D&D 5E (2014) How complex do you like your character creation process?

[TwoSix]

Sounds like RuneQuest.

From what I've read of RuneQuest, definitely similar, but RQ is a bit too specifically flavored for my needs.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Great! I am glad to hear it and happy I saved it.

If you do try it, let me know how it works for you. I looked it over when I first saved it, but that was a while ago and we never got around to trying it.

 

[Parmandur]

From what I've read of RuneQuest, definitely similar, but RQ is a bit too specifically flavored for my needs.

I think there were more Setting generic variations on those rules, might be worth a look.

 

[Blue]

For 5e, I'm a fan of the 5e process. Because that's part of the charm of 5e.

If asked this in a more general way, my answer would pretty much be: All of the above.

I enjoy a lot of different systems, and get different things from them. l Not only isn't there a preferred size, there cannot be a preferred size for everything.

For example, I've been playing Champions for like four decades. Well, truth be told I haven't been in a Champions game in over a decade, but I still occasionally create a character. Because character creation is like a solo mini-game, and it's a great system to be able to work out such an amazing array of powers with flexibility nothing else matches - at the price of complexity.

On the other hand I can do a pick-up game of Fate Accelerated starting with a group of people who have never played the system and at the end of 20 minutes we're already playing. Because the concepts are so simple.

Other factors come into play - in an RPG where lethal conflict is a regularly expected challenge resolution, I want a much lighter character creation system then one where it isn't, like in a superhero game.

I want character creation crunchiness to match up with rules crunchiness, so prep and play both appeal to the same players. I think 5e does a decent job of this - the lighter end of medium for rules and for character creation, which is why I like that level in the vote. Trying to combine a much lighter or a much crunchier character creations system with the 5e rules system is a mismatch, it's a wrong pick. That doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy crunchier or lighter creation systems - just match them to the crunchiness of the rules system.

Actually, I need to walk that back a little - the 5e creation system that matched rules has been growing more options scattered throughout books. And while that is a surefire method for selling books, it's a horrible organization for character creation. So 5e is moving beyond what I want because of scattered organization of character creation, not inherent complexity of it.

 

[Blue]

Voted 1. 5E is too much. Perhaps not as written, but as actually used by players, it's way, way too detailed. Worrying about novel-length backstories and what feats they'll take by 20th level when making a 1st-level character with zero XP is the worst.

Luckily there no prerequisites like there was in 3.x, so there's absolutelyt zero rules or mechanics reasons to do anyuthing you are talking about.

Now, if players enjoy working ahead they can, in whihc case you are telling them there fun is wrong. But there is zero, zero and zero rules imperative to have to work out your character to level 20 from the beginning in 5e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are several steps to character creation. Some of which 5e does well and some it doesn't do at all.

• Individual pre-game character creation. 5e pre-game character creation is the best D&D has ever had; it's simple, layered (especially with subclasses) and the characters are expected to have some depth and flaws.
• Group creation and cohesion. 5e doesn't even try here to create a system of characters with pre-existing bonds or have that much synergy between the characters so they are encouraged to more than trivially work together
• Setting integration/development. With backgrounds 5e does the minimum that qualifies. Slightly more than the minimum thanks to specific abilities for the backgrounds - and not making having a background compete for resources with other things. But still very little.
• Character growth. This to me is where 5e really suffers. Once you've picked your subclass that generally lays your advancement out on rails with e.g. all Champion Fighters growing almost the same way, something which is especially strong for martial classes, divine spellcasters, and wizards (whose spells are equipment). It's part of why I favour warlocks and artificers over other 5e classes and is to me a significant failing in 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is a pretty good summary:

There are several steps to character creation. Some of which 5e does well and some it doesn't do at all.

• Individual pre-game character creation. 5e pre-game character creation is the best D&D has ever had; it's simple, layered (especially with subclasses) and the characters are expected to have some depth and flaws.
• Group creation and cohesion. 5e doesn't even try here to create a system of characters with pre-existing bonds or have that much synergy between the characters so they are encouraged to more than trivially work together
• Setting integration/development. With backgrounds 5e does the minimum that qualifies. Slightly more than the minimum thanks to specific abilities for the backgrounds - and not making having a background compete for resources with other things. But still very little.
• Character growth. This to me is where 5e really suffers. Once you've picked your subclass that generally lays your advancement out on rails with e.g. all Champion Fighters growing almost the same way, something which is especially strong for martial classes, divine spellcasters, and wizards (whose spells are equipment).

Points 1 and 3 were the ones I was more concerned with when I made the poll.

For points 2 and 4 I rely more on the players than the rule-set. Creative backstories and such will make a good start for point 2, and the whole process of the actual gameplay itself leads to point 4 IMO.

If a player focuses too much of their character's growth on their features they gain or can choose from for point 4, your character is really just a bunch of features and numbers on a sheet.

It's part of why I favour warlocks and artificers over other 5e classes and is to me a significant failing in 5e.

LOL those are the classes I dislike the most (with bards being a close third), but that doesn't surprise me given our differences in the past.

So, what, precisely, do you find appealing about those classes for point 4, then??? (Honestly curious here.)

 

[TwoSix]

So, what, precisely, do you find appealing about those classes for point 4, then??? (Honestly curious here.)

I'm not @Neonchameleon, but I would wager it's the both of those classes have to make a lot of semi-permanent decisions around invocations/infusions at quite a few points during the leveling process, as well as having to pick spells known, not prepared. (Semi-permanent in the sense you can change one per level up, so they can be altered but pretty slowly.)

The warlock definitely has some design flaws around Eldritch Blast, but the invocations/limited casting chassis with 2 different "subclass" paths in Patron and Pact Boon is something that would have benefited a lot of classes in 5e.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is a pretty good summary:


Points 1 and 3 were the ones I was more concerned with when I made the poll.

For points 2 and 4 I rely more on the players than the rule-set. Creative backstories and such will make a good start for point 2, and the whole process of the actual gameplay itself leads to point 4 IMO.

Except that the locked in class and level system of D&D massively inhibits non-linear character growth compared to other RPGs.

To give an example from the last campaign I was a player in, it was a SF game with us starting off as poor merchant traders. My character started off as a fairly sneaky rogue type who made his official living as the ship's engineer. Not formally trained he was good at jury rigging with duct tape and string and competent enough to be an engineer on a cheap tramp freighter but nothing special (as well as being good at stealth, lockpicking, hacking, and the rest of the sneaky rogue set).

However as the campaign progressed we got our hands on Old One technology and he stepped up as the ship's engineer. His skills were called on both under fire and to fix ships and ship parts that no one had ever heard of because it had been tens of thousands of years since this tech had been seen openly. He never got any better at the stealth and infiltration I expected him to be used for (we had several stealthy people and his normal role in stealth operations was sabotage and computer hacking) but because he grew from where I spent the skill points and I spent them on what I was doing he became one of the best engineers in the galaxy thanks to his access to parts and problems no one else was using or facing.

Because we were playing a skill based game (Storyteller rules) his focus was able to shift organically rather than either changing my entire class or levelling up in lockstep in the rogue class. So he turned organically from a rogue who made his living with duct tape and string to an expert engineer who was well acquainted with the seedier side of engineering (and became a slightly more dangerous fighter in passing). This worked well and was character development - but because in D&D 5e you've made almost all your choices by level 3 you almost can't get the same sort of story in 5e and if you do the rules fight you all the way.

Edit: And you say "Creative backstories and such will make a good start for point 2" - which is true. They make a good start. But if "a good start" is all we want then we might as well dump backgrounds and just ask for creative backstories. For that matter we might as well dump skills entirely, and most spells. What we want to do is work with and be able to both inspire and build off creative backstories and such - and this goes for just about all of tabletop roleplaying.

If a player focuses too much of their character's growth on their features they gain or can choose from for point 4, your character is really just a bunch of features and numbers on a sheet.

And that might be relevant - but given how rigid the character levelling process is in 5e it's like saying "if someone gets too hot they will faint and eventually die" to argue against turning the heat on in sub zero temperatures with bad insulation. Sure, it's a theoretical worry, but it's a very distant one from where 5e is.

LOL those are the classes I dislike the most (with bards being a close third), but that doesn't surprise me given our differences in the past.

So, what, precisely, do you find appealing about those classes for point 4, then??? (Honestly curious here.)

@TwoSix nailed it. With both classes you pick class abilities distinct to that class and two e.g. Infernal Warlocks can be and grow very differently thanks to different Pact Boons and Invocations rather than having all the same abilities because they picked the same subclass. Your spells are also a character defining choice and might have no overlap between two characters of the same subclass rather than their choice in spells being a matter of what they decided when they woke up that morning.

 

[Tonguez]

I like life paths as a character build system, maybe not as hardcore as Traveller but there are a few simplified examples. I really like Spirit of the Century and the way it uses Background Phases to build the characters Aspects - in particulae First Pulp Novel and Guest Star help generate in game bonds and hooks