Awful I hate it, it’s totally soured me on these books. if it was an actually 6e I could understand changes to smite, but it’s not it’s 5.1 they should only be adding things and streamlining things not taking things away, and definitely not taking away The main defining feature of paladins.
i’ve never had an issue with players doing too much damage at the table. It’s fun, It’s memorable I’m pulling for my player's and it really not that hard to deal with hold person and counter spell are way more encounter ruining then 78 damage . They should have brought other classes up rather than bringing paladins down. It really makes me worried about the whole design ethos, it’s already feeling really homogenized and uninspired.
Also just own it if your nerfing something into the ground say it tell us way don’t try and act like your doing us a favor with a free smite and horse spell. it felt insulting.
2) I'm glad your table never had an issue with it. That's great! That's what houserules are for, your group can bring multi-smite back. But people who are not you also play this game, and they did have a problem with it.
Awful I hate it, it’s totally soured me on these books. if it was an actually 6e I could understand changes to smite, but it’s not it’s 5.1 they should only be adding things and streamlining things not taking things away, and definitely not taking away The main defining feature of paladins.
i’ve never had an issue with players doing too much damage at the table. It’s fun, It’s memorable I’m pulling for my player's and it really not that hard to deal with hold person and counter spell are way more encounter ruining then 78 damage . They should have brought other classes up rather than bringing paladins down. It really makes me worried about the whole design ethos, it’s already feeling really homogenized and uninspired.
Also just own it if your nerfing something into the ground say it tell us way don’t try and act like your doing us a favor with a free smite and horse spell. it felt insulting.
i know how you feel bud. Just remember these books are guide lines and you dont have to listen to them. tho it does make me worried about ranger bc in the last playtest ranger looked bad and not in the good way
Awful I hate it, it’s totally soured me on these books. if it was an actually 6e I could understand changes to smite, but it’s not it’s 5.1 they should only be adding things and streamlining things not taking things away, and definitely not taking away The main defining feature of paladins.
i’ve never had an issue with players doing too much damage at the table. It’s fun, It’s memorable I’m pulling for my player's and it really not that hard to deal with hold person and counter spell are way more encounter ruining then 78 damage . They should have brought other classes up rather than bringing paladins down. It really makes me worried about the whole design ethos, it’s already feeling really homogenized and uninspired.
Also just own it if your nerfing something into the ground say it tell us way don’t try and act like your doing us a favor with a free smite and horse spell. it felt insulting.
2) I'm glad your table never had an issue with it. That's great! That's what houserules are for, your group can bring multi-smite back. But people who are not you also play this game, and they did have a problem with it.
So we are required to play by the 2024 PHB, then, regardless? Pretty sure there is no actual requirement to adopt anything from the new core books, any more than those who still play any earlier editions were in any way required to buy more recent editions than they play.
In the context of once-per-turn smites “wrecking” the Paladin, I mentioned the change to my son, who loves playing Paladins. His response: “I didn’t know that you could use it multiple times.”
Yay for "variant", that has a great history on DDB. Anyways, wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
I don’t think it’s a miscommunication. They showed the pages with each background giving 3 choices for ability scores.
This was my first thought, too, is it locks you in to a “correct” background for each class. Or at least a couple the are most correct. But then I thought actually, it might make sense. If you were an acolyte (choose to boost int, wis or cha) and got drummed out of your religious order, or left for some reason, it stands to reason you’d have better mental stats since that’s how you spent your time. It seems reasonable you won’t have as high a str score as someone who did lots of physical stuff in some other background. That’s the trade off you make for playing against type. You’re primary ability will be a little lower, but you’ll have proficiency in different skills that will make you more well-rounded. And practically, we’re talking about having a 15 str for the acolyte vs a 16 or 17 for the other, so you’re only 1 point behind in terms of your modifier. I know the math says that makes a big difference, but I doubt you’ll really notice it.
But, as with all of these changes, I don’t think we’ll really know until we see it in play.
It makes sense, but so did the attributes being tied to race (well, physical ones, just like mental ones make more sense tied to background). Their reasoning for abandoning the linked-to-race was that they claimed that they never envisioned people being bound to "certain correct choices" by it. And that's a valid argument - it's ultimately why I changed from "you must take the ASIs given by your race" to "just pick whatever you want,.no need to feel like you can't be a Fairy Barbarian if that's what you want to play". But this flies in the face of that and is marginally better.
As I said, I'm all for suggestions, but it feel regressive to be coming back here again (the many, many acrimonious posts and threads about this doesn't improve the taste in my mouth either). The only thing that really matters though (since it's really easy to house rule away) is whether they try to lock the ability to override it on DDB behind a purchase like they did with Tasha's. That's going to bug me if they do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In the context of once-per-turn smites “wrecking” the Paladin, I mentioned the change to my son, who loves playing Paladins. His response: “I didn’t know that you could use it multiple times.”
Frankly, to me, most of the "Once per turn" limits have always felt artificial to me. Much as I like 5e, it still feels overly conservative in a lot of ways.
And note, these limits are in place despite constant lamenting and hand-wringing over how much more powerful casters are than melee....
As I said, I'm all for suggestions, but it feel regressive to be coming back here again (the many, many acrimonious posts and threads about this doesn't improve the taste in my mouth either). The only thing that really matters though (since it's really easy to house rule away) is whether they try to lock the ability to override it on DDB behind a purchase like they did with Tasha's. That's going to bug me if they do.
The override/custom rule is going to be in the DMG, so presumably someone in your campaign is going to need that. That would be my guess anyway, unless they simply code it into the background choice itself.
Yay for "variant", that has a great history on DDB. Anyways, wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
I don’t think it’s a miscommunication. They showed the pages with each background giving 3 choices for ability scores.
This was my first thought, too, is it locks you in to a “correct” background for each class. Or at least a couple the are most correct. But then I thought actually, it might make sense. If you were an acolyte (choose to boost int, wis or cha) and got drummed out of your religious order, or left for some reason, it stands to reason you’d have better mental stats since that’s how you spent your time. It seems reasonable you won’t have as high a str score as someone who did lots of physical stuff in some other background. That’s the trade off you make for playing against type. You’re primary ability will be a little lower, but you’ll have proficiency in different skills that will make you more well-rounded. And practically, we’re talking about having a 15 str for the acolyte vs a 16 or 17 for the other, so you’re only 1 point behind in terms of your modifier. I know the math says that makes a big difference, but I doubt you’ll really notice it.
But, as with all of these changes, I don’t think we’ll really know until we see it in play.
It makes sense, but so did the attributes being tied to race (well, physical ones, just like mental ones make more sense tied to background). Their reasoning for abandoning the linked-to-race was that they claimed that they never envisioned people being bound to "certain correct choices" by it. And that's a valid argument - it's ultimately why I changed from "you must take the ASIs given by your race" to "just pick whatever you want,.no need to feel like you can't be a Fairy Barbarian if that's what you want to play". But this flies in the face of that and is marginally better.
As I said, I'm all for suggestions, but it feel regressive to be coming back here again (the many, many acrimonious posts and threads about this doesn't improve the taste in my mouth either). The only thing that really matters though (since it's really easy to house rule away) is whether they try to lock the ability to override it on DDB behind a purchase like they did with Tasha's. That's going to bug me if they do.
I agree that I don’t love it, but also I don’t hate it. In your example, you can still be a fairy barbarian as easily as an orc barbarian. It’s just being an acolyte barbarian that would make you weaker. So, they’ve gotten away from the idea that some species are just born to be better at some things (which is good, imo) and swapped it for people who had some jobs in the past will be better at some things. I don’t love it, but it makes sense. When you switch careers, some skills you developed are transferable and others aren’t. If you spent your days as a flunkie in a temple somewhere, why would you have a higher str score? Where it can fall apart, with acolyte specifically, is what if it were the god of strength where you were a flunkie? Then a str boost could really make sense. But then hopefully that the kind of thing the customers m rules in the DMG will fix.
I agree that I don’t love it, but also I don’t hate it. In your example, you can still be a fairy barbarian as easily as an orc barbarian. It’s just being an acolyte barbarian that would make you weaker. So, they’ve gotten away from the idea that some species are just born to be better at some things (which is good, imo) and swapped it for people who had some jobs in the past will be better at some things. I don’t love it, but it makes sense. When you switch careers, some skills you developed are transferable and others aren’t. If you spent your days as a flunkie in a temple somewhere, why would you have a higher str score? Where it can fall apart, with acolyte specifically, is what if it were the god of strength where you were a flunkie? Then a str boost could really make sense. But then hopefully that the kind of thing the customers m rules in the DMG will fix.
Adding to this, I would argue that acolytes of the god of strength probably have a very different upbringing than most other temple acolytes do, so another background would probably be more appropriate even if you were nominally an acolyte.
The Fairy Barbarian was specifically a pre-Tasha's 2014e problem, but I foresee similar issues with Backgrounds in 2024 - it's hard to make specific examples because I haven't seen the specifics and I'm criticising the principle. But to run with the acolyte example, what if your backstory is that you were a brute that saved the life of the head of the order, was inducted to provide you with a cushty life, but found it all difficult and left - the equipment and possibly feat would match, but the ASIs not. Or you're a brainy whelp that was drafted into the army and only survived by making buddies with Andre the Giant, so the veteran or soldier background may well match...but the ASIs don't.
I don't think these are going to be rare exceptions, most characters have something like that which bucks the tropes - it's what makes for an interesting character. I don't think you should have to buy the DMG to make those characters (nor have to bodge the data entry).
It also feels like WotC and I have swapped sides on this issue of whether players should be able to define their characters or not. Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The Fairy Barbarian was specifically a pre-Tasha's 2014e problem, but I foresee similar issues with Backgrounds in 2024 - it's hard to make specific examples because I haven't seen the specifics and I'm criticising the principle. But to run with the acolyte example, what if your backstory is that you were a brute that saved the life of the head of the order, was inducted to provide you with a cushty life, but found it all difficult and left - the equipment and possibly feat would match, but the ASIs not. Or you're a brainy whelp that was drafted into the army and only survived by making buddies with Andre the Giant, so the veteran or soldier background may well match...but the ASIs don't.
I don't think these are going to be rare exceptions, most characters have something like that which bucks the tropes - it's what makes for an interesting character. I don't think you should have to buy the DMG to make those characters (nor have to bodge the data entry).
It also feels like WotC and I have swapped sides on this issue of whether players should be able to define their characters or not. Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
Somewhat limited flexibility on assigning a couple pluses to your stats hardly "defines" your character
Plus, a brainy whelp in the army can probably take a smuggler background rather than soldier to better fit them being the scrounger for their unit, or whatever
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Honestly all of the changes are awesome save for the bonus-action-smite. I think making it once per turn and a spell is more than enough to limit its nova potential, it doesn't also need to anti-synergize with all of the paladin's bonus action spells, the changed lay on hands and feats like Polearm Master. I'd honestly prefer a damage nerf over the action economy nerf.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
The Fairy Barbarian was specifically a pre-Tasha's 2014e problem, but I foresee similar issues with Backgrounds in 2024 - it's hard to make specific examples because I haven't seen the specifics and I'm criticising the principle. But to run with the acolyte example, what if your backstory is that you were a brute that saved the life of the head of the order, was inducted to provide you with a cushty life, but found it all difficult and left - the equipment and possibly feat would match, but the ASIs not. Or you're a brainy whelp that was drafted into the army and only survived by making buddies with Andre the Giant, so the veteran or soldier background may well match...but the ASIs don't.
I don't think these are going to be rare exceptions, most characters have something like that which bucks the tropes - it's what makes for an interesting character. I don't think you should have to buy the DMG to make those characters (nor have to bodge the data entry).
It also feels like WotC and I have swapped sides on this issue of whether players should be able to define their characters or not. Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
I do agree with you in principal; I much prefer flexibility. Though in your example, it seems like you were something before you joined the temple — something that made you a brute — so maybe a different background is a better choice.
But I’m not trying to argue, really. I’m just thinking I’ll reserve judgment until I see all the choices in context. But I do agree I’m hoping there’s room for more flexibility than it seems from the drips of info we’ve gotten.
But to run with the acolyte example, what if your backstory is that you were a brute that saved the life of the head of the order, was inducted to provide you with a cushty life, but found it all difficult and left - the equipment and possibly feat would match, but the ASIs not. Or you're a brainy whelp that was drafted into the army and only survived by making buddies with Andre the Giant, so the veteran or soldier background may well match...but the ASIs don't.
These seem specific / improbable enough that you should have little trouble making a case to your DM for the custom background option.
If it's AL you're worried about, we have no idea what the plan is for that yet.
Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
Why would the players need to buy the DMG? Wouldn't the DM in a given campaign have it? That seems like a reasonable expectation.
But to run with the acolyte example, what if your backstory is that you were a brute that saved the life of the head of the order, was inducted to provide you with a cushty life, but found it all difficult and left - the equipment and possibly feat would match, but the ASIs not. Or you're a brainy whelp that was drafted into the army and only survived by making buddies with Andre the Giant, so the veteran or soldier background may well match...but the ASIs don't.
These seem specific / improbable enough that you should have little trouble making a case to your DM for the custom background option.
If it's AL you're worried about, we have no idea what the plan is for that yet.
Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
Why would the players need to buy the DMG? Wouldn't the DM in a given campaign have it? That seems like a reasonable expectation.
This also doesn't seem like they are an acolyte. They were a brute of some kind first that got linked to the temple in some way but that doesn't mean your background is that of an acolyte. Soldier, Folk hero, Farmer, Miner, something along those lines sound much more in line with the brute character that happened into this sort of thing.
Although not thrilled about the other changes, I do like making Paladin Smites Bonus Actions. In fact in my feedback throughout the testing, I recommended making the special damage of every class into a Bonus Action to prevent someone from being able to combine all of the following into a single attack:
By making them bonus actions, you lower the Alpha strike, but enable them to have damage boosts available longer into the fight - if you force them to choose which one to use, instead of piling all of them onto a single hit. It would also help reduce the number of munchkins out there (characters with 2-3 levels of multiple classes just to stack their best damage abilities).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
Why would the players need to buy the DMG? Wouldn't the DM in a given campaign have it? That seems like a reasonable expectation.
That's only a solution if you have a DM on here, that has the DMG, and someone has a subscription. For like literally 90%+ of the time I've been on DDB, I've not had access to any subscription (either my own or been in a campaign with someone who does) or had the DMG/TCoE on DDB myself. I got them in a sale a few months ago. For most of my characters, I've not had access to the official way of changing ASIs on here. Most of my players in my campaigns wouldn't either. Nor do I think it should paygated either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
Why would the players need to buy the DMG? Wouldn't the DM in a given campaign have it? That seems like a reasonable expectation.
That's only a solution if you have a DM on here, that has the DMG, and someone has a subscription. For like literally 90%+ of the time I've been on DDB, I've not had access to any subscription (either my own or been in a campaign with someone who does) or had the DMG/TCoE on DDB myself. I got them in a sale a few months ago. For most of my characters, I've not had access to the official way of changing ASIs on here. Most of my players in my campaigns wouldn't either. Nor do I think it should paygated either.
I hear you, but even in the worst case scenario where the DMG is needed for that option, every player running out to buy their own DMG seems less cost-effective than buying a single DMG and a subscription. You can even cancel it after character creation, it's not like they'll nuke your character from orbit afterward.
For most of my characters, I've not had access to the official way of changing ASIs on here. Most of my players in my campaigns wouldn't either. Nor do I think it should paygated either.
Wait. Can't you just manually add other pluses/minuses on the Abilities page of character creation to redo the "official" ASIs?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) They did tell us why.
2) I'm glad your table never had an issue with it. That's great! That's what houserules are for, your group can bring multi-smite back. But people who are not you also play this game, and they did have a problem with it.
i know how you feel bud. Just remember these books are guide lines and you dont have to listen to them. tho it does make me worried about ranger bc in the last playtest ranger looked bad and not in the good way
So we are required to play by the 2024 PHB, then, regardless? Pretty sure there is no actual requirement to adopt anything from the new core books, any more than those who still play any earlier editions were in any way required to buy more recent editions than they play.
In the context of once-per-turn smites “wrecking” the Paladin, I mentioned the change to my son, who loves playing Paladins. His response: “I didn’t know that you could use it multiple times.”
It makes sense, but so did the attributes being tied to race (well, physical ones, just like mental ones make more sense tied to background). Their reasoning for abandoning the linked-to-race was that they claimed that they never envisioned people being bound to "certain correct choices" by it. And that's a valid argument - it's ultimately why I changed from "you must take the ASIs given by your race" to "just pick whatever you want,.no need to feel like you can't be a Fairy Barbarian if that's what you want to play". But this flies in the face of that and is marginally better.
As I said, I'm all for suggestions, but it feel regressive to be coming back here again (the many, many acrimonious posts and threads about this doesn't improve the taste in my mouth either). The only thing that really matters though (since it's really easy to house rule away) is whether they try to lock the ability to override it on DDB behind a purchase like they did with Tasha's. That's going to bug me if they do.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Frankly, to me, most of the "Once per turn" limits have always felt artificial to me. Much as I like 5e, it still feels overly conservative in a lot of ways.
And note, these limits are in place despite constant lamenting and hand-wringing over how much more powerful casters are than melee....
No? Not sure how you got that from my post, I didn't mention anything being "required."
The override/custom rule is going to be in the DMG, so presumably someone in your campaign is going to need that. That would be my guess anyway, unless they simply code it into the background choice itself.
I agree that I don’t love it, but also I don’t hate it.
In your example, you can still be a fairy barbarian as easily as an orc barbarian. It’s just being an acolyte barbarian that would make you weaker.
So, they’ve gotten away from the idea that some species are just born to be better at some things (which is good, imo) and swapped it for people who had some jobs in the past will be better at some things. I don’t love it, but it makes sense. When you switch careers, some skills you developed are transferable and others aren’t. If you spent your days as a flunkie in a temple somewhere, why would you have a higher str score?
Where it can fall apart, with acolyte specifically, is what if it were the god of strength where you were a flunkie? Then a str boost could really make sense. But then hopefully that the kind of thing the customers m rules in the DMG will fix.
Adding to this, I would argue that acolytes of the god of strength probably have a very different upbringing than most other temple acolytes do, so another background would probably be more appropriate even if you were nominally an acolyte.
The Fairy Barbarian was specifically a pre-Tasha's 2014e problem, but I foresee similar issues with Backgrounds in 2024 - it's hard to make specific examples because I haven't seen the specifics and I'm criticising the principle. But to run with the acolyte example, what if your backstory is that you were a brute that saved the life of the head of the order, was inducted to provide you with a cushty life, but found it all difficult and left - the equipment and possibly feat would match, but the ASIs not. Or you're a brainy whelp that was drafted into the army and only survived by making buddies with Andre the Giant, so the veteran or soldier background may well match...but the ASIs don't.
I don't think these are going to be rare exceptions, most characters have something like that which bucks the tropes - it's what makes for an interesting character. I don't think you should have to buy the DMG to make those characters (nor have to bodge the data entry).
It also feels like WotC and I have swapped sides on this issue of whether players should be able to define their characters or not. Again, easy enough to run how you want if they allow you to just pick on DDB, but players shouldn't be pressured into buying the DMG just for that feature.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Somewhat limited flexibility on assigning a couple pluses to your stats hardly "defines" your character
Plus, a brainy whelp in the army can probably take a smuggler background rather than soldier to better fit them being the scrounger for their unit, or whatever
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Honestly all of the changes are awesome save for the bonus-action-smite. I think making it once per turn and a spell is more than enough to limit its nova potential, it doesn't also need to anti-synergize with all of the paladin's bonus action spells, the changed lay on hands and feats like Polearm Master. I'd honestly prefer a damage nerf over the action economy nerf.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
I do agree with you in principal; I much prefer flexibility.
Though in your example, it seems like you were something before you joined the temple — something that made you a brute — so maybe a different background is a better choice.
But I’m not trying to argue, really. I’m just thinking I’ll reserve judgment until I see all the choices in context. But I do agree I’m hoping there’s room for more flexibility than it seems from the drips of info we’ve gotten.
These seem specific / improbable enough that you should have little trouble making a case to your DM for the custom background option.
If it's AL you're worried about, we have no idea what the plan is for that yet.
Why would the players need to buy the DMG? Wouldn't the DM in a given campaign have it? That seems like a reasonable expectation.
This also doesn't seem like they are an acolyte. They were a brute of some kind first that got linked to the temple in some way but that doesn't mean your background is that of an acolyte. Soldier, Folk hero, Farmer, Miner, something along those lines sound much more in line with the brute character that happened into this sort of thing.
Although not thrilled about the other changes, I do like making Paladin Smites Bonus Actions. In fact in my feedback throughout the testing, I recommended making the special damage of every class into a Bonus Action to prevent someone from being able to combine all of the following into a single attack:
Weapon Damage + Spell Damage + Smite + Channel Divinity + Hex + Sneak Attack
By making them bonus actions, you lower the Alpha strike, but enable them to have damage boosts available longer into the fight - if you force them to choose which one to use, instead of piling all of them onto a single hit. It would also help reduce the number of munchkins out there (characters with 2-3 levels of multiple classes just to stack their best damage abilities).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The overall "alpha strike" of that is nerfed by the multiclass spread you'd need to make that work, relative to the level you're fighting at.
That's only a solution if you have a DM on here, that has the DMG, and someone has a subscription. For like literally 90%+ of the time I've been on DDB, I've not had access to any subscription (either my own or been in a campaign with someone who does) or had the DMG/TCoE on DDB myself. I got them in a sale a few months ago. For most of my characters, I've not had access to the official way of changing ASIs on here. Most of my players in my campaigns wouldn't either. Nor do I think it should paygated either.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I hear you, but even in the worst case scenario where the DMG is needed for that option, every player running out to buy their own DMG seems less cost-effective than buying a single DMG and a subscription. You can even cancel it after character creation, it's not like they'll nuke your character from orbit afterward.
Wait. Can't you just manually add other pluses/minuses on the Abilities page of character creation to redo the "official" ASIs?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)