D&D General Character Generation, Advancement, and Tasha's

[DemoMonkey]

"Doctors HATE it when you choose this Feat!"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But I will add this: I think they're in a bit of a bind in terms of loosening up race rules, since most races really don't have major features to distinguish them. Take away culture and ability mods and dwarves are left with poison resistance, at most. Elves don't sleep, but that's a ribbon. And orcs just have better eyes.

I do sympathize, which is why I wrote, at the end, that they should come up with some other, secondary, system. Maybe even just seriously beefing up "background", but something.

 

[Charlaquin]

Posting a comment to say "I agree" seemed a bit excessive.

That was my sentiment the first time around as well. Just “yep, this seems well thought out and insightful. Nothing much else to say.”

 

[prabe]

To be more clear, there is a distinction (IMO) between the following two things-

1. Choosing a name. Once you choose a name (Really, Derek, you're calling your character Heywood Jablowmi again?), you are foreclosed from choosing any other name.

2. Choosing a class. Yes, once you choose a class, you are foreclosed from choosing other classes. But that is a meaningful choice because it involves tradeoffs and restrictions.

If you had a class-less, pick an ability system, I think you remove a lot of the restrictions and tradeoffs that make it interesting for many players.

I've played games that were entirely point-buy, and there are different trade-offs there, and advancement is ... not really congruent with level-based advancement, most of the time.

I don't entirely agree with the idea that removing ability modifiers removes race as a decision. It just turns it into a decision of less mechanical import. The folks who are heavily into optimization will probably hate it; the people who are more interested in "what kind of story would emerge around, e.g., a Forest Gnome Berserker?" will probably not hate it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've played games that were entirely point-buy, and there are different trade-offs there, and advancement is ... not really congruent with level-based advancement, most of the time.

There are definitely trade-offs in point-based systems, but I think Snarf’s thesis is basically that having a few big choices that narrow your advancement path is D&D’s secret sauce. There’s something about your character advancing in ways other characters just can’t that is... if not necessarily more appealing than a more a-la-carte system, at least more “D&D”.

 

[Lanefan]

A side factor to all this is game-mechanical enforcement - or lack thereof - of choices made.

Time was, you chose your alignment and then if you didn't play to it there'd be penalties to follow; and changing alignment also carried costs and penalties. Alignment now has been reduced to little more than fluff with few if any consequences for deviation or even outright change.

Similar arguments can be made around choice of class (much more overlap between classes, less niche protection, started with 3e) and race/species (fewer mechanical differentiators, starting quite recently).

Net result: a lot of the once-significant choice-making during char-gen has been either a) been made less important or b) delayed until later advancement. Whether this is good, bad, or neither is open for debate, of course, but it's worth noting regardless.

 

[prabe]

There are definitely trade-offs in point-based systems, but I think Snarf’s thesis is basically that having a few big choices that narrow your advancement path is D&D’s secret sauce. There’s something about your character advancing in ways other characters just can’t that is... if not necessarily more appealing than a more a-la-carte system, at least more “D&D”.

Yeah. I was really thinking that in a total point-buy system, advancement is an entirely different thing from in D&D, and hard to get right (some over-reward tight focus, others under-reward it, IMO). Of course, getting level-based advancement isn't bone-simple, either.

 

[prabe]

A side factor to all this is game-mechanical enforcement - or lack thereof - of choices made.

Time was, you chose your alignment and then if you didn't play to it there'd be penalties to follow; and changing alignment also carried costs and penalties. Alignment now has been reduced to little more than fluff with few if any consequences for deviation or even outright change.

Similar arguments can be made around choice of class (much more overlap between classes, less niche protection, started with 3e) and race/species (fewer mechanical differentiators, starting quite recently).

Net result: a lot of the once-significant choice-making during char-gen has been either a) been made less important or b) delayed until later advancement. Whether this is good, bad, or neither is open for debate, of course, but it's worth noting regardless.

I don't disagree, but the people I played 1E with treated alignment as descriptive, not prescriptive, and rarely if ever enforced it.

I think the changes are (and have been) more in a direction of allowing the player/s to define the character/s as they see fit. I think choices still matter, but I think they matter differently than they once did.

 

[Mort]

I've played games that were entirely point-buy, and there are different trade-offs there, and advancement is ... not really congruent with level-based advancement, most of the time.

I don't entirely agree with the idea that removing ability modifiers removes race as a decision. It just turns it into a decision of less mechanical import. The folks who are heavily into optimization will probably hate it; the people who are more interested in "what kind of story would emerge around, e.g., a Forest Gnome Berserker?" will probably not hate it.

Thing is, Tasha's didn't "remove" ability modifiers it just made them entirely floating. So actually, some races (mountain dwarf and Half elf in particular) become even more attractive to optimizers not less. Tasha's changes the decision math it does not remove it.

Non optimizers will be happy because they can pick a race and not be subject to strict ability guidelines. Optimizers will be happy because they can optimize even further. People who don't care just take the default. In theory everybody wins. Also in theory the secondary characteristics of the races become that much more important in the decision process.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the changes are (and have been) more in a direction of allowing the player/s to define the character/s as they see fit. I think choices still matter, but I think they matter differently than they once did.

There's definitely been a move towards making chargen rules more flexible so that people have an easier time realizing their vision, but not a similar move towards making the game point-buy instead of using classes. Classes definitely provide some utility, but I think a complete theory of why they're popular is difficult. I think it's because starting with a blank slate for a character is harder than riffing from a known concept.