D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

The change does make some options flatly superior to others, though.

And I don't have a problem with the floating ASIs. I am an optimizer. I just don't envision anyone grabbing +2 to Intelligence and +1 to Charisma for their cleric for "the role-playing" when they have every reason pick Wisdom and Strength instead for charop. Is the primary incentive for shuffling around ASIs not to have a halfling wizard with 17 Intelligence instead of 15 at first level when the latter is in no way deficient?

No, the problem with this is that you're thinking about it in reverse: this is not so that my Cleric can have a charisma boost, but rather that I can play a Half-Orc Cleric and not be immediately confined by having to be strong and tough, but rather one that is wise and charismatic.

People keep looking at this from "min-maxing" and that's half-right and half-wrong: rather, it's making it so that people don't have to optimally choose their race to fit their class. Elvish Barbarians, Dwarfish Rogues, Gnomish Fighters, etc. Instead of someone looking at an elf and saying "Well, I have to fit this to best advantage my Dex bonus", they can play an elf that is wise and charismatic but also clumsy. You can now play a sickly dwarf who became booksmart because he couldn't do regular dwarfish tasks.

The whole point is that it opens up all races to do whatever you want and show a broader ideas of what those races can be. If you want to distinguish the races, then in this system ASIs are the most restrictive and worst way to do it: you don't get many of them and while they can have big effects in a low-number system they are also the least flavorful thing you can use to differentiate them. Like, the new Dwarf's Stonecunning ability is cool, flavorful, and useful in a way that the 2014 Dwarf's ability kind of aren't (Sorry, a few extra proficiencies just don't do it).

Like, 5 years ago I had an idea like this where instead of ASIs for race, you'd choose between several racial feats that would express natural proclivities and cultural focuses. This is not a bad start. Aim more for that stuff. Pathfinder 2E has a starting feat for Elves if they are over 100 years called Ancestral Longevity, where you can basically prepare a skill for the day since you've lived long enough to have dabbled in just about everything. That stuff is way cooler than an ASI and that's what D&D should lean into with these. Every one of these races should get two more cool abilities.

Yes, I checked the monk out. It is not set up for that, but the Ki chasis would be a good to model that type of fighter on.

Personally I don't want that type of fighter, but we don't like high magic settings either. So the game works for us. I've often thought they should make a hard split at 10th level. Everything 10 and below is mundane. From 11th above your getting in the magic warrior / super hero abilities like what you describe.

Yeah, I've been saying this for a while now: the ki point resource pool is a great idea for just about any martial you want. Just give it some refill capability outside of resting (Again, just take that Grit concept from Matt Mercer's gunslinger) and it'll be great.

Putting ASI into backgrounds makes no sense. ASI are something you are born with and are genetic. No matter your background you have your ASI the same way you have darkvision or two eyes.
Background are for things you learn like skills, languages and proficiencies. A noble will likely learn etiquette or diplomacy. But he might still have to struggle with a Habsburg jaw. He doesn't get more charismatic just for being a noble. And a elf noble and orc noble would still differ in strength and dexterity on account of being a elf and orc instead of being exactly the same on account of being a noble.

And to represent that PCs are exceptional you have the stat array which is vastly superior to what NPCs get. And that also represents training and apitude which goes on top of biological properties and don't replace them.

Basically:
Race -> ASI, darkvision, other biological features
Background -> Skills, proficiencies, language

ASIs aren't genetics. Your stat array is, since you have a limited ability to affect that: if I'm clumsy, I can work at not being clumsy but it'll take a lot of time to be truly good. Just as well you can be a natural at something and improve it with practice.

ASIs in the game are explicitly not about genetics but about improvement, otherwise you wouldn't gain them over time without any sort of restriction on where you can put them.

Background ASI do not make sense.
Your training and life choices are already reflected by the standard array and a background doesn't necessarily lead to an ASI. A good for nothing ne'er do well would not build any abilities with his lifestyle and a noble is not automatically charismatic.

Again, the standard array would be closer to your natural abilities, with your background showing where you decided to focus and improve yourself. A good-for-nothing ne'er-do-well would absolutely get better in, say, Charisma if he has to lie a lot, just as a noble would get better Charisma by virtue of having schooling and training in how to act around people, how to make banter, etc. The idea that you don't improve the parts of you that you practice is utterly surreal and goes against the game's design.

We are not talking about ethnic groups but different fantasy races. Elf vs Dwarf, Human vs. Vulcan, two legged wannabe dragon vs. divine dog person, ect.

Why not Romulan vs. Vulcan? Those are two groups that are genetically identical, but are brought up in completely different philosophies which shape what they focus on. Like backgrounds, it is the environment and what they choose to focus on that would lead a Vulcan to have more Wisdom while a Romulan would likely have more Charisma.

Further, this misses that there can be significant genetic biodiversity that would allow people not to be confined to the simple stereotypes: why can't there be an elf who is actually is not exactly smart and has a penalty for Int? Why not have a halfling who isn't really quick, but he's damn strong? Why can't I have a Dragonborn who is not strong or charismatic, but is dexterous and fast?

Again, the bigger point would be to give each ancestry cool tools that allow them to differentiate themselves in interesting and more noticeable ways than ones that just confine them to certain niches. Again, gonna bring up Stonecunning because that is a power that doesn't confine a Dwarf to a certain class but rather is generally useful. Even the spells that Elves and Gnomes have are generally useful and don't push them towards any one class. At the end, you want to open up options, not try to push people harder into a box.



I know there was something I wanted to say beyond just quoting people (I'll probably remember it right after I post), but the biggest thing is that they need to give these choices more. Dragonborn are just anemic and should have some cool stuff beyond the colors of their scales. The races that get cantrips obviously have a bit more pop to them, but I'd rather see unique abilities and not just spell stuff. Giving the humans "resourceful" was a cool start, but let's just see more.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Listening to Crawford again talk about Inspiration. So does the whole idea that non-magic party members can "Inspire" their fellow people, that we will be stuck hearing more anti-warlord-style kvetching echoing the usual "you don't non-magically inspire me! that's brainwashing!"?

Also I appreciate that they are changing Inspiration. Crawford addresses one of my major points of criticism about Inspiration - which I was repeatedly told was a non-issue because "Inspiration is perfect as it is (...but here are my houserules for it)" - namely that Inspiration was disconnected from the playloops of the game. Connecting it to a natural 20* and other in-game sources alleviates that issue.

* Honestly, I would prefer attaching it to a Nat 1 so there is an upside to an automatic failure that makes it a little more psychologically acceptable, but that's me.
 
Last edited:


Not really. No existing race or class is incompatible with what we are seeing, as much as my initial gut reaction leaned that way. You can play a 2014 PHB Wood Elf with Tasha’s Ranger stuff, and a UA 1DnD Background, no issues, no changes, nada.
It sounds like they're specifically deprecating the old backgrounds. Otherwise, the aforementioned disclaimer (about how you can't get both racial ability bonuses and background ability bonuses) makes no sense.

Edit: To be clear, again I see this as clear demonstration of the "5.5e" nature of "One D&D." That is, despite the reworks, you pretty much could play a 3.0 Ranger in 3.5e, or use the old versions of spells, or whatever else, and be fine. That doesn't mean there weren't changes, nor that you weren't really supposed to use the old material, even though you theoretically could. (Consider the reputation of Savage Species among 3.5e fans: more or less "yes it can be used, no you probably shouldn't unless you're very confident it's okay.")
 
Last edited:

It sounds like they're specifically deprecating the old backgrounds. Otherwise, the aforementioned disclaimer (about how you can't get both racial ability bonuses and background ability bonuses) makes no sense.
That's just stopping the munchkins mixing and matching using e.g. a 2014 Mountain Dwarf 2024 Gladiator for a combined +4 to strength.
 


Perhaps because it is was a stupid idea then and is still a stupid idea now. Although I do actually like bonuses are linked to background, I still think it was daft to divorce them completely from race.
Or perhaps because people keep getting all upsetti spaghetti about such a small thing that actually does make D&D more inclusive? Sometimes the squeaky wheel is the problem, not the indication that something else is going wrong.

The actual impact of individual variations within a given race will almost always be more important than the central tendency thereof. Sure, it may be the case that the average dwarf is stronger or tougher than the average human. Adventurers, by definition, are not average people.
 


Sure, it may be the case that the average dwarf is stronger or tougher than the average human. Adventurers, by definition, are not average people.

Your argument works against itself because that would make them be more likely to be the ones at the outlier values for their races, exhibiting values in the 90th percentile, rather than bland and average.
 

Your argument works against itself because that would make them be more likely to be the ones at the outlier values for their races, exhibiting values in the 90th percentile, rather than bland and average.
This feels like you are really grasping at straws for a counter-argument. You are welcome to provide your feedback in the playtest, but I'm not sure if people share your sentiments as to what constitutes a "stupid" or "daft" idea about races. This trend has been pretty evident for a while now.
 

Remove ads

Top