D&D 5E Gnome Sorceress using Arcane Trickster

[Miladoon]

A character concept I was thinking about recently was using an arcane trickster for a sorceress concept. I started thinking about classes and concepts and how you really don't need to play a class. Anyways, I started doodling with the GIMP and ended up with this image:



Do you gamers find it easy to play a concept in 5E? Do you keep your class when you play?

 

[Shiroiken]

I usually design a concept before I work on the details. I often tag a class early, but it can change easily as I fill out the concept.

 

[Miladoon]

I usually design a concept before I work on the details. I often tag a class early, but it can change easily as I fill out the concept.

For all the years I've been playing, I've always seen character class as just a collection of mechanics that help the character concept interact with the game world mechanically in the way that best represents the narrative character... In 2nd Ed. I had a a half-elven ranger-illusionist (75% ranger who mostly used illusions and misdirection to supplement her combat ability and some out-of-combat utility spells) that ended up being translated into a variant human (of "obvious elven heritage") ranger/warlock that used the extra feat for Magic Initiate to get some extra spells. A lot of the things she used to use her spells for ended up being covered by the Invocations.

Does your character take shape during play or is it pre-fabbed and then filled in? I have sketched out levels 1 through 20 before the game starts but I have also played the game, letting the game shape the character. Both ways, or a combo of both, are okay.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Do you gamers find it easy to play a concept in 5E?

As a general rule I prefer build-to-concept, a preference I suppose I formed playing Hero, but which 3e & 4e customizability certainly fostered in D&D, as well. 5e isn't terrible for it - backgrounds certainly help, as do feats and MCing when they're available - just not as amazing as the prior to editions could be. About on par with 2e and it's kits & NWPs & 'Player's Option' series, really. But the set of sub-classes we have to work with leaves some gaping holes, and, ultimately, it's embraced some of the dynamics and limitations of the classic game, so as much as you might want to play a given concept, there's things you (or your party) just need to be viable, and that can often take precedence.

Do you keep your class when you play?

You mean try to reprise a PC from a past edition using the class with the same name, even if it's changed and something else fits better? No, not much point.


That said, one of the advantages of a class/level system is that class is a ready-made concept that you can use as a starting point, if you don't already have a character in mind when you sit down to roll one up.

 

[MonkeyWrench]

If I'm new to the system I build characters based around interesting combinations of class mechanics and then think up a concept to fit that build. Once I feel I've gotten the hang for how different classes work, I'll start making my conceptual based characters.

 

[Shiroiken]

Does your character take shape during play or is it pre-fabbed and then filled in? I have sketched out levels 1 through 20 before the game starts but I have also played the game, letting the game shape the character. Both ways, or a combo of both, are okay.

I normally only work out a detailed history for my character, then allow it to grow during play. Mechanically, I've only "pre-built" during 3E, because it was pretty much required if you wanted to enter most prestige classes. With 5E I might have a primary Feat in mind to pickup at level 4 (one that really defines my character), but otherwise I level as I go.