D&D 5E A blank canvas for creativity?

[Warpiglet-7]

I was thinking about playing a champion fighter.

I have mostly played warlocks (and one multi cleric warlock) celestial patron and have an artificer ready to go. I have a Paladin in Avernus.
I am accustomed to more complicated characters.

but when looking at the champion I felt like the blank canvas was refreshing. Playing a human to boot, the lore and background is pretty minimal.

I just wondered if in your opinion the more “filled in” classes or the more open ones spur more creativity for you.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I was thinking about playing a champion fighter.

I have mostly played warlocks (and one multi cleric warlock) celestial patron and have an artificer ready to go. I have a Paladin in Avernus.
I am accustomed to more complicated characters.

but when looking at the champion I felt like the blank canvas was refreshing. Playing a human to boot, the lore and background is pretty minimal.

I just wondered if in your opinion the more “filled in” classes or the more open ones spur more creativity for you.

I prefer the classes with less ''buttons'' to push.
Champion, Thief, Totem/Berserker Barb, etc

Regular Human + Champion is pretty simple and, in the end of the day, still performs quite well.

 

[Stormonu]

Champion is mostly there for those folks who don't want a complicated character. It's easy to play, but is fairly shallow of depth - it takes some extra work to make them interesting, because their uniqueness does not spawn from their mechanics.

The "filled in" classes help to translate ideas into mechanics. But it is easier to fall into one-trick ponyism with the defined mechanics. The simpler classes - Barbarian Berserker, Fighter Champion & Rogue Assassin require a more creative mind to make them "interesting", and if you want interesting combats with them, you have to think outside the box a lot more. If you just want a strait-forward smash-em character, they are the classes/subclasses to look for.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Champion is mostly there for those folks who don't want a complicated character. It's easy to play, but is fairly shallow of depth - it takes some extra work to make them interesting, because their uniqueness does not spawn from their mechanics.

The "filled in" classes help to translate ideas into mechanics. But it is easier to fall into one-trick ponyism with the defined mechanics. The simpler classes - Barbarian Berserker, Fighter Champion & Rogue Assassin require a more creative mind to make them "interesting", and if you want interesting combats with them, you have to think outside the box a lot more. If you just want a strait-forward smash-em character, they are the classes/subclasses to look for.

I have to admit I find this to be an odd viewpoint. I've never felt that having more mechanics (more "buttons") contributes to figuring out who the character is, or really that there's any relationship/correlation between the two things. Sure, some of the very thematic subclasses (esp. Cleric and Warlock) give you a nudge in a certain direction, but in that case it's almost more work to avoid falling into the obvious stereotypes.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

When I play a rather basic (mechanically speaking) character, instead of basing its ''thing'' around its background or race instead.

Now in this here case we are talking a Human, so not too exotic. But your human can come from an interesting place.

Or, if you take feats, you can based their ''thing'' around their fighting style or the weapon they use, etc

 

[Oofta]

Personally I like playing "basic" characters because they can be more fun for RP and trying to get a bit creative in combat. For me, mechanical complexity does not necessarily mean more interesting, in fact if I'm always thinking what spell or power I can fall back on I don't think as much about alternative solutions.

Of course that's not going to work for everyone.

 

[MarkB]

I often like to play against type with a character. That tends to lead me to playing more defined classes / races, as otherwise there isn't really anything to play against.

 

[jgsugden]

About 10% of my character's character come from mechanical inspiration. The rest come from the background and personality I select. Usually, I come up with a premise for a PC and then fill in the mechanics after I decide who the PC will be. So, by the time I look at the mechanics, the PC is 90% complete. To that end: Neither complex nor simple PCs have a substantial impact on my creativity. Whether I played a mechanically simple PC or an intricate build like my Glasya Tiefling Gloomstalker/Divine Soul/Cleric of Order/BattleMaster/Assassin, it isn't the mechanics that are telling the story - they're just the window dressing of the character. The guts of the PC's character are the story of the PC.

There are times when a mechanic does inspire me and I build a PC around a mechanic - but that is rare. Mostly, the abilities the PC gains are treated like unexpected giftas they acquire as they become more powerful. When I do build around a mechanic, it is usually because the mechanic inspired a story that I thought it'd be fun to play out. As that tends to happen in more complex mechanics, I guess it would be fair to save the complex inspires me more than the simple, but - for most PCs - it isn't a factor.

 

[J-H]

You also have feats to work with. You can take Poisoner and use your bonus action to apply poison to your weapons; you can go Crusher for advantage-granting; Shield Master for shoving; Ritual Caster for out-of-combat magic; and more. Lots of options.

 

[Fenris-77]

IDK, I always start with an idea and then hack away at some classes until something makes sense.