Blog: Background and Themes a closer look.

[Greg K]

[*]The 2e Specialist Wizard classes, by making them Advanced Themes (Necromancer, Abjurer, Enchanter)

I hope not. It would be unacceptable to me if they are not starting options.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

When you list them all out like that, it makes me a bit sad that Vampire competes for the same slot as Necromancer (and that Necromancer, by the verbage in the article, may require Mystic as a prerequisite).
[...]
I don't know how I'd describe that character if all those things were different options for one slot of character customization.

That's something I wonder about too.

I suppose that since a starting character only has so many features which are represented stat-wise, at some point we decide what is essential as far as choosing which parts of the PC's biography are represented by stats, and which are meaningful, but unstatted, story.

I suppose I could make my own "tiefling-necromancer-vampire" theme by selecting feats individually, but that goes against the system a bit.

From what I've seen of 5e, that doesn't go against the system at all, unless we're playing in a campaign that doesn't use the individual feat-selection rules module.

Was the character a Tiefling Orphaned Wizard-Order Necromancer Vampire at 1st level? At what level did the character achieve all these features? As comparison, I wonder at what level will a 5e character be able to gather the slots to represent all these rules-wise.

Another question is, how many sourcebooks beyond the PHB were required to represent your character, and how long did it take from the initial PHB release date of that Edition in order to have these rules? Will 5e cover these quicker? If options like Werewolf and Vampire are already in the PHB, then 5e outpaces earlier editions in this regard.

 

[Mattachine]

Also, not every choice for a character has to have an accompanying game-mechanic.

In a campaign I ran, players wanted tieflings, but did not want the +1 LA. So, we used the human racial features, and just made their characters tieflings.

We can use creativity to give characters backgrounds, and we can reskin existing rules to match our mind's eye.

Everything doesn't need a rule. We've had D&D editions like that already.

 

[El Mahdi]

Also, not every choice for a character has to have an accompanying game-mechanic.

In a campaign I ran, players wanted tieflings, but did not want the +1 LA. So, we used the human racial features, and just made their characters tieflings.

We can use creativity to give characters backgrounds, and we can reskin existing rules to match our mind's eye.

Everything doesn't need a rule. We've had D&D editions like that already.

Though we do need a way to present our common expectations at each and every individual table. When our ideas and expectation run different from the game as presented, then we usually present those different expectations in the form of houserules.

A problem though is how much online tools (DDI) have become a common reference point. And their usefulness at shortening prep time is immense. Unfortunately though, that effectiveness is lessened with each houserule that deviates from RAW. However, the more optional rules that are presented officially, the greater the chance of having what you need online.

So as to the design of D&D Next, and especially as it relates to DDI, I would very much like them to (as much as possible) make a rule for everything.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So as to the design of D&D Next, and especially as it relates to DDI, I would very much like them to (as much as possible) make a rule for everything.

I prefer that the make a rule for the things they need, but stub out a spot for a rule in places where they either don't need it, or don't have anything good to put in it. That goes double for DDI. Examples:

• Great craft system available, fits wonderfully, they include it--fine.
• Craft system not getting anywhere, got some minimal bit, they stub it out--fine. You can change it if you like. They can change it later when they get something better.
• Mediocre craft system, hardcoded in DDI, printed in the books and embedded in the system--Emphatically not fine. Now we have something not all that hot, and we are stuck with it for the life of the version.

This goes double for smaller things, like a key modifier that might be needed in a certain spot of the math, but the system seems to be trending towards not needing it much. Leave it there; Set it to zero; Tell everyone it's a stub! Unless of course all those niche uses really can be absorbed into something else, then, sure, get rid of it. It's all the "rounding off" without accounting for the rounding that burns us every time.

 

[jbear]

Just chiming in:

After reading the blog: These ideas sound like pure gold. Both my interest and optimism for 5e have increased.

Very very cool ideas.