D&D 5E Do we know if they are keeping the 20 Natural score cap? What about expanded backgrounds?

[sidonunspa]

He didn't say he merely cares about mechanical differences in addition to the non-mechanical ones. He said the mechanical differences are the only thing he values in distinguishing two different characters.

I understand your instinct to white knight on this topic - but he's not representing your view of the game any more than he's representing mine. We all know you value both aspects of the game, as do I. His appears to be a different argument. I don't think we're strawmanning his position.

Umm maybe he needs to inspire the players to create unique characters...

I'm willing to bet I can whip out 3 very different fighters in the new system... when you add the flexibility of backgrounds you can do a lot

 

[CM]

The 20 cap is probably my favorite thing about this edition. That and super-chunky feats.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm dealing with this issue at my table. These guys are huge gamers, but they only started playing D&D when I introduced them to the playtest rules last year. It turns out they have all kinds of expectations and biases that I didn't even think about. For example, they equate character level with campaign length. They seem to have this expectation that you play until you have 20th level characters, and then the campaign's over.

I think a lot of this comes from games like Diablo, which they're all fans of. So I guess it shouldn't have surprised me, when I introduced the idea of Basic D&D, that they rebelled at only having 4 classes and no feats. "But we have more than four players," they said. "We'd have to have duplicates!"

It made me realize that they think of character customization only in mechanical terms. They want that complexity because the game mechanics are the only way they're expressing their creativity. This implies bad things about my campaign, too--it tells me I haven't been giving them good enough exploration (which de-emphasizes the characters) or interaction (which de-emphasizes the mechanics).

Part of it is probably that they haven't played the more complex editions of D&D, so they're coming at it from a different angle as me. I like 5e because I was frustrated with how complicated previous editions are, but they haven't had that experience yet.

 

[Tovec]

I don't think I'll ever run any edition of D&D (PF) again without some sort of ability cap house ruled in.

Ever rising abilities feels like just a variation on "But our amplifier goes to 11."

I know I've never been any game of D&D or PF that instituted such a cap on ability scores. In fact with my original D&D group we would routinely see how we could break the system - getting ACs over 100, STR over 100.

One of my favourite characters is Ogreon - a half-dragon-(half?)-ogre with an LA of 9, so starting level barbarian 1 (ECL 10) and and had a strength score of 40 (while raging IIRC) to begin with. He also came in leveled up version, and I could have added all kinds of extras, as a level 20 barbarian (still with LA 9, so ECL 29) who had a strength of 60 or so strength.

Another favourite was Fang - a human druid/barbarian/warshaper/bear warrior with an obscene strength of 47 (found his sheet) and immunities and extras up the wazoo.

And just for fun let me tell you of the epic level game that I was in where my party member had more strength than my GOD (Kord the god of strength) at level 23 or so. I wasn't any slouch myself and even had a brass dragon companion, but I couldn't compete with hers.

We like crazy high-level games. Never had any troubles competing with high level casters. But that's why I know we never had caps.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I just feel at low level, every class is nearly identical in combat. All the non casters all get 1 attack with a specific weapon, and they all are about equal at doing it. I just don't feel this should be the case. If someone trained with their whole life with a bow, I don't want it to just be dexterity, since they have some specialized training.

I'm still not sure exactly how to do it. I don't want it to necessary be an active combat decision type of feat, but I kind of don't want it to just be a passive +2 to archery attack rolls since that overlaps with fighting styles.

What I'm kind of aiming to do is more so offset the negative from abilities like Heavy Weapon Master, and Archery Master (-5 penalty), but not necessary give them that feat or force them to use that feat, if that makes any sense.

(My emphasis)
I look at 5e level 1 characters more 16-17 year olds who just ran away from home. It's what their stats reflect in my opinion. If you want more involved backstories/older characters, I think starting at level 3 makes a lot more sense.

There is nothing in the rules that says you have to start at level 1 - or level 3 for that matter. If you want to have characters that really feel different mechanically, maybe level 5+ is a better place to start?

Looking back at 3e, I had a lot of campaigns starting at level 3, and some at around level 5. The higher up in level the characters get, the more unique and customized a character feels mechanically. I also often gave PC's unique abilities to make them more unique mechanically, often tied strongly to their backstory. For instance the conjuror who could spontanous cast conjuration/summoning spells.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Houseruling in Pathfinder Traits seems a better match for Starting customization than the rather hefty feats.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits

Like Elemental Pupil for Fire masters (1st level Fire masters).

There are a few +1 or +2 damage Traits for specific situations modifiable for Level 1 Master Bow users.

 

[TwoSix]

The OP made it clear he is looking to distinguish first level PCs from each other, and the means he thinks is best to do that is to represent a mechanical difference for combat, and that a 5% difference is very great to him. This tells me he is, in fact, looking at differentiation between PCs as a character optimization problem. It was a fair response in this case.

Looking for a mechanical representation of a character concept is not, ipso facto, a character optimization issue. It certainly can be, but is not required to be. For a fair assortment of players, roleplaying a concept feels like a facade without mechanical implementation, and without the need to use character resources to assert that background. One needs only to look at the outcry over removing Craft and Profession from 4e to see that.

For myself, while I'd like to see more low-level mechanical differentiation, I think the roleplaying hooks provided by backgrounds can lift a lot of the concept weight, provided that they are used to grant real narrative advantages. Much as how two characters in FATE can have the same fighting skill but still feel very different due to the choice of Aspects.

 

[marleykat]

Looking for a mechanical representation of a character concept is not, ipso facto, a character optimization issue. It certainly can be, but is not required to be. For a fair assortment of players, roleplaying a concept feels like a facade without mechanical implementation, and without the need to use character resources to assert that background. One needs only to look at the outcry over removing Craft and Profession from 4e to see that.

For myself, while I'd like to see more low-level mechanical differenttiation, I think the roleplaying hooks provided by backgrounds can lift a lot of the concept weight, provided that they are used to grant real narrative advantages. Much as how two characters in FATE can have the same fighting skill but still feel very different due to the choice of Aspects.

This would be what Traits, Bonds, Flaws are for. They are similar to Aspects or Virtue and Vice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This would be what Traits, Bonds, Flaws are for. They are similar to Aspects or Virtue and Vice.

Unless you know something I don't, which you may well, it seems premature to say this. Is there somewhere I can find all the collected stuff we know about Traits, Bonds and Flaws? Because I can't really find anything beyond that they are things.

Looking for a mechanical representation of a character concept is not, ipso facto, a character optimization issue. It certainly can be, but is not required to be. For a fair assortment of players, roleplaying a concept feels like a facade without mechanical implementation, and without the need to use character resources to assert that background. One needs only to look at the outcry over removing Craft and Profession from 4e to see that.

Well said. My experience with bonus Feat-type situations in a variety of games is that they're very often used to make a character broader and/or more interesting, rather than merely more optimized. They only tend towards the latter if your players do, and in my experience, most players do not.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

(My emphasis)
I look at 5e level 1 characters more 16-17 year olds who just ran away from home. It's what their stats reflect in my opinion. If you want more involved backstories/older characters, I think starting at level 3 makes a lot more sense.

I'm sure you do look at it that way, but it's not RAI or RAW, especially as PCs progress from level 1 to level 3 very rapidly, RAW, in 5E. Likely in adventures that take a period of days. Level 1 to 2 apparently takes about 1/4 or 1/3rd as long as the rest of the levels.

So now you have PCs are who are 16/17-year-old runaways who level 3...

A more sensible split, given humans are a long way from physically or mentally fully developed at 16/17 (human males cannot remotely approach their peak strength or endurance at that age, for example, and even fantasy novels, they're not going to), would be to use a different stat-generation mechanism for teenagers (or modifiers), than from adults, if that's the differentiation you want.