D&D 5E Is character creation too front loaded?

[Blackbrrd]

In earlier editions your character started more like a blank sheet. For instance: In 1e a fighter got a keep and followers when he got to level 9; In 3e you could around level 5 and up join an organization (through the prestige classes). In 5e you pick traits that gives followers or membership to organizations at level 1.

In 3e the prestige classes could often be seen as a specialization. The earliest you could get it was around level 5. In 5e you select your speciality at level 1 instead.

I do see the advantage of doing these selections from level 1. You have codified a connection between your character and the game world. The negative side to it is that it adds complexity to character creation and takes away from the leveling process.

To me, many of the background traits are things you should acquire while leveling. I think that the development of the character when it comes to membership in organizations, acquiring a title or becoming a specialist is something you stretch towards as you play. Not something you choose before you start to play.

I think that instead of being a full member of a guild, having a title or being a noble on a retainer, you might have apprenticed in a guild, or a tenuous claim on a title or estate. Becoming a full member of the guild or getting the noble title or knighthood, is something that should be done in game and be part of the leveling process.

In many ways, I think the concept of prestige classes in 3e was a really good idea. They added a lot of complexity and depth to your character, but it wasn't something you would have to look at to create your character. (At least you shouldn't, except for the (usually) strict requirements you had to fulfil to get into the prestige class).

In short I think they should reduce the complexity of character creation and instead give you more options and rewards later on. Like that fancy title or guild membership.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think lack of complexity will be there in the beginning of the game when its finally released for those who want it... just like WotC has said was always going to be there.

But we still need to playtest all the non-complex stuff.

 

[FireLance]

I think D&D could do with a "starter module" which allows a new player to begin with very simple characters (possibly not more than ability scores and race, as the first elements you would "logically" know about a character) and gradually introduces new abilities and concepts (backgrounds, classes, specialties, etc.) until the player ends up with a 1st-level character.

However, if you want to actually play the character through the process (i.e. go on adventures with the simpler and presumably less powerful character), we would need a variety of weaker monsters that would be a suitable challenge for the characters at each stage of complexity.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

At least the first version of D&DN let you start without backgrounds, etc. I think gaming culture has changed too much to make supporting 1st-level PCs with no skills viable.

I think that goes doubly if you've got a DM who insists on a backstory. What exactly did your 0th level character accomplish with no skills?

 

[FireLance]

I think that goes doubly if you've got a DM who insists on a backstory. What exactly did your 0th level character accomplish with no skills?

Why, whatever he could manage with raw ability, of course!

 

[Kinak]

I agree with you, although not for exactly the reason you're stating. I actually like the story effects of character creation, just not cramming all the decisions and complexity into the period before you start playing.

Memory Lane
In OD&D, you had race/class, attributes, spells (if needed), and gear. I think we can agree that's not enough.

In 2nd edition, you had race, class, attributes, weapon proficiencies, nonweapon proficiencies, spells (if needed), and gear. This seems reasonable for me, though the proficiency choices rarely mattered.

In 3rd edition, you had race, class, attributes, feats, skills, spells (if needed), and gear. Fiddling with skill points was sort of pointless, but the real problem here was when people decided to start planning out their characters through level 20.

I won't speak to 1st and 4th, as I haven't played either extensively.

Next
But in Next, you're looking at race, subrace, class, subclass, attributes, specialization, background, spells/maneuvers, and gear. Then you're basically set for play through max level.

Next doesn't force you to plan out your character through max level at character creation, but it presents it as the default option. And even if you ignore specializations and schemes/fighting styles, you're looking at something that's as clunky as 3rd Edition.

On the positive side, I really like backgrounds (both simplifying skill selection and tying the character to the world).

What I'd rather see
Start by choosing a race, class, attributes, spells/maneuvers, and gear.

Classes should have suggestions for starting spells and maneuvers based on the role you want to play. Even now, you can't pick a tradition and start playing, which is insane.

Feats start kicking in later, probably every even level. You still want them early, just after the player has played the character enough to know what the hell they're doing.

Subclasses can drop in around 3rd if they're still needed.

Subraces can die in a fire.

Just Houserule It
Yes, I can do that all as houserules. But if I'm going to design my own game to play instead of Next, I'll just design my own game to play instead of Next.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[kerleth]

I think it depends on the background. I don't think you should have to wait to 5th level or earn via roleplaying the commoner title. Now the background trait that gets you help from other commonfolk? That I could see. One take is that a "knight" could be someone who is respected as an aspirant but has not passed the true "Tests of Knighthood". You then adventure and roleplay through those, adding story awards as appropriate. My impression of the backgrounds is that they are hooks to get you to do that roleplaying. For many people getting that starting kernel of an idea is the hard part. It might be cool to add traits like servants for becoming a noble, the respect and help of the commonfolk, entrance into a guild, etc. as story awards.

In reference to specialties. You DO work towards them. You've just started learning the tricks at 1st level and get better and better as you practice that skill set. This is modeled by the feats gained at higher levels.

I realize that this is very much a playstyle thing, but I like a little complexity at low levels. If the system is very improv friendly (and Next seems like it is to me) than you certainly can do with more basic characters though. Myself, I like playing Advance Wars, Magic: The Gathering, and Final Fantasy. I hate when you have to grind through the "boring levels" of a video game before things get more interesting. Though they are a very different experience I want customization and strategy from the get go in my tabletop rpg's as well. To me it's a sweet spot you have to hit. There is a range and less than that is boring and more is a headache. I would DM a lot in 3E and it wasn't uncommon to roll up characters above 1st level for a short adventure. I don't know how many times I heard "I wanna be a wizard, but picking all those spells is gonna be a headache, so I'll just play a barbarian."

As I said it is very much a playstyle thing but I am 100% for the backgrounds. Not just as a skill delivery system, but ESPECIALLY because of the backstory, traits, and hooks they provide. Prestige classes I could take or leave, but that is as much a balance and multiclassing issue as anything else.

 

[howandwhy99]

Earlier games often asked player's to write up backgrounds for their characters, but didn't require it. It was something that could be chosen in play and was part of defining one's character through play as well, not just through the immediate situation.

Wizards is going to make money selling potentially fun and interesting details for all kinds of characters. That's a good thing just like having more adventures and setting is a good thing.

I do agree there needs to be less required definition at start of the game, but every edition has required some. Characters have a past which includes training in their class.

Players may than alter any and every other potential option later when they see fit. However, the moment the game begins a number of default EDIT: Let's say Option Spectrums are in place unless they were otherwise determined. Like not being a two year old in physical ability, the stats don't cover them out of the box. Or actually being dead and a shared illusion of the other characters. Or any other background that contradicts the statistics within the scope the game assumes by default what every PC begins the game with.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I agree with you, although not for exactly the reason you're stating. I actually like the story effects of character creation, just not cramming all the decisions and complexity into the period before you start playing.

That was actually the point I was trying to make.

 

[Kinak]

That was actually the point I was trying to make.

Oh, apologies for missing your point then

Cheers!
Kinak