Quote Originally Posted by dmhelp View Post
I already have a lot of house rules (eg frenzy buff, weapon spec for champion, etc) so I like the simplest change that gets things done.....
Extra ASI handouts on a GM perception and fiat basis is anything but a rule. Monks are over/underpowered, fighters are... this claims to address stuff but cannot be relied upon for any objective comparisons. As a player reading that bit of guidance I’d note the following.

1. The benefit is delayed, pending delivery based on poor performance.
2. The benefit is not a known quantity in advance.
3. Each successive ASI is less valuable than the previous one, and in T3-4 generally pale in comparison to class features.

I see no reason to jump for a single class option when a multiclass provides the tools to better shape my desired character. I know what I’m getting and when with the MC, the single class probably dwindles to just +stats, and they’re not even all guaranteed here!

The multiclass rule is rather naked in pushing a very particular way of building a character. It’s a solution in search of a problem. Why does there need to be this minor benefit (ASI) to fitting inside the dotted lines? It’s not generally sufficient to encourage that exact split.

The extra attack change portion of the MC rule is far from minor. With how pretty much all martial classes are frontloaded this is an interesting if narrow fix to WotCs kludge, but it may lead to a great many MC characters springing up in place of the single classed options. However past a point I don’t see a reason to keep the split, once a class is self sustaining on the extra attack you can just break the arbitrary ratio to pursue the features you want. You don’t take a class to X because that’s the way it should be done, you take it until it stops giving you stuff you care about and then you chase down other stuff.