[Ro3 5/15] Traits? lol wut?

[Steely_Dan]

From later in the article:I'd personally prefer them to be a bit more explicitly optional than that, but there you go.

Right on, thanks, so you can just choose race and class and be done, which makes me a happy little camper; not, as I said, there is anything wrong with feats and skills, I really dig them, just not for every campaign style.

 

[Tovec]

From later in the article:I'd personally prefer them to be a bit more explicitly optional than that, but there you go.

Right on, thanks, so you can just choose race and class and be done, which makes me a happy little camper; not, as I said, there is anything wrong with feats and skills, I really dig them, just not for every campaign style.

I understand that the backgrounds and traits will be optional but that doesn't really answer my question.

It seems from the quotes GX that you can REMOVE them and make the fights a little harder. Or you can IGNORE them but have a standard and default layout.

Personally I'm with you (GX), I wish they were more optional than that, which was my original point. I would prefer them to be like the houses from eberron. A tool I can drop into a game if I so choose but something I get to add on, not something I have to drop off. I like my optional to be truly optional, not subtraction from an established norm.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I understand that the backgrounds and traits will be optional but that doesn't really answer my question.

It seems from the quotes GX that you can REMOVE them and make the fights a little harder. Or you can IGNORE them but have a standard and default layout.

Personally I'm with you (GX), I wish they were more optional than that, which was my original point. I would prefer them to be like the houses from eberron. A tool I can drop into a game if I so choose but something I get to add on, not something I have to drop off. I like my optional to be truly optional, not subtraction from an established norm.

I'm not sure if I agree with that--the "suggested background and theme" seems like a fine thing to default to, with the higher and lower ends of complexity being deviations from that. Remember, it's not like you have to go into the system and remove something; you just choose not to do steps 3 and 4 of character generation.

 

[hbarsquared]

I believe "challenge difficulty" can easily be incorporated, too.

If you have a game where you "ignore backgrounds, feats, and such" and all you have is race+class, you have a choice:

• A more difficult and challenging, but still definitely possible, game, or...
• Subtract one monster of the party's level per encounter, or...
• (Using the Adventure-as-Gaming-Unit model) Subtract one encounter of the party's level per Adventure.

And if there is a module where you add another layer of powers onto your characters in addition to Background+Theme, then it's a simple matter of increasing the challenge difficulty by one: one additional encounter per adventure, or one additional monster per encounter?

 

[nnms]

I'm guessing that they are pretty much completely optional. Not having feats and having combat harder sounds pretty good for an old school game where you have your race/class and that's it.

 

[Ratskinner]

I agree with you on the idea of simplicity.

I think/fear they are preparing this as a dial, but its a dial for customizability, not actual mechanical simplicity. So if you want a "Basic" human fighter, he will be there....what you didn't know was that he's actually the same as a Human Fighter with a Soldier Background and Defender(?) theme that the "Expert" player might swap for other Backgrounds or Themes. Of course, whatever Background or Theme you have will be composed of Skills, Traits, and Feats, which the "Advanced" player will be able to swap out as he/she desires. So if there's 20 "stats" to write down in Advanced mode, there are 20 stats to write down in Basic mode, just with less choice about what they are.

I suppose as a simplifying house rule, one could choose to ignore the background skills and say that the DM can give you +2 (or whatever the skill training bonus is) for roleplaying considerations like writing "Veteran of the Goblin Wars" in the Background box. I'm not sure how that would work for the Themes and Feats portion of the game, though. I'm hopeful that 5e feats are much bigger things than previous editions' feats. Thus, they could be more like "class features" and not so much a pile of fiddly bits.

Personally, one of my design goals would be for a 5th level mundane character (no spell lists) to be easily written on one side of a standard notebook sheet. I don't get to pick the design goals, though.

 

[Tovec]

I agree with you on the idea of simplicity.

I think/fear they are preparing this as a dial, but its a dial for customizability, not actual mechanical simplicity. So if you want a "Basic" human fighter, he will be there....what you didn't know was that he's actually the same as a Human Fighter with a Soldier Background and Defender(?) theme that the "Expert" player might swap for other Backgrounds or Themes. Of course, whatever Background or Theme you have will be composed of Skills, Traits, and Feats, which the "Advanced" player will be able to swap out as he/she desires. So if there's 20 "stats" to write down in Advanced mode, there are 20 stats to write down in Basic mode, just with less choice about what they are.

I suppose as a simplifying house rule, one could choose to ignore the background skills and say that the DM can give you +2 (or whatever the skill training bonus is) for roleplaying considerations like writing "Veteran of the Goblin Wars" in the Background box. I'm not sure how that would work for the Themes and Feats portion of the game, though. I'm hopeful that 5e feats are much bigger things than previous editions' feats. Thus, they could be more like "class features" and not so much a pile of fiddly bits.

Personally, one of my design goals would be for a 5th level mundane character (no spell lists) to be easily written on one side of a standard notebook sheet. I don't get to pick the design goals, though.

Agree with who?

Ultimately I never had troubles creating my straightforward (basic) character in 3.5. This have gotten more complicated in PF because of the achetypes but that is a level of complexity I really can just ignore if it doesn't suit me, or adopt if I like it. It isn't like what Ratskinner is suggesting (which I happen to agree with) that there will be 20 options to fill out for a simple and a complex character, just the simple character will have the list already assembled.

If anyone wants to know why I dislike this so much, take a look what's happening here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...d-d/323449-chivalrous-compromise-paladin.html
The discussion started with what a paladin could be in 5e and quickly slipped into discussing different backgrounds and themes. I fear that no matter what ALL conversations will have this in 5e. People will come to boards asking for help making a character and people will ask what backgrounds and themes (or from which books) they are allowed to select. It can either be part of the game, which can be cut out, or added to the game to enrich it. Either way people can come up with a system they want. However, one way is more optional.

Compare this once again to psionics in 3.5. It was in its own book and had all the mechanics needed to incorporate it into a game. It was beautiful in that way that it was added on, not subtracted, to the base game. If you didn't want the added complication of psionics then you ignored the book. If you DID want them then allow the book and everything is peachy. This is more how I would like to see themes, traits, backgrounds, and to a lesser extent things like alignment and other more classic elements, introduced into 5e. What I am seeing however is that it won't be. It seems to be "pick from these lists" and if you don't like that system then cut it out. That method didn't work for me for 4e's HS/SW mechanics it will likely not work for me in 5e.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Ultimately I never had troubles creating my straightforward (basic) character in 3.5. This have gotten more complicated in PF because of the achetypes but that is a level of complexity I really can just ignore if it doesn't suit me, or adopt if I like it. It isn't like what Ratskinner is suggesting (which I happen to agree with) that there will be 20 options to fill out for a simple and a complex character, just the simple character will have the list already assembled.

From what I can tell is they are creating a compromise as the "Standard" setting for the game system. A compromise between the people who want just "race and class" and nothing else and the people who want to multiclass at every level choosing the specific skills their character is good at and choosing feats to customize their character more specifically.

I suspect that you'll see a system where the default is that when you choose a race and class, you will get default backgrounds and themes. These backgrounds and themes will give you the default feats, skills, and traits.

So, you'll say "I'm a human fighter. It says that I get Noble as my background and Wanderer as my theme. Noble says I get training in Diplomacy, Negotiation, and Heraldry and 1 extra language. Wanderer says I get the ability to find shelter anywhere and I get 'Experienced Explorer' as my feat at first level. I then get my racial abilities and class abilities. I record down all this information on my character sheet and now my character is done."

Then it allows you to cut out the Background and Theme steps if you want to(creating a slightly weaker character as they won't get any bonuses to skills or extra languages, and they won't get any feats) OR you can go more complicated and choose both your Theme and Background from the lists OR you can create a custom Theme and Background which allows you to choose all of your own skills, traits, and feats(creating a more powerful character since you've been able to tailor all of your abilities to work together).

The default is likely set to near the lowest level, but not the actual lowest level to make sure that the "average" character is in the middle of the power scale. This means that no matter which direction your DM decides to vary from the "average" it won't create too many balance issues.