So far, every character concept I've tried to make using the new 5E rules has fallen flat. Why? Because there is no depth to the game's mechanics. So much is tied into the base ability scores and the proficiency bonus that many of the characters come out feeling the same, often even when they are from different classes. I can't imagine a game that didn't use the optional feat rules--everything would be SO bland without them!
Has anyone else encounterd this problem in their games/characters? If so, how have you over come it? Did you?
RavingDork wrote:
In answer to the title: Of course not, adding any depth to any character in any role-playing game is your choice, embrace it, or play a board-game.
Seems like a play style preference then I suppose. I guess this means that 5E is not going to be for a lot of people which, thankfully won't likely be competing with some of the more rules heavy tabletop roleplaying games out there (since they appear to target different demographics).
Doesn't lack any more depth than any other edition.
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
Well, you can add elements that would define you character more.
I guess that means more feats/skill proficiencies/expertise etc.
this can break the game, so do it at your own peril.
No feat at 1st level is the first bad step at making all characters similar.
Also expertise should be avaliable to all classes in one or two skills atleast at some level or the other.
Everyone should have a skill or two to showcase to the others.
Others are correct that the dept of the character comes from role play and your intepretation of the character at the table, but at the end of the day you still need numbers to back that story up.
I haven't seen an issue with character depth. Even my player who claims he sucks at role-playing has a unique and "deep" champion fighter who doesn't just feel like a set of stats on a character sheet. Our barbarian and cleric both have an obsession with building a kobold army, while our druid is a fiesty gnome girl with a fixation on squirrels and playing yo-yo with enemies and vine whip.
Other than specifying their class and sometimes race you'll notice that there's depth in even my brief description of the characters without using any mechnaics from the game. The depth of a character isn't defined by the rules and I found that I didn't care for 3e or RAW 4e because they focused too heavily on mechanics and washed away the depth of character concept because it was hard to do things unless the rules already defined it for me. 5e has fixed that by going back to a rulebase that allows for theatrics, dm arbitration, and flexibility in role-playing.
Sure we have done stat checks, attack rolls, and skill checks, but that's not where the enjoyment or the uniqueness of the characters have come from. Instead it's been in the non-stat based interactions, the dialog, and the motivations the players have given their characters. The character sheets are the guidelines of their limits (and their potentials) but it isn't the wholeness of the character, nor is it the character really. Think of an RPG video game: which ones have deep characters? It's not the ones with lots of stats to manage, it's not the ones that are just a bunch of stats with a portrait, it is the ones that have dialogs, motivations, and interactions with the story and the game-world. These aren't defined by the stats in the game but by the story-makers and to a degree the player when they get to choose a reaction to an event.
I think with this edition, the rulesset are geared towards a playstyle which lends itself to immersive narrative roleplaying. When I read the books, I was amazed because they offered a game where the crunch of the rules were enough to create a defined reality, but not so much so that the rules got in the way of the actual game.
I'm finding that the 5e characters are allowed more depth off of their character sheets. You must make them come alive if you want them to breathe. The PHB offers styles and abilities for each class that allows for different archetypes. It's up to you to make them actually matter in game. This isn't a game where breaking action economy equals win.
Character options are scarce, but at the same time there are so many less mechanical barriers that say 'no, you can't do that unless you have x' that if you want your character to do something, you can actually try. And if WotC is the publisher, there will be options galore in the books to come.
The necessary inclusion of Backgrounds (Sailor, Criminal, etc) add a level of depth to even the most 1-dimensional character in this edition. It forces players to think about the history of their characters.
As far as mechanics go, I feel that 5e has gone in a great direction. My biggest issue with 4e is that every character, regardless of Wizard or Fighter, had AoE attacks, "At-Wills", etc. It felt like Pokemon, where they all forgot their old attacks to learn a new one. And anything my Fighter could do, the Wizard could do with identical mechanics (but different fluff).
If you do feel that Feats are necessary to flesh out the characters at 1st level, why not just give everyone a free Feat or some equivelant (bonus to a single skill, etc)?
I don't buy it. In Pathfinder I have a Halfling bard/fighter/dragon disciple/Eagle Knight and the reason he's multi classed out the wazoo was in order to fit the character concept (Halfling bard 4 who became a warrior and fights with strength and sword) he needed all of those different classes just to be viable. His defining mechanical features are being able to step up when enemies try to retreat, allowing rerolls through several different types of abilities (racial, feats and class features), being able to disguise himself so he can gather information about his own party and sow rumours about them and finally being able to hold his own in melee
It took hours and lots of levels to get him where he is today, but he's a fun character with a wide array of diverse options available to him.
Here's a fifth ed version of him:
Antal Waters
Bard (College of Lore) 4 / Fighter (Eldritch Knight) 8
STR 15+1 (9) 16 (+3)
DEX 8+2 (0) 10 (+0)
CON 13+1 (5) 14 (+2)
INT 14 (7) 14 (+2)
WIS 10 (0) 8 (-1)
CHA 12 (4) 12 (+1)
Speed: 25 ft
Lucky: On a 1 you can reroll an ability check, attack check or a saving throw.
Brave: Advantage on fear effects.
Stout Resistance: Advantage on saving throws and resistance to poison.
Halfling Nimbleness: You can move through the space of a larger creature.
Badic Inspiration: 1 time per day grant an ally a d6 to add to a single d20 roll or a reaction to cause an enemy to gain a penalty equal to 1d6 to their d20 or damage roll within 10 minutes.
Song of Rest: After a short rest allies who regained HP gain a bonus 1d6 HP.
Fighting Style: reroll 1 and 2 when you roll damage die.
Second Wind: Once per short rest spend an action to gain 1d10+8 HP
Action Surge: Once per short rest you can take 2 actions on the same turn.
Weapon Bond: Can't be disarmed of my bonded weapon and can summon it as a bonus action.
War Magic: When you cast a cantrip you can also make 1 weapon attack.
Lucky: 3 times a day you can roll a second die on an attack roll, ability check or saving throw and take the best. You can also roll a second die when attacked and choose which one is used.
Sentinel: Creatures within 5 ft provoke an AoO even if using the disengage action. If I hit with an AoO they gain a speed of 0 for the rest of their turn. I can spend a reaction to attack anyone who attacks an adjacent ally.
Warcaster: Advantage to maintain concentration, can cast spells as an AoO provoked through movement rather than make a weapon attack.
+3 Animal Handling
+3 Survival
+10 Persuasion
+10 Deception
+6 History
+6 Arcana
+6 Performance
+6 Investigation
Language: Halfling and Common
Background: Folk Hero
HP: 92 (4d8+8d10)
AC: 18 (Plate)
Saving Throw: +4 Dexterity; +5 Charisma
Longsword: +6/+6; 1d10+3 (reroll 1 or 2)
Feats:
Level 4) Heavily Armoured
Level 8) Warcaster
Level 10) Sentinel
Level 12) Lucky
Fighter Spell DC: 15
Cantrips
Bard 1) Light
Bard 2) True Strike
Bard 3) Message
Fighter 1) Ray of Frost
Fighter 2) Shocking Grasp
Spells Known
Bard 1) Cure Wounds
Bard 2) Detect Magic
Bard 3) Healing Word
Bard 4) Heroism
Bard 5) Enhance Ability
Bard 6) See Invisibility
Bard 7) Lesser Restoration
Fighter 1) Comprehend Languages
Fighter 2) Expeditious Retreat
Fighter 3) False Life
Fighter 4) Shield
Fighter 5) Enlarge/Reduce
Fighter 6) Misty Step
JohnLynch: Your halfling could have just as easily been a bard who retrained or multiclassed into magus. I have yet to find a concept that Pathfinder couldn't duplicate with little effort. D&D 5E, on the other hand...I think I've already lost count of the concepts I can't seem to represent well.
Retraining rules are optional and didn't exist when he created. Also I wanted him wading into battle with high strength (something he needed several different sources to get) rather than crit fishing with shocking grasp.
it's easy to say "it's too hard" but without anything to back it up it's hard to take your comment seriously. In my experience (and my example) it's not too hard if you get use to the system and give it a bit of thought. Show me a concept you could create using the PHB/Core Rulebook of non-4th ed editions of D&D that you can't in 5th ed in order to back up your claim with something a bit more substantial.
Brock_Landers wrote:
when I'm half-asleep I tend to become a roll-player.
when I'm at the top of my game I become a role-player.
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
dafrca wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
First, I have a question for you, RD: How many of those characters of yours were built using just the core rules for their respective editions? I think perhaps you are unfairly prejudging this new edition because there aren't as many supplemental options as the 3e/Pathfinder rules have. Would you be able to create all those characters just using the 3.5/PF PHB? On a side note, how many of those characters would you be able to recreate using the AD&D rules of old?
Second, I have a challenge for you: Stop trying to recreate a pre-existing character and roll up something new. Make a new character for this new edition. In fact, make it random. Randomly determine stats, class, race, background, and personality traits. See what you can come up with. Can you create something that is viable and interesting and looks like it might be fun to play? Make it 1st level too, so as to avoid the temptation of trying to game the system with optional magic items and feats and such.
As the great Yoda would say, you must unlearn what you have learned. Stop judging 5e on its failure to be exactly like Pathfinder and just see it for what it is.
pukunui wrote:
While I think you are exaggerating at least somewhat, I can understand that 5e might be hard for a dedicated char-opper like yourself to get your head around. The devs have taken a very old school approach to the game. It feels familiar to anyone who got their start with TSR's various editions of D&D, but may come as a bit of a rude shock to those more used to WotC's initial edition.
Still, I hope that you will take up my challenge and approach this edition anew, having left your baggage at the door. 5e is not Pathfinder, and I, for one, am extremely glad of that.
RavingDork wrote:
I thought we were talking about actual character concepts here, not convoluted messes of mechanics. I suppose I could complain that D&D 5e doesn't support my Half-Rancor Force-sensitive Herald of Galactus, but I'm not sure what the point of that would be.
pukunui wrote:
Characters never lack depth, only players.
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
I think when you start with the intention of optimizing a game mechanic (like the use of Magic Jar in Pathfinder), and then create a character concept around it, changing the way the game mechanic works (like Magic Jar only working on humanoids now), kind of kills the concept. I think Hama shows that Magic Jar could be abused a bit, and maybe the change made to it in 5th edition is warranted.
You can make a character that can turn into a mammoth and cast spells in that form eventually, or character who has Magic Jar and can also transform into a good number of large beasts. You can also have a character cast spells while "paralyzed" also (without Verbal or Somatic materials).
There really aren't less mechanics in respect to the character options really, they just work differently in many cases. The numbers (attack bonuses or skill bonuses) a character has in this edition don't seem to be as defining as other abilities they have. A Fighter's Action Surge or a Rogues Cunning Action, for instance.
I don't see why there wouldn't be more feats and magic items in future books. New options have always been added over time in every edition of D&D.
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
The OP is clearly talking about mechanical depth. There's no need for some here to swoop in and tell him he's doing it wrong because he can still make up an elaborate backstory or speak in a funny accent. There is no debate as to whether someone can give a character some level of narrative depth, since that option is as present as it ever was. The issue being raised is clearly one of mechanical toys to play with for character customization.
When your busy schedule allows for it RavingDork, can you please point me to a character you created that is well balanced (and not taking advantage of the imbalances found in prior editions) that uses only material from the PHB along with an explanation as to what about that character adds mechanical depth and what is critical to the character concept you had when you built the character.
I will get back to you on that JohnLynch, when I have the time.
GhostStepper wrote:
I agree that there is less mechanical depth with 5e as opposed to 3/3.5e and most certainly 4e, but that is completely by design, and I don't think it limits character concepts.
The addition of backgrounds and traits, flaws, bonds, ideals have added a level of complexity that encourages diversity. It adds a little mechanical diversity (proficiencies and a background feature), but even more imaginative diversity. Good roleplayers created backrounds to help them breathe life into their PCs in prior editions, but now it is part of the game so that even the least experienced players can start from day 1.
Feats have been consoladated so that there are less of them, which some may argue limits options, but if you look at it another way, by choosing 1 feat, the PC now actually gains meaningful game mechanics that actually change the PC more definitively. Some might even say that this adds depth to a character. If I want to create a PC that is a healer, I don't have to play a Cleric, Druid, Bard, etc. I can become a fighter with the healing feat or a rogue with the healing feat. These are things that couldn't really be achieved in prior editions.
I think it is far more easy to make a stealthy fighter, wizard or cleric than ever before and there are a number of options to achieve these purposes.
Also, if you compare 5e PHB with any other PHB that came out when the game was first published, there are more options not less.
When it comes down to it, if DMs and Pre-made adventures skew combat too heavily, there will always be the urge to min/max that becomes a force that blurs most PCs into the universal combat master archetype. Luckily for me, 5e has actually done a lot to shift away from combat is everything in D&D. It is much easier to run sessions that balance combat, exploration and interaction, and when DMs/Adventures do that, it is much more clear that other options and more interesting diversity exists.
mellored wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
You're never going to get a character that is as mechanicallay complicated or versatile as in Pathfinder with only core rules. It's really only a fair comparision after 5e has as many splatbooks out.
That said, 5e character are never going to have as many moving parts as 3e, 4e or PF simply because there are less decision points. Less points to allocate, less feats to swap out, less types of classes (prestige, etc) to dip, etc. It is what it is.
I disagree that there's a lack of mechanical depth. A character concept I had in Pathfinder is a monk who served in a monstery to a deity and was a priest. In Pathfinder I had no mechanical support for this character concept despite having access to the Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Magic. I had to achieve it 100% through Roleplaying. In 5th ed I can take the Acolyte background, monk class and the magic initiate and ritual caster feats. This is a lot more mechanical support then Pathfinder ever gave me.
IMO there's plenty of mechanical depth if your looking to make characters rather than build a character centred on a handful of mechanics from a very specific edition of the game.
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
RavingDork wrote:
Personally I prefer the 5E system because I got tired of the 3.x/Pathfinder sometimes byzantine rule system. In addition, as others have stated you can really compare the release 1.0 version of a game to a system that's been adding layer after layer of option for 14 years (if you go back to the original D&D 3.0 release).
I do find that my characters are more locked in by my initial concepts and designs and there is less opportunity to grow the character as I progress.
Having said that, I can give my character a lot of "flavor" that previous editions implemented with other mechanical options with less rules. For example, I have a character who was a street urchin who grew up in the wrong part of the city (criminal background) only to be rescued by a kindly cleric. The cleric was murdered by a shadowy cabal so now my vengeance paladin runs around hiding and picking locks while wielding dual rapiers or throwing daggers from the shadows.
Is it the most optimal build? Probably not (at least until I get my mithral plate armor) but it would have been tough to pull of the concept of a dex based holy warrior of vengeance without a lot of mechanical tweaking in other editions so I'm happy.
Can I recreate some of my old characters exactly? No ... but come back in another decade if some variation of 5E is still around.
I'm not sure this is about "character depth".
As I understand it, character depth is about bringing numbers and features written on a paper "to life". Your post seems to be referring to more mechanical depth - ie not having the features and options available to begin with; so how can you attempt to bring so little to life?
Of course, that's a valid point - there aren't many mechanical options at this point in 5e's life cycle, which limits your options on paper. That doesn't prevent you from making a 5e character with some depth of character, though. It's a small thing, but you would probably get more helpful discussion and less useless one-line criticism if you called it "Mechanical Depth" rather than character depth. Unfortunately, "Character Depth" is one of those buzz-phrases that tends to get RPers all defensive.
Anyway - on the lack of mechanical options; I think (and I could be wrong) that there will be more published paths coming for all the current classes. There will likely be a gladiator path for fighters; something more of a charming path for a rogue; hopefully some new clases as well... a charisma-based divine caster that doesn't suck (like the favored soul did) so I can make my charismatic preacher again without being useless. And there are fighter and rogue paths that have a little magic, what about a melee specialist wizard? Someone that focuses magical ability on armor, temp hit points and spell attacks?
wait.... actually, you can do that last one already. Nevermind. The others are still sorta valid. More spells will be released as well, I'm sure.
**considered deleting my reply. I re-read the OP and he's specifically referring to mechanical depth, only my reading of his post was off because it mentions Characters, not Mechanics, in the title. Also - I didn't mention that my charismatic preacher isn't wise. he's kind of an idiot... but he is very persuasive about his stupid beliefs.
RavingDork wrote:
I think there is something to be said for a system having less moving parts being more open to character concepts and depth than system with tighter reins and a rule for everything.
I'm finding 5e to have a great deal of depth and character potential. More so than in the last several editions.
GhostStepper wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I agree if class/character depth is equivalent to choices, then the game lacks depth for certain classes. If I was to choose a level of depth, I would take a class like the wizard or cleric, and allow that flexibility of choice for all the classes. Other things like roleplaying, storyline, items, or other things that are available to all players/characters are condered constants. They don't remove or add depth, but remain neutral. It is a debate every player will have when playing a RPG over a long period of time. Some follow an ever increasing curve, where they start off with a simple game, and add more depth as they mature. Usually these players adopt more complex rule systems over time. Some get burned out on all the choices and want to go back to a light chasis for a rule system. It doesn't prevent them from adding more depth, but the burden is on them to make it all work. It my opinion that was a design focus for 5E when considering everthing D&D has to offer. But it is too much work for me, as a DM, to get the game I want.
Play.
Learn through play
It does have number depth
Not as much as PF
It is almost as though they are different games
SterlingRat wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
BTW, what makes a "knight" (or not), anyway? You seem to be speaking from a relatively comfortable position on the subject. What is a "knight"?
In the context of a D&D seting/character, that is...
Mechanics can be recycled (or reflavored).
For instance, a mechanic that make you stroger when you lose hit point can fit for both a beserker, death cleric, or a necromancer.
The onetruewayism of this thread seems to be growing.
At least one person understands what Diffan is saying. (I also understand that he never said he needed or wanted a Knight class.) Not everybody likes to play the same way, not everybody is happy with the same options. There's really no need to start throwing insults around, though.
RavingDork wrote:
Plenty of concepts in 5E but if you are after exact mechanics from previous editions you will be disappointed. The is a surprising amount of depth to 5E with just the PHB. Its not going to strack up will in terms of optins compared with 3E or 4E though but thats a feature not a bug as even in PF we were saying no to a lot of the option bloat.
Things I do not like about 5E are some of the mechanics (some feats, spell Dcs, CR) not the lack of options.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Reius wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
At DungeonKrusher's urging, and to reduce the bickering, I'll offer what I hope to be a bit of an olive branch that accounts for at least some of the difference of opinion here without dismissing it all to merely taste or "whatever works for you".
It is uncontroversial and held by everyone in this discussion that :
(1) There needs to be at least some relationship between the tropes/character types one is playing and the mechanics of that class/race/whatever. That is, it can't all be roleplaying. The whole history of subclasses (which in time came to be treated as classes of their own, e.g. paladin, monk, assassin, druid, ranger, illusionist, barbarian, cavalier, etc.; or were featured in The Dragon without ever being official) from the very earliest years of the game is witness to this.
(2) D&D is not GURPS, Champions, Mutants & Masterminds, etc. That is, D&D is a class-based and level-based game, and this is hard-wired into the game itself. No set of mechanical options will ever be able to undo the fact that every character imagined will have to, in some respect, be revisioned in terms of the classes as given, and this may mean that certain elements of the imagined character simply have to be let go or not worried about in favor of letting the game work as designed.
Where one of the things dividing folk here is found is that some people here, and I imagine the OP to be one (and he may correct me if I am misrepresenting his view), in some sense start from the mechanics themselves and spin out character ideas based on those mechanics. There's a certain elegance here, since designing a character this way mimimizes the gap between the character concept and its mechanical expression in game play. The weakness of such an approach is that it not only requires a large and growing supply of mechanical options but, more than that, when any of the mechanics is changed (by an official revision, or by a newly-released edition), some characters might no longer "work". This is not because of lack of mechanical depth, or need not be. Rather, it is because the character was designed with very precisely-tuned connections between specific mechanics in an earlier edition, and those specific features are changed.
Others here have a character idea and use the "closest fit" approach. That is, they start from the character idea and look to find the class, class options, etc. that comes closest, or hits all the sweet spots, of the character idea. The strength here is, of course, that changes in edition will rarely cause trouble. The character is not so wedded to any mechanic that a change in that mechanic requires a different idea of the character. The weakness of that the gap between idea and mechanics may be a bit large, the tension a bit strange. That is, one might feel that the character idea still has to be shoehorned into what is the closest fit, and much of what the character envisions being able to do might not be easily (or at all) mechanically supported.
Still others just start with what's there, often but not always with random character generation. They may even use random background, ideals, bonds, etc. Rather than building a character based on prior ideas, these players are more likely to generate a character. Admittedly, there won't be many high concepts here, and at first level, the character itself is likely a bit vague or unclear. However, these players prefer to produce the character concept through actual play. Rather than looking for a mechanic to support any idea, they form the ideas as a result of what happens to the character through play. The weakness is that a character might never move past the superficial, might always remain as unfinished as it was when first generated.
I hope this has been fair to the range of views, and I hope it shows why, for some (e.g. of the first sort) 5e might seem to lack a desired depth in character building, for others (esp. of the second sort) there may be some sympathy to this view but overall there is the encouragement to allow the new edition to work, and for yet others (of the third sort, but not exclusively), the claim that there is no depth for character building seems baffling.
Mistwell wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Samrin wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
mellored wrote:
Using a barrel for 2d4 damage when you have something that will do 2d8, is not cleve, it's stupid.
and if they did 4d8 damage, then yes, you would see PC's hiring armies of pesants with barrels.
you need something more immovable, like a cliff. Which i've seen used well in every edition.
Terrain powers weren't actual powers. It was just a set of guidelines on how to use page 42 in awesome ways. Page 42 itself encouraged making stuff up on the fly than anything in any other edition IME.
Mistwell wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
I tend to use page 42 a lot. I encourage it a lot. I think it gets used more than at-will abilities at my table. It's like they have infinite at-wills abilities, and they just use the encounter and daily powers at their discretion. Terrain powers are used more than anything, I think.
If I deem something too powerful, I might have them choose to sacrifice an existing encounter power for that instead.
Reius wrote:
Diffan wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
CCS wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Reius wrote:
mellored wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
mellored wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
Back to addressing the overall question do 5e mechanics lack depth, I would say kinda yeah.
Without feats and multiclassing once you pick your subclass your character is pretty much locked into place. There aren't really many options left for you unless you are picking spells. An elf champion is going to look a lot like any other elf champion at pretty much any level, and the same is true for almost any class, I'd say warlock evades it fairly well but that seems the exception.
But for the most part customization for a single class character just doesn't exist after character creation until you get to your subclass, which (I think) most people already have a prettty good idea what they are going to choose as their subclass when they make the character. After that it's pretty much just a checklist when you level up. There aren't really any options inherent in the leveling process which is what I think some people are having problems with. Feats help with this.
Feats are a hard thing though, from an interesting character design standpoint feats help quite a bit, but mechanically in most cases you are going to be better off taking your boring stat boosts if you're looking at damage output and check success. I don't like that you have to make this choice, interesting abilities or system advantage.
Multiclassing is interesting too though the way some of the classes interact with eachother is quite fun. Though in general it does just give you a second checklist you can use, but it does alleviate the single class sameness. And once you have two classes with two subclasses you do end up with a somewhate complex character with a fair amount of mechanical interplay if you built it well.
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
Diffan wrote:
darius wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Sorry this reply is a little late, i was out of town.
Mistwell wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
More tools is more equipment, which is not powers. Powers do things that, generally speaking, anyone could do if they thought of it in the right situation, but for the limiting factor of game rules assigning it to a power which by implication excludes people without that power from doing that thing. So if a power lets you shove someone down and attack them in one action, now nobody else can do that without that power, where if the powers didn't exist then in the right situation and with clever thinking anyone could pull it off. THAT is depth. It's based on the Player playing the game, not the powers playing the game and the PC just picking a power card to use for that action.
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
I think he was using "powers" to differentiate from spells. I don't think spells were included in his argument of things anyone should be able to attempt.
bonethug0108 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
There is very little character customization and large class overlap so every character seems samey.
The majority of class abilities are quite uninteresting too. They made feats and number of attacks class abilities rather than character abilities and reduced their number and so you get more boring classes.
Compared to 4E where you're picking at least 4 powers and a feat, in 5E you pick nothing. 4E you've already made a custom character at level 1, it's *YOUR* fighter, it's not *A* fighter like 5E.
GhostStepper wrote:
Wait, did someone say hazard damage scales based on PC level? So if my 1st-level character gets caught in a landslide, he takes 1d6 damage, but if he is 20th-level, suddenly the same land slide is dealing 10d6 damage?
Bleeargh!
Orethalion wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
You keep missing that the devs made Knight a background. Not as a class or subclass. It's consciously and intentionally placed into this edition of the game that way. On purpose. And rightly so.
Being a knight is a position. Not a list of widgets.
Long live 5e!
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
draegn wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Query: Can a paladin or war cleric be a "knight"? Or must they forgo their preferred class to instead take levels in "Knight"?
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Are you guys aware of how boring your petty bickering over the definition of "knight" is? Just agree to disagree already. Sheesh. 
pukunui wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
draegn wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Yeah, in the end, Knight, like Samurai, is a social position/standing (Sir Elton John), previous attempts at making them Classes have blown chunks.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
Diffan wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I remember how abjectly terrified I was when I read about the Heavy Charge of the Grand Order of the Mud Farmers at the Battle of Hastings. And the way the Crusades were so viciously fought by the Holy Order of the Wainwrights-At-Large.
Ah well, that's okay. I have yet to see a charge of knights of any type survive a direct Baneling Rush. 
Mistwell wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
This is what I want from the people who want "knights" (as an avatar for "mechanical depth") to explain:
- Do you want a class with abilities and feats BEYOND the basics (i.e., you never possess any abilities from other classes)?
- Do you want a kit or prestige class that builds off an existing class (i.e., at 10th level your fighter begins taking levels as a Knight)?
- Do you want additional abilities for being a knight, on top of whatever class you are?
I realize that the *knight* example isn't the end-all hope for the people like the OP. I'm just hoping that it can stand in to get a clearer view of the OP stance. I'm not trying to denigrate the position, either; I simply want to know how they would define adding "mechanical depth" to the game, because it seems like people are arguing semantics more than the issue.
I really want to hear from people in that camp, rather than opponents who will say "This is what they think." And if I missed an option, please let me know!
Mistwell wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
pauldanielj2 wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
RavingDork wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Back in 1E and 2E you did not get to make many choices in terms of game mechanics when you made you charecter and advanced in levels. 3E changed this in a big way, and 4E followed suit. 5E has more choices and mechanical options then 2E, but much less than 3E/4E. Views vary greatly as to whether this is a good thing or not.
In the last 2 editions WOTC agresively put out additional content that provided even more mechanical choices. It is unclear if that will happen with 5E, but it does seem that there will not be any new content aviable in the near future.
5E to me seems like very much a throwback editon with more cleaned up mechanics, and as such does not appeal to me much.
Some people however seem to think that a charecter that has more then one codifed attack option, is somehow physically incapable of roleplaying, having a compelling backstory, or a three dimensional personality. So I guess 5E is a good system for them.
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
draegn wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
More and different options, choices and flexibility are all good! So let's demand a specific "Knight" class with a narrowly defined set of powers and abilities!
The disconnect is deafening.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
I tried earlier to drag it back around to the larger topic. You refused and continued to focus on the narrower issue. So I'm just following your lead. Would you care to take it back up to the original discussion now? If so, please try and make a cogent argument that addresses the perceived problem.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
draegn wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
SleepsInTraffic wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Just convert whatever classes you dig from previous editions, it is reasonably simple and intuitive with 5th Ed (I have converted a bunch, and a butt-load of monsters, and some races, prestige classes, and spells).
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Agreed. I think some people are greatly downplaying the flexibility and depth provided by 5e's Background->Class->Subclass->Feats system. It's much more subtle and nuanced than it's getting credit for.
Orethalion wrote:
Well if Knight gets to be a class then they better include Samurai in there too.
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CCS wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I think it's funny that a lot of the same people who said 4e had cookie cutter PCs are the same people who seem to think 5e does not.
The thing is, mechanically, all fighters are pretty much the same. All rogues, etc. are the same. Casters have their spell choices to help them differentiate themselves mechanically.
In 4e, everyone had their AEDU power choices to differentiate themselves from each other right away at level one. Also, those choices (along with feats) came up pretty much every level. Wizards still have AEDU powers (AKA all their spell choices, each time they level up, and even every long rest) from level one...But no one else in 5e really does. 5e wizards are AWESOME! More everything, less penalties.
That all said, it is really about your role playing when you get right down to it. Two mechanically identical PCs don't have to play the same at the table at all.
I think the game just needs more official choices. (ie: a PHB 2, Complete X books, Psionics...Like all the other editions of D&D have had.) One thing I'd love to see is racial feats and/or racial abilities that kick in at higher levels. As it is now, after level 5 your race doesn't give you anything new. Some races don't even go past the front loaded stuff you get at level one. Also, some classes have amazing capstone abilities (to reward you for making it to level 20) and some do not. Some classes are seriously lacking in subclasses. Ranger and Sorcerer most noticably. There needs to be more feats too. Plus an official option of breaking feats apart, and rewarding them more frequently (to make it more like 3x and 4e).
This is how I feel about this thread:
seti wrote:
Rains wrote:
I feel that 5E is fairly good it jsut needs to accomedate more roleplay options. Like I tried to make a unarmed character thats NOT a monk and it was kind of pain to figure it all out. If it had more class variaents and maybe just a way to get feats to be more accesiable and earned it'd be really cool. I think you could make more things that make fun variations on the combat ( just look at people who grappiling its insane).
Orethalion wrote:
Rains wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rains wrote:
Ok, I'll try to limit my keyboard twitching/excessive use of "far" in the future. 
But I was just going off of...
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Diffan wrote:
If there is no singular vision of what a Samurai is then that means there must be room for multiple sub-classes to hang inside the Samurai class structure.
Azzy1974 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Darth_Caffeineus wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
KrnlKrazy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Corwyn77 wrote:
Corwyn77 wrote:
MephistoXtheXred wrote:
I think you are asking for the impossible from a game system. No game mechanic can provide character depth,
That is something the player is expected to deliver. He/she will need to bring the character to life at the gaming table.
The richest characters I have had the pleasure to adventure with were created all before the existence of background, traits, faults, etc.
That is not to say that I think the system isn't helpful. I am surprised at how helpful a tool it is to get players to create a more complete character. That gives players a way to connect with the character and breath life into it.
That being said just because on a sheet of paper your character has a flaw or personality trait. The player is responsable for taking the character off the page so that he/she becomes more than just 1 dimensional, X level Y class A Gender...
Dread
There is no denying that 5e characters lack depth (at least depth in the form of crunch) compared to 4e characters.
For characters in either system, you can introduce all the fluff you want; nothing is stopping you. But it would be false to argue that 5e characters possess the depth of crunch that 4e characters do. 5e characters simply lack crunch. That is just a fact.
Dreadnoght wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
The point I was alluding to was, crunch =/= good. Just because something has "mechanical depth" does not mean it's good.
ICE, even with its various flaws, is still playable and cherished by many.
FATAL, on the other hand, is widely panned as one of the worst RPGs ever written. Yet is was massively complex and full of crunch.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
There is a bit more depth to the game than at 1st glance. Each 5E PC more or less get 2-5 free feats in 3.5 terms
Diffan wrote:
DungeonKrusher,
I could not agree more. If every idea is codified, how different is your codified character from the next?
In fact, I rather prefer that people make clever use of multiclassing to get a character together than to have one already set in the books.
That said, there can always be more, but when we get more and more, we usually have more loopholes (5 prestige classes together or poorly tested ones) etc. and thus, it is a cost benefit issue the more that is tacked on. For me, adding new classes and paths via campaign books allows for more choices that actually make sense, while allowing new additions to be properly vetted.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Diffan wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
"OoftaMeg"<span> wrote:
warpiglet wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I now think of 5th Ed as the 3rd Ed we should have had back in August 2000, while, the actual 3rd Ed happened, the cracks became way too apparent, way too early. 4th Ed has less cracks, but seems to boil down to moving bits of plastic around the tiles and no real consequence to anything.
I was hoping 5E would remove some of the cookie cutter from 4E, and the complexity of 3E. But with the abundance of sub-systems it went too far on the former, and not enough for the latter. It is going to be hard to add to 5E without have a good understanding on how all the sub-systems will clash.
Azzy1974 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Because I am confident they will be consistent, and in line with, 5e's design structures and system paradigm
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Chiisai_Usagi wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Diffan wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I love 5e but yes it lacks depth, anyone that says otherwise is simply in denial. But this is just the base release, I cant imagine we wont be getting supplements that add more depth.
Now to you that have made the absurd notion that somehow roleplaying makes the depth not the mechnaics. Then first I have to ask, why the heck did you waste money on the books? if the mechanics don't matter, toss the books, sit around the table and play pretend.
Oh wait thats silly, because RPG stands for role playing GAME, and the importance between role play and roll play is a 50/50 divide, so having a depth of mechanics is important. Options are never a bad thing, those that don't want them can simply not use them. But don't take them away from those that do want them. This one true wayism is a poison in this hobby.
And on a positive note, the DMG did a very good job of adding optional complexity to the gameplay, now we just need more options for characters and we will be all good.
OoftaMeg wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I'm thinking that both 4th ed and 5th add depth, but they go about it differently.
Now depth as I see it, is how far down the rabbit hole we can go with imagination. We can be a dwarf fighter who loves ale, or we can be a 15 foot purple hippo dancer who also shape shifts when the 4 moons of 'Hork'nar align. Both are valid player concepts that could be fun on the table. And as far as I'm aware, any D&D system I have run could make both possible. There are stats for dwarfs and hippos. There is ale and shape shifting in the game. Again we all usually mix the mundane and outrageous elements in our games, but we all like knowing that we could go much further down that hole.
Now remember that the whole game is in our imagination but we allow it to be restricted with universal rules. Rules meant to keep each player on the same page and hopefully tell a consistent story. Some like more rules and some like less. Nothing is wrong with either type.
The thing that a lot of players argue about is which way is better. Less rules does give you more freedom to create any story you want and not be slowed down by accounting. More rules lends to a logical and balanced stories that attempt to give everyone equal ability to progress the narrative.
So, do more rules add more depth? or does less? My answer is they both do, but for different players.
The players who like less rules will thrive and create anything to their hearts content when not stifled by all the choices and bookkeeping of some systems. Their imagination needs no priming. They know their character inside and out without having to know what they get +2 racial bonus to intimidate.
For others though, I see the rules as necessary to facilitate imagination. A lot of people would never think to be anything more then a basic class and race without more classes, spells, feats, skills and powers to get them thinking about the possibilities. Even a simple bonus to a skill can ignite a character concept (+2 intimidate on a mage? why is that...).
4th ed was had more depth for people (like me) who were inspired by powers and feats and loved the infinite ways they could be combined.
5th ed has more depth for those that love a solid core that does not get in their way of telling a story.
Depth comes from, and always has come from, the players and DM. What system inspires you the most to jump down that rabbit hole is whats important.
OoftaMeg wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
mellored wrote:
mellored wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
mellored wrote:
Decoyfate wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
The was just as much custimization in 4E with backgrounds, builds, feats, and themes, but 4E did have power/weapon restrictions. That is the best thing that 5E removed for martial classes. Of course, I still wanted the equivalent power/maneuver in 5E for martial classes, and I am still baffled they did not include it from the earlier playtests. Even if it was a hint, of a shadow, of a whisper of its former glory. But the only honorable mention is the battlemaster.
cbwjm wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
GamingGorman wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
I've seen the argument about 4e ranged fighters before and it frustrates me to no end. 5e and 4e are two different games. Comparing Fighters and Rangers across editions is not fair to any edition.
- In 4e, you can't make a ranged Fighter
- In 5e, you can't make a non-magical Ranger
Yes, both of these statements are technically true. They also both show a fundamental lack of understanding of the two game systems.
- In 4e, if you want a ranged Fighter, you should probably look at the Ranger
- In 5e, if you want a non-magical Ranger, you should probably look at a Fighter (or Rogue) with the Outlander background
(Yes, I know there are other possible ways to create a 4e ranged "fighter" and a 5e non-magical "ranger" but I'm going with these examples because they seem like the most obvious solutions.)
These are different games and just because they both use the terms "Fighter" and "Ranger" these terms do not refer to exactly the same things. Same general fantasy archetypes, but different animals. It's no different than expecting the 5e Bard (or any edition Bard) to be the same as a 1e Bard. They are both "Bards" but they are not at all equivalent. Same with Barbarians, Druids, Assassins, et al. Don't expect the classes to stay the same across editions, look at how they work in each edition and evaluate them and use them according to the paradigm of that edition. Just because it says the same name at the beginning of the class description, just because you write the same word on your character sheet in this edition as you did in another edition -- none of that means that you should expect the characters and their classes to work the same in every edition. In 4e, Roles are a very important consideration in character creation (and they are the reason why the Fighter isn't designed for ranged combat). 5e doesn't have Roles. They are different games.
Think about creating a "ninja" in any edition of D&D. Would you use the same class in every edition? Probably not. You'd evaluate the classes in each edition and find the one that fit your concept the best. In one edition it might be a Monk, in another maybe an Assassin, in another maybe it has a Ninja class but your idea still works best as a high-Dex Fighter, in this other edition maybe you'd choose something completely different, like an Avenger. Different games, different classes. They aren't the same. We all know this and I think that making these straight comparisons across editions is at the minimum unfair, if not a little disingenuous.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Reius wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
You guys are great. I have had such a blast reading this thread. The level of conversation here could only happen between super-gamers. No one else would invest so much effort to argue this out.
Thank you.
Reius wrote:
Reius wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
mellored wrote: