ASI's based on Character Level

[paladinn]

I know 3x gave ASI's based on Character level, while 5e gives based on Class level. Other than being a deterrent for multi-classing, why was this changed?

If you only get 20 total levels, I don't see why you can't go back to Character-level-ASI's.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I know 3x gave ASI's based on Character level, while 5e gives based on Class level. Other than being a deterrent for multi-classing, why was this changed?

If you only get 20 total levels, I don't see why you can't go back to Character-level-ASI's.

Because some classes get ASI's at different levels. Rogues get six and fighters get seven, while other classes get five.

[Teaguethebean]

I know 3x gave ASI's based on Character level, while 5e gives based on Class level. Other than being a deterrent for multi-classing, why was this changed?

If you only get 20 total levels, I don't see why you can't go back to Character-level-ASI's.

they did it because of the change to feats. Making them far more powerful but less available was a big change.

[Spacehamster]

they did it because of the change to feats. Making them far more powerful but less available was a big change.

What do you mean? Feats are more flavorful in this edition but compared to pathfinder or 3.5 where picking the right or wrong feats makes or breaks your character they are not that powerful?

ASI’s and feats should have been kept separate in my opinion, that is one of the changes they made that really annoys you, you can almost get the character you want but not quite with how few feat/asi you get.

[paladinn]

So would this work?

1. Make ASI's based on character level (again)

2. Separate feats from ASI's

3. For the "extra ASI's" that "generic" fighters and rogues get, let them choose a feat instead

4. Make feats martial-only, to balance out (some) with the casters. If you are part of a subclass that does spells, no feats.

Edit: rethinking this.. if we do this, a wizard could never use a sword.

Ok, if you're a martial, you get 5 ASI's And 1-2 martial feats. If you're a caster, you get 5 ASI's OR martial feats.

[Endal]

So I can understand the benefits of keeping this class-based, simply to use out levels that most people wouldn't worry about otherwise. Most classes get the bulk of their kick ass abilities by level 3 and then some strong flavor abilities after that. Making it so that you've gotta' grab that 4th level in the class to boost your stats means that you have a few less levels to multiclass like a god.

[Nagog]

So would this work?

1. Make ASI's based on character level (again)

2. Separate feats from ASI's

3. For the "extra ASI's" that "generic" fighters and rogues get, let them choose a feat instead

4. Make feats martial-only, to balance out (some) with the casters. If you are part of a subclass that does spells, no feats.

Edit: rethinking this.. if we do this, a wizard could never use a sword.

Ok, if you're a martial, you get 5 ASI's And 1-2 martial feats. If you're a caster, you get 5 ASI's OR martial feats.

That and any of the feats that deal with spellcasting would be moot. I'd change it so that the base 5 ASIs on Character Level, and the bonus ones granted to Fighters and Rogues based on levels in that class. Is that what you mean with your edit?

[paladinn]

That and any of the feats that deal with spellcasting would be moot. I'd change it so that the base 5 ASIs on Character Level, and the bonus ones granted to Fighters and Rogues based on levels in that class. Is that what you mean with your edit?

Gandalf, Elric and other wizard-types use a sword on occasion. It should be an option for a caster to get a feat to use such a weapon; but to get it, they have to give up an ASI.

For martials, they get the full 5 ASIs, the "extra ASI's" go for feats, period.

[Nagog]

Gandalf, Elric and other wizard-types use a sword on occasion. It should be an option for a caster to get a feat to use such a weapon; but to get it, they have to give up an ASI.

For martials, they get the full 5 ASIs, the "extra ASI's" go for feats, period.

Oh. Idk, I think the fighter/rogues ASI's should be open to choose as well, more particularly for the Fighter due to the MADness of trying to play a versatile fighter. To be good at both ranged and melee combat as a fighter, you need good Dex and Str, and you'll need Con either way. In typical Point-Buy systems, you'll need those bonuses if you ever want to max out all of them. Even if you don't want maxed in all three (for straight Dex Fighters), you'll want to have decent ability scores in the mental abilities to be able to use those skills effectively (and for Saves). In contrast, the vast majority of casting classes are SAD, so once you've maxed out your casting stat you're pretty much good to go stat-wise for high level play, and feats or auxiliary ability score buffs are the only thing left to them.

[Tiadoppler]

So would this work?

1. Make ASI's based on character level (again)

2. Separate feats from ASI's

3. For the "extra ASI's" that "generic" fighters and rogues get, let them choose a feat instead

4. Make feats martial-only, to balance out (some) with the casters. If you are part of a subclass that does spells, no feats.

Edit: rethinking this.. if we do this, a wizard could never use a sword.

Ok, if you're a martial, you get 5 ASI's And 1-2 martial feats. If you're a caster, you get 5 ASI's OR martial feats.

I don't understand what benefit this houserule gives.

It's a buff to low level multiclass dips (Low level dips no longer penalize your ASI progression). Issue is: low level dips are often very powerful already (that's why they're done: they give a big chunk of power or versatility from a couple levels in a class). Why make a powerful option even more powerful?

It reduces the options of fighters and rogues. They can't have 6-7 ASIs any more? They have to choose 1-2 feats?

It nerfs all of the 1/3 caster options for fighters and rogues. They lose access to 1-2 feats as part of the cost of becoming a 'caster'?

What's a martial feat? Are all feats now "martial feats"? Even Spell Sniper? Ritual Caster? Magic Initiate? Is there a separate category of magical feats?

What's a caster? What's a martial? There's no purely martial class in 5e. Even barbarians can create magical effects. Fighters, rogues and monks get subclasses with access to spells. This is made even messier because this houserule seems focused on multiclassing. A level 20 champion fighter gets 2 feats, but a level 19 champion fighter/level 1 ranger gets 0 feats, because ranger is a caster class?

[paladinn]

I don't understand what benefit this houserule gives.

It's a buff to low level multiclass dips (Low level dips no longer penalize your ASI progression). Issue is: low level dips are often very powerful already (that's why they're done: they give a big chunk of power or versatility from a couple levels in a class). Why make a powerful option even more powerful?

It reduces the options of fighters and rogues. They can't have 6-7 ASIs any more? They have to choose 1-2 feats?

It nerfs all of the 1/3 caster options for fighters and rogues. They lose access to 1-2 feats as part of the cost of becoming a 'caster'?

What's a martial feat? Are all feats now "martial feats"? Even Spell Sniper? Ritual Caster? Magic Initiate? Is there a separate category of magical feats?

What's a caster? What's a martial? There's no purely martial class in 5e. Even barbarians can create magical effects. Fighters, rogues and monks get subclasses with access to spells. This is made even messier because this houserule seems focused on multiclassing. A level 20 champion fighter gets 2 feats, but a level 19 champion fighter/level 1 ranger gets 0 feats, because ranger is a caster class?

Sorry, I should have 'splained. I'm trying to glean the best options from several versions of D&D to put together into an OSR-ish game. In this case, I want to adapt 5e's ASI/feat mechanic to allow non-casters to keep up (to some extent) with casters, but hopefully with less complexity and/or bookkeeping.

Thanks for your input!

[Tiadoppler]

Sorry, I should have 'splained. I'm trying to glean the best options from several versions of D&D to put together into an OSR-ish game. In this case, I want to adapt 5e's ASI/feat mechanic to allow non-casters to keep up (to some extent) with casters, but hopefully with less complexity and/or bookkeeping.

Thanks for your input!

I see. I'm assuming your game will have a distinct difference between casters and martials, and there won't be an issue of people multiclassing between a martial class and a caster class. If you used this houserule in a 5e game, you'd be buffing multiclass casters (especially warlock dips/sorlock/sorcadin/padlock) and giving martials (especially martials who have a little spellcasting ability) a noticeable nerf.

[paladinn]

I see. I'm assuming your game will have a distinct difference between casters and martials, and there won't be an issue of people multiclassing between a martial class and a caster class. If you used this houserule in a 5e game, you'd be buffing multiclass casters (especially warlock dips/sorlock/sorcadin/padlock) and giving martials (especially martials who have a little spellcasting ability) a noticeable nerf.

My game is built on a chassis of BX/Labyrinth Lord. Casters will have progression pretty much like 5e. Going to give fighters a fighting style at level 1, and at least 2 feats along the way. Still working out what else to give, but I want to keep it simple