D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal #1: "Everything You Need To Know!"

Each day this week, Wizards of the Coast will be releasing a new live-streamed preview video based on the upcoming Player's Handbook. The first is entitled Everything You Need To Know and you can watch it live below (or, if you missed it, you should be able to watch it from the start afterwards). The video focuses on weapon mastery and character origins.

​

There will be new videos on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday this week, focusing on the Fighter, the Paladin, and the Barbarian, with (presumably) more in the coming weeks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So... literally the exact same as getting "kewl" powers from their birth, or getting "kewl" powers of a druid from studying with the fey or getting "kewl" powers from surviving being attacked by a mindflayer or "kewl" powers from being trained by the king's guard.

You know, there is no mechanical support for my fighter who was trained by the Kingdom and fought in the army, it is all just "kewl powers" with no regards to how a powerful warrior would be pressed into military service.

Or, put another way, yeah... personal relationships between PCs and NPCs don't have mechanical representation. Unless you want to use the Piety rules, or the Honor Rules. Which are rules in the game which can be utilized for this if you really and truly need mechanical rules for this.

So is this a balance issue for you then? I'd be more than happy to make the power of a warlock, cleric or paladin worth the restrictions. They used to be (for those classes that existed back in the day). I care most about the narrative of the setting and the PCs place in it than anything else, no matter what side of the screen I'm on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Cool. I'm glad you like it. I can't really speak to it, as I haven't looked at WFRP, much less played it extensively.

I suppose I can ask, though - is that mechanic specific to one character type? How much power comes to the characters to whom it applies? And what kind of penalties apply if you fail to please?

Because, for a D&D Warlock (or Cleric or Druid), there's the issue that if the character really displeases the patron, you'd expect them to lose pretty much all their power, and become pretty much unplayable. While that's a gamestyle choice one can make, I am not sure it would be a great choice to make core for D&D.

I provided an alternative to losing all your power, but according to the person I suggested it to that's not even worth being an optional rule.

Compromise goes both ways.

 

[Chaosmancer]

^ This. But there are ways to make faith and allegiance to otherworldly patrons be mechanically meaningful without fully relying on DM fiat. Warhammer Fantasy strikes a good balance, I think, with its strictures and penances. I like the flavor and story-potential it adds while not leaving it entirely up to me as a DM to decide whether the character has pleased or upset its patron or god.

I could be wrong, but I think that Warhammer tends to have very specific thematics for their otherworldly entities. Like, a total of six or seven "this is a supernatural force" groups. It makes it very easy then to say "well, out of these ten options, this is what Nurgle would want" and give a list of things.

The issue is that DnD warlocks are vastly, vastly more complicated. A fiend warlock could have made a deal with up to twelve different Archdevils who all have different goals and wants, without discussing the possibility of the eight or so Demon Princes, the three Yugoloth Lords, or some of the Demodads. And that is just the fiend, and without counting balors, pitfiends, erinyes, ect ect.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of including a system, as an option. I think the Piety system or the Honor System give a good framework, but the conceptual space of what a pact could be is so vast, a system with very specific things doesn't make sense.

 

[Umbran]

Compromise goes both ways.

This thread isn't really about compromising at a given table. It is about what's in the core rulebook.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So is this a balance issue for you then? I'd be more than happy to make the power of a warlock, cleric or paladin worth the restrictions. They used to be (for those classes that existed back in the day). I care most about the narrative of the setting and the PCs place in it than anything else, no matter what side of the screen I'm on.

And the biggest complaint I remember hearing about the paladin, from basically all sides, was back when they had a bunch of mechanical restrictions that supposedly made their power "worth it".

No, my concern is not about balance. It is about story. I just don't think a mechanical system is really going to have the bandwidth to cover the different stories. My GOOlock might have powers because I stole a star from the eye of Azathoth, while my Feylock might have powers because I woo'd and continue flirting with a Pixie Princess, while my Celestialock might have powers because I climbed the seven mountains and swore not eat apples. You can't cover that much conceptual space with anything specific, it would need to be very broad, and determined by the player who decided what their character's concept is.

 

[TwoSix]

So is this a balance issue for you then? I'd be more than happy to make the power of a warlock, cleric or paladin worth the restrictions. They used to be (for those classes that existed back in the day). I care most about the narrative of the setting and the PCs place in it than anything else, no matter what side of the screen I'm on.

The general issue here is that restrictions on behavior were actual hindrances on behavior back in the dungeon crawling days of OD&D/AD&D 1e, when the focus of the game was exploring and defeating dungeons by any methods necessary. Being restricted in your types of hirelings, or only having 10 (10!) magic items, or not being able to use poison made the actual task of defeating dungeons harder and riskier, and thus justified giving strong benefits in exchange.

But in modern games, where the focus on "defeating dungeons" is at best secondary, and inhabiting a character is primary, there's a general expectation that every character is going to limit themselves to actions that fit within their character's methods. Paladins don't need hooks to do the "right thing", the player should be actively engaged in portraying the character as doing the right thing as part of their concept.

(Are there power fantasy games where players don't actually limit themselves to concepts, and just do whatever and don't roleplay ANY concept? Of course! But that type of play doesn't invalidate the actual standard of modern play.)

If you really want to invoke setting diegesis into your class mechanics, it should really be as a hook, not a restriction or a punishment mechanic. Players, in my experience, don't generally mind self-restricting, but they do chafe when the DM attempts to arbitrate their behavior against some assumed standard. (Like saying if a character is actually following their oath, or obeying their patron.)

 

[Asisreo]

Oh dear. I am mystified as to what mental model of assassin they have at WotC. It's not Assassin's Creed, it's not Hitman Codename: 47, it's not the Assassin series of books by Robin Hobb, it's not Dishonored, it's not Mr Teatime from Discworld, it's not Artemis Enteri, it's not Pyrre Lakatur (thank god!), it's not the Faceless Men from ASoIaF, it's not any of the various and assorted teenage girl assassins, I'm just really struggling to work out who they're thinking of, who is not even good at killing people, but weirdly good at faking documents and putting on non-magical disguises.

Impostor from Among Us

Edit: I'm cackling to myself imaging in a group of a valiant knight, a keen wizard, and a pious cleric, there is also just this guy.

 

[Scribe]

If you really want to invoke setting diegesis into your class mechanics, it should really be as a hook, not a restriction or a punishment mechanic. Players, in my experience, don't generally mind self-restricting, but they do chafe when the DM attempts to arbitrate their behavior against some assumed standard. (Like saying if a character is actually following their oath, or obeying their patron.)

There has to be a product out there to support this mechanically, right?

 

[TwoSix]

There has to be a product out there to support this mechanically, right?

Yea, there are, although the examples I'm thinking of are primarily in the OSR space. Dolmenwood is the first one that comes to mind, mostly because I've been looking at it a lot lately.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I could be wrong, but I think that Warhammer tends to have very specific thematics for their otherworldly entities. Like, a total of six or seven "this is a supernatural force" groups. It makes it very easy then to say "well, out of these ten options, this is what Nurgle would want" and give a list of things.

The issue is that DnD warlocks are vastly, vastly more complicated. A fiend warlock could have made a deal with up to twelve different Archdevils who all have different goals and wants, without discussing the possibility of the eight or so Demon Princes, the three Yugoloth Lords, or some of the Demodads. And that is just the fiend, and without counting balors, pitfiends, erinyes, ect ect.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of including a system, as an option. I think the Piety system or the Honor System give a good framework, but the conceptual space of what a pact could be is so vast, a system with very specific things doesn't make sense.

Tell that to DCC and their individual Spell Mishap Tables. It can be done, it sounds like you personally just don't think it's worth it.

And that's ok. It certainly "makes sense" to me.