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

[Warpiglet-7]

5e is very easy.

But having a less than a 16 in your main ability scores can actually feel or create bad gameplay.

5e, for better or worse, assumes in default play your class primary score is 16 or higher unless you are 100% support.

That is my point.

“Feel”

But it really does not matter much. I have a 13th level character now with a 16 in strength which I have had since early on. I don’t think you would be hamstrung with a 14 by 8th level but it “feels wrong” even to me. I am
Not immune to that pull but logically a +1 with all the other goodies, bless, magic swords, advantage…we collectively worry too much. The monster ACs and saves rent that hard to beat generally.

 

[Minigiant]

That is my point.

“Feel”

But it really does not matter much. I have a 13th level character now with a 16 in strength which I have had since early on. I don’t think you would be hamstrung with a 14 by 8th level but it “feels wrong” even to me. I am
Not immune to that pull but logically a +1 with all the other goodies, bless, magic swords, advantage…we collectively worry too much. The monster ACs and saves rent that hard to beat generally.

But you have 16 strength.
And are 13th level.

The issue is low levels. Low bonuses make you fail a lot and feel incompetent. This is why in 5e you have to keep AC and DCs so ridiculously low.

 

[Scott Christian]

The whole thing is absurd top to bottom.

We got one group worried about
Genetic contributions to stats. Then people will be mad that environment played a role.

Neither bother me at all. Half could come
From each but then it’s not optimal?

But it's known that it really wasn't about the innate or genetic side of things in the first place. It was about a limitation, that some seemed as making the game unbalanced or limiting one's optimization.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

But you have 16 strength.
And are 13th level.

The issue is low levels. Low bonuses make you fail a lot and feel incompetent. This is why in 5e you have to keep AC and DCs so ridiculously low.

I see the low AC and DC's as a feature not a bug.

 

[TwoSix]

That is my point.

“Feel”

But it really does not matter much. I have a 13th level character now with a 16 in strength which I have had since early on. I don’t think you would be hamstrung with a 14 by 8th level but it “feels wrong” even to me. I am
Not immune to that pull but logically a +1 with all the other goodies, bless, magic swords, advantage…we collectively worry too much. The monster ACs and saves rent that hard to beat generally.

Here's a question. Since I think we can mostly agree that just getting a +1 or +2 to a stat isn't really that important, why not just get rid of it? Just do 15-14-13-12-10-8, or normal point buy, or roll. No adjustments for race, background, or anything else.

Why do an extra fiddly math step at all?

 

[Scott Christian]

The odd part of this discussion to me is how it is again predicated on moar power!

The last time thing I have heard and experienced in 5e is how hard it is. But we are tripping out over 15 vs 16 in a score.

In fact I see more concern that the game and monsters are too easy. So what do we do? Remove any impediments to bringing maximum firepower every round of combat. God forbid I choose to drink a potion or cast a non combat spell! We need to make sure we kill those monsters quick!

With this ASI stuff, we wring our hands because whether it’s racial or background based, we are worried we might miss out on a plus one for a few levels.

I get it. When I arrange stats and feats, I am keenly aware of how and when I get a bonus to hit, etc. it’s just a funny bit of human nature I guess.

I am amused about how much we all fuss and it really does not matter much. But it sure “feels” like it does.

To ground he scores in some way, I would say +1 from race, +1 from back ground and one point you are free to place.

(Though honestly I was fine with half orcs getting +2 str and +1 con). But that ship has sailed and here we are…

I would just make 15 the max. No one can go above 15, regardless of a species' or background's ASI. This way, at level four, when a player took a half feat, they could have their sixteen, or if you opted against the feat and went full blown +2, then you would have two 16s. But, for some reason, our psychology really, really, really, doesn't like seeing that 15.

 

[Horwath]

The odd part of this discussion to me is how it is again predicated on moar power!

The last time thing I have heard and experienced in 5e is how hard it is. But we are tripping out over 15 vs 16 in a score.

In fact I see more concern that the game and monsters are too easy. So what do we do? Remove any impediments to bringing maximum firepower every round of combat. God forbid I choose to drink a potion or cast a non combat spell! We need to make sure we kill those monsters quick!

With this ASI stuff, we wring our hands because whether it’s racial or background based, we are worried we might miss out on a plus one for a few levels.

I get it. When I arrange stats and feats, I am keenly aware of how and when I get a bonus to hit, etc. it’s just a funny bit of human nature I guess.

I am amused about how much we all fuss and it really does not matter much. But it sure “feels” like it does.

To ground he scores in some way, I would say +1 from race, +1 from back ground and one point you are free to place.

(Though honestly I was fine with half orcs getting +2 str and +1 con). But that ship has sailed and here we are…

you are right and wrong at the same time. But more right.

+1 on attack and damage rolls will not matter much unless the player really wants to have it.

But, why prevent them from having it, if it's withing game balance?
If everyone want's their starting array to be 17,14,14,12,10,8 why bother in preventing it?

why waste that much energy on backgrounds when in the end 90% of people will ignore it after a campaign or two and just pick what suits them.

Just focus on flavor text of the backgrounds and leave the choice of mechanics to players.


now, I did play a paladin with 16STR and 20CHA at 9th level and I must say that it feel in combat department that you miss that +2 attack and damage.

1d8+3 with 50% hit rate vs. 1d8+5 with 60& hit rate is big difference. it's 50% higher damage on average. It starts to feel over multiple encounters.
But when you are 1 out of 6 PCs, it's less noticeable.

And in the end DM should adjust difficulty vs the party and how it is composed.


but, if you all run unoptimized characters and DM runs the campaign for optimized, well, you are in for a world of pain.

 

[Horwath]

I would just make 15 the max. No one can go above 15, regardless of a species' or background's ASI. This way, at level four, when a player took a half feat, they could have their sixteen, or if you opted against the feat and went full blown +2, then you would have two 16s. But, for some reason, our psychology really, really, really, doesn't like seeing that 15.

maybe just rework that we do not have "odd" scores just as a stepping stones to something valuable.

in 99% if the time 15 is the same as 14. it's just for planning ahead as you want to take that half feat at 4th level.

 

[Horwath]

Here's a question. Since I think we can mostly agree that just getting a +1 or +2 to a stat isn't really that important, why not just get rid of it? Just do 15-14-13-12-10-8, or normal point buy, or roll. No adjustments for race, background, or anything else.

Why do an extra fiddly math step at all?

point pool 32pts

6: -2pts, optional
7: -1pt, optional
8: 0pts
9: 1pt
10: 2pts
11: 3pts
12: 4pts
13: 5pts
14: 6pts
15: 8pts
16: 10pts
17: 13pts, optional
18: 16pts, optional

 

[Minigiant]

I see the low AC and DC's as a feature not a bug.

Of course.

It's a feature to balance out low modifiers.

Low modifiers means low DCs for moderate challenges.