D&D (2024) WotC Fireside Chat: Revised 2024 Player’s Handbook

In this video about the upcoming revised Player’s Handnook, WotC’s Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins reveal a few new tidbits.

• The books are near final and almost ready to go to print
• Psionic subclasses such as the Soulknife and Psi Warrior will appear in the core books
• Named spells have art depicting their creators.
• There are new species in the PHB.

​

 

[Micah Sweet]

while I agree that it is preferable to get close to your concept, I wonder whether ‘good climber but weak swimmer’ really is a concept or relevant to a concept and not just needless fiddling with details

Depends on the person, obviously. Clearly that would be needless fiddling with details to you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of 3.5's feats were either feat taxes or later just improved versions of older feats. In many ways 5E is more flexible, especially if you limit yourself to the core books. I no longer need a special class to have a high dex fighter that can also pick locks for example, I just need to take the right background. Pluses and minuses to both approaches of course, I prefer the relative lack of bloat in 5E.

I don't actually believe in RPG bloat. More material is better than less. If you don't want something, just don't include it.

 

[Maxperson]

Or to 2e for achieving detailed campaign material. Or to 4e for rule clarity and balance. Or to 1e for evokable prose and creativity.

5e holds the reputation of "everybody's second-favorite D&D" for a reason.

No. Since we are talking character options that allow you to achieve your character concepts, 2e detailed campaign material is apples to character option oranges. 2e had the best lore by far, but that's not the same thing. 4e I have no idea about with regard to character options, but clarity and balance are also apples.

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe, but 5e isn't anywhere close to it. I'm not convinced any official D&D reaches that point.

There are a lot of assumptions from you here on what granularityc should be. Just remember that you don't speak for everyone.

 

[mamba]

Maybe, but 5e isn't anywhere close to it. I'm not convinced any official D&D reaches that point.

no, 5e is not close, I am not sure 3e or 4e were not however

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are a lot of assumptions from you here on what granularityc should be. Just remember that you don't speak for everyone.

Fair enough. I should have included a IMO in there and I apologize. I shouldn't have presented my subjective opinion that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

no, 5e is not close, I am not sure 3e or 4e were not however

Definitely subjective either way. 3e and 4e were IMO opinion certainly closer.

 

[mamba]

Depends on the person, obviously. Clearly that would be needless fiddling with details to you.

for a character concept, absolutely. If you tell me you like that level of granularity, there is nothing wrong with that, I just do not see the concept being at this level.

As @Parmandur said (I am paraphrasing) this level of detail maps a hundred different configurations onto the same concept, it does not really increase the number of available concepts

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would say quite the opposite, that 3E was full of traps that would not work (and on purpose, an influence from Magic deaogn!), whereas all 5E builds will work.

But seriously, what concept can yoy not cover in 5E PHB but the 3E PHB facilitates...? I don't consider the minutiae of the Akill system as having much significance to the character concept, frankly, though 5E gets in the way far less than 3.x ever did.

Yeah, if there was ever a thing I hated with the passion of a thousand suns, it is trap options in a TTRPG. Especially intentional ones. That is such hostile design, I never see a good reason for it.

 

[SkidAce]

I would just add a line under the other skills called swimming, assign it to either STR or CON depending on goal (speed or distance), add proficiency, and carry on.

And before someone says "yeah house rule", the portions of the descriptions for using ability skills seem to imply this use (IMHO).