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

[Cadence]

Not tagging the relevant stuff in... but a bunch of what is discussed above is more reason I'm really not a fan of Intelligence, (or Wisdom or Charisma) being stats the way they are.

Anyway, just read the following in the serialized version of Hammett's "The Dain Curse" that seemed apropos.

"He was young, blond, tall, broad, sunburned and immaculate, with the good-looking dumb face of one who would know everything about polo, or shooting, or flying, or stocks and bonds, or whatever interested him, and nothing about anything else."

 

[Belen]

I have to agree on this one. The talk about assigning abilities to species was "forcing" people to play certain species with specific classes. So now they tried it with backgrounds....and found the same thing!

Ultimately ability scores are too important for most builds to not pick good ones for your class. And so the answer is simple....just decouple ability scores like you have done with Tasha's for years! Its so simple, just making ability scores its own part of the character creation process.

In the same amount of text it takes to explain to a user "ok you get these 3 stats from your background, and you can choose 1/1/1 or 2/1 etc" you can have just simply said "first, put a +2 in any one stat of your choice, put a +1 in any other stat....or put +1 in 3 different stats". So damn simple, I really don't understand why they pulled away from that.

My wife suggested that stats be tied to class instead so a fighter can choose between Str, Dex, and Con.

I liked the old school method; however, if they feel the need to tie them to anything, then it should be class.

 

[Cadence]

My wife suggested that stats be tied to class instead so a fighter can choose between Str, Dex, and Con.

I liked the old school method; however, if they feel the need to tie them to anything, then it should be class.

The easy thing at this point feels like it is to just give everyone the floating +1/+1/+1 or +2/+1 for the dice rollers, and a better base array for folks who build it that way. The only thing that annoys me about doing that is something like the Dwarf, Sage, Cleric gets to be just as dexterous as the Elvish, Athlete, Rogue who was trying to be outstanding in Dexterity. But going through and doing something like giving every Species, Background, and Class/Subclass 2 possibilities to choose the bonuses from is more complicated and gives more things to argue about.

 

[mellored]

My wife suggested that stats be tied to class instead so a fighter can choose between Str, Dex, and Con.

I liked the old school method; however, if they feel the need to tie them to anything, then it should be class.

Class does make a lot of sense.

Best narratively (IMO) would be

+1/+1 from your class, +1 from your backgound.

 

[Arilyn]

I strongly feel that customizable backgrounds should be front and centre in the background section of the book.
Have examples, sure, but encourage players to create their own or tinker with the examples. I want to see players create backgrounds like Pearl Diver, Lamplighter, Rat Catcher, Kitchen Witch, Changeling, Raised by a Dragon or Magical Accident. I want a wide variety of Nobles, Urchins and Acolytes. Training at a War God's temple should be completely different from training at a Healing Shrine. And just having a uniquely named background on the sheet can go a long way in getting a feel for the character.

Modern D&D is an odd mix of high fantasy wish fulfilment with sudden, unnecessary constraints. Why the backpedalling on customizable backgrounds? Yes, I know I can do what I like at my table, I know there will be guidelines in the DMG, but looking at the game as a whole, shouldn't the designers be encouraging and celebrating creativity, rather than directing it, or tucking it away. Crawford assured us in the first video this week, we'd be excited by all the new options and "glow." Then this. I am a little confused.

 

[Scott Christian]

Ultimately ability scores are too important for most builds to not pick good ones for your class.

You're right, that is one opinion. There are others.

 

[Aldarc]

Crawford assured us in the first video this week, we'd be excited by all the new options and "glow." Then this. I am a little confused.

I agree, but they would be hyping the product regardless of what they did.

 

[Scott Christian]

My wife suggested that stats be tied to class instead so a fighter can choose between Str, Dex, and Con.

I liked the old school method; however, if they feel the need to tie them to anything, then it should be class.

They are directly tied to class. When you do point buy or standard array or roll for abilities, you (not anyone else, but you) get to assign them. You get to place them where you want. You get to choose whether your fighter is dexterous or strong or both.
What you are talking about is adding an extra 3 points out of the already 24 assigned. A tiny amount in the overall picture. A miniscule amount once you start adding in magic weapons, feats at certain levels, class abilities, gaining advantage, etc.

 

[Horwath]

Class does make a lot of sense.

Best narratively (IMO) would be

+1/+1 from your class, +1 from your backgound.

or just floating +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1...
why waste page space that after their 1st campaign is over, 95% of people will ignore?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A tiny amount in the overall picture.

It really isn't, and I don't get why you're pretending it is in a version of 5E.

If this was 3.XE, or 4E, you could make a strong case for your position, because the huge numbers of bonuses and rapidly increasing attributes and so on quickly mean stats were irrelevant.

But claiming it re: 5E, which explicitly did away with all that, or severely moderated it, and uses Bounded Accuracy is just weird. And deeply unconvincing. It's not a good argument, and it doesn't make sense. Your claims are completely counter to the key design difference between 5E and 3E/4E. It's bizarre.