D&D 5E (2014) Legends & Lore - A Retrospective

[Rune]

The super casual ones might not.

And, on the rare occasions I get to play, I roll for random race and random background with randomly ordered stats and select my class from there. But that's just me; I take a somewhat Daoist approach to character generation.

 

[Hussar]

Fantastic stuff. Bookmarking for further cogitation and bathroom reading.

 

[Iosue]

What's interesting is that the 4e PHB has "quick build" suggestions for each class: pre-packaged powers, skills and feats. Which means, if you use those builds, you only have to choose race, class, quickbuild and gear.

From memory, the 3E PHB contained default gear lists for each class which could eliminate the need to buy stuff.

Why did these acceleration options not gain traction? Is it just about layout/editing? Or is there something deeper?

Well, I think they did gain traction in terms of design. It seems to me that the quick builds of 4e led to the Essentials-style class design, which led to the 5e-style of class design.

If your question is, why weren't these seen by the public as drastically reducing starting complexity, my feeling is this. Presentation is definitely a factor. Looking at the 4e PHB, the build descriptions don't strike me as presented as time savers, but rather starting points. I choose my fighter, then what kind of fighter (offense or defense), and then take or reject the suggested feats, skills, and exploits. Even if I just take the suggestions straight, I don't have much of an idea what those feats and exploits actually mean until I read them. What 5e chunks, and how it chunks it, is in practice quite different from 4e. The fighting styles are mechanically light and easily grasped. Backgrounds package their skills, features, and equipment in archetypal images that are easy to have a feel for. It's like, 4e gives me two big, mechanically dense choices to choose from. 5e breaks things up into simple conceptual choices, presented in stages.

There's a similar thing at work with 3e's gear lists for each class. On one hand, sure it removes the step of choosing equipment. But it's a big equipment dump that depends on your class. With 5e, half of your equipment is coming from your background, and the other (generally weapon and armor) is coming from your class. The class equipment is typically a set of 3 or 4 choices of A or B. That provides characterization and personalization while at the same time reducing equipment choosing time, folding it into other aspects of character creation. The same is true of skills.

Please keep posting.

Oh, okay.

 

[billd91]

But does anyone choose race and background without an eye towards the class they want to play?

Usually, I expect all of these to be picked pretty much at once to form a coherent idea. But I can see a good rationale for Rune's priority and I think it would work pretty well, particularly for a player without a strong prior idea sitting down at the table. Race determines a lot about a PC's appearance and morphology and will get you pretty far in picturing a PC. Background then sets you on your initial path. Class gives you your last bit of professional training before your PC hits the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

Presentation is definitely a factor. Looking at the 4e PHB, the build descriptions don't strike me as presented as time savers, but rather starting points. I choose my fighter, then what kind of fighter (offense or defense), and then take or reject the suggested feats, skills, and exploits. Even if I just take the suggestions straight, I don't have much of an idea what those feats and exploits actually mean until I read them.

<snip>

5e breaks things up into simple conceptual choices, presented in stages.

Good analysis.

I know that when I first read, and also when I now re-read, 4e class entries, I skip over all the quick-build stuff.

I also think framing it as "suggestions" hurts. And there is the fact, as you say, that you have to work out what the suggestions mean.

Is it easier to build a 5e wizard or warlock then the comparable classes in 4e?

 

[pemerton]

Race determines a lot about a PC's appearance and morphology and will get you pretty far in picturing a PC. Background then sets you on your initial path. Class gives you your last bit of professional training before your PC hits the campaign.

Sure, that the sequence in the fiction. But from the point of view of gameplay, class choice is going to have the biggest impact on your play experience.

When I've introduced new players - admittedly not many in recent years! - if they've had a race in mind it tends to be as part of an overall package (eg "elf" means "graceful horse-riding archer", "dwarf" means "orc-decapitating warrior", etc). I guess I have trouble imagining that many players have a race in mind independent of a class choice; whereas I've seen plenty of players know what class they want to play, then think about an appropriate race.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is it easier to build a 5e wizard or warlock then the comparable classes in 4e?

Lets see here....taking the same list, we have

Choose Class Skills: 2
Choose cantrips: 3
Choose spellbook spells: 6
Calculate Attack Bonuses
Calculate Initiative
Calculate Skill Bonuses
Calculate Saving Throws
Calculate Passive Perception

16 steps. Which is less than Mearl's 4e fighter (18), but close! And I imagine a 4e wizard is roughly equal to a 4e fighter in this regard?

 

[Remathilis]

Lets see here....taking the same list, we have

Choose Class Skills: 2
Choose cantrips: 3
Choose spellbook spells: 6
Calculate Attack Bonuses
Calculate Initiative
Calculate Skill Bonuses
Calculate Saving Throws
Calculate Passive Perception

16 steps. Which is less than Mearl's 4e fighter (18), but close! And I imagine a 4e wizard is roughly equal to a 4e fighter in this regard?

Actually, 4e Wizards would have at least one additional step: choose rituals. Additionally, a wizard has to pick two daily powers per level (spellbook) so that requires additional time as well.

 

[pemerton]

Lets see here....taking the same list, we have

Choose Class Skills: 2
Choose cantrips: 3
Choose spellbook spells: 6
Calculate Attack Bonuses
Calculate Initiative
Calculate Skill Bonuses
Calculate Saving Throws
Calculate Passive Perception

16 steps. Which is less than Mearl's 4e fighter (18), but close! And I imagine a 4e wizard is roughly equal to a 4e fighter in this regard?

Mearls' list for 4e includes choose background (which is an optional rule that is not in the 4e PHB). Choosing a background is compulsory in 5e.

I also think that choosing spells is more mental overhead than the following steps in Mearls's list, which are absent from 5e: calcuate surge total, surge value, bloodied value and passive Insight.

 

[Henry]

At our table, we choose class before all else, mostly because we try to coordinate as a group to be sure we have all bases covered. We don't worry too much though, as party death has a way of autocorrecting if we have too many fighters, wizards, or whatnot.