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

[WotC_Trevor]

On the importance and use of presets vs the custimizability (because it's a cooler non-word than customization, that's why!):

I don't think the basic package that is presented for a core class needs to have extra cool things to make it interesting that you couldn't get by building your own themes and backgrounds or feats and skills and whatever other options. To me they are there for ease of use AND as awesome building blocks to start from. Want to play a dwarven fighter? Cool, there's a preselected theme/background suggestion for you. But if you want to change it up a bit, the preselected theme/background is still a good jumping off point. And if you want to change it up even more, starting with the existing themes and backgrounds is a great place to start mix and matching.

Maybe you like most of the things in the "arcane student" background (I made that up, but it makes sense that we might see something similar) but you don't care about that familiar ability or that at-will spell-like ability. Just change those out for something else as you progress.

So even if most people wouldn't use the base background/theme or the optional background and theme choices (which I have no way of proving or disproving), I still think they're likely to use those options as jumping off points when fleshing out their character.

So yeah, I think the way Rob is talking about setting up backgrounds and themes is incredibly awesome and imminently useful for new or experienced players.

 

[WotC_Trevor]

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.

As I said over on the wizards forums, I don't think these theme or background choices are meant to lock you in and keep you on rails as your character grows and levels. I'm certain that if you don't want a certain feature as you level, you can trade it out for something else and I would be surprised if we didn't see mechanics and rules to reflect that.

 

[Sunseeker]

On the importance and use of presets vs the custimizability (because it's a cooler non-word than customization, that's why!):

I don't think the basic package that is presented for a core class needs to have extra cool things to make it interesting that you couldn't get by building your own themes and backgrounds or feats and skills and whatever other options. To me they are there for ease of use AND as awesome building blocks to start from. Want to play a dwarven fighter? But if you want to change it up a bit, the preselected theme/background is still a good jumping off point. And if you want to change it up even more, starting with the existing themes and backgrounds is a great place to start mix and matching.

Maybe you like most of the things in the "arcane student" background (I made that up, but it makes sense that we might see something similar) but you don't care about that familiar ability or that at-will spell-like ability. Just change those out for something else as you progress.

So even if most people wouldn't use the base background/theme or the optional background and theme choices (which I have no way of proving or disproving), I still think they're likely to use those options as jumping off points when fleshing out their character.

So yeah, I think the way Rob is talking about setting up backgrounds and themes is incredibly awesome and imminently useful for new or experienced players.

Exactly. One of the worst things that can happen in character creation is knowing what you want but not knowing how to get there. Probably second only to finding what you want but having to take something you really don't want along with it.

IE: I hate animal companions. I want to run one character at a time, no pets, no familiars, no side-kicks, nada. So if I see the "ranger" background gives me all this cool bow and arrow and nature stuff, but sticks me with a pet....BUT gives me a way to trade out that pet for something I want, I'm all over that.

I think this is a very good evolution to Pathfinder's "alternate advancement paths", by doing away with the complex system mastery normally required to re-tool a feat or power or skill or entire class without breaking the game or neutering your capabilities.

 

[dkyle]

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.

I agree 100%, which is the reason for my proposal. To ensure that pregen Backgrounds and Themes are functional and flavorful. They can be hand-designed to have a lot of stuff (both functional and flavorful) without being overpowered.

Give the custom builds the same number of elements, and you'll end up with them just using all the most functional elements, and being overpowered.

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.

Again, "fair and equal" is exactly my goal. That the pregens, and custom builds, would be balanced and equal. That does not mean they have to be the same, or follow the same rules.. Essentials Fighter is "fair and equal" to a PHB Fighter, but it is not the same. If the Essentials Fighter was just a PHB Fighter, but with class features and power choices pre-made, I doubt it would be anywhere near as popular.

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.

If a game is not balanced even when optimized by "min/maxers", then it is a broken game. Having to chose between "what I want to play" and "what makes my character effective" is a bad thing. The more done to make as many diverse builds as possible similarly powerful, the better.

I do not think that is feasible if the pregen Backgrounds and Themes are just specific examples of the custom rules. Either those Backgrounds and Themes are optimal (highly unlikely), in which case customization is largely superfluous, or they aren't, and anyone who chooses them is choosing to be less effective for the sake of playing what they "want to play". If, on the other hand, the pregens have some specific advantages that custom builds can't get (but they have their own advantages), then pregen vs. custom is a real choice, and players aren't automatically giving up effectiveness when they choose a pregen.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Take a "melee specialist" as a wizard? You might have something that looks a lot like a 4e Spelldancer or Swordmage. Take "Archer" as a cleric? Maybe your god is the god of the hunt!

The article describes a fighter who gets an arcane familiar without ever not being a fighter. Certainly sounds like they're retaining the "any class can take this" element. Which is awesome.

 

[EmbraCraig]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Take a "melee specialist" as a wizard? You might have something that looks a lot like a 4e Spelldancer or Swordmage. Take "Archer" as a cleric? Maybe your god is the god of the hunt!

The article describes a fighter who gets an arcane familiar without ever not being a fighter. Certainly sounds like they're retaining the "any class can take this" element. Which is awesome.

And could reduce the need for Wizards to have 917 seperate sub-classes and builds (I think that's about right at last count), which would also be awesome.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Take a "melee specialist" as a wizard? You might have something that looks a lot like a 4e Spelldancer or Swordmage.

Let's just say I'll be surprised if this works that way. A wizard, under most systems so far, would need a lot of specialized abilities to be a melee combatant like a swordmage, that a package intended for fighters wouldn't use.

I would expect that there's some sort of "swordmage" theme for wizards, though. Just not the same as the "slayer" for fighters.

It's really just a matter of the mechanics of the theme, not the concept.

 

[Incenjucar]

Backgrounds sound good. Themes sound terrible, at least compared to 4E themes.

They're describing BUILDS more than themes.

"Where background speaks to the skills you possess, your theme describes how you do the things you do. All fighters, for example, kick ass in combat because they are fighters. A sharpshooter fighter is awesome with ranged weapons while a slayer fighter dominates in hand-to-hand combat. Your theme helps you realize a certain style, technique, or flavor through the feats it offers. Each theme gives you several feats, starting with the first one right out of the gate. As you gain levels, your theme gives you additional feats that reflect the theme’s overall character. "

This is lame compared to the crazy awesome themes available in 4E.

 

[Dausuul]

I have seen other game systems try this approach. And the result is predictable: If prefab templates are a subset of custom builds--i.e., you can reproduce any template with the custom build rules--then nobody uses templates. The template feels like a pointless and artificial constraint; it feels like the designer telling you what to do, which no one likes. Moreover, a skilled optimizer will almost certainly be able to create a custom build that outperforms any prefab template.

I agree with DKyle. Templates need to have built-in "template-only" features that make them competitive with optimized custom builds, in much the same way that 4E Essentials classes get special features to make them competitive with the more flexible, granular Classic 4E builds. Otherwise, we're back to the situation where people who don't want to deal with a lot of chargen hassle are punished with less effective characters.

 

[Incenjucar]

I agree with DKyle. If the designers feel it's necessary to go this route, then the templates need to have built-in "template-only" features that make them competitive with optimized custom builds. Otherwise, we're back to everyone playing 3E/4E characters, sifting through a bazillion feats and options and piddly little chargen elements.

This just requires WotC designers to not design garbage default builds. They have this bad habit of suggesting poor options.