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

[WotC_Trevor]

I wanted to make sure I wasn't running around putting words in Rob's mouth so I pinged him with some questions and got a quick response from him. I wanted to share that here for further clarification.

Me

Hey Rob. I've been saying a few things in our forums and ENWorld and I want to make sure I have it right. What I got from the article was that you could have a fighter (class) who could mix and match backgrounds and themes to get some really flavorful and mechanically cool stuff. So you could be a:

Fighter (soldier) (slayer) = a typical kill stuff fighter.
Fighter (thief) (lurker) = a tricky sneaky dastardly fighter.
Fighter (magicy) (magicy) = fighter with some magicy stuff

It also means that you could stay within one class, and get some features and flavor of something that wouldn't typically be for your class - like a religiously affiliated rogue, or a clericy archer type.

Does that seem about right or am I reading that wrong?

Rob

You are spot on.

So there's that. Hopefully this helps flesh out the ideas that Rob was getting at today.

 

[Incenjucar]

You mean well, and I appreciate it, but it really doesn't tell us anything until we see how big feats are.

4E themes gave you a theme-related power, and access to a host of unique powers. If themes are just feats, then feats have to match power selection in 4E.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

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

There are other, less drastic ways to try to finesee that issue:

• Add modest, extra stuff, but call it out specifically as the extra stuff. Then include a rule that says something like, "If the group agrees that the custom package you put together is very flavorful and coherent, then you can add some modest, extra stuff yourself." In effect, the "package deal" does provide extra, but you are encouraged to make your own "package deals". Or as long as no one minds, you can ignore that altogether and power game the options to your hearts' content--just no package bonus for you.
• Some campaigns can be encouraged to limit the amount of customization. That is, you must start with a package deal--either in the book or one approved by the group, and from there you can use the customization rules to swap N amount of abilities, but not all.
• Have certain flavorful, modest abilities that are only available as the "package bonus"--but can occur in a preset package or any reasonably coherent build made in customization. In effect, this variation is a looser form of "prestige class" requirements for some of the more odd, flavorful abilities. Instead of 8 skill ranks in this, and 6 skill ranks in that, etc., you need to satisfy everyone that your character would reasonably know that.

My basic view is that there is nothing wrong with a few extras (especially modest ones), but they should be clearly called out as such, and provide mulitple ways to get--even if a given campaign decides to be more strict about it. That also has the happy result that one of the campaign options can be, "Lean, green machine--no such extras allowed, whether from package or anything else." After all, if they are sufficiently modest, then it shouldn't hurt anything if no one gets them.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

However having pregen-only stuff detracts from customization, what happens if I have this concept in my head that would really be complete with a certain element -like a pet from a ranger theme, but it happens that it is a ranger theme exclusive thing that also involves naturey and archery stuff, but my character concept calls for a streetwise and lightweapony theme instead, now I'm unable to play the concept in my head because the designers though nobody else would want the pet without the archery and nature stuff, while someone else wanting the ranger theme without the pet could just go with a custom theme with the archery and nature stuff and certain feature that just happens to have an unforeseen sinergy with that and now is broken as hell. Min/maxers will always be an issue for as long as there is customizability, trying too hard to stop them just detracts from everybody else's experience. Nothing will stop the most dedicated min/maxers out there short of shuting down all options to customize at all.

 

[avin]

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.

Fast games.

OD&D fans.

Invited to play at the last moment.

There's plenty room for that.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

 

[dkyle]

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.

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.

 

[Incenjucar]

If there is a single best build then there has already been a design failure.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

I'm fine with the idea of feat packages, but I disappointing that it's what themes have been reduced to. In 4e, it adds layer to you character, and can be used for a range of purposes, not just describing how you fight. Want to turn into a wolf? There's a theme for that.

 

[avin]

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.

Fast games.

OD&D fans.

Invited to play at the last moment.

There's plenty room for that.