D&D General Which do you prefer, character build or fixed growth?

[TwoSix]

Preferably with a fixed value of X that was the same for all PRCs.

I'd probably argue for a few fixed values (say, 6th, 11th, 16th), but generally yea.

 

[Tonguez]

I prefer characters developing through narrative so that they gain skills, feats, abilities and quirks over the course of their story (even though it was driven by dice, I liked Travellers Character creation system, which is kinda reflected in Backgrounds)

so the closest for this poll would be Character Building

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the sun has set on completely fixed character advancement. I have fond memories of it from back in the day, but no desire to go back. I voted lemon curry because I'm mostly trending away from games that are even as rigid and crunchy as 5e D&D when it comes to things like class and level. I love D&D, always will, but I love it despite it's faults, not because of them.

 

[Zardnaar]

I can go either way but moving away from builds.

 

[billd91]

3E prestige classes would have been so much better if they didn't have any requirements other than "Must be X level".

I'm going to totally disagree on that one. They were at their best when they required a bit of focused development or a specific campaign event/connection to attain.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm going to totally disagree on that one. They were at their best when they required a bit of focused development or a specific campaign event/connection to attain.

That's exactly the sort of thing that having no mechanical prerequisites would enable! I mean, there's an implicit prerequisite to removing the mechanical restriction that there's an addition of narratively gated restrictions so that the PrCs aren't purely character build tools.

 

[TwoSix]

I prefer characters developing through narrative so that they gain skills, feats, abilities and quirks over the course of their story (even though it was driven by dice, I liked Travellers Character creation system, which is kinda reflected in Backgrounds)

so the closest for this poll would be Character Building

Me too, which is one of the things I've been thinking on that inspired this poll. My next game has a concept of simple 1st level characters with no build choices, but more impactful abilities gained through play, not purely by leveling.

 

[billd91]

That's exactly the sort of thing that having no mechanical prerequisites would enable! I mean, there's an implicit prerequisite to removing the mechanical restriction that there's an addition of narratively gated restrictions so that the PrCs aren't purely character build tools.

So "3E prestige classes would have been so much better if they didn't have any requirements other than "Must be X level"." means something along the lines of "double secret" implicit? Are you having a Dean Wormer moment?

 

[Charlaquin]

Hmm, I think I opened up a slightly divergent topic. I was interested in the time of decision-making as primarily a rule-driven concept (in AD&D, you had to make your choices at character creation, the option to change them later simply wasn't possible, since it impacted your XP table). But, a lot of people are viewing "planning" your character build to achieve a certain endpoint as a different playstyle as picking organically at level-up, whereas I was viewing them as the same (as sticking with your "build" is still a choice you make at level-up).

Interesting perspectives!

Oh no, planning your build in as advance is is in my opinion the worst of both worlds (I suppose to someone else it might be the best of both.) You have to make all the same build choices as you would in the character building style, but they’re all front-loaded and locked-in once made as in the fixed growth style. Where to me the advantage of fixed growth is its ease of use thanks to very few decision points, and the advantage of character building is getting to tweak your chars as you go in response to in-game developments you didn’t anticipate during character creation.

To answer the question though, I prefer character building - as long as you have the ability to make those build choices as you go without risking screwing yourself over.

 

[TwoSix]

So "3E prestige classes would have been so much better if they didn't have any requirements other than "Must be X level"." means something along the lines of "double secret" implicit? Are you having a Dean Wormer moment?

Sorry, fusing multiple threads of conversation together. My intent was to convey that removing mechanical restrictions on PrCs allowed them to become more structured narrative objects, but that was something I was discussing with someone else and I forgot that element hadn't been conveyed in this thread. Mea culpa.

EDIT: Also, I'm assuming a Dean Wormer moment is a bad thing, but if it was actually complimentary, then I'm even more confused. LOL.