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

[Kaodi]

Or I could be a thief (thief) who strikes from hidden positions (lurker theme)

Either this should have been rogue (thief) or thief (background), I imagine. The first is more likely, the second is more intriguing (given that he was talking a human fighter in the previous sentence).

 

[mkill]

Sounds good - now I want to see how it looks in practice.

Also, I hope class / theme / background are less split into silos as 4th edition. Meaning, I'd rather have 10 building blocks that I can drop into any class than 100 building blocks but each only works for 1 out of 10 classes.

And each of these building blocks should be a self-contained unit. Meaning, if I choose the "Jack of all trades" theme, it should give me +1 to skill checks, period, not, say, skills at half cost and other meta-bonuses that I need to cash in elsewhere. Fantasy Craft is the worst offender here (but most 3E clones have it)

 

[Janaxstrus]

I could see giving the pre-made Backgrounds and Themes a little something extra that can't be gotten using the "custom build" rules, to make up for the power of being able to build towards synergies with custom builds.

For example, the Essentials fighter is a lot less customizable than the original PHB Fighter, but is a competitive choice partly because it does things that the PHB Fighter can't do.

Giving the preset ones "extras" is a bad thing in my opinion. You should not be penalized for actually going the extra mile on your character.
I understand not everyone likes to tinker or spend more time on a character, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

 

[Mengu]

It's essentially just character templates where everything is baked in. You can deconstruct to whatever degree you want, and customize. It's fine. They've been saying the same thing over and over anyway. They are taking the same D&D material that's in existence and presenting it a different way. Tea did not just become coolaid, it's still tea, they only changed the cup.

This article is more of a confirmation statement than anything else.

 

[dkyle]

Giving the preset ones "extras" is a bad thing in my opinion. You should not be penalized for actually going the extra mile on your character.
I understand not everyone likes to tinker or spend more time on a character, but they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

My intent is that preset ones would ultimately be be no more powerful than optimized custom ones. It's just that the custom ones would benefit from mechanical synergies (found by a skilled player), while the preset ones would have some special features not available otherwise. Or perhaps just have more stuff that's flavorful, but not as useful.

So if the custom build rules allow for, say, three feats at level 6, the pregens might have 4 or 5 feats, but they'd be less synergistic than what a custom build could go for. But if someone liked those specific feats, they might pick it.

Like I said, the Essentials Fighters have stuff that the "custom" 4E PHB Fighter can't get. But they're not better, and plenty of people would favor one or the other. Similar principle. You can build pregens that break the rules of the custom builds, and arrive at a balanced system.

 

[Savage Wombat]

But it's an IMPORTANT confirmation, which makes me happy.

I don't think we're going to see many themes, as described, that cross classes. You can't build a theme for "melee specialist" that works for wizards, for example.

The question is whether "archer" can be taken, as is, for fighters and rangers and rogues, or just fighters.

 

[Sunseeker]

My intent is that preset ones would ultimately be be no more powerful than optimized custom ones. It's just that the custom ones would benefit from mechanical synergies (found by a skilled player), while the preset ones would have some special features not available otherwise. Or perhaps just have more stuff that's flavorful, but not as useful.

So if the custom build rules allow for, say, three feats at level 6, the pregens might have 4 or 5 feats, but they'd be less synergistic than what a custom build could go for. But if someone liked those specific feats, they might pick it.

Like I said, the Essentials Fighters have stuff that the "custom" 4E PHB Fighter can't get. But they're not better, and plenty of people would favor one or the other. Similar principle. You can build pregens that break the rules of the custom builds, and arrive at a balanced system.

Non-functional but flavorful leads to bloat. This was the same problem 3e and 4e had. There were lots of "cool" things to take that really only wasted feat spots.

Make things fair and equal, people who don't want to custom-build or hey, even like the pregens will use them. If Wizards simply makes good pregens, then there won't be any need for artificially inflating them with more bonuses that don't really add much.

Most custom builders will probably be people who want to go for non-power, thematic builds anyway. Sure the min/maxers will be there, but they'll be in the minority. There are only a few ways to create a super-powerful min/maxer. There are an infinite number of ways to create flavorful thematic builds.

 

[EmbraCraig]

I like the sound of pretty much everything in here. Options are good, and this encourages players to at least give a passing glance at a backstory when they're rolling up a new character (something that can mechanically be completely ignored in 3.5 and 4E).

I really hope that they build in some kind of leeway for players who don't start with a fixed idea of how they want their character to turn out, though. My players have made choices to take advantage of synergies with other player's powers, for example, or even (gods forbid) made choices based on things that they realised the party needed, even if it didn't fit in with their immediate goals. Those things aren't always clear at initial character creation.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

Either this should have been rogue (thief) or thief (background), I imagine. The first is more likely, the second is more intriguing (given that he was talking a human fighter in the previous sentence).

I think in Rob's example, each one of those is the fighter class. So you have a typical fighter soldier, a fighter with a thiefy past based on the (thief) background, or a fighter with some magicky bits with some kind of (magic) background.

Note I used the ( ) in a similar way to how I thought Rob was using them for emphasis.

 

[Sunseeker]

I like the sound of pretty much everything in here. Options are good, and this encourages players to at least give a passing glance at a backstory when they're rolling up a new character (something that can mechanically be completely ignored in 3.5 and 4E).

Agreed, which is one of the disappointing issues with 4e's non-custom backgrounds/themes, I can develop a cool background for my character....but I can't create a custom perk to reflect it. I can pick a cool perk, but the associated background is well...not so fitting.

I really hope that they build in some kind of leeway for players who don't start with a fixed idea of how they want their character to turn out, though. My players have made choices to take advantage of synergies with other player's powers, for example, or even (gods forbid) made choices based on things that they realised the party needed, even if it didn't fit in with their immediate goals. Those things aren't always clear at initial character creation.

True, and they change as people level. The heavy-damage-at-low-levels fighter starts to go more defensive, the wizard starts to go more utility instead of blasty, the cleric picks up damage spells and uses them more often than healing.

There's no real way to address this in the rules aside from allowing some later-in-game retooling.