D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Beyond Class & Race

[MoonSong]

Exactly. I think the big mistake that often gets made is assuming that "I don't want to deal with lots of fiddly character building stuff" is equivalent to "I don't care how effective my character is". They are different sentiments, and I think the former is a lot more common than the latter.

DnD is a game where character power is the primary determinant of a player's power over the story. And it seems to me that the players that tend to not care about fiddly build mechanics also tend to be the ones that care most about shaping the story. Handing them gimped prefab characters is just a recipe for frustration.

And if the prefabs aren't gimped (which would, frankly, be miraculous), and are well designed using the custom build rules, then you just ruin the fun of the optimizers. If the best characters come printed in the book, not many people have fun putting effort into coming up with creative ways to produce inferior characters.

The solution is that prefabs should be different from custom builds, but still similarly effective. Then, the storytellers can use the prefabs, and play effective characters, while the powergamers can have fun playing with the custom build system.

The problem with your suggestion is, not all people wanting high customization are powergamers, some of us rather do it to play exaclty the character we want or get as close as possible, and I personally rather play an underpowered character for the flavor and being unable to play that because the devs want to protect me from myslef is frustrating.

And I don't think good=perfect, if all pregen themes and backgrounds are good, there is still too much room for optimization (starting for the right combinations between the two), and because the designers cannot foresee all posibble permutations, specially since there always will be new stuff in the splatbooks. Please make the pregens good mechanically don't hold back the flavorfull cool stuff from customizers.

 

[El Mahdi]

I'm not sure why we need to encourage people to use package deals in the first place. Packages should be used for convenience, not to encourage stereotypes.

What you call stereotypes, others call archetypes.

If you don't like a "stereotypical" character, you don't have to make one. I'm sure there will be builds (themes/backgrounds combinations) that are not stereotypical. I'm also sure there will end up being a ton of them...from both WotC and third party publishers. So, I'm sure you'll be able to find a "simple" build you like that isn't stereotypical. And if you prefer more complicated, then you can build practically anything you can envision.

In other words, you get to build/play the character you want...and build/play it in a style you want.

The people who do like archetypes will also get to build/play the character they want in the style they want.

Everybody will get to build/play the character they want in the style they want.

I think by any definition, that's what's called Win-Win.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

As you progress? If by progress, you mean level, no thank you. For myself, it would have to be the ability to switch out the familiar for another option at the start or the designers to not include the familiar in the background at all.

I was running with the assumptions that theme/backgrounds would have character options linked to them that you get as you level, and that maybe in this made up example you would get a familiar at some level down the road. If you wanted to take that same example and instead plan out how you would level and what you would get from the beginning, I doubt the rules would stop you from deciding what you wanted and what you wanted to trade out from the start. That's the in between option of using a premade theme/background and crafting your own.

 

[Greg K]

The problem with your suggestion is, not all people wanting high customization are powergamers, some of us rather do it to play exaclty the character we want or get as close as possible, and I personally rather play an underpowered character for the flavor and being unable to play that because the devs want to protect me from myslef is frustrating.

Agreed. I and the people that I know are not interested in powergaming, min/maxing. Furthermore, I and the other DMs should have the tools available to design backgrounds/themes tailored to our campaign setting. We are quite capable of telling a player, "No!"

What the designers should do is tell players, in the PHB, that "DMs" can restrict or alter any background/theme as they deem appropriate for their campaign.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Themes and backgrounds, seem more like the 2e idea of a kit.

It also comes to the question whether or not a theme is something that most advanced players will ignore in favour of picking their own feats, if a theme is just a feat package. It's too early to see if themes offer special non-feat bonuses based on the theme themselves.

The thing I liked about 4e themes was that while many of them were like what's being proposed for 5e, many of them were also very campaign specific. And gave more immersion into the campaign itself.

Though the example of the magicy fighter is an interesting one, as I've always being intrigued by a fighter that has magical knowledge and possibly "ritual casting" as a feat. So that theme would be an interesting one.

 

[El Mahdi]

Exactly. I think the big mistake that often gets made is assuming that "I don't want to deal with lots of fiddly character building stuff" is equivalent to "I don't care how effective my character is". They are different sentiments, and I think the former is a lot more common than the latter...

I think you're creating a problem where one does not yet exist, and may never exist.

The goal is that the simple preset builds will be equivalent in balance/power to customized builds. There is nothing inherent about either concept that makes an imbalance a foregone conclusion.

However, bad design could cause this to happen. But, until we actually see the game, worrying about this seems a waste of ones energy.

Also, Min/Maxing could obviously make this possible. But the game that's designed to be Min/Max proof has yet to be designed...if it's even possible.

I think it's probably a wiser course to not make assumptions about things we haven't seen, not fret about problems that haven't occured yet, and above all...

...have some faith.

 

[El Mahdi]

Of course, if they actually put a "you turn into a wolf" feat into the game, then they may just have something here.

Or, you work with your DM to create a theme/background/feat that does this.

I'm 100% positive that the DMG (or whatever it's called in the next edition) will have guidance on how to design your own.

Win-Win Again!

 

[Quickleaf]

Where does character complexity come into play with all of this?

To me the big benefit of the essentials fighter is ease of play. That means that some of it's class features work differently from the core fighter and open up new mechanical options (eg. Heavy Blade Strike feat). But it's not a power issue. It's a design issue.

Themes as presented in Rob's article don't seem to support ease of play (though they would support ease of character creation).

Does this mean that (sub)classes will be where you determine how complex/simple your character is to run?

 

[Greg K]

Themes and backgrounds, seem more like the 2e idea of a kit.

Or 3e PHB class variants which got almost not coverage until Unearthed Arcana.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think by any definition, that's what's called Win-Win.

Which can be accomplished without punishing people for not using packages.