10, and at those dead levels grant weakened feats. Still give the option to trade out this weakened ASI for a weakened feat.

So sort of splitting it in half. Half to character level, half to Class level.

Each one should be about the value of +1 ASI rather than the normal +2.

Half feats are the easiest to reduce in power, just take away the +1 ASI included in it.

The stronger feats, seeing as they generally have more than one capability or feature granted to them, could be split based on these capabilities, say GWM. Split it to Power attack and cleave.
This would be the more difficult to implement.

[DivisibleByZero]

Disagreement with the concept is a perfectly valid reason to discuss things in a thread.
If you want not discussion, then don't bother starting a thread and just do whatever you want.
Get off your high horse over there and stop telling dissenters that they should leave.
*points at sig*

[BurgerBeast]

The easiest, while maybe not being the best solution, is tie a weakened ASI to Character levels, with the exception of the bonus ASI for Fighter 6/14, and Rogue 10, and at those dead levels grant weakened feats. Still give the option to trade out this weakened ASI for a weakened feat.

So sort of splitting it in half. Half to character level, half to Class level.

Well, halle-f@#king-lujah! A contribution. I prefer this to mine.

[coolAlias]

@BurgerBeast The issue is this:

1. ASIs are currently a major incentive to stay with a class rather than multiclassing

2. Decoupling ASIs from class level removes that incentive so players are free to multiclass, but you end up with dead levels

3. We want to fill the dead levels with something to reincentivize sticking with a single class

4. Point #3 sort of defeats #2, as it simply reintroduces point #1 in another way

So either we fill the dead levels (which I would argue are NOT Fighter 6/14 or Rogue 10 - those are bonus ASIs given as a class feature and should remain that way, otherwise when on the character level progression would you receive them?) with something of marginal benefit so people don't feel bad about multiclassing, in which case people sticking with the class will feel marginalized, or we add in something powerful in which case multiclassing will be just as if not more punishing than it currently is.

We need to come up with something that would both make a character feel good about sticking with a class, but also wouldn't heavily deter them from leaving that class for another.

I and several others feel like ASIs do a pretty darn good job at filling that role. I don't have a problem with trying to decouple it, but I am at a loss for what a good replacement would be - I tossed in some ideas earlier, but none of them really struck me as suitable.

EDIT: Khrysaes' idea of splitting feats / ASIs could potentially work - worth a play test, at least.

[Easy_Lee]

You're trying to avoid dead levels. I get that. There won't be an easy way to do it without making the players more powerful (which, in turn, makes many DM tools less useful).

The way I see it, you have two options.

One: come up with a class-specific benefit to replace each ASI with.

It shouldn't be too powerful, maybe on par with an extra Ki point or spell slot. Otherwise, you'll end up with players being too strong for a given CR level.

This requires a lot of work to think up what that benefit should be, especially for fighters. It also has the problem that the levels divisible by four are unlikely to be as powerful as other levels.

Two: condense levels and CRs. Simply take out levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, moving each remaining level down one, while letting rogues and fighters keep their extra ASIs.

You'd have to do the same with CR: a creature of CR 5 would become CR 4, and would have its HP adjusted accordingly. (Edit: and existing CR 4 monsters might need more damage or HP, to compensate for the players gaining extra attack and hitting a new "tier of play," as WotC puts it).

At the end, you'd have an Epic 15 system with players simply progressing faster and ending with less HP. It would let you assign ASIs to levels and get rid of class dead levels at the same time.

This option would probably take the most work, honestly. But I think it may be the most complete.

[N810]

How about just give out an ASI or feats whenever you would get a dead level for what ever reason.
or alternately only choose a 1/2 feat whenever you would get a dead level.

[coolAlias]

How about just give out an ASI or feats whenever you would get a dead level for what ever reason.
or alternately choose a 1/2 feat whenever you would get a dead level.
You could, but then everyone would have twice as many ASIs / feats, which could be fine for a high-powered game.

Perhaps instead of an entire half-feat, you would get either +1 to an ability score or the other part of the feat.

[strangebloke]

If you answer is (a) leave it how it is, or (b) dead levels are not problem so accept my answer, then you're not helping.

My answer is

(c) replacing ASI's with feats does not solve the problem as you've presented it in any fashion. You have to create new class features from scratch.

Since every class gets ASI's, it feels strange that multiclass PCs get their ASI's later. Now, it's just a class feature like any other, really. Sorcadin's are notoriously ASI hungry, but paladin 4/sorcerer x builds are not really ever discussed, because other class features like extra attack and the aura of protection are more important. When multiclassing, ASI's can be weighed just like anything else.

There's nothing wrong with them being tied to character level. Feats were, in 3e. I sort of wish that they had done that, and given other more flavorful abilities at those levels. I think what OP is trying to do makes sense, although I would point out that plenty of essentially dead levels already exist. Ranger 6, Ranger 10, paladin 10, cleric 10, cleric 14, level 20 for pretty much everyone that isn't a paladin... but whatever. fewer dead levels is better.

But feats? Feats are just a continuation of the problem. If I'm a Great Weapon Sorcadin that needs 2 ASI's and 3 feats, multiclassing at level 4 is going to be the exact same cost/benefit analysis as before. Feats and ASI's are functionally synonymous in 5e for any build that needs either. This 'solution' is functionally the same as just giving every player a feat at first level so that they can get their cool builds online sooner. (Which is a great idea, btw, just not germain to this conversation.)

Until sorcerer 4 is fundamentally different from paladin 4 this problem will persist.

[rudy]

A thought that just occurred to me as a modification of my current system:

* ASIs or any feat at character levels 3, 7, 11, 15, 19.

* Feats at class levels 4, 8, 12, 16, 19 (extras for fighter/rogue); further these feats should be "appropriate" to the class they are taken for. (Combat feats for a fighter, casting or lore feats for a wizard, etc.) This can be entirely up to GM judgment, of course.

This does make for more powerful, versatile characters, but I've never found that to be a problem GMing, unless you are playing with more than 5 players, and why would you do that.

[Gwazi Magnum]

The concern with ASI's being class locked specifically is power modifiers. Every class has that one attribute that's the meat and butter of their build, where anything that delays it damages the character in their entirety. The purpose of separating ASI's from level's is for the purposes of addressing that.

I'm not sure I'd go about it by diluting the ASI's to only being +1 though. I found the switch to +2 or +1/+1 to be a much needed change compared to 3.5/PF (thank you 4th edition). Because beforehand with the +1 they still become empty levels half the time, where you get say your Dexterity from 14 to 15, that doesn't do anything. The only Ability Score is really changes things for it's Strength, which is a small carry weight increase, which really doesn't mean much unless you're a Grappler. Meanwhile with +2 you always guarantee you can get a gain somewhere, you could throw the +1's at two different even scores if you wanted, but at that point it's a choice made by you and not an option you're forced to do.

I don't actually mind high powered games though honestly. I find it actually gives the DM more tools to respond to with the players, because there's less concern about it potentially killing them.

[Theodoxus]

I don't understand the concern for dead levels, unless you're gonna take care of all of them...

Bard: 7th, 11th
Cleric: 3rd, 7th, 9th, 13th, 15th
Druid: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th
Paladin: 9th, 13th, 17th
Ranger: 9th, 13th, 17th
Sorcerer: 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th
Warlock: 5th, 7th, 9th, 18th
Wizard: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th

Sure, I know the first criticism is "hey, they're all like, casters and stuff, and so they're getting new and higher level spells at those "dead" levels." Yeah, and all the other classes are getting more rage, ki, sneak, etc.

So, complaining about dead levels when 75% of classes already have them is a tad childish. And it's not like you're not getting something if you decouple ASIs from class levels; if you don't like adding dead levels to the 4 classes that don't currently have them, don't MC - or only MC at the 4th level breaks... problem solved.

[Khrysaes]

I don't understand the concern for dead levels, unless you're gonna take care of all of them...

Bard: 7th, 11th
Cleric: 3rd, 7th, 9th, 13th, 15th
Druid: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th
Paladin: 9th, 13th, 17th
Ranger: 9th, 13th, 17th
Sorcerer: 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th
Warlock: 5th, 7th, 9th, 18th
Wizard: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th

Sure, I know the first criticism is "hey, they're all like, casters and stuff, and so they're getting new and higher level spells at those "dead" levels." Yeah, and all the other classes are getting more rage, ki, sneak, etc.

So, complaining about dead levels when 75% of classes already have them is a tad childish. And it's not like you're not getting something if you decouple ASIs from class levels; if you don't like adding dead levels to the 4 classes that don't currently have them, don't MC - or only MC at the 4th level breaks... problem solved.

Technically those aren't comepletely dead levels, they are levels that new spell levels are attained. except warlock 18.

[Mongobear]

Skipped all of the arguments and banter, so if this was already said, I apologize.

The OP's problem of uncoupling ASIs from class level likely isn't possible without completely throwing the balance of everything off. It will likely turn 5e into the MC dip mish-mash that was 3.X.

As I suggested much earlier, the best recourse is to uncouple ASIs from Feats, so that you don't have to give up one to get there other. The issue is just finding out the best levels to give Feats, whether it is a proficiency increase, cantrip buff level, or somewhere else is hard to say.

I personally went with the Cantrip boosting levels in my own game, and haven't seen anything wrong outside of slightly stronger characters than normal. And, I am not running into payers that are taking all of the most powerful Feats like GWM, PAM, etc. Most of my players are taking things like Actor, Linguist, Observant, and even Inspiring Leader/Savage Attacker.

[strangebloke]

Skipped all of the arguments and banter, so if this was already said, I apologize.

The OP's problem of uncoupling ASIs from class level likely isn't possible without completely throwing the balance of everything off. It will likely turn 5e into the MC dip mish-mash that was 3.X.

As I suggested much earlier, the best recourse is to uncouple ASIs from Feats, so that you don't have to give up one to get there other. The issue is just finding out the best levels to give Feats, whether it is a proficiency increase, cantrip buff level, or somewhere else is hard to say.

I personally went with the Cantrip boosting levels in my own game, and haven't seen anything wrong outside of slightly stronger characters than normal. And, I am not running into payers that are taking all of the most powerful Feats like GWM, PAM, etc. Most of my players are taking things like Actor, Linguist, Observant, and even Inspiring Leader/Savage Attacker.

I like this.


Technically those aren't comepletely dead levels, they are levels that new spell levels are attained. except warlock 18.

Even then, many of those levels only apply situational bonuses. Like, oooh, the ranger got 'hide in plain sight' and improved favored terrain guys, what a thrill level ten is.

[D-naras]

Why not just give characters a new skill proficiency when they would gain an ASI? This could be one from their class's list or any one. Alternately, give them half of a background every ASI (so 1 skill and tool proficiency and maybe the background's feature).

This grants a sense of progression as well, if you tie the background with the campaign. Say. if the party spends the first 4 levels working for a thieves' guild, they all become half urchins when they reach 4th level. Then if they spend levels 5-8 working for a temple, they gain some of the acolyte's benefits.

[Vaz]

Skipped all of the arguments and banter, so if this was already said, I apologize.

The OP's problem of uncoupling ASIs from class level likely isn't possible without completely throwing the balance of everything off. It will likely turn 5e into the MC dip mish-mash that was 3.X.

Can you source some multiclass min max combo dip mish mash that is broken?

Many dips were from PrC's or Classes which advanced or enhanced existing class features such as full BAB, Skills, or Spellcasting, or were heavily front loaded. Those few little dips that already exist, Fighter, Cleric Warlock, Rogue exist anyway.

There is also the fact that games don't really exist past 12th level; a few do sure, but the lack of content makes it hard for them to really be made on the fly for a night or making a continual narrative out of fighting the same half dozen end game monsters (counting dragons as one). So excess dipping can lead to delay of character concept or strength until much later in the game.

I'm playing a Hexblade/Paladin MC right now. What dip should I take to improve? Fighter 1? To give me Action Surge? Wizard 1 for rituals and Wizard 1sts? Cleric 1 for a few esoteric abilities? Or just advance, and get access to my 5th level Warlock spell slot sooner? Get access to my conjure Elementals sooner?

[Gwazi Magnum]

I don't understand the concern for dead levels, unless you're gonna take care of all of them...

Bard: 7th, 11th
Cleric: 3rd, 7th, 9th, 13th, 15th
Druid: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th
Paladin: 9th, 13th, 17th
Ranger: 9th, 13th, 17th
Sorcerer: 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th
Warlock: 5th, 7th, 9th, 18th
Wizard: 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th

Sure, I know the first criticism is "hey, they're all like, casters and stuff, and so they're getting new and higher level spells at those "dead" levels." Yeah, and all the other classes are getting more rage, ki, sneak, etc.

So, complaining about dead levels when 75% of classes already have them is a tad childish.

Not really, it's pointing out a very true difference. Those are immense power buffers over Martial Classes, this has been evident in every D&D edition (minus 4th). And yes, 5th has the Caster superiority as well, despite the claims it hasn't. It's been reduced from lesser spells per day and concentration so it's not nearly as bad, but it's still there. A Fighter can kill stuff, a Sorcerer can kill stuff, charm stuff, cast buffs, turn invisible etc.

So I'd say those spell levels more than count as being abilities that don't constitute empty levels.


It will likely turn 5e into the MC dip mish-mash that was 3.X.

And this is an issue because?

What broke PF/3.5 wasn't the act of multi-classing, it was the combination/synergy of those abilities in action due to how those abilities were designed. If multi-classing in itself lead to balance issues in 5th, well... then 5th edition already has the problem. Me connecting Ability Scores to levels wouldn't change that, because it wouldn't even be touching the thing actually at fault, class synergy.

So, unless if we're making the argument that Multi-Classing is already broken in Vanilla 5th edition? I can't really see Multi-Classing being an issue, at least from a gameplay/balance perspective. The only reason I can see for someone not liking Multi-Classing is simplicity.

Which granted, 5th Edition has drawn that audience. It's quick, easy and simple to be able to say "I'm the Fighter" and forget about it. Who is your character? Fighter. What does he do? Fighter. What does he do differently from other Fighters? Nothing, it's a Fighter. I get it, for some people they don't want to think much at the table. They wanted to be given something simple, easy to understand, easy to use, and have fun with their tropes, stereotypes and cardboard cut-outs. There's nothing wrong with that, sometimes you just need to turn your brain off and relax.

But... I don't think that's a valid argument for saying Multi-Classing/dipping in itself is bad, and something to be avoided as a whole, for any group. It simply means that some players don't care for it, and would rather not have to deal with it. Which is fine, but I've seen a lot of cool, interesting and fun characters come to play because players were willing to Multi-Class, and make new and unique concepts, rather than copying one of the standard cut outs of being a single class.

If that wasn't your concern/point and you were more looking at it from a balance perspective, then please correct me. Let me know what Multi-Class shenanigans can be opened (and only be opened) by moving ASI's to levels rather than class levels. It's just that often times when I hear people arguing Multi-Classing is bad, it's more coming from a subjective and personal preference of wanting simplicity, rather than a more objective and bigger pictured argument that can be used to apply to the system as a whole, so I figured I should address it sooner rather than later.


Many dips were from PrC's or Classes which advanced or enhanced existing class features such as full BAB, Skills, or Spellcasting, or were heavily front loaded. Those few little dips that already exist, Fighter, Cleric Warlock, Rogue exist anyway.

There is also the fact that games don't really exist past 12th level; a few do sure, but the lack of content makes it hard for them to really be made on the fly for a night or making a continual narrative out of fighting the same half dozen end game monsters (counting dragons as one). So excess dipping can lead to delay of character concept or strength until much later in the game.

I'm playing a Hexblade/Paladin MC right now. What dip should I take to improve? Fighter 1? To give me Action Surge? Wizard 1 for rituals and Wizard 1sts? Cleric 1 for a few esoteric abilities? Or just advance, and get access to my 5th level Warlock spell slot sooner? Get access to my conjure Elementals sooner?

^And this makes good points too.

There's very little I've seen in 5th Edition where Multi-Classing would result is far more powerful characters. It may lead to powerful combos, fun combos, unique and interesting combinations, but nothing that in the battlefield would perform much better (if at all) than a single classed character.

Like, the biggest thing I can think of is Barbarian/Rogue, using Reckless Attack to guarantee sneak attack damage.
But, for that you sacrifice Barbarian levels, making you more vulnerable and that Reckless Attack even more reckless, and you sacrifice Rogue levels, making the sneak attack weaker.

Meanwhile a pure Barbarian could tank longer, and give more reliable (and safer) damage with Rage.
Or a pure Rogue could learn a bit of tactics, positioning and teamwork, and become adept as setting up advantage for their sneak attacks without losing damage or becoming easier to hit.

Or you could go Barbarian 2/Melee Class X for Bear Totem, and game immense damage absorption. But that comes at the expense of Extra Attacks, Armour restrictions, potentially lower spell progression etc.

You could go Bard/Rogue like I'm doing in a campaign for a ton of skills. But your trade of their is less spells, and a much lower sneak attack.

It's pro's and con's, Multi-Class gives options, not superior options, not game breaking options, just options for those willing to think outside the box and be creative.


Why not just give characters a new skill proficiency when they would gain an ASI? This could be one from their class's list or any one. Alternately, give them half of a background every ASI (so 1 skill and tool proficiency and maybe the background's feature).

This grants a sense of progression as well, if you tie the background with the campaign. Say. if the party spends the first 4 levels working for a thieves' guild, they all become half urchins when they reach 4th level. Then if they spend levels 5-8 working for a temple, they gain some of the acolyte's benefits.

It's an interesting idea, but I think hard coding a universal system like that would make it too unflexible. You'd have to be massively railroading your players (usually) to keep them on the same plot line for long enough to persist over several levels.

Rather I'd probably treat it as a "DM's buffer" tool. Throw some extra skill proficienies at players when you think it'd be cool, or magic items, or whatever. But do it when it feels appropriate in the campaign, not because X level tells you to give them an RP reward.

[D-naras]

...
It's an interesting idea, but I think hard coding a universal system like that would make it too unflexible. You'd have to be massively railroading your players (usually) to keep them on the same plot line for long enough to persist over several levels.

Rather I'd probably treat it as a "DM's buffer" tool. Throw some extra skill proficienies at players when you think it'd be cool, or magic items, or whatever. But do it when it feels appropriate in the campaign, not because X level tells you to give them an RP reward.

Then don't make it an RP reward. Every ASI level, a class grants a single skill proficiency, a single tool proficiency or language and the background benefit of a single background that grants proficiency in any skill that you already have proficiency in. Most classes can be treated as backgrounds already so it shouldn't be much of a disconnect.

For example, I am a variant human urchin wizard with proficiency in Arcana, Investigation, Perception (human skill), Sleight of Hand and Stealth. At level 4, I pick History and Elven to be proficient in and also get the benefit of the Sage background because I am a level 4 Wizard and I know research.
Similarly, a dwarf noble barbarian with proficiencies in History, Persuasion, Intimidation and Athletics would choose Animal Handling and Vehicles (land) at level 4 and get the Soldier benefit because he is proficient in Athletics just like every soldier.

Seems nice to me. I may even pitch it to my DM to see what they think.