D&D 5E What I Learned From Creating 30 D&D Next Characters

I can only assume it costs XP or money, or something like you can only learn one thing per character level. Obviously, if you can learn whatever you want, you can just start the first session like "OK, we spend 3 years becoming trained in all skills, then we start adventuring."

Hehe, yeah, exactly. I'm sure nothing will cost XP in Next, and money isn't assumed as part of a character resource (like magic items). So that essentially rules those out.

They could make limits such as only learning one per level, but in that case, you would want to learn one every level, otherwise you would be forever behind those who didn't.

I can't think of a better way to do it than to simply limit it to things with little relevance as far as adventuring power, and then make it a downtime activity. PCs could spend time to work at a job (making cash), create contacts and allies, learn a language, pick up blacksmithing, etc. Those are all equal sorts of things. None of them has a big effect on adventuring effectiveness, but provide more connection with the world and opportunities for role-playing.

As I see it, skills, weapons, and armor, must come only from background/class/feat/race benefits. Getting them any other way is incompatible with the class and level based power balance.

Otherwise, we should be able to spend time to increase proficiency bonus, or pick up spellcasting, or learn features from another class. The way you get that sort of thing is through gaining levels in classes, because that's where those features live in the game system.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hehe, yeah, exactly. I'm sure nothing will cost XP in Next, and money isn't assumed as part of a character resource (like magic items). So that essentially rules those out.
I think money makes sense. We have spells that cost money, and the best armor costs more money than you start with. There's not much difference between spending money on a new armor and spending money on a new skill. Besides, I'm sure castles etc. will cost money.
 

With armor there is a certain cap on how high your standing armor will be. Most characters of such class and level will become AC X. How do we take into account that the cap on skills would become the number of skills on the skill list? The skills are designed to be fairly comprehensive, and I doubt they will be expanded. Even if new skills are added to the list, they will be minor skills of much less usefulness than the standard list.

Basically most characters will be expected to know all, or almost all, skills by a certain level. At that point, the skill system is basically pointless. It is the same effect as if characters of all classes were expected to max out to the exact same AC, with no other downsides (like ability score investment, the actual need to be wearing the armor, movement and stealth penalties, etc).
 

Hi everybody!

Did some work on the pregens in the tumultuous week-before-Finals, and I have some commentary on new areas!

Armor
Even though these characters were fourth level, I decided to start them all with the usual 175 GP. This resulted in some pretty uninspiring choices for armor - in fact, the answer was almost always obvious after consulting the character's proficiencies and DEX score. The only real question was for medium armor users - "Do I value 1 point of AC or ability to be stealthy more?" Padded, hide, and ring mail armor seem totally useless (worldbuilding?), which is a pity. Similarly, Splint, Banded, and Plate mail are totally unavailable without access to buckets of cash. The
Personally, I didn't mind the 4E method of six armor types, and now that the math doesn't need Cloth, I would easily be happy with the traditional Leather (sneaky/skirmishers), Hide (lightly armored melee types), Scale (medium armored melee), Chain (heavy armored melee), and Plate (slow tanks) each available at level 1. Certainly each of these could be flavored as studded leather, banded mail, or what-have-you.
In terms of actual armor class, I found that most characters stayed in the 15 or 16 range, with the AC-focused melee fighters verging into the 18s. The Barbarian's AC feature is useful about half the time depending on build - but with a 13 Dex and 14 Con, it's often wiser to pick up some scale armor. The Wizards were actually able to achieve fairly good AC with Mage Armor (which seems a near-mandatory spell), but the Enchanter, with his/her 16 DEX and Aura of Antipathy feature (disadvantage to melee attacks), seems particularly untouchable. This is the kind of ability worth dipping two levels for with a melee class.
I also found an ambiguity in the rules - does an un-dextrous character wielding, say, Scale Mail suffer a penalty to AC? If so, why does the same character not suffer that penalty with Chain Mail?

Spells
Clerics and Druids get a lot of prepared spells. The Clerics, in particular, had nine prepared spells (four free from domain), which outclassed the Wizard (five prepared) substantially. I'm really worried about handing these characters to brand-new players, especially with other class features to track like Channel Divinity and (eek!) the Druid's shapeshifting.
Lots and lots of characters can cast healing spells - Bards, Clerics, Druids, Rangers, and Paladins can all take Cure Wounds (which scales), and 3/5 of those can take Healing Word as well. I'm inclined to think this is a good thing, but we'll see how it pans out in actual play.
Some of the buff spells seem pretty weak. For example, I gave the Dwarf Ranger the Longstrider spell (+10' speed for 1 hour), but I can't imagine he/she'll ever use it with Hunter's Mark and Fog Cloud available. Similarly, Shield of Faith takes up Concentration for a +1 buff to AC. With Bless (+1d4 to the whole party's attack rolls/saves) available, who'd bother?
I feel like each class, especially the Cleric and Druid, need one or two more cantrips to choose from. Choice of cantrips for those classes didn't seem to mechanically differentiate those characters a whole lot. In particular, the Druid could use one more attack cantrip (both Fire Seeds and Shillelagh don't fit every character).
Aside from the issues I mentioned, I really enjoyed picking out spells for most characters, and I think the players will have a ton of fun playing them. Charge into battle and cast Thunderwave? War Wizard. Burn enemies with divine fire? Oracle. Gust of Wind foes into a Spike Growth? Mountain Savant. Smite the heck out of evil? Justicar.

Racial Features
The core races get quite a few more features than the rest, who typically only get dark/low-light vision and one or two combat/other abilities. I'd like to see, for example, the Dragonborn gain a bonus to History like the Elf gets to Perception, or have the Tiefling gain some bonus when dealing with planar knowledge (Arcana, perhaps?).
I feel like the Half-Orc and the Half-Elf get really short shrift. The Half-Orc gets two situational features (although a pretty good stat boost) and the Half-Elf is literally always worse than a full elf (unless you really want that +1 Charisma and additional language). Both of these races could really use a revamp.
Humans are easy to make, but they don't get many cool things. I'd like to see a human with more options.
Drow are interesting. They're the only race with a disadvantage (Light Sensitivity), and it's a pretty steep one, but they get free spells (the equivalent of a feat, albeit a bad one) and other good features. They seem like they'd be very campaign-specific (good in underground/dungeon crawling, bad in wilderness adventuring), but I suppose that's rather the point of optional races. At any rate, they'll be plenty effective in Vault of the Dracolich.

Next time, I really get to sink my teeth into things - class features. Stay tuned!
 

Humans are easy to make, but they don't get many cool things. I'd like to see a human with more options.

Mearls mentioned there may be a Human variant which grants a feat + a couple of more benefits.

Personally I still very much dislike the Human's +1 to all abilities. It's supposed to represent humans versatility but since the players doesn't choose anything, it feels like humans superiority instead of versatility.

I am certainly going to use the Human variant, if it ends up in the core books.

It's also very easy to make up your own: there are plenty of possible proficiencies in the game (skills, tools, languages, saving throws, weapons, armors, shields...), so you could replace each of the six +1 with a proficiency. If you choose to replace all of them with skills or tools, you end up with almost a second background (minus the "trait").

The bonus feat is a bit more complicated. It's clearly worth two of those ability score bonuses, but allowing it at 1st level may not be appropriate for all gaming groups (since normally feats are unavailable until level 4).
 

My concern with humans is that I hate the lore significance of the +1 across the board attribute boost, that implies that humans are as agile as elves, as tough as dwarves, etc, and essentially turns lack of ability bonus into an ability score penalty, of which all humans get 4. Other races have traditionally been represented by what areas they exceed humans in (and which they are worse in, though I'm fine with the removal of penalties since penalties are so unpopular with so many people). To say humans are the best, and everyone just lags behind except in a couple of areas where they can keep up with humans totally changes the feel of the world.

I understand some people don't bother interpreting racial stats in terms of setting/lore, but just as mechanics. That's fine if you want to go that route, but there are a lot of us who do interpret them in terms of setting/lore, and we need stats that make sense.

On the other hand, giving humans a feat at level 1 bothers me because feats are pretty big deals in this edition and generally designed to represent a level of mastery or specialization that isn't appropriate (IMO) at 1st level.

So I'm stuck with which option I dislike the least, or houseruling it. That's unfortunate, since I really think they can fix it. I wish they would at least consider the suggestion that someone made a couple months ago of giving humans a +1 to their proficiency bonus. That would simply mean that they are very good at what they are trained to do, which fits fine with lore and doesn't cause many problems. (It makes them especially good multi-classers, but so does a +1 to all ability scores).
 

My concern with humans is that I hate the lore significance of the +1 across the board attribute boost, that implies that humans are as agile as elves, as tough as dwarves, etc, and essentially turns lack of ability bonus into an ability score penalty, of which all humans get 4. Other races have traditionally been represented by what areas they exceed humans in (and which they are worse in, though I'm fine with the removal of penalties since penalties are so unpopular with so many people). To say humans are the best, and everyone just lags behind except in a couple of areas where they can keep up with humans totally changes the feel of the world.

I understand some people don't bother interpreting racial stats in terms of setting/lore, but just as mechanics. That's fine if you want to go that route, but there are a lot of us who do interpret them in terms of setting/lore, and we need stats that make sense.

On the other hand, giving humans a feat at level 1 bothers me because feats are pretty big deals in this edition and generally designed to represent a level of mastery or specialization that isn't appropriate (IMO) at 1st level.

Yes, I think we are on the same boat.

The idea I have in mind at the moment, would be the option to trade-in each of the six +1 ability boost with either:

- one weapon proficiency
- one armor type proficiency
- one skill proficiency
- one tool proficiency
- one language proficiency
- one saving throw proficiency

And I am indeed unsure about allowing a feat at first level, but if the game is starting at mid-high levels then it should be ok. In any case the feat would be worth two +1 boosts.

This IMHO gives back the feel that humans are versatile in an interesting way. Currently with +1 to all stats, you can still say this represents versatility, but it's versatility of the kind "whatever I do, I do it slightly better". Instead I want versatility in the sense "I can easily learn more things (and I choose which ones)". It's passive versatility vs proactive versatility, and it does deliver a different feeling IMHO.
 

Yes, I think we are on the same boat.

The idea I have in mind at the moment, would be the option to trade-in each of the six +1 ability boost with either:

- one weapon proficiency
- one armor type proficiency
- one skill proficiency
- one tool proficiency
- one language proficiency
- one saving throw proficiency

And I am indeed unsure about allowing a feat at first level, but if the game is starting at mid-high levels then it should be ok. In any case the feat would be worth two +1 boosts.

This IMHO gives back the feel that humans are versatile in an interesting way. Currently with +1 to all stats, you can still say this represents versatility, but it's versatility of the kind "whatever I do, I do it slightly better". Instead I want versatility in the sense "I can easily learn more things (and I choose which ones)". It's passive versatility vs proactive versatility, and it does deliver a different feeling IMHO.

That's actually one of the better ideas I've seen. I'd modify it a bit, because it seems to me that the humans +1 across the board isn't technically equal to 3 feats (due to some of those bonus points being much less useful to any individual character than the bonuses someone would presumably choose with their ability bumps when leveling). It seems like a human mage being able to end up with all saving throw proficiencies and light or medium armor is a bit much.

Here's how I would modify that:
- +1 to two ability scores of your choice.
- One free language.
- Your choice of 1 saving throw or armor proficiency (armor proficiency to be added after class choice)
- And your choice of one weapon or skill proficiency.

I'd leave out tools and languages because I think those are the only ones that will (or should) be trainable in downtime. Of course, there is no balance reason not to let someone take one of those instead of a weapon or skill, especially in a game where downtime training isn't allowed.

I think that's simple enough that it could theoretically make it into a rulebook. That's another one my criteria at this point--even though it's probably too late for that.

My favorite it still just to strip the ability bonuses and give them the +1 to their proficiency bonus (so a human would have a proficiency bonus of +3 to +7 rather than the +2 to +6 that others get).
 

The criticism that odd ability scores are useless is absolutely valid. A solution would have been to make them useful. Like basing extra languages on odd Int and extra AC on odd Dex.

Or just not have them. I mean I see the attraction, but at the same time ability scores should be pretty character defining. AD&D managed to live with (virtually) no such thing. You get the ability score you get, and if you use point buy then you PROBABLY pick even values, though its fine if something benefits from an odd value. Many people will roll up PCs or whatever and they'll have odd scores. For the rest who misses then?

The problem with increasing scores is the 4e problem. If you don't dump all the ASIs into prime reqs and (in 5e) don't take them whenever you possibly can, then your character really suffers, but if you DO put them all into a single score or two scores then pretty soon your character is pretty narrow. The 4e fighter can't use a bow effectively LARGELY because he won't have the DEX needed to bother with it.
 

Koga, cut and paste what characters you have. I'll put them in an encounter fitting their level and we can see how they do.

kira3696.tripod.com
 

Remove ads

Top