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.

​

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Caused by Poseidon using mind control? And so we have another example of why players might not like losing control of their character's choices...

“And so the warty bullywugs came to be…”

(To a person, players get from the table and leave)

 

[Chaosmancer]

Break up all the skills. I'm not playing favorites.

Well, then if you triple the number of skills, you need an entire page of your character sheet just to handle it, you need to triple the number of skills each person gets, who will likely just keep them in the same families, and then you need to remember so much more as a DM and as player...

All so someone can say that their character is a premier climber but can't swim?

Like.... you can choose to fail rolls. I'll even give you unique penalties if you really want to suck at something for flavor. I've got no problem with that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

For example, bundling history, religion and arcana into one skill, "lore," would make for a skill worth considering, instead of just taking perception or insight.

I do use those skills for more magical workings at time, but I'd be happy with "Lore" and "Spellcraft" or some better phrasing.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not really your point, though - your point seems to be that everyone could make more character concepts with 3.5 than they will be able to with 5.24. Now, leaving aside that we don't really entirely know what we'll be able to make with 5.24, I think it's a bold claim, and I think you're going to get a lot of pushback. In particular, when the designers, who probably ought to know, have claimed otherwise.

(And taking into account that you seem to be discounting any 5e builds that you couldn't build with 3.5 and only focussing on builds that you DID build in 3.5 that you can't, for whatever reason, in 5e.)

I admit that I am not anywhere near as impressed with 3.5 as you are, but I don't really have any skin in this game. As unbiased as I can try to be: I still think you're mistaken, and seeing 3.5 through rose-tinted glasses. (I'm glad you liked it, though! It was a very popular version of D&D, you're in good company, I'm sure!)

Eh, you know what, just for fun.

Using the OneDnD playtests as a baseline, I am going to go for some maximum number of combos at level 1, ignoring skills and feats.

Classes: 12
Subclasses: 4
Sample Backgrounds: 18
[technically the number of backgrounds are ridiculous, because the default is custom, but I'll just go printed]
Distinct Species: 9
What if we do sub-species instead: 28

So, that is between 7,776 and 24,192 options depending on how you count things.

Again, just for fun. 3.5 PHB
Races: 7
Classes: 11
Add in Cleric Domains: 21 options, can pick two each... I think this is 231 combinations.
Wizard School specialization: 9 options base (don't specialize, plus each school) each specialization gives up 2 schools except Divination, which is 21 combos each time, so.. 169 options?

How do I even calculate this... let's take 7x9 = 63
7x231 = 1,617
7x169 = 1,183

So that is between 77 and 2,863 options, depending on how you count things.

Now, I could try and add in skills. It is a little bit of a nightmare, but I could, same with feats... but seeing that the low-end of 2024 is looking to have double the high-end of 3.5? I don't think going through all that would make a huge difference in the end results

 

[Parmandur]

Eh, you know what, just for fun.

Using the OneDnD playtests as a baseline, I am going to go for some maximum number of combos at level 1, ignoring skills and feats.

Classes: 12
Subclasses: 4
Sample Backgrounds: 18
[technically the number of backgrounds are ridiculous, because the default is custom, but I'll just go printed]
Distinct Species: 9
What if we do sub-species instead: 28

So, that is between 7,776 and 24,192 options depending on how you count things.

Again, just for fun. 3.5 PHB
Races: 7
Classes: 11
Add in Cleric Domains: 21 options, can pick two each... I think this is 231 combinations.
Wizard School specialization: 9 options base (don't specialize, plus each school) each specialization gives up 2 schools except Divination, which is 21 combos each time, so.. 169 options?

How do I even calculate this... let's take 7x9 = 63
7x231 = 1,617
7x169 = 1,183

So that is between 77 and 2,863 options, depending on how you count things.

Now, I could try and add in skills. It is a little bit of a nightmare, but I could, same with feats... but seeing that the low-end of 2024 is looking to have double the high-end of 3.5? I don't think going through all that would make a huge difference in the end results

I would count it as 77 character concepts to 24,192: 3 5 Domains and Specilizations are more like Feats orWarlock Invocations than Subclasses.

So, yeah, more concepts covered, by a huge margin.

 

[Kobold Stew]

They've already accomplished that: that's why Genasi, Aasamir, and tieflings can be Small or Mediumml now, and they have had non-Human origin Genasi in Campaign books.

...except that humans apparently are also S or M.

 

[Parmandur]

...except that humans apparently are also S or M.

True, but the flavor gor the Planetouched is very clear about the multiple possibilities of their origins, and WotC has followed through with actual example NPCs.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

...except that humans apparently are also S or M.

Yeah like real life. Short people exist.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yeah like real life. Short people exist.

Being short and being Small sized are different things. Small are between 2-4' tall. Dwarves aren't S.

Is it possible for humans to be that? Sure. Does it reflect 99%+ of the adult population? No.
As a result, it is not accurately modelling "adult human" to say "S or M".

(Or is it the case that Humans can be 2-4' tall, but elves and dwarves and orcs cannot?)

I honestly do not know what they are thinking. It would make much more sense to have Humans M, and allow a sidebar that players of any M race can choose to play as S if they want.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Being short and being Small sized are different things. Small are between 2-4' tall. Dwarves aren't S.

Is it possible for humans to be that? Sure. Does it reflect 99%+ of the adult population? No.
As a result, it is not accurately modelling "adult human" to say "S or M".

(Or is it the case that Humans can be 2-4' tall, but elves and dwarves and orcs cannot?)

I honestly do not know what they are thinking. It would make much more sense to have Humans M, and allow a sidebar that players of any M race can choose to play as S if they want.

I think height variation is more common in humans than dwarves, elves, and orcs.