D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[UngeheuerLich]

So ignore those for the fools they are?

Nah. I still think I can help random people in the WWW to get a better understanding.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There is a problem you are overlooking. When a player makes up a backstory that says their PC is a noble a spy a guild artisan a soldier or whatever it is something they created on their own & has no real weight backing it in the game world. When a player chooses a "default background" that dubs their PC to be one of those things they now have weight supporting the claims their character makes because the "default background" they chose is provided as a reasonable thing

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. A DM worth anything at all ought to have NPCs react to PCs as being what they are (whatever that is). That's why I never enjoyed the 2014 "background features" - IMO they mostly could be boiled down to: "Hey DM! Remember to have NPCs act like the PCs are people who are who they are!".

All they need to do is say THAT in a worth-reading DMG. Tall order, I suppose!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Nah. I still think I can help random people in the WWW to get a better understanding.

I meant more "don't worry about it" or "don't let people who are mistaken about how the rules work change your opinion of how it works".

If you want to educate them - that would be a fine approach.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I meant more "don't worry about it" or "don't let people who are mistaken about how the rules work change your opinion of how it works".

If you want to educate them - that would be a fine approach.

It was a joke.

To some degree. Just getting very negative responses on reddit because people don't want to be called out for mistakes.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean. A DM worth anything at all ought to have NPCs react to PCs as being what they are (whatever that is). That's why I never enjoyed the 2014 "background features" - IMO they mostly could be boiled down to: "Hey DM! Remember to have NPCs act like the PCs are people who are who they are!".

All they need to do is say THAT in a worth-reading DMG. Tall order, I suppose!

It's not a "DM worth their salt" issue and given that dismissal I feel like the reason it matters bounced off pretty hard. Luckily puffinforest has a video where he talks for about 3 minutes about it in depth

Spoiler: this one

Timestamped embed herethat starts the video at 6:48 where the subject begins then till about 9:45 when he shifts to talking about hirelings

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's not a "DM worth their salt" issue and given that dismissal I feel like the reason it matters bounced off pretty hard. Luckily puffinforest has a video where he talks for about 3 minutes about it in depth

Spoiler: this one

Timestamped embed herethat starts the vidio at 6:48 where the subject begins then till about 9:45 when he shifts to talking about hirelings

I... I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing? Your video is talking about why Gygax didn't want PCs to be Aristocrats nor Peasants. That's only widely tangentally related to a discussion of what you get mechanically from choosing a background. Are you objecting to backgrounds as a THING? Because that's definitely not what we've been talking about, though I'd be happy to discus it on its own (with some context).

On the subject that I was talking about: If it's for some reason important for a player to be one of the 12 or whatever "official" backgrounds for ease-of-terminology, the problem is STILL solved by picking one of those backgrounds (in name) and then changing LITERALLY ANYTHING YOU LIKE about it. Don't like the feat? Take a different one. Don't like the ASI's? Take a different one. THOSE ARE THE RULES. The backgrounds they're using cover MOST archetypes. Your version would likely only be a variant on a theme, anyhow.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

That is not a good thing in the Paladin's case. It's easily the weakest class for 2024.

Exactly how? It used to be the best non-full-caster. Now it's limited to one smite per turn and... their free warhorse is a little less war-y, but even more free. In exchange they get weapon mastery and infinite yoyo-ing of people with bonus action Lay On Hands.

You might argue that Fighter and Barbarian got skill features while Paladin didn't, but Paladin has Charisma as a core stat, which covers a lot of influential skills. And Warlock1 is easier than ever to dip into to use only Cha for your weapon attacks.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Now it's limited to one smite per turn and...

If that was all that happened to its smite it'd be fine. The fact that it also takes a bonus action OTOH murders the class.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If that was all that happened to its smite it'd be fine. The fact that it also takes a bonus action OTOH murders the class.

Nah. The bonus action lay on hand and the bonus action sacred weapon easily makes up for that (we actually playtested that). If you think about that smiting every attack burns through your spell slots very fast makes the class way more sustainable and useful, as they somehow contribute as well to the combat (no wasted actions to activate imoortant features), so 2 or 4 more attacks per combat AND they often actually use spells out of combat and for other things than smite as it does not feel as if you give up all your offensive capabilities.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Nah. The bonus action lay on hand and the bonus action sacred weapon easily makes up for that (we actually playtested that).

I playtested it, too, and the class just felt bad to play. It was by far the most unpleasant experience I have ever had in 5e in any form, and I've played a 2014 Four Elements Monk. I was juggling bonus actions too many times, and at no point did a smite ever feel like an option at all. Simply dual-wielding is a better use of my bonus action, and other classes are better at that, too, because the one reason to dual-wield on a Paladin doesn't exist anymore. And when a smite isn't an option, then I might as well play another class.