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

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder if this could by the way we get mystic thurge in.

Wizard (fail clergy background) (Divine power theme)

Or even better

Fighter (Theif background) (monk theme) unarmed stealth skill based combat engine...BATMAN for short.

wait wait even better... do psi themes instead of classes..

ohwait

Ranger class (Soldier background) (Soulknife theme) a scout that fought in the war and has his own light saber...err I mean soul blade.

Warlock calls (Slayer background) (soul knife theme) to re do the 4e hexblade...

 

[Argyle King]

My initial impression was very positive.


Second thoughts: I do have one concern. If something akin to paragon paths/prestigue classes make their way into the game, I hope there aren't a plethora of them which can only be taken based on theme or background. Why? Because I don't want to see one theme or one background become the right answer for a good character. I don't want to return to Windrose Ports (I think that's the name of the 4E background which caused so many problems.)

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm not a huge fan of being able to customize everything. Everyone will end up doing so and themes and backgrounds will become meaningless.

NPCs and cultural definitions are what Backgrounds and Themes are for, which is what I think you're getting at. Allowing players to create their own might mean this whole enterprise of grouping becomes a delivery system for just "more cool powers." However that freedom for players should not dissolve the meaning of these groupings in the game world.

"I come from Airashai, the land of the Snow People. They are known for..."

The feats and skills a PC begins with may be customizable to the point of seeming meaninglessness, but only if - as part of themes & backgrounds themselves - they aren't tied into the content of the setting.

"In Airashai there are three kinds of warriors: the Sahdornai who run quickly into battle with fists, knee-spikes, and giant seal tooth daggers; the Harrangi who quietly sneak to surround enemies before throwing their whale spears; and the Kor-Lor who wear heavy blubber, frostwyrm shields, and attack together as a flesh wall."

If having a feat didn't as well give it context in the world, then for the player/character it has lost its meaning by which it was generated within the setting. That history may be known to some and possible to be discover through play, but it is just as easy to begin with all of this known as well. By creating one's own theme or background players can be part of the setting construction during character creation.

"Where did you learn the Airashai echo-casting tradition of 'the cold North Wind'? They are rumoured to only teach this practice to one boy and one girl per tribe in a generation."

If a player wanted to customize their own Theme or Background like I have above, I would incorporate it into the setting. From then on dealing with these powers in game becomes meaningful in relation to the Airashai. This is not only for their creating player, but for every other player too. Any of them may desire to learn those feats or skills and now they know at least one place where they may do so. On the other hand, the PCs may simply want to hire these guys because they uniquely do what they do. Plus the players have a clue about what to expect if they ever find a knee-spike lying around in some dusty dungeon somewhere. The context gives meaning.

 

[dkyle]

Exactly!

@dkyle One of the purposes of D&D Next is to allow players of different styles to exist at the same table, while still being compatible and balanced. Giving one type style a reward over another is contradictory to that effort. It would defeat the entire goal of 5E.

Avoiding giving one type of style a reward over the other is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

If preset Backgrounds and Themes are a subset of custom builds, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be inferior to the custom builds. Thus rewarding the custom builders. The bonuses for presets is meant to equalize the inherent bonuses for getting to combine elements however you want.

My goal is that presets would be real options that even powergamers consider (like Essentials classes), not glorified examples that are only chosen out of ignorance, or apathy.

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.

A foregone conclusion? No. An incredibly likely conclusion borne out by every precedent I can think of? Yes.

Example builds suck. They always do. Why should we expect these to be any different?

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.

Again, Min/Max proof? No. More resistant than others? Yes. That's the goal. Speaking of perfection and absolutes is not useful.

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.

This simply undercuts the entire purpose of this forum, and the blog post we're discussing.

In what way is it "wiser" to not discuss the subject at hand, incorporating our experiences and perceptions? In what way is it better to not discuss?

And the problem I'm "fretting" about occurs in every game I've ever seen which includes examples of a custom build system. It would be folly to assume it won't happen in 5E.

"Have some faith"? How is that helpful? Does my faith somehow inspire them to make a better game?

As far as I'm concerned, well-reasoned cynicism is infinitely "wiser" than silent optimism.

 

[Incenjucar]

If we cannot rely on WotC to provide good pre-built options, we cannot rely on them to provide fair compensation for pre-built options.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Avoiding giving one type of style a reward over the other is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

If preset Backgrounds and Themes are a subset of custom builds, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be inferior to the custom builds. Thus rewarding the custom builders. The bonuses for presets is meant to equalize the inherent bonuses for getting to combine elements however you want.

My goal is that presets would be real options that even powergamers consider (like Essentials classes), not glorified examples that are only chosen out of ignorance, or apathy.



A foregone conclusion? No. An incredibly likely conclusion borne out by every precedent I can think of? Yes.

Example builds suck. They always do. Why should we expect these to be any different?

Again, Min/Max proof? No. More resistant than others? Yes. That's the goal. Speaking of perfection and absolutes is not useful.

This simply undercuts the entire purpose of this forum, and the blog post we're discussing.

In what way is it "wiser" to not discuss the subject at hand, incorporating our experiences and perceptions? In what way is it better to not discuss?

And the problem I'm "fretting" about occurs in every game I've ever seen which includes examples of a custom build system. It would be folly to assume it won't happen in 5E.

"Have some faith"? How is that helpful? Does my faith somehow inspire them to make a better game?

As far as I'm concerned, well-reasoned cynicism is infinitely "wiser" than silent optimism.

Why is removing min-maxing the goal? It's sure as heck not my goal. I like being able to spend some time making a better character.
Most of the people I play with are the same way.

I would much rather see people willing to put in the work on a character rewarded than those that are happy taking all the pre-built stuff.

 

[dkyle]

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.

Did I say that flavorful cool stuff would be held back? I would absolutely expect all the core essences of the themes to be available to customizers. I'm talking about mechanical bonuses to the presets, not giving them exclusive bits of flavor.

A preset might have more feats than custom builds are permitted, because a designer hand-picked a bunch with flavor synergy, but not much mechanics synergy. You'd still be free to take those feats on a custom build, just not as many of them. If you're not concerned about being "underpowered", then this should be fine with you.

Or a preset might have some extra stuff that makes them extra good at doing what they're supposed to be good at. But not stuff that is essential to the flavor. That would still be derived from the feats chosen.

I'm unclear what you mean by "protect you from yourself". The rules I'm proposing are aimed at producing game balance between presets and customs. It has nothing to do with "protecting you from yourself".

 

[CM]

I'm going to assume that we'll see a variety of prebuilt themes. Some might be optimized for one combat style, while others might be more well-rounded. This is a good thing.

I'm also going to assume (based on what has been revealed) that anyone who picks a theme isn't hard-locked into those selections while advancing and is instead able to swap out feats if desired. This way if you want to build a character quickly you pick your background and theme and go, and are free to customize later if the need arises. Because of this flexibility, themes should not need to carry any extra baked-in benefits that are unavailable to those who build custom characters from the ground up.

I am a little disappointed that themes seem to be just feat packages now. I liked 4e's themes (and 2e's kits). This can be mitigated somewhat if feats are more significant than they were in 3e and 4e, however (like turning into a wolf, as mentioned above).

 

[dkyle]

Why is removing min-maxing the goal? It's sure as heck not my goal. I like being able to spend some time making a better character.
Most of the people I play with are the same way.

I'm a min/maxing, optimizing powergamer myself. I certainly don't want it removed.

I want a game where doing it doesn't break it. I want a game I can really sink my teeth into, without feeling like I'm ruining for other players and getting stymied by DM fiat. I feel that I largely got that in 4E, at least much more-so than in previous editions.

I would much rather see people willing to put in the work on a character rewarded than those that are happy taking all the pre-built stuff.

Being able to do some spiffy other thing that pre-builts can't do, while being about as effective overall, is reward enough, at least to me.

But anyway, I believe I've been consistent in saying "similarly powerful". Not exactly as powerful. I have little doubt that the best custom builds would edge out presets. There's room for that without breaking the game.

Also, to me, the fun of powergaming is directly correlated with how many interesting options I have to choose from. If the presets are simply a strict subset of the custom options, then I just ignore them; they are useless to me. If they have some benefits of their own, then it becomes an interesting choice whether the gains of choosing them outweighs the losses.

In other words, Essentials classes are worth considering. Those example builds each class gets? I don't even look at them.

 

[El Mahdi]

Avoiding giving one type of style a reward over the other is exactly what I'm trying to avoid.

If preset Backgrounds and Themes are a subset of custom builds, it is virtually guaranteed that they will be inferior to the custom builds.

You keep saying this, but you don't provide any evidence of it.

If the game is designed badly, then sure, this can happen.

But there's nothing inherent in either mechanic that makes this so.

If you're going to keep claiming this, it might be helpful if you show evidence of why this is so, or give an explanation, based on real facts (not conjecture) as to why this is so.