Hey, I surprisingly haven't seen this addressed anywhere.
There is nothing I've found (hoping there's an easy answer and I just missed it in the rules) that addresses the "Ability Score Improvement" acquisition for multiclass characters, like the one for Proficiency Bonus ("Proficiency Bonus Your proficiency bonus is always based on your total character level, as shown in the Character Advancement table in chapter 1, not your level in a particular class. For example, if you are a fighter 3/rogue 2, you have the proficiency bonus of a 5th-level character, which is +3".)
All regular characters get an "Ability Score Improvement" at 19th level ... except *some* multiclass. When putting a character in through the online character creation, you only get the "Ability Score Improvement"s at the individual class levels. So, a 4/16 sorcerer/ warlock gets 5 "Ability Score Improvement"s; but the same character at 5/15, only gets 4 "Ability Score Improvement"s.
So, such a character multiclassing at 1/19, 4/16, 8/12, 12/8, 16/4, or 19/1 gets 5 "Ability Score Improvement" options. All other combinations come out with 4 "Ability Score Improvement" options.
Is this on purpose or just a hiccup that hasn't been addressed yet?
Proficiency Bonus is special, in that, as noted, it increases by character level, not class level. Every other feature you get from a class, including ASIs, is received when you reach the level in that class where you'd receive the class feature.
Most (single) classes get ASIs on the 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th level progression, but some don't - Fighter and Rogue in particular.
What you're observing on different multiclass combinations is based on the official rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I see your point; but, my point is the rules have a minor flaw that could be easily addressed.
So, who can we send a letter to, to see if this just fell through the cracks or was just never brought up by designers and testers? I find it hard to believe that people would put so much work into designing a game system and choose to leave a disturbingly arbitrary item, like this. Why would you design a system where the same character would gain or lose a major ability, simply by shifting a level up or down? Every single even split multiclass (10/10) is effectively penalized in the ASI realm ... especially if multiclassing classes other than fighters and rogues (11 of 13 or 85% of the main classes); where over two-thirds (well, 13 of 19 or 68%) of the level combinations yield at least one less ASI than literally every other player character design ... 4 instead of 5. So, you have to choose to have an altered and rather specific (only about 1/3 of possible combos) level split to just get the minimum that every other character gets. (no, not going into 3 or more class multiclasses but the general concepts apply)
Let's consider the Fighter/Rogue, one of the most basic multiclasses since D&D began: F10/R10 = 5 ASIs ... F12/R8 (also 9/11 or 11/9) = 6 ASIs ... F8/R12 = 7 ASIs.
>>> The minimum "standard" feat allocation, as you pointed out, is 4/8/12/16/19 ... 5 ASIs. Soooo ... make that true. All characters get ASIs at character levels 4/8/12/16/19. These apply just like Proficiency Levels. The additional ASIs that some classes have get rebranded class specific BASIs ... Bonus ASIs. The Fighter class gets a Bonus ASI at 6th and 14th level ... the Rogue gets a Bonus ASI at 10th level. <<<
It still ends up being the same per-class distribution; but, you don't have to force players to either choose to alter their desired level split or be penalized for sticking to their RPG character concept.
I understand that the standard argument is ... "Well, these are the rules, just play your own homebrew version like you laid out." But that's not the point. The point is game balance and fair play. The point is to make it viable for all play and fair across all characters.
As fantastic as any design is, there are always ways to tune them up. (Tell me there's even a handful of people who could have done a better job than Jackson did with the LotR movies. Then tell me you can't find a handful of things that would have made the movies better. That's life. Microsoft figured it out. Make a great new design, then use all your consumers as the beta testers, to find ways to make your product even better. 5e designers are already doing that in the new supplements. The reason that 2nd Edition D&D existed to begin with is that all of us who played D&D, from the first book and then the expanded AD&D, kept creating/tuning/using so many good concepts (what you would classify as Homebrew) in our own games, at conventions, submitted to Dragon magazine, etc. that they "needed" to become part of the available rules for all new players. Game balance and fair play have always been a big deal. It's why so many ideas get accepted or rejected. This is one area of the current 5e design that I and my extended gaming family think needs to be repaired. We think if the designers really give it an honest think of their own, they may see it that way, too.
If you actually read this whole diatribe, thanks from all of us. Regardless, thanks anyway for your input.
You haven't even looked at the features each class gets at particular levels, which multiclassing also delays access to, and can be much more important than ASIs. Your Fighter 10 / Rogue 10 only has 1 Extra Attack and 5d6 Sneak Attack dice, and doesn't get Reliable Talent. Your F12 / R8 has 2 Extra Attacks but 4d6 Sneak Attack, while your F8 / R12 has Reliable Talent and 6d6 Sneak Attack but 1 Extra Attack and no Indomitable.
You also haven't looked at the differences in what proficiencies you get from starting in a class versus multiclassing into it. Starting as a Fighter instead of Rogue means 1 less Rogue skill proficiency. Starting as a Rogue instead of Fighter means no heavy armor proficiency.
My point is, it's not a design decision that fell through the cracks. You will always be losing out on something by multiclassing. And that's intentional. But you're also not required to even-split your multiclassing, the way earlier editions did. So you can "dip" into a class that gives great benefits at low levels if you so decide, at the cost of some progression in your starting class.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I hear what you’re saying; but, it does not address the issue. Also, why would you assume we wouldn’t have looked at all aspects of multiclassing, as being discussed. Of course we did. Multiclassing has always had trade offs; that’s past obvious. Among us, we have played pretty much all aspects of it, for the last 40 years or so, from AD&D through all iterations, and now 5e. That’s not including experience with at least 10 other RPG gaming systems, including experience building and testing new systems. You’re not dealing with little kids or wet behind the ears teenagers.
The point isn’t trade-offs. The point is even play across the system. ASI’s, as a concept, are predicated on the evolution of the character. It’s why it’s near identical across classes, with a standardized minimum of ASI’s at levels 4/8/12/16/19. It makes no sense that simply multi-classing should change that standardized minimum pattern. If 5e was designed like earlier games, it might make sense. In those systems, multi-classed characters would eventually acquire the same number of standardized benefits, just a bit more slowly, eventually hitting 40th level (well, 38th would do it). But that is not the way 5e is built. 5e is built on a capped 20th level character concept. All character class combinations are equally 20th level… regardless of individual class levels. The chapter on Tiers of Play, lays out that concept. It makes no sense to treat the standard 20th (19th) level ASI distribution any differently than the proficiency advancement. Advancement in abilities … getting smarter/stronger/etc. … is not a character class concept, it’s a character development concept. The same is true for feats; they are not class concepts … they are often race-based concepts, even more specifically not class-based. So, making the standardized minimum growth of ASIs dependent on specific class distribution, again, makes no sense.
The way ASIs are built into 5e are class concepts. It represents an investment into a class and its training as opposed to overall character. Your definition of ASIs is consistent with prior editions, but with 5th, that changed.
It's not a flaw, its a design decision.
Can we move this into either like General or Rules? This isn't a bug, its intentional game design.
So you start off your career as a body builder. You go to the gym daily and pump iron to get buff. Then one day you see the movie Ghost. And the scene with Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore at the pottery wheel seems really cool and romantic and such, so you stop going to the gym every day and instead start making vases. After months of spinning out hundreds of vases, pots, ash trays, whatever, you look down and decry "Hey! why didn't my biceps get any bigger?"
Answer: You did not continue training as a body builder (you stopped gaining levels) so you didn't get your ASI to beef up those biceps. However, you spent enough time (levels) to get your pottery ASI and you have better manual Dexterity.
ASI's are class dependent, not character dependent by design, as others have pointed out. And Multiclassing is optional. So there are trade offs, and ASI's are one of them. Plan wisely.
It makes no sense to treat the standard 20th (19th) level ASI distribution any differently than the proficiency advancement. Advancement in abilities … getting smarter/stronger/etc. … is not a character class concept, it’s a character development concept.
It's fine that you think they should standardize it, but that opinion is not proof they should change the way they designed it.
I think the rules were written to reflect that getting smarter/stronger/etc. is something you have to deliberately choose to do, and I tend to agree with that. **lighter tone: my metabolism worked for most of my life but broke down after we had our second kid and I'm in my post-40 years--I'm now discovering just how deliberate you have to be if you want to improve your str/dex/con...
My opinion? Proficiency bonus advancement is a decent system to provide a moderating influence on the balance between classes. Making ASI's one of many features that you can gain depending on which class levels you take is a good decision. I think you did identify a fluke--in that usually 5e makes features underpowered. But I don't think it's something that rises to the level of needing to be fixed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hey, I surprisingly haven't seen this addressed anywhere.
There is nothing I've found (hoping there's an easy answer and I just missed it in the rules) that addresses the "Ability Score Improvement" acquisition for multiclass characters, like the one for Proficiency Bonus ("Proficiency Bonus Your proficiency bonus is always based on your total character level, as shown in the Character Advancement table in chapter 1, not your level in a particular class. For example, if you are a fighter 3/rogue 2, you have the proficiency bonus of a 5th-level character, which is +3".)
All regular characters get an "Ability Score Improvement" at 19th level ... except *some* multiclass. When putting a character in through the online character creation, you only get the "Ability Score Improvement"s at the individual class levels. So, a 4/16 sorcerer/ warlock gets 5 "Ability Score Improvement"s; but the same character at 5/15, only gets 4 "Ability Score Improvement"s.
So, such a character multiclassing at 1/19, 4/16, 8/12, 12/8, 16/4, or 19/1 gets 5 "Ability Score Improvement" options. All other combinations come out with 4 "Ability Score Improvement" options.
Is this on purpose or just a hiccup that hasn't been addressed yet?
Thanks!
Ben
Proficiency Bonus is special, in that, as noted, it increases by character level, not class level. Every other feature you get from a class, including ASIs, is received when you reach the level in that class where you'd receive the class feature.
Most (single) classes get ASIs on the 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th level progression, but some don't - Fighter and Rogue in particular.
What you're observing on different multiclass combinations is based on the official rules.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I see your point; but, my point is the rules have a minor flaw that could be easily addressed.
So, who can we send a letter to, to see if this just fell through the cracks or was just never brought up by designers and testers? I find it hard to believe that people would put so much work into designing a game system and choose to leave a disturbingly arbitrary item, like this. Why would you design a system where the same character would gain or lose a major ability, simply by shifting a level up or down? Every single even split multiclass (10/10) is effectively penalized in the ASI realm ... especially if multiclassing classes other than fighters and rogues (11 of 13 or 85% of the main classes); where over two-thirds (well, 13 of 19 or 68%) of the level combinations yield at least one less ASI than literally every other player character design ... 4 instead of 5. So, you have to choose to have an altered and rather specific (only about 1/3 of possible combos) level split to just get the minimum that every other character gets. (no, not going into 3 or more class multiclasses but the general concepts apply)
Let's consider the Fighter/Rogue, one of the most basic multiclasses since D&D began: F10/R10 = 5 ASIs ... F12/R8 (also 9/11 or 11/9) = 6 ASIs ... F8/R12 = 7 ASIs.
Fighter/Mage ... sorry Fighter/Wizard: F9-11/W11-9 = 5 ASIs ... F8/W12 or F12/W8 = 6 ASIs.
What gets me is that the fix is incredibly easy:
>>> The minimum "standard" feat allocation, as you pointed out, is 4/8/12/16/19 ... 5 ASIs. Soooo ... make that true. All characters get ASIs at character levels 4/8/12/16/19. These apply just like Proficiency Levels. The additional ASIs that some classes have get rebranded class specific BASIs ... Bonus ASIs. The Fighter class gets a Bonus ASI at 6th and 14th level ... the Rogue gets a Bonus ASI at 10th level. <<<
It still ends up being the same per-class distribution; but, you don't have to force players to either choose to alter their desired level split or be penalized for sticking to their RPG character concept.
I understand that the standard argument is ... "Well, these are the rules, just play your own homebrew version like you laid out." But that's not the point. The point is game balance and fair play. The point is to make it viable for all play and fair across all characters.
As fantastic as any design is, there are always ways to tune them up. (Tell me there's even a handful of people who could have done a better job than Jackson did with the LotR movies. Then tell me you can't find a handful of things that would have made the movies better. That's life. Microsoft figured it out. Make a great new design, then use all your consumers as the beta testers, to find ways to make your product even better. 5e designers are already doing that in the new supplements. The reason that 2nd Edition D&D existed to begin with is that all of us who played D&D, from the first book and then the expanded AD&D, kept creating/tuning/using so many good concepts (what you would classify as Homebrew) in our own games, at conventions, submitted to Dragon magazine, etc. that they "needed" to become part of the available rules for all new players. Game balance and fair play have always been a big deal. It's why so many ideas get accepted or rejected. This is one area of the current 5e design that I and my extended gaming family think needs to be repaired. We think if the designers really give it an honest think of their own, they may see it that way, too.
If you actually read this whole diatribe, thanks from all of us. Regardless, thanks anyway for your input.
There are tradeoffs with multiclassing.
You haven't even looked at the features each class gets at particular levels, which multiclassing also delays access to, and can be much more important than ASIs. Your Fighter 10 / Rogue 10 only has 1 Extra Attack and 5d6 Sneak Attack dice, and doesn't get Reliable Talent. Your F12 / R8 has 2 Extra Attacks but 4d6 Sneak Attack, while your F8 / R12 has Reliable Talent and 6d6 Sneak Attack but 1 Extra Attack and no Indomitable.
You also haven't looked at the differences in what proficiencies you get from starting in a class versus multiclassing into it. Starting as a Fighter instead of Rogue means 1 less Rogue skill proficiency. Starting as a Rogue instead of Fighter means no heavy armor proficiency.
My point is, it's not a design decision that fell through the cracks. You will always be losing out on something by multiclassing. And that's intentional. But you're also not required to even-split your multiclassing, the way earlier editions did. So you can "dip" into a class that gives great benefits at low levels if you so decide, at the cost of some progression in your starting class.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
I hear what you’re saying; but, it does not address the issue. Also, why would you assume we wouldn’t have looked at all aspects of multiclassing, as being discussed. Of course we did. Multiclassing has always had trade offs; that’s past obvious. Among us, we have played pretty much all aspects of it, for the last 40 years or so, from AD&D through all iterations, and now 5e. That’s not including experience with at least 10 other RPG gaming systems, including experience building and testing new systems. You’re not dealing with little kids or wet behind the ears teenagers.
The point isn’t trade-offs. The point is even play across the system. ASI’s, as a concept, are predicated on the evolution of the character. It’s why it’s near identical across classes, with a standardized minimum of ASI’s at levels 4/8/12/16/19. It makes no sense that simply multi-classing should change that standardized minimum pattern. If 5e was designed like earlier games, it might make sense. In those systems, multi-classed characters would eventually acquire the same number of standardized benefits, just a bit more slowly, eventually hitting 40th level (well, 38th would do it). But that is not the way 5e is built. 5e is built on a capped 20th level character concept. All character class combinations are equally 20th level… regardless of individual class levels. The chapter on Tiers of Play, lays out that concept. It makes no sense to treat the standard 20th (19th) level ASI distribution any differently than the proficiency advancement. Advancement in abilities … getting smarter/stronger/etc. … is not a character class concept, it’s a character development concept. The same is true for feats; they are not class concepts … they are often race-based concepts, even more specifically not class-based. So, making the standardized minimum growth of ASIs dependent on specific class distribution, again, makes no sense.
This isn't a bug. It's a design decision.
The way ASIs are built into 5e are class concepts. It represents an investment into a class and its training as opposed to overall character. Your definition of ASIs is consistent with prior editions, but with 5th, that changed.
It's not a flaw, its a design decision.
Can we move this into either like General or Rules? This isn't a bug, its intentional game design.
Spidey is right. This is NOT a flaw, this is you personally disagreeing with how the rules are expressedly stated to work.
You want to house rule against the RAW, to make Multi-classers more powerful.
In older versions of the game ASIs (or feats) were granted based on total number of classes.
So there was a specific decision in 5E to change this to be based on individual class levels.
So you start off your career as a body builder. You go to the gym daily and pump iron to get buff. Then one day you see the movie Ghost. And the scene with Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore at the pottery wheel seems really cool and romantic and such, so you stop going to the gym every day and instead start making vases. After months of spinning out hundreds of vases, pots, ash trays, whatever, you look down and decry "Hey! why didn't my biceps get any bigger?"
Answer: You did not continue training as a body builder (you stopped gaining levels) so you didn't get your ASI to beef up those biceps. However, you spent enough time (levels) to get your pottery ASI and you have better manual Dexterity.
ASI's are class dependent, not character dependent by design, as others have pointed out. And Multiclassing is optional. So there are trade offs, and ASI's are one of them. Plan wisely.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's fine that you think they should standardize it, but that opinion is not proof they should change the way they designed it.
I think the rules were written to reflect that getting smarter/stronger/etc. is something you have to deliberately choose to do, and I tend to agree with that. **lighter tone: my metabolism worked for most of my life but broke down after we had our second kid and I'm in my post-40 years--I'm now discovering just how deliberate you have to be if you want to improve your str/dex/con...
My opinion? Proficiency bonus advancement is a decent system to provide a moderating influence on the balance between classes. Making ASI's one of many features that you can gain depending on which class levels you take is a good decision. I think you did identify a fluke--in that usually 5e makes features underpowered. But I don't think it's something that rises to the level of needing to be fixed.