D&D 5E Do we know if they are keeping the 20 Natural score cap? What about expanded backgrounds?

[Wraithdrit]

More to the point, you don't get a Feat until 4-6 depending on class (or 4-5, I forget), and you pretty much "have" to use that on +2 to your main attribute, and then the next is 8 or so, which is practically a campaign for many groups. So it's more than reasonable, I feel to offer a bit more customization at L1 or 2, as an optional rule.

As usual, my opinion on this sits firmly in the 'its your campaign, enjoy!' camp. But the original poster seemed to be worried about how that would impact game balance or something, so I was being conservative with the background recommendation based on that.

- Wraith

 

[Agamon]

I'm actually playing the game right now, and the PCs don't feel the same at all. That just might be me though.

The bounded accuracy means that ability scores actually mean something and there's your difference. The strong, tough fighter feels quite different than the weak wizard.

Now if we're talking the same class, what party is full of PCs of the same class? There's nothing to compare to if the party actually has variety.

Lastly, L2 is attained at 250 xp, L3 at 750. That's fast. If you don't see many changes until L3, don't worry, it's not a long wait.

 

[Mistwell]

Regardless of how you spin it, that 5% each is fairly big.

LOL we're now claiming 5%, a +1 (the minimum number that can really be utilized in a d20 game) is "fairly big"?

I suppose people were earlier arguing that a 4.5% difference (difference between a greatsword and a battle axe damage wielded by someone with a +4 strength score) was "fairly big" too.

Just goes to show, whatever numbers the game uses, however minor the differences, there will be someone to call any difference "big" when it's the only differences they have to talk about.

 

[Wraithdrit]

I'm actually playing the game right now, and the PCs don't feel the same at all. That just might be me though.

The bounded accuracy means that ability scores actually mean something and there's your difference. The strong, tough fighter feels quite different than the weak wizard.

Now if we're talking the same class, what party is full of PCs of the same class? There's nothing to compare to if the party actually has variety.

Lastly, L2 is attained at 250 xp, L3 at 750. That's fast. If you don't see many changes until L3, don't worry, it's not a long wait.

I guess I also fall into the camp of roleplaying over crunch, so I make roleplaying matter, and expect a PC to be different from others based on who they are and what they do, not just what mechanical lever they have to pull now and then. Two fighters with exact same stats, played very differently are unique characters in my opinion.

Also, I agree on the whole fast raising thing. Starting at L2 or L3 does also give a lot more options, and seems to be the recommendation of the designers. It is just hard for the old schoolers amongst us to really latch on to that.

That said, I started my new group at level 2 cause we were playing Scourge and that's what it recommends.

- Wraith

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

I want a feat at level 1 because I feel like every Level 1 will be the same as every other one without it. Background wouldn't do enough to change that.

For instance, if a wizard is really good at fire spells, I want to be able to show that at first level. Not at 3rd level when they can pick Evocation (and then they would still be only as good as any other Evoker).

The same goes for fighters. If someone wants to be better at swords than their peers they shouldn't have to wait until 4th level before they can get a feat that helps demonstrate that.

On Twitter, Mearls said that a feat can be taken at first level if the player gave up some of their racial bonus. That's because they feel like feats HAVE to be instead of stat increases. I've decided I would be ok with that.

There are things I do not like though. Like how Fighters have access to more stat increases. Or that we are all stuck with very basic characters at first level. I do not want to start my campaigns at 3rd level just to have a little crunch in my character creation.

When the discussion came up in the forums a few weeks ago of how human racial traits would be tweaked for the release (given how poorly the +1 to stats across the board went over with the public), I mentioned that it would make sense for humans to get two floating +1 stat bumps. Here
This would fall in line with the two specific bumps every other race seems to be getting, and that those 1st level stat increases could be swapped for a feat, along the same lines as the increases later on. Come to find out, Mearls did tweet a response a few weeks prior to that implying that would likely be the case, though not outright stating it: here.


If this is how it pans out, it seems fair and balanced in regards to feat/ability score progression, though I'm curious what else they might give humans for a racial trait, to keep them in line with the other races. Perhaps they'll get something similar to their 4e/Essentials trait, Heroic Effort, with a boost to an attack, skill check, or save once/encouter (perhaps advantage on a check instead?).

 

[Mistwell]

I guess I also fall into the camp of roleplaying over crunch, so I make roleplaying matter, and expect a PC to be different from others based on who they are and what they do, not just what mechanical lever they have to pull now and then. Two fighters with exact same stats, played very differently are unique characters in my opinion.

Exactly.

Put the character sheet down. The answer to "why is my character different from yours" is not found on that sheet of paper, even if they have a different feat.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Lastly, L2 is attained at 250 xp, L3 at 750. That's fast. If you don't see many changes until L3, don't worry, it's not a long wait.

Exactly. Mike has stated that using normal XP rewards (and presumably a regular 3 hour-ish session)... a character will need only a single session to go from Level 1 to 2, and from Level 2 to 3. Then PCs level up about every-other-session.

So while all classes might seem the same in combat at Level 1... it's there to get everybody up to speed on how basic combat works in that first single session. Then the second session feeds in another few things and the PCs level to 3... and then Level 3 is when more of the character customization stuff starts feeding in and leveling up takes a little longer.

So starting at Level 3 just basically means you're skipping those first two "Learn how to play the base game!" sessions. An expected decision for quite a lot of experienced players.

 

[Zaran]

Exactly.

Put the character sheet down. The answer to "why is my character different from yours" is not found on that sheet of paper, even if they have a different feat.

There is nothing wrong with what you like. I just happen to like something a little different.

 

[Bryk]

Level 3 simply does not solve the problem

Level 3 simply does not solve the problem, nor does "RPing your way to be different". At the end of the day, if you make an attack roll, your roll will be the same as the guy next to you.

-What you've been training with a bow your entire life??? Well, I'm a fighter and I know how to use all weapons just as good as you....

 

[Agamon]

I guess what it comes down to is that 5e isn't a CharOper's game. For some of us that's a blessing, for others, not so much.

That said, it sounds like there will be options to make the game more CharOp friendly in the DMG, with Class adjusting and creation rules.