DDN and Character Customization

I really enjoy customization in my RPGs, not only in mechanics but in the "style" and "feel" of the characters.  I think 4e did a wonderful job of this, specifically with different Paragon and Epic paths.  They were a wonderful tool for character customization that went beyond choosing different Feats, using a different weapon, etc.

Will DDN have anything for character customization beyond Feat choice (and beyond Manuever choice)?

Disclaimer: I am not trying to start some lame edition-war thread.  I am merely stating one of my favorite aspects of 4e, and wondering if it'll carry over to 5e.  Reading through the Playtest packet, I think a lot of DDN looks pretty good, and I applaud the designer's creativity and new ideas.  Some really fun stuff is in 5e!  So I'm asking about the known specifics on character customization, if any, without implying "Xe is better because it has XYZ customization options." Even if 5e lacks the customization of 4e, it doesn't make it "less good".  I'm just curious =)
They have already talked about Prestige classes and the Legacy system, so we have that to look foward to. As well, backgrounds add a cool layer to character creation. They've also passingly talked about epic destiny type options, but nothing really solid has been said about it.
My two copper.
Will DDN have anything for character customization beyond Feat choice (and beyond Manuever choice)?

Yes, but what isn't clear yet. It does appear that the setup will be very different though, there isn't going to be the mandatory choices and fixed levels that 4e had. These will all be options for characters and campaigns that want to go that way. There is going to be a legacy system for high level characters that will cover at least some of the space from Epic destinies, and probably some of Paragon Paths also. Some sort of Prestige system will replace Paragon Paths and the old 3e Prestige class system at some level. Multiclassing will cover some of paragon path space, along with hybrids and multiclass feats.

They have already talked about Prestige classes and the Legacy system, so we have that to look foward to. As well, backgrounds add a cool layer to character creation. They've also passingly talked about epic destiny type options



It does appear that the setup will be very different though, there isn't going to be the mandatory choices and fixed levels that 4e had. These will all be options for characters and campaigns that want to go that way. There is going to be a legacy system for high level characters that will cover at least some of the space from Epic destinies, and probably some of Paragon Paths also. Some sort of Prestige system will replace Paragon Paths and the old 3e Prestige class system at some level. 



That sounds fantastic! Laughing
Thanks!
When I think of 4e and customization, I tend to think of some of the groovy goodies that came later, like hybrid rules, themes, and the like.  When it comes to customization, I prefer 3rd over 4th, even though I really enjoy 4th's rule set.  5th seems to be dabbling with more customizable ideas, it seems.  Class paths you can branch out to (similar to Prestige class and Paragon Path), plus they're expanding their faux-themes called "specialties", which have a feat-like feel to them.  Personally, I hope they amalgamate feats with something else.  IMO, feats have been responsible for a lot of insane and somewhat useless bulk that plagued 3e and 4e.

Crazed undead horror posing as a noble and heroic forum poster!

 

 

Some good pointers for the fellow hobbyist!:

  • KEEP D&D ALIVE, END EDITION WARS!
  • RESPECT PEOPLES' PREFERENCES
  • JUST ENJOY THE GAME!
The specialties in the early phases allowed for customization but those seemed to have been disregarded in favor of a return to feats.  I personally disagree with this decision but I am only one voice.

Backgrounds also allows for some customization.

A prefer not to have branching customization however as was seen in much of 4E.

I like being able to customize into nearly any direction from any starting point.  I don't like prerequisites before taking a certain path and I don't like it when you have to plan 10 or so levels in advance to reach a target idea composite.

3E required too much advance planning to reach the desired goal.  Some characters require 20 levels worth of planning to create a 1st level character.
The specialties in the early phases allowed for customization but those seemed to have been disregarded in favor of a return to feats.  I personally disagree with this decision but I am only one voice.

Backgrounds also allows for some customization.

A prefer not to have branching customization however as was seen in much of 4E.

I like being able to customize into nearly any direction from any starting point.  I don't like prerequisites before taking a certain path and I don't like it when you have to plan 10 or so levels in advance to reach a target idea composite.

3E required too much advance planning to reach the desired goal.  Some characters require 20 levels worth of planning to create a 1st level character.


Make that two voices. I really hope to see the specialties be much more (in terms of flavor and variety not power) than a collection of feats.

The backgrounds seem ripe for character customization, a perfect area for DM and player to work together to provide a skill set and traits for any custom backgrounds. I hope the final edition of the PHB provides a background template and ecourages players to create their own.
The specialties in the early phases allowed for customization but those seemed to have been disregarded in favor of a return to feats.  I personally disagree with this decision but I am only one voice.

Backgrounds also allows for some customization.

A prefer not to have branching customization however as was seen in much of 4E.

I like being able to customize into nearly any direction from any starting point.  I don't like prerequisites before taking a certain path and I don't like it when you have to plan 10 or so levels in advance to reach a target idea composite.

3E required too much advance planning to reach the desired goal.  Some characters require 20 levels worth of planning to create a 1st level character.


Issue is, they never said they weren't going to have pickable feats. They've been saying that since day 1 in fact. Nothing has been discarded, they just finally came out with the rules for it :P
My two copper.
Actually they discarded the specialties acolyte, magic-user, and necromancer.  All three of these specialties were being used by the characters in my group.

It made our characters unusable in later iterations.  I thought these specialties were interesting and exciting.  Much more enjoyable in roleplaying than the current list of feats. 
Actually they discarded the specialties acolyte, magic-user, and necromancer.  All three of these specialties were being used by the characters in my group.

It is a playtest, they are trying different things. If some parts where not coming and going, WotC would be doing it wrong. Just rewrite the characters and move on.

All agree that the current design of the specialties is moderately bad though. Several are boring or the feats are oddly setup, and the range covered is very small so far.
Actually they discarded the specialties acolyte, magic-user, and necromancer.  All three of these specialties were being used by the characters in my group.

It is a playtest, they are trying different things. If some parts where not coming and going, WotC would be doing it wrong. Just rewrite the characters and move on.

All agree that the current design of the specialties is moderately bad though. Several are boring or the feats are oddly setup, and the range covered is very small so far.



I was responding to Jenks statement that nothing had been discarded.  In fact, specialties originally looked like a method of multiclassing with a progression of powers.  These were discarded in favor of a return to the previous method of hand-picked feats.

I prefer the previous specialty progression with more interesting powers or abilities.