Talk:Adaptive Experience (5e Variant Rule)

This article is a current featured article nominee as of 19:55, 23 December 2024. Featured articles exemplify D&D Wiki's very best work, and therefore must meet the featured article criteria. Please become engaged in this process and support, oppose, and leave comments as to this page's featured article nomination (engage!).

Featured Article Nomination

I see this Variant Rule as some of my best work on D&D wiki. In order to increase the chances of it being found by DMs and Players that would enjoy it, I'm proposing that it become a featured article. I have no doubt that if the page has any minor issues, they can be cleared up within the 6 month timeframe. --Woahluigi (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — A variant rule is an new prospect for a featured article, though with pages such as an optimized character build or a single page about a custom setting's pantheon being current featured article, I think there's no problem with the idea. The page is extensive enough to become a Featured Article. As for the time frame, it's not going to be an issue , there are pages coming up on 6-year long FA nominations.

The actual rule is hard to evaluate in itself because it changes fifth edition so much that it's difficult to call it the same game. The intuition that I (and other would-be judges) have built with purpose of deciding whether something is balanced or not isn't available here, it seems like a minor quibble of a change but it makes the system feel quite alien. I think this is why the page hasn't been rated yet, I myself tried to leave a comment before and I've had to mull the rules over a few times.

First, PC's from campaigns using these rules would be more powerful than vanilla fifth edition characters, they get more ASI's, skill proficiencies, and feats. They can get more total levels than a normal fifth edition character. This isn't a problem, at least I think it isn't, because I think they're openly meant to make the characters more powerful. But it's other parts of the ecosystem, such as CR and encounter calculation, and class balance, will break down in a game with these rules. I think making CR less accurate isn't a major issue (it's already famously inaccurate), but changing class balance is.

For the options themselves: Feats, proficiencies, and ASI's are too cheap, leaving one no reason to not buy them. I assume because of this a limit to how many one can purchase based on their level has been added. Now the only reason to not buy them is because there is a limit. At higher (anything level 12 onward, though this may start happening at 8) levels they are so cheap, comparatively, that all players with a head on their shoulders will buy all of their available ones every time. All the ASI's to get their main stat to 20, then whatever resistance or constitution or the like stat up to 20 as well. They'd also get all the proficiencies they'd fancy, for how cheap they are. If the purpose of the rule is giving players choice then care must be taken to balance the choices such that a prevailing dominant strategy doesn't show itself, I think this is pretty obviously imbalanced. There's not enough opportunity cost for things that aren't levels. My spitball fixes would either be a raising cost for each one you'd buy or making them cost a percentage of the XP cost to next level.

Leaving aside 17 ASI, 9 feats is a lot. Most builds don't need anywhere close to 9 feats. This is admittedly only an issue because they are so cheap that players would feel they need to get something. If they were appropriately priced, then 9 feats would just be a theoretical limit some can choose to get to in Tier 4. With the prices they are it is an issue. Of course, this would make less-often used feats finally get a time to shine (like skill expert, resilient, or weapon master). Also to note is that many feats giving you 1 ability score increase means a character would usually gain about >20 ASI by level 20. This results in something like a 20, 20, 20, 16, 2 dump stats. Or at least a character with no stat under 16.

I don't dislike the idea of secondary classes in concept. I don't know how powerful they would be practice, I assume they are balanced around the more powerful multiclasses from normal fifth edition. I just think that the XP increase for taking a secondary class's levels above your main class's is a weird half measure against what I assume is someone using secondary classes to cram in as many levels as possible before hitting equivalent level 20. I think it would be fine to just say that a secondary class's level can't be over the primary class's, or that the class with most levels becomes your primary class.

My biggest actual issue, and the reason for why I opposed this is ASI levels. The text isn't exactly clear but I assume that buying a level of a class that gets an ASI means you pay the full cost of the level, then get 1,000 back as a consolation. Which you will of course spend on an ASI/feat right away as you've unlocked the ability to buy one. This effectively makes levels 4/8/12/16/19 into XP tax levels one must pay to further advance their class. Really what you're buying is a roll of hp and one hit die for all the XP. This maybe could be interpreted as the cost to unlocking the feat and ASI, but it still just feels horrible (and you unlock the ability to buy feats and ASI's at non-empty levels too, such as 6 or 10, which makes the Normal ASI levels feel even more useless)

And, if you're a fighter, who gets 2 more ASI levels than other classes (and Rogues, they get 1 more ASI), now you're straight out of luck, you just have less levels with features. Fighter's customizability or plurality of ASI levels was a part of the class, now they get as many as anyone else. For me to approve of this class I would like to see a change made to address this (but not written in such a way that would exclude any other homebrew classes that get more ASI levels than the standard).

Lastly, why isn't the page using the 5e style of table? I like how the wikitables look but they probably should be standardized.

The rest is good to go for a FA. It builds on rules that already exists, everything is correctly linked to the SRD, and the page goes the extra mile to reference specific pages when no SRD equivalent is available. The page is eloquent, succinct, mostly understandable and mostly elegantly written. Really, it's just the balance that's off, and once that is fixed I'd be more than happy to change this into a support vote.

• Response - I really appreciate this level of constructive criticism and I'll almost certainly be taking some the above changes on board, but before I do I wanted to offer some explanation of my decisions when I was constructing this rule. I'll go through my response in the same order that you did, in order to make it easier to compare. --Woahluigi (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

First, it is true that characters using this rule would be more powerful than normal characters. If so desired, this system could also be used to create a character that is exactly identical to a normal character (all costs for levels, ASI, & feats are the same, as long as that character only has a single class). This system was mainly designed to allow players to have more control over how their character develops, but it also shook out that it really encourages multiclassing. I don't really know how I would maintain class balance, just because its so easy to multiclass. This system allows a character to dip into a class for 1-3 levels without investing as much as they would be in standard 5e. I think this rule is more balanced if you use the 2024 rules, since every class gets their subclass at 3rd level with those rules (making the cost more significant for subclass features).

Second, I agree that ASI and Feats need balancing. I originally created this by balancing the cost for ASI and feats around 4th level (which was a bit shortsighted), so that two ASI or a feat cost 1000 exp. When I really think about it, I agree that at higher levels the cost for feats and ASI (in comparison to your next level) is so low that you'll probably just buy up to your maximum. To fix this, I think the cost for a feat could be increased by 500 for every feat you already have, and the cost for an ASI could be similarly increased by 250 for every ASI you have. This might not be enough though, so the maximum number of feats and ASI could also be reduced (likely at the irregular levels, 6 & 10).

Third, I think the rules for secondary classes is probably the most dangerous part of this rule, at least on paper. The EXP penalty for secondary classes that exceed the level of the main class mainly exists to prevent players from taking 1-2 levels in a class for its saving throws, proficiencies, etc. and then putting all of their levels into another class (e.g. Cleric 1, 19 Wizard. Or Artificer 2, Fighter 18). Additionally, its secondary goal is to stop a character (as you said) from having too many levels in secondary classes, since their contribution to a character's Equivalent level is halved. This balance breaks down if you allow a character's primary class to change, but I also don't want a character's primary class to be a hard-limit for their secondary classes (a character can still has the freedom to do some powerful things, but it has to cost more EXP).

Fourth, you are correct in that you pay the full cost for a level that normally provides an ASI, and then get 1000 (or 500) EXP back. I'm having a hard time understanding the issue here, you're buying a level and then have the option to immediately buy two ASI (+1s) or one Feat. That's exactly how these levels function in normal 5e. If 6th and 10th level are changed back to how they originally worked (they were made unlock levels because of fighter), then the levels are just operating normally. You get HP, a hit die, the choice of a feat or ASI, and contributions to spellcasting, prof. bonus, class features, etc. However, if you instead want to level up your character faster without taking a feat or ASI, then you have the option to do so. If the cost of feats is changed, then the amount of EXP refunded might also need to be changed (let me know your thoughts on this, I'm a bit conflicted. If the above change to the cost of Feats & ASI was implemented, then it would be strange if you're not refunded enough EXP to buy a feat/ASI at the levels which you normally would get one).

Fifth, a Fighter or Rogue gets 1000 more EXP at some levels, which every other class does not. This either allows the Rogue or Fighter to have higher stats/more feats in comparison to every other class, or allows them to level up faster than every other class. If the amount of EXP refunded is not changed when increasing the cost for a Feat/ASI, and if 6th and 10th level are removed at levels in which feats are unlocked, then these classes would actually be getting screwed over. Perhaps I could write an addendum that increases a classes' feat/ASI maximum if they would normally gain such a feature at a level other than 4th/8th/12th/16th/19th level. This is probably the biggest issue that comes up when changing how the feat/ASI system currently works, which is how to implement those changes without hurting fighters and rogues.

Lastly, I didn't read enough of the help pages to know how to change how a table looks. I like how it is now, but if you know how to implement a different table & it would look/work better, then go right ahead.

PS: Skills could easily be removed from the list of Other Improvements. Existing Downtime already allows for characters to gain tool or language proficiency (so those should be alright to keep), and the Skilled Feat can be taken more than once for characters that want access to more skills.

Made some changes. The biggest issue I see is that I don't know how to/if I should increase the amount of XP refunded at levels that would normally grant ASI, because the cost for feats and ASI goes up now. (If I increase the amount of EXP refunded by the cost for the next feat or ASI, which one should be prioritized? Additionally, taking a feat at 4th level would grant more EXP at 8th level, because a higher amount is refunded. If you instead bought the feat at 8th level, you'd have 500 less EXP.) Maybe the reduced Maximum for ASI and Feats is enough to balance it, and I should remove the rule that increases the cost of ASI and Feats based on the number you have? --Woahluigi (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)