Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but sitting here trying to think of arguments, it isn't the worst idea I've heard. I think maybe I like the idea of making the most with the cards you're given and more customization leads to more optimization and power creep. For example in the real world the creative and innovative process is usually enhanced by a level of constraint and wide open choice leads to indecision. That's just a general argument against an unconstrained set of choices, not your idea in particular.
In the case of D&D, most of the constraint is produced by the class and level system. Allowing race/culture/background/whatever to be more al la carte (much like how flexible ASIs were essentially introduced to de-couple class and race choice) would not be a huge deal, since those don't have nearly the mechanical depth of class and level.
Incremental changes never are a big deal individually. One change hardly ever seems enough though. Is the end goal complete customization, including class and level (after all why couldn't a fighter focus their training on being able to attack more over increasing their strength?) Or is the goal change itself, a desire to regularly mix it up? I'm just saying not everyone likes novelty, some people like the familiar and reliable and that doesn't make them wrong or bad.
Sorry if this is a devolution into a flame war. The OP idea is a fine and good one to discuss, when I read comments that seem to assume one way of viewing the world is the correct view and is dismissive towards others I feel the need to speak out for the dismissed point of view.
Incremental changes never are a big deal individually. One change hardly ever seems enough though. Is the end goal complete customization, including class and level (after all why couldn't a fighter focus their training on being able to attack more over increasing their strength?)
I highly doubt WoTC is planning to move to a modular, classless, levelless system.
Speaking strictly for myself, I think class-based systems are terrible (outside of games where one player plays a whole party, like say a JRPG) and level-based systems make everything worse. So I'd be cool with the biggest tabletop brand (with the best publishing and online support) adopting the kind of system I like. But I don't see that happening, and obviously there's big appeal for classes, especially to new players looking to get into the hobby.
Or is the goal change itself, a desire to regularly mix it up? I'm just saying not everyone likes novelty, some people like the familiar and reliable and that doesn't make them wrong or bad.
Clearly. D&D has lots of fans who want nothing to change. ;)
Sorry if this is a devolution into a flame war. The OP idea is a fine and good one to discuss, when I read comments that seem to assume one way of viewing the world is the correct view and is dismissive towards others I feel the need to speak out for the dismissed point of view.
Eh, you're not making this a flame war. Especially compared to all the other threads about this.
I do tend to balk at attitudes that put forward changes and only focus on selling the potential positive aspects.
There are downsides. Two are that it would require balancing between physical and cultural traits to prevent the "Dragonborn born in Human society >>> everything else" problem, which makes it difficult to make unique and interesting features - you can't lean on weak cultural traits to counterbalance stron physicals ones for instance, like with the Dragoborn. The other is that it would require an overhaul of the system, or at least enough of one that it couldn't be implemented via a simple expansion. It would have to be either 2024e, 6e or later. I'm not unaware that there are downsides, and part of my motivation for sharing the thoughts was to see if anyone saw solutions to those (and other unthought of) problems.
That said and having thought about it a bit more, in the real world I'm of the opinion that being able to divorce race from culture, ethnicity and class would be a positive step towards unraveling racism so maybe from a social progress step this would be a positive change.
This is kind of what prompted my thought process. Someone was complaining about how your species defines what you're good at. While my motivation isn't to remove racism or whatever, I think it has positive benefits for the gameplay and lore in and of itself, it would a good aspect to the move.
Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but sitting here trying to think of arguments, it isn't the worst idea I've heard.
In my opinion, it's probably because it's underdeveloped. There are holes (as I've already discussed) and, as-is, would be disruptive to 5e. It does need further development and thought to work properly. I don't know, I'm not in your head, nor do I know you well enough to really make that judgement, maybe it's something else. It's just what niggles me about it. It doesn't quite sit right, but not because it's necessarily bad, but because there is a lot of work to do before it could be implemented. Almost every race would have to be revised to make this work.
I think maybe I like the idea of making the most with the cards you're given and more customization leads to more optimization and power creep. For example in the real world the creative and innovative process is usually enhanced by a level of constraint and wide open choice leads to indecision. That's just a general argument against an unconstrained set of choices, not your idea in particular.
Maybe. To be honest though, I think the way WotC is going, that not only will they not choose this option, but will actually go full bore in that direction. You pick the species name, you pick where to put your 3 ASIs, you pick x amount of proficiencies, and a special ability. Alternatively, you get so many points, and each attribute costs different amounts of points to buy, and you go shopping. No pre sets or fixed choices, you just get a budget and told to knock yourself out. At most, we might get some suggested combinations, which will be dropped later on (kind of like the optional aspect of floating ASIs from Tasha's). I imagine that this is coming in 2024, or 6e at the latest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Maybe. To be honest though, I think the way WotC is going, that not only will they not choose this option, but will actually go full bore in that direction. You pick the species name, you pick where to put your 3 ASIs, you pick x amount of proficiencies, and a special ability. Alternatively, you get so many points, and each attribute costs different amounts of points to buy, and you go shopping. No pre sets or fixed choices, you just get a budget and told to knock yourself out. At most, we might get some suggested combinations, which will be dropped later on (kind of like the optional aspect of floating ASIs from Tasha's). I imagine that this is coming in 2024, or 6e at the latest.
I have played in a system like that and creating characters was fun. But it was also much more time consuming and complicated to understand. It seems like the goal for WotC is to make the game accessible for newcomers and going too far in that direction works against that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Incremental changes never are a big deal individually. One change hardly ever seems enough though. Is the end goal complete customization, including class and level (after all why couldn't a fighter focus their training on being able to attack more over increasing their strength?) Or is the goal change itself, a desire to regularly mix it up? I'm just saying not everyone likes novelty, some people like the familiar and reliable and that doesn't make them wrong or bad.
Sorry if this is a devolution into a flame war. The OP idea is a fine and good one to discuss, when I read comments that seem to assume one way of viewing the world is the correct view and is dismissive towards others I feel the need to speak out for the dismissed point of view.
I highly doubt WoTC is planning to move to a modular, classless, levelless system.
Speaking strictly for myself, I think class-based systems are terrible (outside of games where one player plays a whole party, like say a JRPG) and level-based systems make everything worse. So I'd be cool with the biggest tabletop brand (with the best publishing and online support) adopting the kind of system I like. But I don't see that happening, and obviously there's big appeal for classes, especially to new players looking to get into the hobby.
Clearly. D&D has lots of fans who want nothing to change. ;)
Eh, you're not making this a flame war. Especially compared to all the other threads about this.
There are downsides. Two are that it would require balancing between physical and cultural traits to prevent the "Dragonborn born in Human society >>> everything else" problem, which makes it difficult to make unique and interesting features - you can't lean on weak cultural traits to counterbalance stron physicals ones for instance, like with the Dragoborn. The other is that it would require an overhaul of the system, or at least enough of one that it couldn't be implemented via a simple expansion. It would have to be either 2024e, 6e or later. I'm not unaware that there are downsides, and part of my motivation for sharing the thoughts was to see if anyone saw solutions to those (and other unthought of) problems.
This is kind of what prompted my thought process. Someone was complaining about how your species defines what you're good at. While my motivation isn't to remove racism or whatever, I think it has positive benefits for the gameplay and lore in and of itself, it would a good aspect to the move.
In my opinion, it's probably because it's underdeveloped. There are holes (as I've already discussed) and, as-is, would be disruptive to 5e. It does need further development and thought to work properly. I don't know, I'm not in your head, nor do I know you well enough to really make that judgement, maybe it's something else. It's just what niggles me about it. It doesn't quite sit right, but not because it's necessarily bad, but because there is a lot of work to do before it could be implemented. Almost every race would have to be revised to make this work.
Maybe. To be honest though, I think the way WotC is going, that not only will they not choose this option, but will actually go full bore in that direction. You pick the species name, you pick where to put your 3 ASIs, you pick x amount of proficiencies, and a special ability. Alternatively, you get so many points, and each attribute costs different amounts of points to buy, and you go shopping. No pre sets or fixed choices, you just get a budget and told to knock yourself out. At most, we might get some suggested combinations, which will be dropped later on (kind of like the optional aspect of floating ASIs from Tasha's). I imagine that this is coming in 2024, or 6e at the latest.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I have played in a system like that and creating characters was fun. But it was also much more time consuming and complicated to understand. It seems like the goal for WotC is to make the game accessible for newcomers and going too far in that direction works against that.