The Barbarian Horde (Throughout Editions)

One of my criticisms about Next is the lack of being able to make meaningful decisions both when building a character and during level up, as most levels of most classes have predetermined class features.

Sure at 2nd- or 3rd-level you get to pick a kind of theme (which you may not agree with), but this one choice predetermines everything else you get for the rest of the game. This is not only boring, but limits a class to one interpretation of a concept and makes it needlessly more difficult–if not impossible–for a player to build the character that they want.

To better illustrate my point I decided to compare the barbarian class in 3rd Edition, 4th Edition, 5th Edition, and 13th Age.

3RD EDITION
You get fast movement (+10 ft. speed when not in heavy armor) and can rage once per day (bonus to attack, damage, and Will saves). For some reason you cannot read or write unless you spend two skill points. The only thing you can customize here is how you distribute your skill points and where to spend a feat.

An example of several half-orc barbarians.

4TH EDITION

All barbarians gain a scaling bonus to AC and Reflex when not in heavy armor, rage strike (which lets you keep using daily attacks without losing the benefits of a previously activated one if you do not want to), and Rampage (if you score a critical hit, you get to make a free attack).

From there you choose from one of four Feral Might options: Rageblood is your more straightforward beat ’em up type, Thaneborn is if you want to be a leader, Thunderborn have strong ties to thunder-based primal spirits, and Whirling is for dual-wielders. Each class feature gives you a unique ability, and can potentially grant bonuses to certain thematically appropriate evocations.

You also get to choose four evocations at the start: two can be used at any time, one can be used once per battle, and one–the “rage” powers–can be used each day. Rages tend to deal a lot of damage and grant continuous effects for the remainder of the battle.

Like 3rd Edition you still get to choose skills and a feat. Unlike 3rd Edition feats can give you both skills and limited access to features from another class (further expanding customization).

5TH EDITION

Speaking of 3rd Edition, the 5th Edition version is much the same in that you do not get to choose anything, at least at the start: at 3rd-level you get to choose from one of two features that lock a group of five options for the rest of the game (you cannot pick from both trees). Feats are optional, but can add some much needed customization if you use them, and skills are throttled into two “fields of lore”.

More half-orc barbarians.

13TH AGE
You start with rage, because all barbarians must rage, but get to pick three barbarian talents from a list of six. The amount of talents you know increases as you level, with levels 5 and 8 adding two more to the list. Instead of skills you spend 8 background points on aspects of your character that make the most sense to you (up to a +5 bonus). They are not linked to ability scores. You get to spend a feat, and while there are general ones race and class talents can also be boosted with them, too.

FINAL VERDICT

3rd and 5th Edition come in miles behind 4th Edition and 13th Age, which are both about the same in my book: I love the amount of options and flexibility that 4th Edition gives you, but the sheer number that you start with and the amount you will end up with can make it cumbersome for some players to keep track of. 13th Age slims down character options, while still giving you almost complete control of the reins, making it ideal for players that want control without all the content.

If you wanted to make things even simpler you could take a page from Dungeon World, having most classes start with the same stuff, but you get to pick what you gain as you level up. We just played our first session of Numenera last night, and building characters was a snap despite being able to actually pick some things. I do not think it is as difficult or cumbersome as it sounds. Why not at least give it a shot?

Legends & Lore: Classic Complexity

Some people like the 3rd Edition fighter because it is simple to the point where it is often used as an introductory class (you do not do much besides roll to hit, and roll damage if you do), while others dislike it for that very same reason (well, that and it is horrendously underpowered mid- to late-game).

Gamers have different tastes, and those tastes can change over time, so if a game get lets you determine–among other things–character complexity on the fly then you are just increasing the odds that they will not only like your game, but stick with it when they feel like switching up the amount of book keeping they want to do.

If you have not checked out the most recent playtest, one of the big changes to fighters is that they choose a Martial Path at 3rd-level. The idea is that if managing abilities on a round-by-round basis will entertain you, go gladiator. If, when you come out to play, you do not want to deal with lots of decisions on a round-by-round basis, then warriors are a good choice. I think it is a good goal, but that they are also executing it poorly.

In 3rd Edition if you rolled a fighter you started with a bonus feat. Not much, but you could spend it to boost your attack bonus (usually my first choice), initiative, or saving throws, give yourself to increase your damage output or Armor Class, and more. There were several feat threes that you could go down that ultimatly let you do stuff like move, attack, and keep moving, attack every adjacent enemy, use various combat tricks without getting hit first, and more.

4th Edition really ramped up the level of customization by letting you choose from several class features at the start, as well as over four-hundred martial exploits.

In Next? You get Second Wind. Period. At 2nd-level you get Action Surge. It is not until 3rd-level that you get to choose from three Martial Paths. Three options is not much, but it is still something, except that this choice locks in five class features that you will get down the road. From then on you just get what the game decides you should have. The article mentions being able to build your own subclass with DM permission, but there is still a hefty chunk of the class that you get no say in.

I guess this is better than nothing, as the current subclasses do not make much sense. Why are maneuvers limited to gladiators? Why do you only get six of them, and stop getting them at 7th-level? Since you have to meet or beat the monster’s ability score modifier on a d6 for a maneuver to work, does this not mean that as you get higher level and fight bigger/smarter monsters that the odds of them working go down? How come only knights can call someone out? This seems like something that a gladiator would be good at doing, too.

Why not let the fighter pick from a variety of options at 1st-level, trusting that players who want simple options to pick simple things, and let players that want more complexity do that? What if a player would rather start with a maneuver, or a d4 on Charisma checks? Both of those sound infinitely more interesting and about as simple (especially the Charisma bonus) than being able to regain half your hit points once per day. The subclasses would work just fine for builds/archetypes, but you can still let players choose.

Another thing I dislike is the statement “both race and background have more complexity early on but don’t add anymore at higher levels”. Umm…why not? I miss how in 4th Edition you had the option of making your race matter more if you wanted to, such as by taking Dwarven Weapon Training if you wanted to deal more damage with iconic dwarf weapons, Hellfire Blood for tieflings that wanted to add more oomph to their fire-power, and Fey Trickster if you wanted your gnome of any class to have a pair of neat wizard cantrips. Again, let players make the call as to how much their race affects their character.

Freedom of Choice

There’s a thread on RPG.net talking about how a friend of the OP didnt like 4th Edition because she felt that it removed decisions from the game, and that that’s what D&D is all about. The OP that he felt she was wrong, stating that D&D isnt about choices so much as archetypes.

I’ve lauded the usage of archetypes before, and I think that they really help to strengthen the game by allowing new and veteran players make what they want to make with a minimal of fuss and/or rules-mastery. If you want to play a sword-swinging armored-guy, its right there for you and it works. Wanna cast spells? Pick your style, because we have wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, and bards, now.
Sure, I’ve had fun with “sandbox” style creation systems in the past, but often I would just pick a few key skills and crank them up to absurd levels. This made it hard for the GM to challenge us properly since it was often way too easy for me to, say, shoot something. If the GM made it hard for me to shoot, then it fell into the range of impossible for the rest of the team to achieve any result.
With archetypes, or classes, I think its much easier to get what you want and have your asses covered in the process.

Decisions are key to making a fun game, and all versions of D&D had plenty: race, class, how you distributed your ability scores (and later ability points), skills (no matter what they were called), weapon if you used one, spells if you could cast, etc. 3rd Edition added feats, and 4th Edition has every class making a choice at every level–sometimes more than one. Its not that D&D is about choices, but that choices make a fun game and the desigjners understand this. This is one reason I didnt agree at all with the “review” for 5th Edition in which there is only one choice: the character pack you pick. I dont think for a second that they are going to start stripping away the freedom and flexibility that 4th Edition offers.