D&D 5E Help me out on character customization here please

[Warbringer]

I really want to know how a person with a particular concept would build their character if the current means of doing so is denied them. I know that role playing is an important part of the character, but I just have questions about the mechanics of it all.

The key, as is discussed above, is in the background/subclass path, and that skills are effectively ability scores. Remember, bounded accuracy is a key tenant of the system, so that high dex character is always going to be impressive at acrobatic tricks without pouring skill points into cross-class skills or multiclassing or dipping to back the concept.

Finally, the gladiator ( ignore the terrible name) combat superiority and gladiators cunning probably give you the best flexibility for madmatigan's fighting style (Dirty Trick, Spring Away, and Trip, drive back, Hamstring. Bell Ringer)

 

[1of3]

D&D was never good about building characters after players imagination. It's strong point is making a character, if you don't know what you want. Pick this, pick that, go. If I want to play a character as seen on TV, I'd take Gurps, Fate, The Pool, whatever.

For what that's worth, I don't think the upcoming edition is more limited than the former. All the archetypes are there.

 

[Mistwell]

Alright. It appears that I wasn't clear about something here. The reason that I left role playing out of my original comparison was because the question was about mechanics. I know about role playing a character because that's what I do, if all I wanted to do was chuck dice I'd go to Vegas. Mechanics, however, are more quantifiable. They're a bit more static and can be examine and the differences between two characters can be compared more easily. That's why I was asking what I did. If skills are optional, and the GM decides not to use them, how is any one character special at doing something beyond their stat? I mean just because someone is really strong that doesn't mean that they're automatically good at jumping.

Despite what many of you might think I really did read several of the threads about D&D Next, and to be totally honest I don't agree with all of the changes. I honestly can't say that I like the changes that I've seen, but I am trying to understand them. I really want to know how a person with a particular concept would build their character if the current means of doing so is denied them. I know that role playing is an important part of the character, but I just have questions about the mechanics of it all.

There is one thing you just need to take on faith - try the game out first. A lot of what I believe to be the advantage of D&D Next is the rules-lite nature of the game. You say "I want to know mechanics because I can do the roleplaying without them", but you don't realize just how much mechanics can distract from roleplaying until you're playing the game and you realize you're roleplaying a whole lot more because the mechanics have blended into the background.

For example, you seemed concerned about skills being removed. But what that means is you no longer look down at your character sheet to see what you're trained in and how it might apply to a particular situation, which is a player action that draws away from your immersion in the game. Instead, you just say what you think you'd do, and make a check (usually based on your ability score modifier, which you probably already know by heart pretty quick).

In practice, this speeds things up a lot, but more importantly it means you don't get distracted by your character sheet and stats, and you find yourself much more involved in the game rather than the mechanics.

Like I said, you cannot get this from simply reading the rules - try the game out first, and then decide. LOTS of people have reported this enhancement to role playing and enjoyment of the game after playing, some of whom had no expectation it was a feature of the game.

In sum, it doesn't have to be mechanics that distinguishes your character - it's a lot easier for it to be you, and how you play your character, and THAT is what is easier to do with this game. If your character would swing on a chandelier and kick a foe as they go by rather than attacking them directly - you just SAY that's what you do in D&D Next. You don't need a set of mechanics to back up exactly how that's done - a rules-lite DC system is in place to just quickly deal with that and pretty much any other thing you can imagine. This is a huge advantage for character distinguishing, because what you do on the fly is far more distinguishing and flexible than a set of fixed things that a mechanics designer can design in an office, which inevitably works to encourage you do to just those types of things your character sheet says you can do by a specific mechanism.

So just give it a try, then decide what you think.

 

[Li Shenron]

Alright. It appears that I wasn't clear about something here. The reason that I left role playing out of my original comparison was because the question was about mechanics.

I think that was clear enough!

If skills are optional, and the GM decides not to use them, how is any one character special at doing something beyond their stat?

Ok, skills aren't of course the only possible way to make a character better at something... Currently in 5e we have classes features, subclasses features, background traits and lore, and feats (I left racial benefits out since they don't make you better than any member of your own race).

The mechanics are plenty, but the problem is that currently each mechanic has a very limited number of options. Among feats there is basically one of them for being a better <insert favourite weapon style> except archery which has a second but it's very specifically magic. The current list of feats is extremely short really...

That said, a rough comparison between 3e core and 5e playtest rules, tells me that indeed there is less room for customization.

However if you keep in mind that Advanced D&D 5e will have a rule for mixing and matching subclasses features (and why not even mixing subclasses of different classes, if the features still work for the other class), this will give a huge additional freedom, overall possibly even better than 3e despite the lack of skills in core (but of course you need to have a DM who allows this Advanced customization).

Beyond that, you're going to have to wait for splatbooks, but that was also true in previous editions. Honestly, when I started playing in 3e more than a decade ago, I noticed quite soon that the PHB feats were not enough IMHO, despite their apparent high number.

I really want to know how a person with a particular concept would build their character if the current means of doing so is denied them.

Honestly, I think first of all I would just downsize the concept's level of details. If the RPG I'm playing doesn't allow it, and I can't change the edition I'm playing, there is no use to fight it.

Second, I would play my PC in a way that focuses on doing more often what is supposed to be her signature. I wouldn't call this "roleplaying it" because it sounds snob. I just mean that if the concept is that of an expert climber, I'd make her take as many climbing opportunities as possible, even tho she's not better than the others at doing do. "Climber is who the climber does" so to speak