D&D 5E How complex do you like your character creation process?

[DND_Reborn]

Yea, I've definitely kicked around sidekick classes. My only concern is that I want magical ability to be discoverable during play, not siloed into a specific class.

Understandable. Would you want it discoverable so any PC could get into it, or just if you started along the path already?

 

[Horwath]

I voted 5, but maybe 6 could be more accurate.

We should have "feat points" instead of feats.

getting 2 feat points per level and having a "good" feat cost 8 point, a good half feat 4 points and a +1 to ability score 4 points would be far better system.

that way feats could get more granular and easier to balance.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I want to take it a bit farther and try a completely classless game, just race, background, and maybe feats, but I think that might be a bridge too far.

I found the pdf (luckily I had it saved). It is a good size, but fortunately I could attach it here.

 

[TwoSix]

Understandable. Would you want it discoverable so any PC could get into it, or just if you started along the path already?

The former, ideally. Although a character with higher mental stats, or proficient in Arcana, Religion, etc., would generally be better at it.

Ideally, most magic would be ritualistic and crafted.

 

[Asisreo]

As someone who often plays with players new to TTRPG's and children, I'd say it's "too complex." But really only because it's a flagship at this point. D&D is the TTRPG because it's mainstream and relatively simple to play. Still, when a player cracks open the basic rules for the first time, it's often daunting as even if they can ignore 90% of the book, that's still alot of moving parts.

The fact that I consider there's less than 10 trap options in the entire game means it's actually decently balanced too.

I think the wizard should actually be around the same complexity as the warlock and everything else should be a bit simpler. Would that edge out more hard-core players? Probably. But honestly Pathfinder is meant to be a more hard-core experience and it's more suited for that anyways.

 

[Lanefan]

There's one element to consider here that only got briefly waved at upthread:

How long should it take to get a character to a state where it's game-playable (answer: as close to zero as possible) vs
How long should it take to get a character completely fleshed out (answer: as long as it needs).

A character doesn't need to be completely fleshed out with background, flaws, etc. in order to be playable; those can be filled in as play goes along. But it does need all the mechanical bits in place, and that's where 5e - though better than 3e! - is still way too complex and time-consuming for my liking. Ideally, a 0e/Basic level of simplicity - choose race and-or class, roll your stats, figure out your spells if applicable, gear yourself up, and come up with a name and description such that you or the DM can narrate your appearance/name to the rest of the crew - is all it should otherwise take.

My benchmark for this is the answer to the following question: if someone's PC just died and that player needs to roll up a replacement NOW because there's not otherwise going to be an opportunity to introduce a new PC for maybe several sessions or more, how long of a break does everyone else have to take so we can get that new PC up and running?

If it's less than 10 minutes*, we're good. If it's in the 10-15 minute range*, I'll live with it. If it's longer than that, something's wrong with the char-gen system. And yes, my own system needs a long look as it's slowly become rather bloated over the years and char-gen takes way longer than it once did.......

* - assuming the player is reasonably fast at making decisions if-when they arise.

 

[Parmandur]

I do also enjoy procedural or random character generation, though, especially stuff like playbooks in PbtA or FitD games.

Yeah, this is an underutilized approach, I feel.

Without life paths, though, 5E is about perfect for me: not too heavy, not too light.

 

[Parmandur]

I’d like a little more, but just adding bonus feats at level 1 gets me where I want.

Based on how they are putting out a book every year with a variant rule that amounts to "take a Feat at first level", I think that's the direction D&D is going next overall.

 

[Parmandur]

Yea, I've definitely kicked around sidekick classes. My only concern is that I want magical ability to be discoverable during play, not siloed into a specific class.

Sounds like RuneQuest.

 

[TwoSix]

I found the pdf (luckily I had it saved). It is a good size, but fortunately I could attach it here.

Ooh, I like that. Lock down some of those feats behind storyline discoveries, and add a robust crafting system, and I'm like 95% of the way to what I'm looking for.