I've only been playing D&D for a few years now, first time was back in 2010 with some good friends. I've only played 3.5 up until now.
Over the weekend the DM for our group sugested when we restart out game (we lost half the party so we needed to reboot anyway) that we make a game in 5th to try it out.
I'm usually one of the first people to have their race and class and every thing all set... yet it's been a few days and I'm finding that I'm still re-reading all the class descriptions and feates and backgrounds and have no idea where I want to go.
Like I said I'm used to 3.5 where we had access to any and all source books... so looking at the class descriptions and ... taking Sorc for excample (I normally love casters) I HAVE to choose between having a draconic bloodline or being a wild mage. No middle ground, no other choices.
I told the DM it seemed very restrictive and he told me I was over complicating it... to which I replied he was over simplifying it.
Having the "backgrounds" as well makes the character creation feel very forced... our DM said we had to choose one of the backgrounds, since that gave us gear and starting gold... but none of those types of backgrounds would be something I would play normally... throw in the random rolls for personality traits and you could end up with a combanation you hate and would have no fun playing.
Why does 5th editon seem so much less fun? I'm sitting here worrying about a character me and my dm rolled up last night. I had said I wanted to try out a Barb at one point, he said this could be a good campaign for that since we'd be trying new things out so it would be a class I could just mess around with... but later on in the evening he said he'd like to see this campagne go to high levels...
I've played a couple melee characters in the past (fighter and monk) and I did not really enjoy them as much as I do casters so I kind of wonder if I picked the right class... if I should scrap it and make a caster instead but with how restrictive the paths for casters are now... I don't know if I would enjoy it any more.
I mean Druids no longer get a companion, and can't cast in wild shape untill 18, Sorcs only have two options for the type of mage they can me, Wizards are forced to pick a school instead of it being optional, and Clerics always have the steroytype of healer on them rather than caster so if I went cleric the party would probably asume I was a healer type. I looked at eldrich knight and monk... but again those are more focused on mele than being a caster.
It just seems that they took all the best, most fun parts of being a caster out... and made it that you have to follow this path and can't just let your character be who you want it to be, it has to fit their role and you can't be creative with it any more.
Well if you only played 3.5 you haven't actually played a role-playing game yet 
..just kidding.
I actually kind of agree with you to some extent, but I'm reminded of the fact that when a new edition of the game came out whether it was 2nd, 3rd, or 4th, the choices always felt a bit minimized compared to what I had before, but that largely stemed from the fact that at that point (when a new game came out) there was dozens of splash books and extended alternatives beyond just the players handbook which with a new addition naturally you don't have yet.
This game in particular though has a very light players handbook and I think that also stems from the fact that its intended to be modular for starters, but also because role-playing game design in general has geared away from rules/options and has started to zero in on story/narrative play.
But yeah, in terms of choices offered by the players handbook compared to 3.5 edition or something like Pathfinder its quite light.
I'm still getting used to the reduction of feats and skills as well. I mean things like that really let you fill out and shape your character and now ... idk
it just kind of feels like a pre made character, out of the box / cookie cutter style rather than being able to develop the personality and history of who your character is and why they are doing what they are doing.
Taenamyr wrote:
This is actually a collision between pre-3e and 3e/4e from a concept point.
I think 5e is an exceptions based, 4e healing philosophy (if not design), OSR game. Your complaints though are mostly about the OSR part. This is why I think Pathfinder is pretty safe. There will always be those who want to really get into character building. I do think 5e will grow don't get me wrong but I doubt it's the game to sate that particular desire.
I agree with Grifford but I'm an OSR guy. I suspect he may lean that way too.
Yeah, there's too few choices. Part of that is the simplified* classes in the basic PDF and the PHB, and part of that is the fact that it's new. There's no DMG, PHB2, setting books, splat books, etc. yet.
* I mean that there's almost no options at level one, you pick race/subrace, class/subclass, and background. If you're a caster, you pick spells. That's it. No level one feat, no AEDU powers for weapon users, you don't even really pick skills. You can pick all your starting gear (But you could always do that.) You can also be as detailed or as minimal in your PC's personality, traits, and other role play stuff. (But, again, you could always do that.)
'Quick start' was a major thing the Devs were all about for 5e. Us veterans who want to spend more than 15-30 minutes making PC's will have to wait a year or so to have all the options we're occustomed to and desire.
Personally I have always felt that feats where kind of a weak way to expand character options. Their was thousands of them, but all anyone ever took where the dozen or so that where the best of the bunch.
Taenamyr wrote:
Actually, depending how you built your character your background and who and what they were would influnce what feats and skills you took, because of the fact it would make sense for that character to have that particular skill... yes... if you are into the role playing part of a role playing game you think about that in your character creation and development.
And no, with the restrictive choices for class spescialzation and the cookie cutter backgrounds with random persoanlities there is not as much "acess to those elements" because if your ideas for what you want to do with your character don't fit into the cookie cutter and random rolls you got.. oh well you are playing it wrong.
Remember... a character is more than just stat rolls. A good dm also rules on RP and how well you interact with the other players, npcs, and enviroments. If your random rolls give you something that you are really not comfortable playing (say an entertainer who's ideal was greed) you would not be happy playing that character and loose intrest in the game. Add in the fact that you only get 2 or 3 options for what you want to do with your class (not counting cleric or wiz who have lots of options... but are prety much the same thing and not as easy to grow and expand on) you have a very bland, boring charater or one that you are unhappy with and don't want to play.
I'm finding the character creation for 5th editon to be so stifling I want to ask my DM if we can just go back to 3.5 where you are allowed to choose what you want to play .
In my (entirely uninformed) opinion, the design goal was to streamline the game of playing teh character, at the expense of the sub-game of designing the character.
To clarify, by the end of 3.5 (and to a lesser degree, 4E) there were so many character options that just designing, optimizing and tweaking a character was a game in it's own right. Some people really liked that, a lot were indifferent to it, and some actively resented the decision paralysis it caused.
5E cut all that back. If you are in the "More options = more better!!" camp, it will take some readjusting to. If you are in the "I don't want to look through three books, just give me what I need to play an archer guy!", you are probably happy at the new direction.
I'm fairly cetain the first expansion book - there has to be at least one, lets not kid ourselves - will have a new subclass for all the classe with only 2.
One side note on the background "Suggested Characteristics" the rules do say "You can pick characteristics, roll dice to determine them randomly, or use the suggestions as inspiration for characteristics of your own creation. ".
So you don't HAVE to roll.
Jay_Ibero_911 wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Not sure if these things got mentioned yet but...
The PHB does state that you can mix and match Background ablities.
And you aren't required to roll on the tables nor do you have to pick the traits listed.
And there's still rules for getting gold to buy equipment instead.
You're also worried about options when only a single book has been released.
All I can recommend doing is refluffing for now. More options will be here before you know it.
I'm not sure if it'll help, but there's some threads in the Player Help forums that might give you some inspiration.
Taenamyr
It sounds like your style and that DMs don't mesh all that well. It's great you found that out before the campaign started.
Best of luck finding a DM that will give you a play experience you can enjoy!
Taenamyr wrote:
spelley wrote:
I was told by the DM in the campaign I'm playing that I HAVE to use the backgrounds and roll random personality traits. and that I'm required to use the gear / gold given by the class and backgrounds section becuase that's how it is set up, and if I tried to do it difrently it would require a lot of other changes to make things balanced on his end.
Your DM seems to have a little bit on backgrounds wrong. You aren't required to roll randomly for personality traits (etc), you can pick from any of the available ones, even from another background. Or create your own. Similarly, you can create your own background by picking any 2 skill proficiencies, any 2 tool proficiencies or up to 2 bonus languages, and picking any of the background traits or make up your own. I actually find it makes it easier to represent a character concept. Do I want to play a Paladin who was part of a theives' guild as a youth? Now I don't have to awkwardly take levels in the rogue class. I can take a background (or create one) that includes proficiency in stealth and theives' tools, and off I go. The concept can be realised from level 1!
As for feats, yeah there aren't a lot of them yet. Keep in mind that some things that used to be feats are simply given to characters now (Weapon Finesse has been obsoleted by the existense of Finesse Weapons, you now no longer need Weapon Focus to gain a bonus to attack rolls with weapons, you simply add your proficiency bonus to all weapon attacks you are proficient with, there are no "special" weapons that require unique proficiencies, etc), and many of the feats that remain give you a bonus equivalent to several feats from 3e or 4e. Great Weapon Master, for example, gives most of the benefits of the entire Power Attack feat tree from 3.X.
As for a lack of subclasses... Yeah, there aren't a whole lot. I would have preferred at least 3 for all classes, and sorcerer especially seems lacking. If I don't like the flavor of being a Dragon Sorcerer, I'm forced into the lolrandom mechanics of wild magic, and accidently ending the campaign on my first spellcasting at level 1 by dropping a fireball at the feet of the entire party seems less than ideal to me.
Overall, my experience with character creation has been entirely different from the OP's. I've found the process to be a heck of a lot of fun in this edition, with much more emphasis on roleplaying choices rather than an abundance of purely mechanical choices. I'd give it a while though. The number of options will expand, and rumour has it that the DMG will contain rules for creating your own subclasses, lessening the "cookie cutter" feel.
DemoMonkey wrote:
As a first time DM, I've actually had the more fun creating characters with my players than I ever did by myself as a player in previous editions. Maybe it is because I am a first time DM and because as the DM I am trying to tie together all these characters and their backstories into my campaign. I actually love the Backgrounds. I think there aren't enough of them, but more should be coming. They kind of gave my players a jumping off point to describing their characters, which helps them since they are all new players as well.
Xguild wrote:
CapNBritain wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Going from 3.5e, an established edition with a multititude of extra material to draw from vs 5e which isn't even fully out yet.
How much would you enjoy making a 3.5 character, if you only had a 3.5 PHB?
That's your baseline for how much you should enjoy making a 5E character right now.
Taenamyr wrote:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm#sorcerer
This is what you would have as a 3.5e Sorceror. You get your weapon proficiencies, some skills and a spell list. You get small feats on odd-levels, most of which are +1 to *some number.* That's it.
Does defining your power source, either RAW or refluffed, *really* make creating a character that hard?
Sounds like you actually care about your character. And there is your problem. That isn't what the game is made for. They've sacrificed most of the customizability for simplicity because they feel casual players don't care about their character so much as being able to get playing in 5 minutes or less. That is in fact a stated design goal, 5 minute character creation for new players.
When people complained that low level character fatalities where high, the response from this board was "so what, pull off the next pre-made from the stack." Again, this doesn't match your playstyle where you lost half your party so have to reboot because character death means something to you. In 5E you're expected to just pull the next character off the pile and respawn.
I suggest you skip the first 3 levels. At level 4 you will have some opportunity to customize your character. It is nowhere close to 3E's amount of customization, but at least you'll be able to make it feel like they're YOUR character rather than "A" character.
That is odd, I find character creation to be even more fun now, mostly due to the background mechanic. With your skills not all coming from your class, countless new possibilities are opened up!
Taenamyr wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Gary Gygax once said: "Character background is what happens between levels one and six."
Getting a character up and running quickly can get you in the game and creating your background over the next several sessions of play.
Xguild wrote:
So is it not wanting to use other people's build numbers, or other people's character concepts? Because these are two different issues.
What I was trying to suggest is that if you give us what you want to be as a concept, we can suggest how to get there mechanically.
Joe_the_Rat wrote:
Truly, posts like the OP's one make absolutely no sense.
Let's see what we got here:
Taenamyr wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Mr_Treegins wrote:
The assumption in the rules is that you'll modify the background to fit your character - swap skills, learn different tools and languages, reflavor the ability...
Backgrounds are intentionally modifiable. Even Adventurer's League allows modifying backgrounds.
Taenamyr wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
Uhm ... no offense, but your DM is a tool.
The listed backgrounds are *samples*, not a confined list. The idea behind background is that they are supposed to provide you with two skill proficiencies, a 'feature' and some roleplaying ideas to match it. If your DM is forcing you to use one of the listed backgrounds rather than simply creating your own, he's doing it utterly wrong. Background creation is one of those most critical aspects of all character creations across ALL roleplaying games. This should be very open ended.
As for lack of options ... well, the game just came out. The previous edition had even less options at launch.
Taenamyr wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
So, I've read through this thread. What it basically boils down to is (run-on alert):
Hey, guys I'm not too sure about this 5E thing. I know the game just came out and doesn't have as many options as previous editions that have been out for years and my DM is further limiting what I think is already limited and even though you guys have given me tons of suggestions and pointed out excerpts from the book that show that it's not as limited as I believe it is, I'm not budging from my initial assertion.
I can guarantee you that if I make a sorcerer, which I have and you make a sorcerer, they will be nothing alike. My character's personality, and background will most certainly be different. My race, subrace, skills, abilities and spell selection will likely be different as well. And, this says nothing of the choice to take feats or not. Do I won't my sorcerer to focus on necromancy? Done. Do I want my sorcerer to be a nova destroyer, an abjurer/buffer, a gish, etc.? Done and done. I have a ton of options here.
Now, I do agree that there should have been at least one more option for sorcerers. But, just because I choose to do a draconic sorcerer, doesn't make me a dragon or dragonborn (unless you choose the dragonborn race) as you stated. It just means my magic comes from a draconic source that could've have been many thousands of years ago.
On Wizards. Before you could choose to be a generalist wizard who got no particular benefits nor did they receive any particular penalties. If you did choose to specialze in a particular school you gained certain benefits like being able to cast additional spells per day, but also took certain penalties like giving up particular schools of magic. In 5E, you gain benefits from specialization but no penalties at all. That seems to be a win-win.
Regardless, you've received some sound advice and great suggestions from many people in this thread. Your response has been to ignore that and repeat your argument (cookie cutter, I don't know how or can't create what I want, my DM sucks, etc.) again and again. I'll reiterate. If you don't want to play, don't play. If you think your DM is railroading you, find another DM.
I just thought I would add that you do not need to roll randomly for character traits. That is just an option. If you actually read the decription of how bonds, flaws, and ideals work the game makes it very clear that you can come up with your own. The ones in the book are just ideas offered to players.
Taenamyr wrote:
The only frustrating thing for me about making a character in 5e right now is, I like too many options. I flip through the PHB and see a tontastic slew of ideas ripe for me to take on. But I can't play 'em all. At least not all at once. So I'm forced to settle on just one idea. Sux. 
Taenamyr wrote:
I may be miss reading but it seems like its not a problem with the system it self. It seems to me like you are complaining that the brand new system which has been out for less than a month doesnt have the same amount of content as a system that has been out for several years. Also your DM is being a bit inflxible about the background system. As many people have pointed out the system itself is very customizable but your DM is being very rigid here, I would talk to him about it.
However i do think you should give this system a try and if its not for you its not for you. But i would say maybe dont write it off completely and come back to it in a few years after more sourcebooks have been released.
Taenamyr wrote:
Playing devil's advocate here a moment: What if OP is just trolling us and is a big fan of some other game just having laughs at our bending over backwards to help?
Not sying the OP is, but, wouldn't it be a hoot if they were?
@Taenamyr - Seems to me that you are overly worried about game mechanics rather than who your character is. This was proven by Xguild when he stated that the best ROLE-players are the ones who come up with a story for their character, hand it to the DM and then the DM comes up with the mechanics that fits the character. In this case, in a role-playing game, that makes sense because if the character (and by character I mean who the person is in the game world, not the sheet with the numbers on it) and the story is there then the mechanics will work themselves out.
Now I'm going to point out that I made a character with my wife yesterday (actually we made two, a sorcerer and a barbarian, ironically enough, because she wanted to have a back up in case someone else REALLY wanted to play a sorcerer), and we had a blast. Her sorcerer for example was a tiefling wild sorceror, and she decided on the charlatan background. She rolled on some of the tables and then scrapped a couple of the rolls to choose something that made more sense with the other things that she had rolled. I told her it was her choice, just like the book says, to roll or choose. She chose a compromise and came up with a great background all ready to go out of the box. She then chose her spells based on her being a con-man (er woman). It was the most fun we've had with character creation ever.
Keep in mind neither of us liked 3.X, and while 4e was okay, it still had elements we didn't like (too many fiddly feats with constant need for bookkeeping of "Do XYZ to get +1, and do ABC and get +2 etc, too much bookkeeping with all the "End of next turn" effects, and combats taking FOREVER). We went back to 2nd and have been having fun playing it with no intent to ever return to a WotC based D&D ever again. I saw the PHB, looked through it, and was actually impressed, so here we are planning a game for Friday. Anyway, that's a little beside the point, which is there are plenty more options in this edition starting out than any other edition. You're complaining about the lack of sorcerer options, yet you keep ignoring the fact that everyone is telling you that 3.X only had ONE type of sorcerer! Hell 4e didn't even have a sorcerer until the PHB2.
Either way, if you are that worried about mechanics then maybe a role-playing game just isn't for you. If you cannot divorce the idea of mechanics from your character, then I don't know what to tell you. A character is not a sheet with numbers on it. A character (in this context) is a fictional person in a fantasy world that you as a player play out much liek an actor playing out a role in a TV series or movie. How would you stat out Chris Evan's protrayal of Captain American for example? You could, but that doesn't matter as much as who that character is in that setting. So maybe you should worry more about the character you are portraying rather than the numbers and mechanics on the character sheet and it will work itself out. Failing that, maybe a refluff of the sorcerer options like others suggested. Rework the draconic sorcerer into a demonic one for example (something my wife and I discussed for her sorcerer since it was a tiefling). An di fyou just can't do any of that, then I don't know what to tell you except that maybe you need to take a look at what you are really looking for in a game.
Also- your DM needs to lighten up the restrictions. He's doing it wrong.
TLDR: Who cares about mechanics? Your character is not his Stength score. Your character is not how many gold peices he has in his pouch. Your character is not his <bleep>ing character sheet.
Mistwell wrote:
Reading through this thread, I can only imagine that this is an attempt to start an edition war. I mean, yes, 3.5 has a lot of options, but if your DM sat down with you and said "OK, we're going to play a 3.5 campaign. You have the PHB to work with." you (the OP) will have the same kind of complaints. If you don't want to play 5e, then don't play 5e. If you think the DM is going to scrap his game because of one person not wanting to play .. well, no offense, but you think mighty highly of yourself, sir.
Give 5e a chance. Play a Wizard and just gloss over the whole Spellbook feature. For the most part, the Wizard class in 5e is what the Sorcerer was in 3.x, aside from being able to write spells into their spellbook. So, the 5e Wizard is a *better* Sorcerer than the 3.x Sorcerer was right out of the PHB.
So, make a Wizard. Call him a Sorcerer. Get your spells at level up and don't bother changing your "prepared" list. Bingo. Sorcerer. No Draconic bloodline. No wild magic. As a bonus, you can cast RITUAL tagged spells in your spellbook without preparing them. Also, your spell list will be greatly expanded over the actual sorcerer spell list in 5e.
As far as the backgrounds go. I know everyone has spoken to that complaint, but I am going to go one further. Ask your DM to actually read the *whole* section on Backgrounds. Including the part just before the Backgrounds are listed, entitled "Customizing a Background". It's right there in the rules. Your other players might appreciate being able to customize their backgrounds as well.
Timeshadows wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
@OP:
Your DM is doing it wrong. On page 125 of the PHB it says, under "Suggested Characteristics": "A background contains suggested personal characteristics based on your background. You can pick characteristics, roll dice to determine them randomly, or use the suggestions as inspirations for characteristics of your own creation." Then, on the same page, there is a section called "Customizing A Background." That section explicitly states that you may alter details, such as the exact skills you are proficient in: "You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign settings. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5.... Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can't find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."
You might not have had problems with your DM until 5th, but the problem is still not the game; the problem is your DM. He is being unnecessarily strict about your character choices and forcing you to use optional suggestions instead of building your character within the parameters actually designated by the game. Those suggestions are there to make it easier for new players to build characters, not to straight-jacket those players who want to use the various options to build the sort of character they want to play. Now, if the group wants to play a game filled with randomly generated characters, that might be very fun! It seems, however, that your desires are at odds with the sort of game your DM is trying to run.
Now, there are currently 2 types of bard, 7 types of cleric, 2 types of druid, 2 types of sorcerer, 3 types of warlock with 3 different pacts each--for a total of 9 different types of warlocks, and 8 types of wizards. That leaves you with 30 different types of casters you can play. That is before you use multiclassing combinations to create something like a divine-invoker (for a "silver flame" style "laser cleric," for example). Is that really not enough for you to build one character that fits the concept you want to play? REALLY!?
On the other hand, if your problem is that casters are now balanced with martial characters, and don't hands down blow them out of the water and invalidate their existence (ala 3e), then I can't help you. 5th has balanced its classes fairly well, so casters can no longer do everything (use a pet to replace the tank, sling spells to control and nuke, and then transform into another tank when they don't need to cast spells--in other words, CoDzilla).
Sounds like you're very much a 3.5E/Pathfinder gamer, if it's the game you're the happiest with, then I'd suggest sticking with it over a edition of the game that has been out for less than a month and has the expressed goal of streamlining and simplifying play.
Esp. if you like the vast array of options.
Other people like myself found the vast amount of feats and options in 3E both clumbersome and counter intuative. esp when trying to get new players into the game.
And yep, your DM has taken a very firm view which isn't what's suggested in the PHB itself.
This bit is in both the PHB and the Basic rules:
Each background presented later in this chapter includes suggested characteristics that you can use to spark your imagination. You’re not bound to those options, but they’re a good starting point.
NineInchNall wrote:
Xguild wrote:
5e will have more options and depth in time, and there's talk of subclass creation advice in the DMG that will allow more tweaking and building.
But, really, some of the OP's complaints are a feature not a bug. 3e and 4e were character building games. Much of character creation was almost a game of its own, taking a full session to get ready to start playing.
5e was designed to be faster to start playing, so you didn't need to spend hours tweaking your build prior to play. So a group could just jump right in and play in a short amount of time. Where there was less of a time sink on the player side.
@Reius - I see what you're geting at, and no, no offense taken at all. You're stating your point of view, nothing more. What my post was regarding was strictly and specifically character creation, not actual game play. Of course you need the mechanics for game play, but in making a character you need absolutely zero. If you have a concept in mind, sit down, write out the back story (or make pertinent bullet points) and run with it. What I don't understand is this constant need to have a concept that is strictly combat based (like "Polearm Master" or "Fire-Destructo Mage"). To me those aren't concepts, they are mechanics driven wargame characters, but YMMV.
To point out how no mechanics are needed to make a character I will say that I have actually played and ran games that were based purely on the DM (or GM as the case may be) having all of the information and the players just telling the GM what they were doing and the GM determining whether or not it worked based on the information and mechanics that only he saw and rolled for. I had an absolute phenomenal time with those games because it freed up the players to imagine what was really going on and telling their story rather than worrying about mechanics. I will point out that this type of play isn't for everyone, and to GM is is especially rough. I know this is anecdotal again, but I encourage everyone to try it out at least once so they can see that the character is who you're playing, not what you're playing.
You don't have to use the random rolls for backgrounds, and you can get with the GM and make your own background, it's pretty simple.
-Background: Pick a theme, pick 2 skills that fit the theme, pick a roleplay feature similar in power and utility to the other backgrounds and you're basically done. Really the personality stuff is only there to help you come up with a personality, it's not there to tell you how to play. None of my players even really use the personality stuff. It's about as prevolent in the game as alignment.
On page 14 under equipment, it says to either choose the stuff based on your class and background OR get gold based on your class and buy your equipment from the equipment section. I always do the latter.
We are kind of facing option overload if anything. There is a bit more depth to the game than at 1st glance like the feats are 2-3 3.5 feats in one. Everyone also gets bonus feats as well compared to 3.5 as you more or less get the entire dual wielding tree and weapon fineese feat for free plus dex to damage (unavailable in 3.5), and you can move between your attacks and have no penalty to multiple attacks which is more or less another 2-3 feats for free.
Zardnaar wrote:
Phantymwolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Timeshadows wrote:
So, seems to me, what you complaining about is the system being too restrictive, when in fact it is your GM that is too restrictive. You can't blame game designers for what the Game masters decide to impose upon their players. As a GM I try to work as much as possible with my players. I've learned that the easiest fix is to just say yes. Let them have what they want. After all, isn't it all tools to be used by the GM anyway? As long as my players are excited about making an interesting character and are enjoying the processes of character gen and background development, seems to me that I should be encouraging that, not stifling it with "No's" everywhere. Any good RPG system will tell you at the very front of the book, that ultimately, all of the rules are optional. Use what you like, change what you don't. As long as your players are happy, then you as a GM should be happy. Isn't that why you are playing? To play a character that you created in an epic story of fantasy and heroism? As a GM shouldn't you be working toward that goal?
So, maybe what you should be doing, is getting your players together and sitting your GM down and telling him what you want in your game. If he doesn't agree and is outnumbered, then it sounds like he should not be the GM. Give it a go yourself and be the kind of GM you would want to have run a game for your characters. I try to be a good example to my players so that they will see the success of my games and how much people enjoy themselves and maybe they will attempt to do the same. Good roleplayers breed good roleplayers. Teach by examples. GMing is no different.
@OP:
The background issue is a problem created by your DM. Others have already pointed out that the book says you can choose traits, bonds, and flaws instead of randomly rolling, and that you can even make up your own instead. Others have also pointed out that the book says you can modify the mechanical biits of the backgrounds. If your DM won't let you do what the book says you can do, we can't really help you with that.
O.P:.I've had a good time creating my characters and realizing different concepts thus far. Restrictive? Naw. fluid. There are alot of choices available via background and classes for skills. It's simple but it's only the PHB so far. Warning: This is just one grognards opinion.
Happy gaming.
Phantymwolf wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
I've played since 1st edition (though I skipped 4e). I initially really loved the complexity and flexibility of the skill and feat system in 3.5e, but it did take a long time to generate characters and level up. This was especially true if you were a DM and generating NPCs. For those who didn't play before 3.0e, there were no skills, merely a single secondary skil and then languages; everything else was (loosely) a stat check.
So, the simplification in an area in which I really like what 5e has done. It provides more customization than 2e, but without all of the "grind" of 3.5e. Merely by picking a sub-race, class, and background, you have your skill choices very clearly defined. More importantly, when leveling, you roll more hit points, add any new class traits, see if your proficiency bonus went up, and you're done. Nice, quick, and easy.
That said, I do agree that the archetypes and backgrounds in the PH are a bit limited, but I am encouraged by the creation of those foundational elements, as they allow easy expansion (i.e., adding more class archetypes and backgrounds) without power creep. I've already created a couple of new backgrounds to better fit in the campaign I'm creating
1. If your DM actually claimed that choosing your own traits/etc rather than rolling for them would make your character too powerful, he was outright lying.
2. Any DM who won't even let you swap your background skills (like the book explicitly says you can) presumably wouldn't let you pull from half a dozen splatbooks to make a 3e character either, so this doesn't seem like a system issue.
3. Everyone is right that 5e gives you more (meaningful) options out the gate than 3e did.
4. That said, I agree that 5e sorcerers kind of suck.
5. You'll eventually get all the weird psions and artificers and whatever other niche classes or subclasses, but you'll have to wait a bit. If that's really essential to you enjoying the game, you're stuck with PF or 4e for at least a while longer.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Disallowing feats and multiclassing makes sense. Even disallowing custom backgrounds is understandable if the DM is new to the system. But saying the players MUST randomly roll for their character bonds, traits, flaws, and ideals is just ludicrous. That's taking a strength of 5e and actually making it a weakness. If I were in that group I'd be with the OP - those characters are going to be more straitjacketed than any other edition, because no other edition (including raw 5e) FORCES specific character traits and motivations on you.
Zardnaar wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
Taenamyr, I’d be a little surprised if your DM forbids or penalizes you for changing characters mid-campaign if it turns out you lose interest in one, you should be able to retire and introduce a new character.
You sound used to deriving characters from sets of mechanical abilities (esp. feats). But there are mutiple ways to do this.
- The lack of mechanical choices for you means less sources of character inspiration; is that true?
- Or do you have a character in mind beforehand and don’t see the mechanical options needed to express this concept?
- Perhaps you have some idea of a character, then use mechanical options in the book as suggestions on how to flesh this basic idea out?
Until the DM feels out 5e rules and realizes there's no need restrict you like this, try changing your method slightly. 2 examples:
- Have absolutely no character in mind beforehand; let the randomly decided mechanical traits inspire your character (There are 18 backgrounds, including variants; pick without thinking or roll d20.). Only after that, pick race, class, etc.
- Design a character in 3.5, then port the character concept into 5e. If you find the character feels boring in 5e, that may mean your character ideas are too focused on their abilities; get around this by basing the character mainly on the way the character thinks, their habits, and the causes they champion.
Whatever you choose, remember: your DM can't do a darn thing if you stick to your rolled background and then add your own ideals and traits in there. Not all that effects the game and customizes a character is mechanical; this game also operates on planes that don't have numbers and tags.
It's extremely simple to come up with your own Background.
The formual is right there in the PHB underneath the examples.
You couldn't wait for the DMG to spell it out for you, but I have already had players either tweaking existing backgrounds or making up their own and getting my assist and approval for balance purposes.
It's easy...
Mr_Treegins wrote:
Have to admit Caridhor is right.
So many games offer far more option and customisation than pretty much any edition than D&D.
That said I don't play D&D for a character building game.
For what it's worth, I will run my first campaign without the Optional rules. i.e., no multi-classing, no feats.
Why?
I want to see how the game is, from both a flow and balance perspective without the optional rules. If they're not *needed* then I can add them in a more surgical manner,
How has this not been tagged as a troll yet?
Thank_Dog wrote:
I think the simple fact is that some people like lots of build features and lots of in combat options and they feel they can't express a character without that sort of thing. Those of us who played prior to 3e and really enjoyed it are likely not of that assumption. There are plenty of people though who feel that way. They feel like D&D was seriously lacking prior to 3e. Many 4e players feel that way too.
I personally like a simpler game. I'm far more into character building inside the setting than character building outside of it. But hey that is just my preference.
I do agree that the OP's DM might be a little nervous with the new rules and be limiting things for that reason. I would still show him the areas where it says to provide options and maybe he will relent. If not then play it once his way and then maybe he will loosen up when he realizes the game won't break that easily.
Emerikol. wrote:
Caliburn101. wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I'm personally of the mind that simple is better. I Like my options to be in as few books as possible, which i resented in 3.5. Its ludicrous and just shows how incromprehensible character creation can be, a bog on deicisions. I like to be able to just roll, and get into the character. I'm a big fan of 2nd edition rules, and of Basic D&D. And all I had to do to get what I wanted out of the campaigns i madbe, was to just simply add a mechnic. I love how 5E has changed things, granted I dont agree with randomly rolling your background personality traits. But having some clear cut choices, greatly makes the game (at least for me) that much better. And honestly I hated feats.. meh. 3.5 seemed a race to becomming the most powerful character you could be, and the monsters just as crazy. It was all a big headache. So I got high hopes for 5E to bring things back to earth for me.
Emerikol. wrote:
Alright, here's a few thoughts here from a guy whose primarily playing time was 3.5
Taenamyr wrote:
My D&D gaming experience is based only on 4th edition. From what I have seen from the 5th Edtion free rules and looking at reviews of the 5E PHB, I think 5E PHB is better than 4E PHB overall.
I think the first few levels were explained as your character learning to become a hero. Options are more limited at level 1 to allow players to get into the game more faster. During the playest I think it was mentioned that a person should gain the early levels pretty quickly compared to past editions. I guess you can always start playing the game at higher level to give yourself more options that would be more equivalent to past editions?
Tier 1 5E Lvl 1-4
Tier 2 5E Lvl 5-10 ~ 4E Lvl 1-10, Heroic Tier
Tier 3 5E Lvl 11-16 ~ 4E Lvl 11-20, Paragon Tier
Tier 4 5E Lvl 17-20 ~ 4E Lvl 21-30, Epic Tier
===
Off Topic, I would really like to see the 5E DMG and MM to get a better opinion of the 5E product as a whole. As mentioned above, I think overall the 5E PHB is better than 4E PHB. Two things I am disappointed with the new edition PHB though are:
1. The lack of solids rules for tactical combat (grid). Reading the spells or abilities in the rules, it seems an option will be made for more grid-based combat encounters. Some combat encounters without grid is good; some combat encounters with grid is good, also. Having both options in the core PHB (instead of needing players' purchase another book) would make it a better RPG experience as a whole.
2. Lack of cross-class higher tier options such as 4E Epic Destinies. Backgrounds are nice and reminds me of 4E Character Themes and an unearthed arcana Dragon article on personality traits. However, as characters level up through the 5E "tiers" they seem to be defined mainly by their "archetype decision" made in the first tier. 4E give players options to define their characters not just by their class they chose but also through epic destinies and in later supplements racial paths. Are the 5E feats each being more flavourful and impactful a good substitute for the paragaon paths/epic destines?
Reius wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
autolycus wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
awogaman wrote:
I've got a question for the OP: If your DM said he was going to go back to 3.5 but you could only use the PHB to create your character, would you have the same problem you're having now with 5e?
You complain that they should have released a whole lot of stuff at once. While doing that might satisfy the impatient people, I'm not sure it would help WotC's bottom line. Staggering releases makes more sense from a business standpoint. Product glut was part of what put TSR under. Also, if I'm not mistaken, 4e (which you appear to have skipped) was the only edition of D&D to have its core rulebooks released all at once.
The PHB has plenty of options. Druids don't need the Monster Manual - there are beast stats in the back of the PHB. Besides, the MM will be out in just a couple of weeks. After that, there's the DMG, which will include lots of rules for customizing and creating your own content. Sometime next year we'll get the first splat: the Elemental Evil Adventurer's Handbook or whatever its final title will be. It will no doubt have more races, subclasses, feats, spells, and so on in it.
Xguild wrote:
All I can say is from the little years i've been playing TTRPG from 3, 3.5, PF & 4e never had i had so much fun creating characters! Previously i dreaded creating new characters and the time it took was way too long now with 5e not only does it take a short amount of time but with what has been given it seems to be more fun to me.
Anyway, thats more of an opinion/preference than fact. I'll stop talking now....
Taenamyr wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
Awww, thanks. 
Taenamyr wrote:
Oraibi wrote:
I didn't find character creation to be that fun, but not for the reasons laid out by the OP. It's a new edition, without even the DMG (where the module are...), so of course there's going to be less options to play with. 'Tis only natural to lack the degree of customization offered by 3e, an extremely long-lasting editions with tons of splat books, and to a slightly lesser extent 4e.
I didn't like character creation for 5e because it felt like I was doing an awful lot of page-flipping, going back and forth between different sections of the book. Clearly, this has something to do with me being unfamiliar with the edition, and while I'm an old pro at D&D in general, this is a new edition with new things. But for an edition that purports to be quick and easy, so easy that a newbie could jup right in, character creation felt very awkward.
I've generally purged 3e from my mind, as I dislike it so very much, and I frankly don't remember what 1e and 2e were like, character creation-wise (it's been too long), but 4e's character creation process, while somewhat long and involved (especially towards the end), seemed very smooth. Natural. i'm sure a large part of that was class powers in the class write-up itself, organized by level. For all its faults for its dry presentation, 4e was very well organized.
5e character creation felt downright schizophrenic in comparison.
Foxface wrote:
Taenamyr wrote:
At this point, since the OP hasn't replied on this topic in 2 days, I think it's safe to say that he's had his laugh at us and has moved on.