D&D 5E Anyone else finding character advancement pretty dull?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Adding new options just for mechanical benefits doesn't improve gameplay at the table. The opposite really. More options are fun... away from the table. Between games. But that fun typically comes at the expense of fun during the game.

This! IME all the feat and bonus powers madness of 3e made the game grind to a halt more often than not as someone had to look his kung-fu grip feat up again to make sure it was working properly, or we would find that some mix of feats and PrC powers made the game wonky or ridiculous. It was fun for people who had fun away from the table going over build ideas, but in play if anything it made the game less fun. While I'm sure there were tables who had no issues at all, that wasn't the case for us. We dropped 3e for OSR clone, then moved to 5e,...then back to an OSR clone.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's like how some photographers are more interested in their cameras than in their photographs.

This is a roleplaying game, not a character making game...

 

[Jester David]

That can't actually be true, since Prestige Classes existed in 3e, which didn't have subclasses.

Right. So all Prestige Classes lack them. Check.

But yes, functionally, it's pretty much Prestige Classes, just without the prerequisites.

Not all Prestige Classes had prerequisites beyond "higher than level 1".

I don't actually agree with that. Complexity CAN bog down a game, absolutely, but the ability to play a character tuned closer to your vision can make your whole play experience. There's are plenty of people playing Pathfinder over 5e, after all. Add judging by Paizo's forum, the most prevalent single reason they don't choose 5e is because of the lack of modularity in designing their character.

Funny how that's always players asking "I want more options with which to build my characters" and not DMs asking "I want my players to have more options".

No, but that's because I've never thought that exploration is nearly as fun as conflict, whether that be combat or roleplaying drama. Exploration is just the necessary filler to contextualize the conflict.

Would you be okay then with lots of Prestige Classes that did give lots of mechanical combat options that were inherently less powerful than the core options of the base classes? Letting you do lots of different things and build different characters that were just *slightly* less powerful?

 

[TwoSix]

Funny how that's always players asking "I want more options with which to build my characters" and not DMs asking "I want my players to have more options".

Well, sure. Players want more character options, and DMs want sourcebooks, adventures, and bestiaries/monster manuals. Makes sense to me.

Would you be okay then with lots of Prestige Classes that did give lots of mechanical combat options that were inherently less powerful than the core options of the base classes? Letting you do lots of different things and build different characters that were just *slightly* less powerful?

Absolutely. I bought all of the Complete books in 3.5, after all, despite the fact that virtually nothing in there compared to a PHB wizard, cleric, or druid.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'm uncertain about that.
I'm a big fan of the '80s. But I'm also pushing 40. I doubt there are many people 30 years and younger who have much nostalgia for the '80s. And D&D seems to be doing very well with people in their 30s, 20s, and even teens.

Some of the '80s nostalgia is almost more for the pop culture and aesthetic without actually being nostalgic for the '80s.
The Duffer Brothers of Stranger Things fame are a good example, having been born in 1984, they likely don't remember much of the '80s let alone are nostalgic for that era. They're not reliving their childhood with that series since the first season took place before they were born.

Well, there is overlap. For example, I was born in 71. Into the 80s, the TV and music my parents come of age with in the 60s/70s was still a large part of my life, giving me nolstalgia for pop culture that was created when I was too young to really appreciatae it or before I was born.

 

[Parmandur]

So,3.x style Prestige Classes were DOA per playtesting, so we won't see them in 5E. However, having read the PF2E playtest document, I wonder if PF Archetype style alternative multiclassing rules using the ASI slots might not get desireable results: more thematically interesting to me, at least, than ala carte Feats or Multiclassing.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe it's a cultural shift thing in what we're exposed to as gamers. Video games now, and have for awhile, blasted trumpet music and sent light beams streaming from the heavens every time you level up. DING!!!! Woohoo! I leveled up! Kind of like how leveling up was the point of the game, and all those battles between stories was just grinding that really doesn't matter. Wasn't like that before. Before, leveling was just bookkeeping, while the battles in between WERE the story. So maybe people got used to how video games made such a big deal about it, that a TTRPG like 5e seems mellow by comparison because the focus is different.

Who knows.

 

[ad_hoc]

I'll also say that feel like the way Feats were implemented was a missed opportunity in a lot of ways. I love the new design of them, and the way they help to further express a character's unique set of talents, but the way they're shoe-horned in to make them optional also makes them both hard to attain and harder still to justify, given the opportunity costs involved.

Making them hard to attain is what makes them great. When they are rare they help define a character. When there is only 1 character across several campaigns taking a given feat then that is a memorable thing about that character.

I don't actually agree with that. Complexity CAN bog down a game, absolutely, but the ability to play a character tuned closer to your vision can make your whole play experience. There's are plenty of people playing Pathfinder over 5e, after all. Add judging by Paizo's forum, the most prevalent single reason they don't choose 5e is because of the lack of modularity in designing their character.

Taking into consideration the scope of players, there are only a few playing Pathfinder. It's just a drop in the bucket.

 

[Invisible Stalker]

Hiya!

*shurg* I put down the "Love it", because I like it more than "it's ok". It's fast, easy, and doesn't typically change a character drastically. And with how vocal I am about this I feel like a broken record, but if I don't say this people will make assumptions, reply, and I'll have to explain again: I don't allow Multiclassing, Feats and "other books" (exceptions for the "other books" thing are made when someone has a cool idea for a character or wants to use something in particular to it...but never MC or Feats).

I think this thread pretty much has folks in one of two camps. Those that like to play D&D, and those that like to play D&D but actually want to play GURPS/HERO System. At least in spirit. D&D is alluring in it's simplistic base: "Go confront bad guys in their lair, kill them, take their stuff; rinse and repeat". That's D&D at it's core. I think the 5e system's level advancement is just fine, pretty dang good actually. If a player is finding they want more "niggly noodly bits to fiddle around with", well, that's not 5e and probably (hopefully) never will be. IMHO, of course.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.


I love it too. The ability to level up my Lore Bard from 2nd to 3rd level in 8 minutes so I can make the next session of an Adventurer's League game and get back to the fun is great.

The meticulously plotted out character build of 3E is something I shot in the head and left for dead on a ditch at the side of the road more than a decade ago. I don't want to see it return.

Then again, I am more than a bit biased. I too am a kid from the Red Box era and my view on multiclassing is one borrowed from a very famous 7up spokesman.

Never multiclassed... HA HA HA... never will.

 

[Gradine]

Making them hard to attain is what makes them great. When they are rare they help define a character. When there is only 1 character across several campaigns taking a given feat then that is a memorable thing about that character.

I can totally see that, but I think the pendulum swung a little too far in that direction. I'd like to see at least a few more characters taking feats than I generally see. Too often I've seen my players eyeing a particular feat that would be awesome for their character concept, then shrug and say "I guess I'll just put two points in X" because it's ultimately the more appealing option.