D&D 5E Whats so hard about character creation?

[Mezzer]

That's what I want to see in the next packet, some defined modularity.

Judging from everything WotC has ever done, we likely won't ever see modularity defined to the point you seem to want it at. They seem to highly prefer just defining stuff as complete package in which you may get a few basic choices (ie core), and any modularity is then offered in the form of rule variants (via accessories basically).

Making say class mechanics inherently modular, beyond what you see in the playtests now (an example would be a wizard that gets to pick just how his spellcasting works), is highly unlikely I would say.

 

[steeldragons]

what about hack-and-slash players?

What about them?

Hack-n-slashers aren't playing a table top role-playing game?

If you're sitting at the table, with a character sheet and rolling dice...playing D&D...you're playing a role-playing game. Now, how much you role-play, that's up to you.

If the depth of a character is, "I'm a fighter who does XX damage with my two-handed sword every time I hit." that's...ya know...fine, if that's what's fun for the player. I'd be bored outta my skull. But that's me (and the types of people I have played with). It does not, somehow, mean they're not playing (or D&D isn't) a role-playing game.

 

[variant]

Another example is the presentation of specialties. Feats are now the core part of the system, and specialties are just packages. Before, specialties were the important part, and everything you needed to know was contained directly in the specialty.

This is factually wrong. Specialties from the point they were themes have been nothing but packages of feats.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Don't forget ability scores, subrace, class archetype, maneuver, cantrips, spells, and equipment. Then you need to note down your ability modifiers, weapon attack bonus, spellcasting bonus, skill die, skills, martial damage dice, martial damage bonus, racial traits, background trait, weapon and armor proficiencies, and class features.

As I said in another thread, it's not hard, but it's inelegant. A little bit of streamlining would go a long way.

You missed specialty.

My issue is less the number of choices, it's the amount of comparing of choices that has to be done to figure out how they work together. Since many choices have multi-level effects, you choice affects not only immediate play, but locks you in to several levels of play, which requires additional comparison and thought. It's like you are forced to design a character for levels 1-5 when you're just picking out what you want to do at level 1.

 

[Grimmjow]

Judging from everything WotC has ever done, we likely won't ever see modularity defined to the point you seem to want it at. They seem to highly prefer just defining stuff as complete package in which you may get a few basic choices (ie core), and any modularity is then offered in the form of rule variants (via accessories basically).

Making say class mechanics inherently modular, beyond what you see in the playtests now (an example would be a wizard that gets to pick just how his spellcasting works), is highly unlikely I would say.

even though when they released the 4th playtest they said they are going to find a way to give wizards more ways to use spellcasting?

 

[DEFCON 1]

This. I think some parts are clearly modules, just not labeled as such. But I could be wrong as there is no way to know for sure.

They should start labeling the modules as such so that we can test the core game with the modules we select. Right now we just have to sort of guess. So far this isn't the modular game they were promising, if only because they haven't partitioned it out yet, or at least haven't communicated to us where the partitions are.

That's what I want to see in the next packet, some defined modularity.

Why the heck would they do that? As far as I can tell, they don't WANT you to just playtest some parts of the rules. They want you to playtest ALL of the rules. Why in the world would they distinguish core bits and module bits, knowing full well a bunch of you will only test the "core" bits because you're under the mistaken idea that the D&D playtest game is just your toy to use as you please... rather than your JOB as a playtester to check over EVERYTHING?

If you don't want to play D&D with all the rules they are asking you to test... you shouldn't be playtesting.

 

[Zaran]

I think it's fine. If it's too complicated for some people maybe they can put out premade characters that they use. I want to be able to build any character Idea I come up with and that needs more than just rolling stats and picking a weapon.

 

[nightwalker450]

The problem right now, is we've got a different document for each part of character creation. So it is haphazard and messy for us to create, as a feature of being a playtest.

Also the Race->Subrace could be done slightly better. It'd be better to have a single default race that portrays one of the subraces. Then have a list of alternates and what you need to do. So use the Hill Dwarf, High Elf, and Lightfoot Halflings as the default, and then list the Mountain Dwarf, Wood Elf, and Stout Halflings as alternatives. Then you can quickly choose a race, for those that want to put more effort in they can select an alternate. (I'd prefer wood elf as default, but a dex based halfling is more familiar currently than a con based one, and to have 2 races default to dex would not be as good.)

So that would leave Ability Scores, Class, Race, Background, Specialty -- Equipment is already handled by Background/Specialty

 

[Mezzer]

Also the Race->Subrace could be done slightly better. It'd be better to have a single default race that portrays one of the subraces. Then have a list of alternates and what you need to do.

I really don't think that's the right approach to take with races, since the sub-races are vastly different (mechanically), and it's not like there are 5 sub-races for each race, there are only 2. The current approach also allows you to quite clearly separate common racial traits, which is an elegant way of doing things, both now and for new sub-races down the line.

 

[Grimmjow]

What about them?

Hack-n-slashers aren't playing a table top role-playing game?

If you're sitting at the table, with a character sheet and rolling dice...playing D&D...you're playing a role-playing game. Now, how much you role-play, that's up to you.

If the depth of a character is, "I'm a fighter who does XX damage with my two-handed sword every time I hit." that's...ya know...fine, if that's what's fun for the player. I'd be bored outta my skull. But that's me (and the types of people I have played with). It does not, somehow, mean they're not playing (or D&D isn't) a role-playing game.

sorry i didnt reply earlier but i was trying to figure out how to word this so that it wasn't just me rambling.

Think back to the 4e DMG. They presented, was it 8?, player types to help the DM make adventures. Three of them were the "Roleplayer" "Storyteller" and "Slayer". The first two like to act out there characters and be part of the story. I never understood why these were two different types but they are pretty much the same thing. To these two people what background they pick is going to be a cosmic choice along with the sub-race.

For a slayer sub race and background wouldn't be as important as class and specialty Picking how you want to kill things (class) and how you want to do it better (specialty)

I really don't think that's the right approach to take with races, since the sub-races are vastly different (mechanically), and it's not like there are 5 sub-races for each race, there are only 2. The current approach also allows you to quite clearly separate common racial traits, which is an elegant way of doing things, both now and for new sub-races down the line.

He does have a good idea though. What happens when more sub-races come out?? just cause we have only two sub-races per race now, doesn't mean we wont have more in the future