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

[Scott Christian]

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.

It is though. On a standard array, it is a mere three points added to something versus the already 24 points added. And in the statement you responded to, I was very specifically discussing the suggestion that "stats be tied to class." With point buy or standard array or rolling, they are assigned to class. By no one except the player.

What you are discussing is this:
If you are the player that can't bear to be 5% behind another, even though that lack of 5% might give you something else in another category outside of damage, then you're going to complain. And how a person complains is also part of the problem.
Start throwing around philosophies like essentialism and equating it to the game. That's probably a good way to get traction because it's inflammatory. Saying, the actual facts: I had to give up 5% extra damage, but in return I am better at ___________ and also got ____________. This gets people nowhere in the argument. Therefore, they don't do it. They instead use something that will incite others.
It's the +1 argument all over again. Instead of simply and honestly stating that someone wanted their dwarf to have a 16 starting intelligence instead of 15, they complained about other things. They eventually break it down to extremely negative outlooks, rather than just admitting all they really wanted was a 16.

 

[bedir than]

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

It's not even 5%. It's closer to a 2.5% increase.

That's tiny. If I handed you a sheet of paper that was 2.5% larger than the one in your hand your eyes probably wouldn't notice.

 

[TwoSix]

What you are discussing is this:
If you are the player that can't bear to be 5% behind another, even though that lack of 5% might give you something else in another category outside of damage, then you're going to complain.

The damage delta between a +2 and a +3 in your attack stat is much higher than 5%. Please math responsibly.

 

[Belen]

They eventually break it down to extremely negative outlooks, rather than just admitting all they really wanted was a 16.

16, 17, 18....

These are psychological numbers for people, then again, I allow a standard array of 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 9.

 

[TwoSix]

It's the +1 argument all over again. Instead of simply and honestly stating that someone wanted their dwarf to have a 16 starting intelligence instead of 15, they complained about other things. They eventually break it down to extremely negative outlooks, rather than just admitting all they really wanted was a 16.

It's not admitting anything, because it's the correct argument.

A 1st level character made with point buy in 5e should always be able to have a 16 in their primary stat, regardless of their choice of race or background. Simple and straightforward.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's not even 5%. It's closer to a 2.5% increase.

That's tiny. If I handed you a sheet of paper that was 2.5% larger than the one in your hand your eyes probably wouldn't notice.

I mean, that's trivially false so why even argue it?

It is though. On a standard array, it is a mere three points added to something versus the already 24 points added. And in the statement you responded to, I was very specifically discussing the suggestion that "stats be tied to class." With point buy or standard array or rolling, they are assigned to class. By no one except the player.

What you are discussing is this:
If you are the player that can't bear to be 5% behind another, even though that lack of 5% might give you something else in another category outside of damage, then you're going to complain. And how a person complains is also part of the problem.
Start throwing around philosophies like essentialism and equating it to the game. That's probably a good way to get traction because it's inflammatory. Saying, the actual facts: I had to give up 5% extra damage, but in return I am better at ___________ and also got ____________. This gets people nowhere in the argument. Therefore, they don't do it. They instead use something that will incite others.
It's the +1 argument all over again. Instead of simply and honestly stating that someone wanted their dwarf to have a 16 starting intelligence instead of 15, they complained about other things. They eventually break it down to extremely negative outlooks, rather than just admitting all they really wanted was a 16.

Oh wow. Okay you're saying all the bioessentialism arguments were made in bad faith? Okay I see. I don't agree at all, and I think that is itself pretty inflammatory. Class essentialism is the same general thing, just less offensive to Americans. If you don't want to see that fine but you haven't made a rational argument here, you're just accused people who disagree with you of making bad faith arguments without any evidence or real rationale.

It's not 5% either, because a lot more of your rolls use that +1 - it's not just to hit, but it'll be to damage as well in most cases.

 

[mellored]

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?

If your doing that, why stop half way?

Remove stats and just have a class chart for attack, DC, and saves.

But I still like that the backgound matters more than it did before.

 

[CreamCloud0]

It is though. On a standard array, it is a mere three points added to something versus the already 24 points added. And in the statement you responded to, I was very specifically discussing the suggestion that "stats be tied to class." With point buy or standard array or rolling, they are assigned to class. By no one except the player.

given that point buy stats get exponentially more expensive the higher you buy and ASI are added to the top of the score you're adding them to those extra stats are actually closer to being worth 8-9 points worth of point buy, assuming you're boosting a 15 to a 17 and a 14 to a 15 (or vicea-versa for two 16's) buying above a 15 is 3 points and getting a 15 is 2 points, so eight extra points in your pointbuy.

 

[TwoSix]

It's not 5% either, because a lot more of your rolls use that +1 - it's not just to hit, but it'll be to damage as well in most cases.

Yep. And even if it didn't increase damage, any +1 to hit is going to increase damage by more than 5% unless the chance to hit is completely saturated at 95%.

Even going from 90% chance to hit to 95% chance to hit, with no increase to damage, is a 0.95/0.9 = 5.6% increase.

 

[TwoSix]

If your doing that, why stop half way?

Remove stats and just have a class chart for attack, DC, and saves.

But I still like that the backgound matters more than it did before.

If they wanted to make background matter more, I'd rather they do it like 4e's themes where it actually gives you abilities as you level.