Level Up (A5E) Class redesign

[Haldrik]

You can cover a lot more ground if break it out, instead of slamming it all into backgrounds. Also, we already have a game element called a background and rather than redefine that, I find it more useful to incorporate it into something new called "Culture."

What would "culture" offer (mechanically or narratively) that background wouldnt?

(I think every background should automatically with a language and proficiency for checks relating to the background.)

 

[Haldrik]

Well, that's a much bigger background, which really encompasses all three things we are talking about. But it's easier to mix and match three different things, than to build all the things that contain all the combinations thereof.....

Each background by itself is moreorless just a background.

But like a deck of cards, you build a culture by choosing which backgrounds goes into a particular deck.

The player just picks one card. But the DM has in mind the entire deck.

A culture can have five backgrounds or a hundred backgrounds, whatever the DM finds useful.

Personally I would start small. Pick say five. Then add more backgrounds if the player characters develop deeper relationships with the culture during gameplay.

 

[Morrus]

Who do I report the owner of the site to for insulting me?

Your response to somebody calling you Karen is is that want to speak to my manager? At least you have a sense of humour.

Dude, calm down. You snarked. You got very mildly snarked back. For somebody with 7 warnings, 5 of which are for insulting other members, I’d have expected a thicker skin. You can - and do - certainly dish it out, after all.

This was a good natured ding. Quite a funny one, I might add. Don’t escalate it into a problem.

 

[Weiley31]

Level 1 Subclasses are a must.

Classes with Signature abilities or abilities tied to Subclass gimmick should scale properly so that way it doesn't feel like wet toilet paper when facing a higher level enemy. One example was the League of Legends' Fighter Archetype: The Renegade. Some of its class abilities didn't have proper Scaling in regards to damage. Which is stupid. My Hextech Gun/s should be my main source of heavy hitting damage instead of a feat and a longsword

Dead levels SHOULD NOT be a thing. It kinda sucks when a level has a "blank" and an extra prof increase or Invocation is considered good enough.

I'm still okay with Multiclass Feats or Half Feats.

 

[Haldrik]

Level 1 Subclasses are a must.

Yeah, the archetype should be the default feat for level 1.

The "zero level" character can be made out five feat units: two for species, two for class or archetype, and one for background. These feats for class or archetype are rudimentary, such as proficiency with class skills or tools, simple weapons, one martial weapon or cantrip, or rudimentary armor. Small things, but they add up. Probably the biggest thing is a special species ability.

Then at level 1, add an archetype on top of this. Round out the class later at level 3.

Level 2 gets an open feat for player preference including an ability score improvement.

This way, the character starts out doing the archetype specialization.



This setup allows a Fighter to swap in a cantrip at "level 0", or so on.

And zero level characters are well understood, and doable for players who like to start roleplay as teens during level 0, or so on.

 

[dave2008]

What would "culture" offer (mechanically or narratively) that background wouldnt?

(I think every background should automatically with a language and proficiency for checks relating to the background.)

Background already is a thing in 5e. It has a particular design. So we can't really add to that and be compatible with 5e. However, we can create a new thing called "Culture" or something else that includes your background. I have already mentioned religious affiliation of something that could be included in culture and is not currently covered in the 5e "Background." Additionally, i would like to move some racial traits, and specifically sub-race traits to culture. I am thinking these would go in the "environment" portion of the culture. This 3 pronged approach allows a persons culture to be a combination of 3 things (or more if needed): Background (basically past profession as in RAW), Environment (a version of traits taken from races and possibly other things), and Religion (mostly flavor, but could include mechanical possible include mechanical bits).

 

[dave2008]

Each background by itself is moreorless just a background.

But like a deck of cards, you build a culture by choosing which backgrounds goes into a particular deck.

The player just picks one card. But the DM has in mind the entire deck.

A culture can have five backgrounds or a hundred backgrounds, whatever the DM finds useful.

Personally I would start small. Pick say five. Then add more backgrounds if the player characters develop deeper relationships with the culture during gameplay.

Why can't I choose a culture by picking a background, a religion, and a region? That provides the equal number of options without require a new background for every iteration of those three things. I mean, we are achieving the same goal - why are you so against the mix and match approach. It is odd since they simply can't shove it all into backgrounds and maintain the compatibility they want. So they have to create something new, and I don't think they are going to ditch RAW backgrounds.

 

[dave2008]

@Haldrik look at it this way: does it make more sense to have 20 options each for background, religion, and region (60 options total) that make up your "culture" or to make 720 different "backgrounds" to cover all of those possible combinations?

 

[Haldrik]

Background already is a thing in 5e. It has a particular design. So we can't really add to that and be compatible with 5e. However, we can create a new thing called "Culture" or something else that includes your background.

I am up for this approach.

If race splits off "culture" when becoming species, it is ok to merge the background design space into the new "culture" design space.

Essentially "culture" is "background".

But note. The Players Handbook background already includes: Ideal, Flaw, and what I call Quirk.

The "Ideal" is one sentence or so to convey a central concept. So here, I also have the player add a spiritual community that relates to this ideal. For example, here is the place where a cleric mentions a cosmic force or philosophy or polytheistic patron deity or pantheon, and a particular sacred community. As expansions of Ideal.

This is also where the player decides the Alignment of the character (such as Chaotic Good) and then adds a specific behavior that expresses this alignment (such as believing in personal redemption and being more likely to let a criminal go free without punishment, as long as future danger to others is less of a concern).

Likewise near Ideal, I add "Ambition", a longterm goal, usually spanning a tier. This goal correlates well with founding a stronghold and attracting followers at a higher level. It could be a wizard college with students, or a new spiritual community in a remote area, or a new import-export business, or so on. There may even be an ambition to become a leader of a region. Whatever the ambition, the player can already be thinking about the "stronghold" (whatever form it will take) from level 1, and achieve related goals toward it.

So these things − Alignment, Ideal, Spirituality, and Ambition are things that I do with the normal Background design space now.

If culture is moreorless the same thing Background is but maybe slightly beefier, such as adding proficiency with a weapon, armor, cantrip, minor ritual, or similar, that is fine with me.

Generally, a "cultural background" is worth about a feat of features.



So:

Background is often the job within a certain culture.

Ideal includes a spiritual community in the context of that culture. (But no extra mechanics: that would require a dedicated background.)

Region: the DM tells you where this culture is.

 

[Haldrik]

Note, some gamers seem to make a big deal about "species" and things like Darkvision. But Darkvision can easily be a CULTURAL trait. Because magic.

The Warlock can gain darkvision by means of magic despite species. Perhaps every police officer in a certain city has to be imbued with Darkvision as part of the job description. So, honestly, my only concern for who gets what, is flavor. If a dwarf culture is deep underground then for flavor reasons they seem likely to have darkvision. But if they dwell around muddy riverbanks on the surface then maybe they lack darkvision. If they live immediately under the surface using a hill like a windowless apartment building, maybe they lack darkvision, and rely on oillamps and lanterns like humans do.

Regarding Strength and small species. In my eyes, halflings are "natural" and shouldnt be strong, but gnomes are "magical" and might be superhumanly strong. So the only thing that matters is the character concept and the coherent flavor that comes with it. So the line between "species" and "culture" is porous. That said, to silo certain things into a particular species like Large size or waterbreathing, or misty step, or elven accuracy, helps give a sense of shared commonality across a species, even if individuals might swap these traits out.

The utility of "species" and "culture" is to organize themes and tropes.