No character building in 5e?

One of my favorite parts of roleplaying games is character building, whether it's 3.5, PF, FATE, World of Darkness- I get a lot of pleasure out of building something. It's like playing with legos, making things fit together, weighing the costs, striving for theme, effeciency, power, utiltiy, humor, or any number of other construction goals.

So why did 5e limit the character construction so much? Was this a design decision? Is there a market for people who want fewer choices?

You see, 5e is trying to appeal to people who actually want to play the game, not autists from theoretic optimization forums.

FPBP

if I wanted limitless optimization, tedious but wide ranging customization and weighing things, I'd play GURPS.

5e has the best character building in D&D since maybe 2nd edition.

There were never significant choices in 3.PF unless you are talking about class features and spells. The majority of feats were trash and either a feat tax or a noob trap, and same really goes for skills.

Just watching someone dig around several splatbooks for an elusive minor trait at character creation, for several hours, just so they could optimize their horrible abortion of a character put me off this hobby for a while.

To be clear, I wouldn't consider myself much of a optimizer, certainly not a power-gamer. I could od this, but I don't get any satisfaction from it.

In MtG, they talk about 3 demographics they cater to: Timmys (likes giant cards, the joy of wild experiences),Spikes (power gamers, statistics nuts, optimizers) and Johnnys (people who enjoy building creative decks, tinkering, combo-artists).

I'm definitely a Spike. I like to put together unusual combinations, I like making 'bad options' work. I see character creation as artistic, a chance to express myself. But I also how character creation feels like I'm putting together interlinking parts, bulding a coherent machine (even if the purpose is slightly strange, not typically useful).

I certainly don't need GURPS or RIFTS level of splat books, nor do I need even PFs level of options and sub-systems and micro-systems.

It just seems like 5e is dropping the ball. Every cleric I've seen is identical except for a couple domain spells. I know they'll cast guiding bolt, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians, flamestrike... I've played all of two campaigns and characters are starting to repeat.

crap, I meant to say 'I'm definitely a Johnny', lol.

This.
There's an explicit reason all the numbers are smaller and a lot of shit has been streamlined and cut down.
A problem with earlier editions is that even if you like jamming shit together, there were too many goddamn options. You don't NEED all those feats when you could just put them into the classes, especially if they're "Essential" options and you'll take them anyways, and make better more useful and wider encompassing feats.
There are some things that have suffered for it, but for the most part it's makes for a better roleplaying experience.
If you prefer other games for doing something 5e doesn't do, then keep doing those games instead of making unwarranted criticism just because it doesn't cater to your niche.

PF had all sorts of relevant choices, though it certainly had trap options (not as bad as 3.5 though).

But 5e still seems to have plenty of traps and optimization pitfalls. My parties bard is a total joke, he picked almost all utility spells and has been pumping dex to get better with his rapier (though he did not pick the melee Bard college),

Other classes do seem impossible to fuck up, like cleric.

>There's an explicit reason all the numbers are smaller and a lot of shit has been streamlined and cut down.
I like the streamlined math. That numbers stay lower is a good thing (though it seems that damage to hp is out of whack at high levels, creating combats that never end). But I'd say it has a stronger math base than 3.5 or WoD.

>There are some things that have suffered for it, but for the most part it's makes for a better roleplaying experience.
My group has never had much of a problem with roleplaying. I don't like 5e, but I still enjoy roleplaying my character. But when combat hits I remember "oh yeah, time to fight with my boring monk, who is identical to nearly all other monks."

>If you prefer other games for doing something 5e doesn't do, then keep doing those games instead of making unwarranted criticism just because it doesn't cater to your niche.
Fair enough. I just feel like a game like D&D should cater to a wide audience, and it's obviously departed from what drew a lot of people to 3.5 and 4e. I'm not saying it needs to be as extreme and finicky as those systems, but I think it went way to far in the simplification of character building. I've seen all the classes played in our group, and characters are starting to feel like clones once combat starts.

There's optimization pitfalls and there's traps. A 5e class will be at least somewhat useful by default unless you make your sole quest to play badly.

Even with like 12 Charisma, a bard will have several nice utility spells, bards' inspirational class features and still be able to hit someone.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with playing a support character.

>Monk nearly identical to all other monks
Monk has 3 of the most different choices you can pick for a class. Monks can be badass in combat, especially if you multiclass with them. It is your own fault for most likely picking open palm, and going down the only traditional monk path.

The player is a bit of a troll. He takes spells like Tiny Hut. He polymorphs himself into an elephant and then promptly loses concentration everytime.

Never heard him use the inspiration dice mechanic.

I picked kensei, we hadn't found any magic weapons besides spears and axes and other shit I wasn't proficient with.

I've seen path of the shadow, doesn't really seem to different. Flurry and attack, flurry and attack. tELEPORT, flurry and attack,

You can simplify anything in that manner. It just sounds like you don't like melee in general.

I mean, I picked monk because it had the most options for combat actions. I can dodge and dash as a bonus action, stunning strike, walk on walls. I'm trying to be a good sport about my group switching to 5e, it seemed like the best option for how I like to play.

In 3.5 and PF I played all sorts of monk specialists: grapplers, trippers, single-big hits or multiattack specialists. I played an ironskin tank monk who could break blades as they struck his body. Come to think of it, I played at least two different grappling monks, with totally different tactics. One specialized in imoblization and locking down casters, the other specialized in toss enemies as far as he could. There was an endless array of choices, nothing was ever the same.

I really doubt I'll want to play another monk after this, the traditions just don't change things enough to make it feel like a new experience.

And that's the crux of my problem. I'm in two games, I play the kense one week and a Nature Cleric the next. Even with all the spells, I'm still casting the exact same spells as every other cleric I've seen (guiding bolt, spirit guardians).

It sounds like you picked the wrong monk path for what you like to do. You really should have gone open palm, and fighter 3. There you have all the close control you would ever want. You went mobility/damage route. When you should have been going for control.

oddly enough, I actually was initially playing fighter3/monk3 (champion, open palm). It didn't seem to work well, and then I found a magic spear, so I asked my DM to retrain as a kensei so I could use it.

But this whole 'what should I be playing' thing is a moot point. None of it feels distinct, and I'm going to see it all replicated by whoever plays that class next. Sure characters have personality, the roleplaying works fine (because the system doesn't interfere), but combat is just so uninspiring and repetitive. I've lost track of how many times I've seen Spirit Guardians cast. Every warlock casts Hex and Eldritch Blast. There is no variety.

Tiny hut is far from a troll spell, one of the highest rated unless they're not casting it as a ritual or something (though it fits a wizard better due to bards limited spells known)
Polymorph is great too but polymorphing yourself into an elephant is dumb though since the forms CON saves kinda suck. You don't do it to become a Great Ape, you do it to polymorph your front liner that only has 5hp left into a Grape Ape with 157HP effectively resetting the combat.

Hopefully they did pick some non-concentration spells like Dissonant, Blind/Deaf, Pyrotechnics etc. A pitfall of being a utility/support character is its very easy to accidentally load up on Concentration spells.

honestly, the player is a troll. He rushes up to hit things with his rapier, gets wasted by enemies, and occupies the clerics action economy with healing spells.

I'm not sure I've really seen what a bard is supposed to do yet.

That is not a problem with 5e though, that is a general thing around almost not only dnd. But pnp games in general. There is only so much you can do, and people will form habits based on what works.

I disagree. I did not see this problem in PF, 3.5 of 4e. Let alone other games I've played (Fate, WoD). Characters always felt unique, the chances you build an identical monk or barbarian in 3.5 are pretty low, given all the options you're presented with. And while there are 'bad options' or 'trap options',, there are plenty of workable builds for every class, compounded by multiclassing and prestige classing.

I could make a dozen 'nature clerics' in PF of 3.5, all doing different things, have different roles. In 5e, every nature cleric is going to be essentially the same.

Sounds like he's trying to be a Lore Bard Gish which... Might... Work under very select, specific, nearly absurd builds but he'd need a very firm grasp on system mastery to make something like that work. (Or just take a two level dip in paladin like an utter faggot. The worst kind of optimizer.)
I'm sorry you don't get to see the true power of a support Bard. An optimized bard can fit the role extremely well and can unintentionally (or intentionally if that's your thing) make the DMs encounter planning a living nightmare. (Which loops back to the original thread topic of character building. Each bard can be very unique in build especially due to difficulty curve)
I've got a Bard in my current ToA game, and his Inspiration and Cutting words has saved lives. Literally. Fighter was hit with a death ray, would have died at -1HP. Cutting worded it and kept him for insta-death with 2HP remaining. Proud moment.

>Is there a market for people who want fewer choices?
Yes, 5e is made for people who don't like to think much and that's actually a whole lot of people.

>Yes, 5e is made for people who don't like to think much and that's actually a whole lot of people.

OP here. It's not that I'm ignorant to criticisms of 3.5/PF. I DM'd it for years, and building 17th lvl npcs is tedious as hell. The math gets insane, balance goes out the window.

I just think there has to be a middle ground between 5e and 3.5?

Bizarre to think back to my expierence playing 4e. I thought it was too simplified, not enough choice, that classes all felt the same. But compared to 5e it's fucking diverse as hell.

Sure you did.

4e is the middle ground. You know how that played out.

>I just think there has to be a middle ground between 5e and 3.5?
Shadow of the Demon Lord, maybe? I haven't gotten around to reading it yet but it looks like you customize characters by choosing a basic, expert and master class, which determine which features you get at certain levels. Seems like it could be a good way to give players a lot of options without having hundreds of useless feats.

Because 5000 shit feats and 30 good ones is fucking horrible game design.

A system of parts
Interlinked
Building a coherent machine
Interlinked

Yeah, I actually downloaded that recently. I'm thinking it'll maybe be a compromise option. Something a bit more developed than 5e, but simple enough that we aren't bogged down in endless math.

4e design with 5e scaling would be perfect.

Distinct tiers of play was a big part of 4e. If you wanted 5e style scaling you could just ignore the levels outside your desired tier.

>because everyone should play a cookie cutter build with no option.

>50DKP MINUS

Play Magic then you raging autist

Sounds like your problem is with the player, not the game. Trolls are going to ruin any game system they play.

In regards to distinctiveness, in D&D all the martials are going to play the same. The only difference is what die you roll and how many times every turn. What makes your character interesting and, well, "yours" is how you roleplay them and interact both in combat and otherwise.

>everyone must be a well oiled machine while I jack off to numbers

>Just watching someone dig around several splatbooks for an elusive minor trait at character creation, for several hours, just so they could optimize their horrible abortion of a character put me off this hobby for a while.

That's my favorite part of table tops games though.

I haven't tried 5e, but I intended to run it with my group in a few weeks. Is it actually this restrictive in making non mono class builds?

5e is one of the least restrictive. It is hard to make a bad character. It is a fine format that flows well. People are normally upset with 5e, because you can't power game that much.

Not terribly, but it does clearly prefer mono-classed over multiclassed due to the shitty MC scaling. Depending on level multiclassing may not even be viable. Like say you want to build something MC'd at level 5 it could render you a burden to the party, though at level 3 or 7 you could get away with being one or two levels MC'd.

Per level multiclassing is just a bad mechanic in general. Hybrids and dual classing is where it's at.

>5e is one of the least restrictive. It is hard to make a bad character. It is a fine format that flows well. People are normally upset with 5e, because you can't power game that much.

I have to push back against this. My complaint isn't that I can't powergame, it's that I make very few important choices about what my character can do, especially after picking a Class and Archetype/Tradition/College or w/e it's called for the class.

At 3rd level my Monk became a Kensei. For the next 17 levels, I have 5 choices: Ability Score Increase or Feat (from a very short list of mostly trash).

This is just super limiting. The actual, mathematical variation, that can occur between different Monk PCs is extremely narrow.

I'm upset because there are no choices. Feels like every class is a pregen compared to previous editions. I think 5e is making me realize I just don't like class based systems at all. It's either comically unbalanced or boring as shit.

Axing prestige classes was great. I know Pathfinder half-heartedly attempted doing that by making them sidegrades or downgrades to basic classes but didn't go far enough.

5e feats are not trash. Compared to 3.5 or PF, they're pretty much all actually useful and flavorful. There's no more "Endurance" or "Dodge" or the dreadful Two Weapon Fighting feats, and these weren't even among the worst of the worst those systems had to offer.

Your character's equipment, allies and contacts and various IC choices are all important choices that affect what your character can do.

Melee is badly designed in D&D. They put all the effort in giving spellcasting a truckload of options and leave melee to wither away with basic attacks forever. Only 4e has ever made it interesting.

Sure, if you stick only to being a Kensei. You aren't going to have that many choices. But that is the same even in PF, if you just pick one default path, and follow it. What are you expecting to come from it? Try out multiclassing into something else.

>ignoring Tome of Battle

>Compared to 3.5 or PF, they're pretty much all actually useful and flavorful.

Feats like Actor or Dungeon Delver are very situational and certainly not even applicable to all classes. Grappler and Savage Attacks are straight up traps.

It hasn't gotten better, the list is just smaller. There's still the corner case feats, the outright traps, and the overwhelmingly superior options.

the largest issue here is that you are comparing games that had nearly a decade to grow into what they are, compared to 5e Which both simplified the math and hasn't had that same amount of time to grow.

Its as simple as that. It doesn't feel distinct or diverse simply because the diversity isn't there yet.

If you took baseline 3.5 with just the players handbook, you'd probably get a bunch of samey characters too.

True, but its easier to do a second sweep of a small list and alter some things than it is for 3000+ feats.

You and I both know ToB was the 4e prequel.
And besides, it was a late addition that received no expansion, which reminds me of battlemaster actually, except it's been around since the start. We're several years into the game now and the spells list that took up half the PHB has received several expansions, yet the one page of martial maneuvers has gotten NOTHING. Why are maneuvers even restricted to just fighters? Open Hand monks are even using the same thing by a different name. It's like WotC is hellbent on making everything martial related as boring and disjointed as possible.

>Wizards of the coast
>Hellbent on making everything martial related boring and disjointed

Hmmm.

>the largest issue here is that you are comparing games that had nearly a decade to grow into what they are, compared to 5e Which both simplified the math and hasn't had that same amount of time to grow.
>Its as simple as that. It doesn't feel distinct or diverse simply because the diversity isn't there yet.

5e released in 2014. It's nearly 2018. The game should be developed by now. It's had Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide and Volo's Guide to Monsters? Xanathar's is going to be mostly republished Articles...

3.0 had at least a dozen splat books published by then.

And forget about player options, what about just monsters? There isn't nearly enough content in that realm.

It's also a lot more boring, which is the problem people are voicing. I for one would rather a list of 200 options with 20 actually good ones as opposed to a list of 20 with only 2 useful options.

Situational doesn't mean bad. Compared to 3.5 where over 50% of feats were straight up terrible, 5e has maybe 2 or 3 out of like 20.

Feats are an optional mechanic in 5e anyhow. You don't need them to play the game and do a half-decent job at performing your role, unlike 3.5 where a featless martial would be entirely useless.

It's almost like WotC doesn't actually want people to play D&D, because they're also making a vastly more profitable card game that they'd rather nerds spend their time with.

There isn't going to be a yet. This is how they're doing things now. Official material will remain sparse. The DM's guild is where the (poorly balanced and tested) options will be. It's the OGL all over again but even worse.

Options don't equal interesting. Thats a common fault a lot of roleplayers never understand.

If you are bored, its because you don't roleplay what you have well enough.

I once made two different clerics in 5e. One of them played closer to a raging berserker than a cleric rightly should, and the other one was wholly support.

All that really changed was how i acted.

>Feats are an optional mechanic in 5e anyhow.
Absolute bullshit. Fighters would fade into irrelevance without things like Sharpshooter or GWM. Feats are the only real choices martials get and to say it's "optional" is like saying a wizard's spellbook should be "optional"

>If you are bored, its because you don't roleplay what you have well enough.

fuck this noise. Outright lies. I have a wonderful time roleplaying my characters, solving puzzles and riddles, dealing with npcs and pcs alike.

Then suddenly, COMBAT. And all I can think is "Why are we playing 5e?"

>I don't know what 20 Str, 20Dex 20 Con at 6th level is

Like i said, you don't roleplay what you have well enough.

As soon as combat began you fucked out of your characters point of view. Using my cleric thing as an example, i used basically the same skills and class features for a frontline defender and a back of the party healer, and i had chosen nothing of import differently.

If you aren't having fun, its because you are taking yourself out of the fun.

You can RP however the fuck you like and have a blast, but if you do so by largely ignoring the mechanics or lack there of, the game is not helping you. So what exactly are you using that game for?

>not maxing out all your stats by level 8

You aren't a very good min/maxer are you?

A springboard.

nowhere near as useful as +10 to four attacks

You're the cancer. Stop playing.

>why did 5e limit
They didn't limit, they stream lined it.
>Was this a design decision?
Obviously.
>Is there a market for people who want fewer choices?
haHAA so funny. Look at me making an off-handed jab at an edition I don't like.

Well, no, I want to have fun making creative builds with a multitude of options, not be bottlenecked into a limited set of optimal choices. I thought stacking passive numerical bonuses was the exact kind of min/maxing Veeky Forums hated.

Elaborate? Perhaps I can learn something to make my own games more fun.

So you admit that 5e is way more optimal than 3.trash e?

Creative builds like a tiny fairy who throws 10 daggers per round dealing average of 50 damage with each against enemy touch AC by combining 5 different splatbooks that were never balanced against each other is not really "creative" even if it pales in strength compared to actually min-maxed casters. It's just cancer.

If it's not breaking balance or thematically clash, what's the problem?

>Bunch of people that are associating liking custom with CoDZilla (translates into 3.5 Cleric or Druid-zilla for newfags) cancer.

I fucking hate Pathfinder's min/max culture, but even I can agree that 5e's options are shallow as fuck. Then again, that's why I just play Mutants and Masterminds for crunch/narrative balance that allows for power without turning things into a bonus stacking apocalypse thanks to Power Level limits.

It is going to thematically clash in any decent setting that isn't trying to be anime for retarded children.

So if it was a human throwing 10 daggers per round etc etc you'd have no issue?

This.
As someone who loved making builds in 3.5 I still find 5e a much better edition to actually play with people.

It also helps prevent your autistic friends from breaking your game as a GM and ruining the fun for everyone else.

This x2. I love 3.5 for the sheer width of the options available but absolutely nobody can say that every single class and race option was viable or even any fun. Terrible classes like the Ninja come to mind.

5e has, inasofar, trimmed a lot of the fat and geared the game towards more of a “collaborative storytelling” direction. The game isn’t anywhere near as thicc with options as 3.5e but it’s a lot better optimized for high-fantasy play in a small-to-normal sized group.

And there are no "dead" levels, you always get something valuable when you level up.

>But when combat hits I remember "oh yeah, time to fight with my boring monk, who is identical to nearly all other monks."

Open Hand
>Bruce Lee meets Fist of the North Star
Shadow
>teleporting ninja
Four Elements
>avatar
Sun Soul
>blaster saiyan
Drunken Master
>quick, tricksy monk
Kensei
>absolute weapon master

>29 races
>31 backgrounds
>infinite personalities and backstories
>"My monk is the same as every other monk"

>Muh choices
Shit like this is why I can't fucking stand people who like 3.5/pf
Don't claim that shitbox of a system offers real choices or that you give two licks of shit about true customization. You just want to be able to autismally browse trough a mountain of garbage to meticulously optimize your build with every bullshit variant that you can find that gives you a better edge for a fucking game of pretend.

Having a mountain of meaningless bad options to accomplish the same role is not favorable to just having one that doesn't suck. Nobody who ever picks up an RPG like this should ever be expected to spend time budgeting their shit instead of just being able to pick up whatever sounds interesting to them and just have it fucking work out.

This

The problem goes even further though. It seems that the PF fags hate 5e for being a class based system (ie streamlined). PF/3.5 is still a class based system at its core. The “options” just make an abortion of a character.

Look, I agree that PF/3.5 is 'too much'. There was a sweet spot for each game before rules bloat set in hard. Even then, the core game has fucked up math.

But presumably you guys want *some* choice in character building. If there was 1 class, 1 race, 1 attack, and no diversity between characters, that would be a terrible fucking game.

So somewhere between that fictional 'no choice' game and 3.5 there must be a sweet spot. 5e is not that sweet spot. It might even be closer to 5e than it is to 3.5, but we have not found a happy medium.

That happy medium should appeal to a majority. As it stands for my group, we're split. 2 diehards who don't like 5e, 2 wide-eyed 5e fanboys, and me and another player somewhere in the middle.

I'd just have hoped 5e was something that could have appealed to a majority of the group, not evenly split it.

Simply put, if all you see when you do something is "Attack" and "Move" then thats all it will be, since at its core all things can be condensed down to this.

Whats important is how you attack, how often you attack, if you defend, how you move, how far you move. Instead of treating it like "Move and attack" treat it as "Move and attack for X reason".

That one difference is usually enough. Moving to the other side of an enemy isn't terribly interesting, but moving to the other side to give flanking is more interesting, and puts pressure on you who is behind enemy lines, as an example.

This is more on GM side of things, but battles should also not generally happen over plain terrain.

There should be plenty of cover where appropriate, environmental dangers and interaction with these background elements should be rewarded.

This is also very true, and casters in 5e can't just pull the terrain out from under you like in 3.5, so it should be more important than ever.

I once had a group defending an abandoned fort that was going to be sieged by orcs. They set up traps with rope, they prepared barrels to light on fire and throw down. and two of em jumped off the wall to get into the fighting.

One of them jumped down near the orcs. The other one purposely dropped down ON the orcs. Suffice it to say he took damage from it, but he had a blast jumping off the side of the fort and body slamming into the orcs.

Functionally, the two are almost identical, but the placement changes it entirely.

Offering more options isn't the same thing as offering more choices.

>I just feel like a game like D&D should cater to a wide audience
It does you're the minority

But I prefer fourth edition

The widest audience doesn't like complexity. Having less choices appeals to the most players.

The game's mechanics shouldn't boil down to attack+move in the first place.

If thats all you boil it down to, thats all it will ever be.

Also, you can say that but all actions in combat serve the purpose of harming your opponent or hindering them from harming you. Every single one can be boiled down to one or both of these things, even spells.

Fuck off, 5E has had more time between its release and now than 3.5 had between 3.5 and ToB.

Then blame wizards of the coast for their shitty management of the game.

I will never understand why people play 5e in the first place. Like, we already had 3.5, it had some major flaws, but nothing a bunch of house rules can't fix. What motivation can people actually have to just jump right into some questionable new shit that will forever have less content than the game they've already played and loved for years? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Because the system is better as in more simple, fast and balanced, and I dont have time for house rules which most likely break the game in other aspects anyway

>wanting new supplements every five seconds
That's what made 3.5 shit in the first place.

Except that's what made 3.5 tolerable. Its core is utter shit.