What You Expect From Creation

[nightwalker450]

Now that we've had some first taste of creation, is it up to your expectations, and what were your expectations?

Now, I'm not saying does it have every class (or multi-class) you want (because after all not all are ready yet). I'm also not saying is it the exact mechanics you want (still being tested).

For me, my expectations is that I can think of a character concept and be able to put it together so that it feels like the concept. The goal being to have the character concept work from as low a level as possible.

For what is provided currently it looks like it will work pretty well. Mainly because I'm not seeing requirements on feats that are unreasonable (spell caster for necromancer, can't complain about that). There's also no sign of feat chains, assuming that you don't have to start at the bottom of specializations.

4e did alright in that you could find a class and if necessary reflavor, and also the game gave characters so many tricks at level 1, that you could feel pretty adept at your style fairly low.... Given as long as that style was combat related. Also feats every other level helped towards pushing you along your route (as long as you could ignore expertise for a while).

3e I always had trouble with the amount of multi-classing/feat chains that were required to get anywhere. It felt too much like you had to fight the system to get where you wanted to be. It's probably why I always ended up with a few levels of fighter, just for the extra feats.

So what I'm wanting to look forward to is being able to grab any (hero) figure from this and create a character that will not cause a disconnect with the system.

 

[czak]

I'm still on the fence, I've mostly been working on my thesis and haven't had a chance to really give the package a good look. I'll be happy if I can create a concept, have it function at level one, and have it grow into the concept and improve steadily as I level up.

I've listened to the penny arcade podcasts, but, didn't hear anything really concrete in them.

 

[ferratus]

Rolling ability scores: Two of my players had to reroll hopeless characters (hopeless being defined as half the ability scores being under 8), so that's a bit of an issue. I'd prefer 6+2d6 as the default rolling method myself. Random, with much the same spread as 4d6, but no crippled characters.

I also don't like that 18 isn't the highest score anymore. Having an 18 ability has a cultural resonance as "the best you can be" that shows up in movies, tv and comics. Sure, it has only ever been true for humans, but I would like to have a cap of 18 for starting characters. Helps keep the math flat too.

Backgrounds and Specialities: I definately like backgrounds and specialities. It adds another dimension to D&D that it has always lacked or has implemented poorly. Specialities needs a bit more work though, to decide whether they want them to function as subclasses (such as the necromancer speciality), as multiclasses (magic-user and acolyte) or themes (survivor). At the very least they need to be categorized so I can tell at a glance what job they need to do. For example, "subclass" could be the header for a listing of all class specific specialities.

Races: I am a bit leery about humans getting so many boosts to ability scores (though I'd like it better if humans were capped at 18, like a said before). But all the racial abilities work, and work well and that's the important thing.

I love that hob-- stout halflings are back, even if they can't have hairy feet. I like that they share the world with their thieving and wandering lightfoot cousins, which I bet makes family reunions hillarious. I like the division of all the subraces actually, and the differing flavour text they have.

Classes: Fighter seems to be okay now, and I'd definately play one. Wizards, Warlocks and Clerics are the strongest designs right now, which is probably why my players chose those three classes. I think giving warlocks witchmarks and making them grow more hag-like in appearance as they grow older is genius. Sorcerers also have the right idea but need work. The Rogue is disappointing. The rogue obviously hasn't had much time spent on him, but hopefully based on Mike Mearls' design column recently that they are taking a harder look at that class.

Flat Math: Love the flat math and hard restrictions on leveling up bonuses. I love the low defenses for monsters, which allowed my characters to hit without frustration even though none rolled higher than 15 for their prime requisite. I love that hp are lower so that combats are quicker, though spellcasting PC's can be a bit too fragile. Two average hits (8-10 hp) would be a good standard for the amount of punishment they can take before being knocked unconscious as a 1st level PC.

 

[Yora]

I am unhappy with skills.

Just three skills that are tied to the Background-Trait doesn't seem enough to me and having to give up my scarce feats to get more skills seems to expensive.
I think I'd prefer two background skills and two additional skills for free selection.

Background is supposed to have you covered with your skills, but I think it's too narrow.

 

[kerleth]

The thing is, skills aren't an on/off switch in DDN, or at least that's their stated intent. Those background skills represent things your character is particularly good in. You don't have to have stealth to try and sneak around with your 1st level dextrous fighter. He'll just be 15% more likely to succeed if you do. Part of the goal of the flatter math is to not assume a continuous cold war style escalation of skill bonuses and check dc's. If your character uses his even numbered level boosts to increase his stealth skill, it's supposed to actually make him more likely to succeed, not just level appropriate. Personally I think that three skills is just right. In 3rd edition a fighter had to have a +1 intelligence just to get that many, but 3rd's skill system was a nightmare.

As far as the OP, I have the exact same expectations for making a character. From the potential I'm seeing in DDN I think it's going to be head and shoulders above 3rd or 4th edition in that regard.