D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal: Feats/Backgrounds/Species

[Ruin Explorer]

A sorcerer, bard, or warlock who doesn't want to fail a wisdom saving throw would be happy with +2 Cha and +1 Wis.

No-one who has actually played D&D 5E values WIS saves over CON for HP and very few would value it over DEX for AC (mostly those already in Heavy armour). It's a joke combo for a now-joke background.

after tasha's floating for so long it's by comparason putting restrictions back onto the system rather than removing them

Yeah it's going to be like demihuman level limits in 2E (especially after about 1992). 90% of groups ignore them. 100% groups moan about them.

 

[Belen]

i find it hilarious they said they didn't want to replicate the stat distribution limitations of species and then immediately went into how they basically did just that anyways, granted maybe with a little more leeway in it, but like, after tasha's floating for so long it's by comparason putting restrictions back onto the system rather than removing them.

i would've liked if they'd split the difference between species or background providing your potential ASI placement and had two stat choices given from each.

Honestly, none of my players used Tasha's. They continued to use species. Most of them preferred the set choices because it added a dimension to the character.

 

[mellored]

Someone has never met a soldier or security guard or even a cop (most cops absolutely lack Perception in any trained way).

Soldier is a different background.

And again, a guard who can't see pick pockets isn't a good guard

And I have been pulled over because the sticker in the corner of my window was expired. Not something most people notice.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Also, a Wis or Cha caster who has a scholarly bent would probably be glad to take a +1 Int to boost relevant skill rolls.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Given that the DMG has rules for custom backgrounds, a willing DM can work with a player to "customize" with the bare minimum of effort by simply swapping a attribute, skill or feat from one of the prefabs, without having to create a whole new background. In my game, I'd just ask the player to justify it.

Player: "I'd really like to take the Acolyte background for my cleric, with a +2 to Wisdom, but can I put the +1 into Con?"
DM: "Why would your character have received that benefit?"
Player: "They studied meditation during their training, able to keep their body fit even when going without food or water for extended periods."
DM: "Sold!"

Pointless and domineering, because the current layouts aren't justified in that way - they're just written in as if we must accept them. You're just making the players play mother-may-I with you. Literally so - you provided an absolutely perfect example of "mother may I"!

And again, a guard who can't see pick pockets isn't a good guard

You just described 90% of cops and security guards, dude. The idea that all guards have perception is hilarious and counter-reality.

 

[mellored]

No-one who has actually played D&D 5E values WIS saves over CON for HP and very few would value it over DEX for AC (mostly those already in Heavy armour). It's a joke combo for a now-joke background.

Depends on your front line. If you rarely get hit, the HP and AC are not good investment.

Getting mind controlled and told to fireball your party however, could lead to a party wipe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Depends on your front line. If you rarely get hit, the HP and AC are not good investment.

Getting mind controlled and told to fireball your party however, could lead to a party wipe.

No-one gets hit that rarely and mind-controlled that often (unless the DM is playing a really weird kind of softball). You're just proving my point by coming up with ridiculous corner-cases when it's absolutely not up for debate that when given a choice, 80%+ of characters put +2 in their primary stat and then +1 in CON or DEX. I suspect that very much includes you.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Honestly, none of my players used Tasha's. They continued to use species. Most of them preferred the set choices because it added a dimension to the character.

i like that the set choices exist as the example of the 'standard' member of a species, but even if your table doesn't use them you can't deny floating has pretty much become a staple rule in most of the play culture.

 

[Belen]

Pointless and domineering, because the current layouts aren't justified in that way - they're just written in as if we must accept them. You're just making the players play mother-may-I with you. Literally so - you provided an absolutely perfect example of "mother may I"!

Agreed. I prefer to add more player agency. My house rules already grant people a starting feat of their choice plus a toolset of their choice in addition to backgrounds. It really helps to add a dimension to the characters and I just have them describe how they earned that ability as part of their backstory.

I will probably continue with this one rather than tying them to some lame Origin feat.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

i like that the set choices exist as the example of the 'standard' member of a species, but even if your table doesn't use them you can't deny floating has pretty much become a staple rule in most of the play culture.

I mean, there's "can't" and there's "can't reasonably" - if there's one thing the history of D&D shows it's that people will claim completely unreasonable and patently untrue things to further a line of argument. Sometimes those people are even the game designers (c.f. some Sage Advices, especially those in the early '90s but also some more recent)!