D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[Blue]

I think I cross posted a clarifying edit while you were responding so I'll ask you if you don't mind to go back and read that edit rather than repeat it. I do understand what you're saying but I don't think you understand what I'm saying - the upshot is that a player who chooses to be a Knight at character creation gets an advantage over the player who chooses a Background that doesn't provide a feat. It's especially obvious if one character takes the feat to be a squire later so they can gain those mechanical benefits. Either that feat is as good a choice mechanically as any other feat - in which case the Knight player is getting a free feat or that feat is as you say a "lesser feat" - in which case the Folk Hero player loses a feat just to unlock the Knight of the Rose feat access that he wants. And he does this with no compensation for that loss of a feat choice because he didn't get the free feat. And it isn't like the Knight background is a lesser background in compensation for the feat - it gives all of the benefits of a background and a free feat.

Unless the move is to let everyone get a free feat at 1st level (or trade their asi bonus for a feat) some background choices are just going to be better than others. And so the dude who was raised to be a knight will have an advantage over the folk hero who yearns to be a knight and finally achieves his dream. And while that may be "realistic" in a privilege of aristocracy sense, I think it sucks as a game mechanic

I don't follow your math.

Character A takes a background. It provides a feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat. Total power = ~2 feats.

Character B takes a background. It provides a specific feat that is their feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat. Total power = ~2 feats.

Character C takes a background. It provides a feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat which happens to be a feature in the range of power that feats give. Total power = ~2 feats.

Character B takes a background. It provides a specific feat that is their feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat which happens to be a feature in the range of power that feats give. Total power = ~2 feats.

No one anywhere is getting or losing a feat's worth of power over the others.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't follow your math.

Character A takes a background. It provides a feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat. Total power = ~2 feats.

Character B takes a background. It provides a specific feat that is their feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat. Total power = ~2 feats.

Character C takes a background. It provides a feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat which happens to be a feature in the range of power that feats give. Total power = ~2 feats.

Character B takes a background. It provides a specific feat that is their feature that is in the range of power that feats give. They later take a feat which happens to be a feature in the range of power that feats give. Total power = ~2 feats.

No one anywhere is getting or losing a feat's worth of power over the others.

Yeah, and rhe fix for older, 2014 PCs is, again: give them a free Feat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I wouldn’t count on that degree of parity between characters built with the 2014 rules and the 2024 rules. Heck, characters built with options from Tasha’s are already mathematically superior to characters without. Whatever rules changes come in 2024, I expect them to bring the baseline up to post-Tasha’s standard, which means leaving 2014 PHB-only characters behind in terms of power level.

Yeah, they can still try to claim compatibility if the core they're assuming is the new core. I'm sure they just assume people will either buy the new books, or be too casual to notice the difference.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, they can still try to claim compatibility if the core they're assuming is the new core. I'm sure they just assume people will either buy the new books, or be too casual to notice the difference.

It also depends on exactly the definition of compatible. If a '14 PHB character can take a '24 subclass, or fight a 24 monster, he's still compatible. Likewise, a '24 pc could still play Curse of Strahd or Tomb of Annihilation with few edits.

I see it currently like the dragonborn situation. Right now, a PHB dragonborn is weaker, but not unplayable, compared to a Fizban's dragonborn. A player could upgrade to the Fizban's dragonborn, but he could also play any and all content currently released with no problems as well. I wager most changes will be of that magnitude rather than the major rewrites people are requesting.

 

[Blue]

Yeah, and rhe fix for older, 2014 PCs is, again: give them a free Feat.

Sorry, I just proved the exact opposite. You can't give them a feature AND a free feat. Then they are too powerful. I went through all four use cases, which included characters with traditonal backgrounds, and they are currently balanced.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Yeah, they can still try to claim compatibility if the core they're assuming is the new core. I'm sure they just assume people will either buy the new books, or be too casual to notice the difference.

Some people think the 2024 update will be like going from 1E AD&D to 2E, or even 3.5 to PRPG 1E, but a lot of others think it will just be like going from 3.0 to 3.5. All of those changes are compatible, just require more or less work making things fit together.

 

[FangTheDelectable]

Sage Advice is back! #DnD Game Design Architect @JeremyECrawford answers community questions about backgrounds, feats, hit dice and more.

Watch now: Feat Stacking, Backgrounds and Hit Dice | Sage Advice | D&D

Why the repost? You acting like your the first post and its not even "back" as it never "left" and had little to do with the video.

 

[darjr]

Why the repost? You acting like your the first post and its not even "back" as it never "left" and had little to do with the video.

Two threads were merged.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, the fact that Ravnica guild backgrounds give additional spell options to casters already made other backgrounds mechanically weaker. A predetermined feat or feat-level ability shouldn't be that much worse.

Though feat chains and background would have been a far not elegant way of doing Eberron dragonmarks and houses.

Nobody takes MtG settings seriously.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It also depends on exactly the definition of compatible. If a '14 PHB character can take a '24 subclass, or fight a 24 monster, he's still compatible. Likewise, a '24 pc could still play Curse of Strahd or Tomb of Annihilation with few edits.

I see it currently like the dragonborn situation. Right now, a PHB dragonborn is weaker, but not unplayable, compared to a Fizban's dragonborn. A player could upgrade to the Fizban's dragonborn, but he could also play any and all content currently released with no problems as well. I wager most changes will be of that magnitude rather than the major rewrites people are requesting.

If someone asks you if your changes are compatible with the existing game, and your answer starts with, "it depends on your definition of compatible ", you already have a problem.