D&D 5E Race, Class (Subclass), Background and Specialty

[Lackhand]

Dungeons and Dragons has always had a character building -- maybe even character optimization -- minigame.

I hate it, and always have.
So there's my agenda: I will gladly sacrifice free choice at chargen time for fast, meaningful and simple choices.

What Next has done to simplify chargen is already impressive: if so inclined, you no longer select individual skills and feats but just the four-and-a-half items from the title.
Groovy. And yet, can we do better, he-asked-leadingly?

What do you fellows think of ditching the current paradigm in favor of a more flexible one?

At level one, each character selects a major class -- and follows its rules -- and three-ish minor classes -- and follows their rules.
Whatever choices were being baked into the system for later choice -- prestige specialties, multiclassing, whatever -- get applied in the obvious way.

Examples of major classes include Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Magic-User.

Examples of minor classes include Wood Elf (race), Mountain Dwarf (race), Charlatan , Hedge Magician, Sharpshooter, Swashbuckler, Guide, Knight, and so on.

Some more unusual major classes might include Talking Bear, Dragon, Golem, Balrog, or Demigod.

Advantages of this system include:

• a character's power-source is no longer assumed to be learned skills; there can be a BECMI-style race-as-class for certain awesome concepts you have to otherwise water down.
• want to be a knight and a priest? A Noble and a Guide? Go for it.
• you can encourage or discourage themes using class keywords: no more than one class, major or minor, with the race keyword. No fewer than one class granting a trait. Every character must have at least one class with the "rural" keyword. Go nuts.
• we can spread things like proficiencies out further: knight might give the "next heavier armor proficiency". Whatever.

And, of course, cons:

• players might want to select two of what are today Specialties, in order to kill things more efficiently.
• if WotC doesn't publish more creative major classes, it won't be helpful to divide 'em this way.
• it leaves an organizational void: specialty presented next to background! madness!

But in my opinion, the cons aren't so bad. We could separate major and minor classes from each other along thematic lines, such as Those Who Fight, Loremasters, Those Who Pray, Citydwellers, Mountain-men, Children of the Woods, and so on.

This doesn't destroy the three pillar design, but it does present a wrinkle for skills. I'm not sure how much this bothers me yet

"Boons", talents or virtues of a character which are modeled as immaterial magical items, might allow a little more free choice than this preplanned improvement regime, too.

Anything interesting here?

 

[Sunseeker]

When I want my choices to be made for me, or large blocks of my character predetermined based on smaller choices, I can play WoW, where I get 11 races, 11 classes, one body per race, 10 faces, 10 hairstyles, and 3 "specs" to choose from.

I have no interest in racial classes either.

I have no problem with making a significant-at-the-time-but-insiginificant-in-the-long-haul investment in developing my character.

The biggest advantage to building your character and one of the reasons it takes so long is not just that you have to consider your options, but you actually take the time to learn what your options do. It is all to common in games where new options are not chosen and are simply given to the character that they are poorly utilized and result in a steeper learning curve.

 

[steenan]

Dungeon World has even smaller area of customization (you only select race, class, alignment and abilities at 1st, then a single "move"/special ability every time you level up) and is very fun.

Race, class, background and specialty is definitely enough for me. I need interesting choices and opportunities in play, not in character creation. If I'm able to create a character in 5 minutes and not suffer in play because I didn't "optimize", I see it as a great advantage of the system.

In this approach it's also possible to completely get rid of skills and feats as they are, and instead have the various classes and "minor classes" grant bonuses to rolls in appropriate circumstances and directly grant special abilities. They may then be balanced as a whole, instead of balancing each separate part (and people ranting that, for example, some skills are more or less useful than others).

 

[Lackhand]

When I want my choices to be made for me, or large blocks of my character predetermined based on smaller choices, I can play WoW, where I get 11 races, 11 classes, one body per race, 10 faces, 10 hairstyles, and 3 "specs" to choose from.

I hear that's a pretty popular game.

Some tabletop games have lots and lots of rules widgets you get to select for your character: GURPS, high level characters in any D&D, HERO.
Others have merely lots of rules widgets: 4e characters.
Others have very few: BECMI characters, FATE characters.
Am I to conclude you think that falling anywhere on this scale that isn't MAXIMUM CRUNCH is videogamey?
Clearly we have different takes on this!

I do have to question how much bang-for-buck -- maybe that should be humor-per-hour -- we're getting by mandating a game of search-heavy solitaire before you can split some goblin skulls with your friends.
But I guess that's down to how little I enjoy it, and how much you do -- takes all types

The biggest advantage to building your character and one of the reasons it takes so long is not just that you have to consider your options, but you actually take the time to learn what your options do. It is all too common in games where new options are not chosen and are simply given to the character that they are poorly utilized and result in a steeper learning curve.

I agree with most of what you're saying here, especially that fitting the capabilities of a new character into my skull can be challenging if I've never seen this stuff in play before.

But I don't characterize the difference as choosing powers/being given powers.
In fact, I'd like it if the existing scheme required classes (major classes in my parlance) to give you one, real choice, every level: a new spell, maneuver, talent, power, whatever. They don't have this yet, and that is something they'll have to work on.

What I don't like are sixteen choices to make a first level character -- so the scheme they've got now is close to perfect (for me!).
The only thing I don't like about it is the rigorous structure it continues to place on racial choice (I like monsters-as-characters!) and the way it forces them to find more-and-more synonyms for "armored guy"

 

[Remathilis]

Next is hitting the sweet spot for me.

I choose a race (with a default subrace, other subraces should be optional)
I choose a class (and perhaps some major choices like deity or order)
I choose a background
I choose a specialty.
I pick spells and equipment.
I fill in details.

My fear is that things are getting too fiddily in the class and race sections. We'll see.

 

[the Jester]

I think the idea in the OP is too far away from traditional D&D to work as D&D, but it might be an interesting system in its own right.

 

[KidSnide]

I think the idea in the OP is too far away from traditional D&D to work as D&D, but it might be an interesting system in its own right.

I agree completely.

I also find that picking a class, race, background, sub-class and specialty isn't too bad when it comes to creating a character. I'd play without sub-class and specialty for a basic game, but the current system of "pick your own level of customization" looks pretty good.

The one thing that I don't like about the current system for new players is assigning attributes (Str, Dex, etc.). I don't think that level of decision making is meaningful for new players and there are too many opportunities to make a big mistake (failing to put an adequate score in the prime attribute, ignoring constitution, etc). Obviously, the standard or advanced versions of the game should keep the current system, but I don't think the basic game should provide 6 numbers and tell the player to assign them to attributes how they like. Instead, the basic game should provide a list of assigned attributes and tell them they can switch the numbers around if they want to.

Experienced players shouldn't lose the ability to customize, but new players shouldn't be forced to run through a gauntlet of unnecessary decisions.

-KS

 

[Lackhand]

I think the idea in the OP is too far away from traditional D&D to work as D&D, but it might be an interesting system in its own right.

Depends whether we're following the AD&D line or the more general D&D line.

I mean: every new edition changes the organization of character options to one degree or another, and that's basically all I'm discussing here.

Still, I can appreciate where you're coming from -- thanks for the feedback!

 

[Lackhand]

I agree completely.

I also find that picking a class, race, background, sub-class and specialty isn't too bad when it comes to creating a character. I'd play without sub-class and specialty for a basic game, but the current system of "pick your own level of customization" looks pretty good.

Yeah. Sorry for the rambling OP but I'm with you here too: I like the number and rough variety of choices, I just would like to see the slots organized differently.

The one thing that I don't like about the current system for new players is assigning attributes (Str, Dex, etc.). I don't think that level of decision making is meaningful for new players and there are too many opportunities to make a big mistake (failing to put an adequate score in the prime attribute, ignoring constitution, etc). Obviously, the standard or advanced versions of the game should keep the current system, but I don't think the basic game should provide 6 numbers and tell the player to assign them to attributes how they like. Instead, the basic game should provide a list of assigned attributes and tell them they can switch the numbers around if they want to.

Experienced players shouldn't lose the ability to customize, but new players shouldn't be forced to run through a gauntlet of unnecessary decisions.

-KS

Diluting my own thread, but one of the early design goals was to make every stat matter to every character. I'd really like to see that happen: a Fighter with uncharacteristically high intelligence would be good at tactics and therefore avoiding ambushes or aiding another or something.

 

[howandwhy99]

Equipment Bundles, especially for groups who start with higher level PCs, is one thing that could quickly and easily be done to speed up character creation.

In OD&D we have a few steps that aren't choices and a few that are. Roll your ability scores and starting gold and keep what you get. Pick a class, race, and alignment. Roll hit points. And finally purchase equipment, which really is what takes all the time.

Lastly you can create backgrounds and distinguishing characteristics which are sewn into the campaign world. And if you are starting a brand new campaign everyone should probably create PCs together and come up with exactly what kind of campaign they want to play in. That can take a whole session though, but is IMO even more fun than writing up a background on your own.

As it stands D&Dn is pretty streamlined for chargen, but it's these 14th level ones I'm creating for the next playtest which are taking me so long to create. Choosing all the spells & maneuvers adds up too.