Up until now I didn't even think to ask - do we know if the 2024 rules will mention this as an option? Maybe they're taking that flexibility away by default (and moving it perhaps to the DMG like custom backgrounds).It makes calling for a different stat+skill really confusing for some of my players.
We dont know. True.Up until now I didn't even think to ask - do we know if the 2024 rules will mention this as an option? Maybe they're taking that flexibility away by default (and moving it perhaps to the DMG like custom backgrounds).
I expect they expect people to use the free form space as needed for their games. There isn't a space for "Number of" either.The other day I saw somewhat more complete sheets posted somewhere and have to say there are some glaring omissions
They added a lot of long missing things (noticing to the sheet like concentration, ritual & material checkboxes for spells, death save tracking, attunement slot tracking, & maybe others
Not having anything whatsoever for weight/wt/pounds/lb/etc in inventory or even having a box for encumbrance is pretty glaring given everything else added. It could be on one of the pages we haven't seen, but it's not like wotc has given any indications to give warm fuzzies on that.
That brought back quite the memories! Thanks for making me recall those sheets.I don't think I've ever really liked an "official" D&D character sheet. Even back in 2E days I used to use character sheets from the Armory.
Yeah. It sends the opposite message to the one I’d like to see. You can bury that rule in the book, but if the character sheet says otherwise, that’s effectively the real rule.I really dislike grouping them by ability. It undermines the concept that a skill is a proficiency that can give a bonus to any relevant ability check.
There isn't anywhere for character weight either for those traps and hazards which are weight sensitive. Not that there was much guidance on character weight recently.I expect they expect people to use the free form space as needed for their games. There isn't a space for "Number of" either.
However I do agree that it implies something, maybe just that they think people don't universally use encombrance.