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

[mellored]

But then you might as well not calculate the bonus because the bonus is so low. It's extra math for no real extra. Brainpower used for nothing. Time spent for little effect.

Might as well just have +0 vs AC6.

+0 is for the peasants, improvised weapon, and such.
+2 is your typical attack

But sure, you could do -2 for the weak attacks and 0 for the base.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i find it hilarious they said they didn't want to replicate the stat distribution limitations of species and then immediately went into how they basically did just that anyways, granted maybe with a little more leeway in it, but like, after tasha's floating for so long it's by comparason putting restrictions back onto the system rather than removing them.

i would've liked if they'd split the difference between species or background providing your potential ASI placement and had two stat choices given from each.

They did it that way not because they didn't want the stat distribution limitations at all, but rather than they wanted them off of species. It was causing them too much social blowback, making this essentially a political move.

IMO, of course.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

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.

Really? Well on that note I really don’t get it…

No matter, the ship has sailed! I am just used to working around game limiting things and find it part of the challenge.

Which says something about my preferences which are not universal. I like to struggle and solve problems. I know some folks are more interested in other equally valid parts of the game.

I won’t relitigate it here ans will spare others but I enjoy playing against type and rare combinations. That has been beat to death at this point so will show myself out.

We shall see how folks like this new post Tasha’s change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, none of my players used Tasha's. They continued to use species. Most of them preferred the set choices because it added a dimension to the character.

My players never moved ASIs off of race until I convinced them to move to Level Up, which IMO does a better job of this than 5.5 as part of their Origin system.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i like that the set choices exist as the example of the 'standard' member of a species, but even if your table doesn't use them you can't deny floating has pretty much become a staple rule in most of the play culture.

"Play culture" doesn't matter when it comes to any individual table.

 

[Minigiant]

+0 is for the peasants, improvised weapon, and such.
+2 is your typical attack

But sure, you could do -2 for the weak attacks and 0 for the base.

I like totals of

+0 Peasant
+4 Nonwarriors
+7 Warriors

But that ship sailed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it isn't. Because background isn't just stats - it's also Skills and a Feat, and we can be very sure that there will be a small number of backgrounds that are optimal for a very large number of classes - and I'd bet money, like real money, that those backgrounds are not the most thematically common backgrounds in D&D at all.

They should have kept stats out of this entirely. Stats should have been a player decision, as they have been for 5+ years for easily most D&D groups. You cannot put the cat back into the bag. And WotC are, inexplicably and rather stupidly, trying to do exactly that.

This will create a situation where people just whinge continuously from now until whenever the next version of D&D comes out. Because you can say "Oh well as a DM I'd allow people to create backgrounds freely!", but like, a lot of people will be in groups where the DM doesn't do that, either because they think the restrictions are smart, or because they're too scared to "overrule" the books or the like. It'll be particularly annoying on any digital platform, because unless they just put an override in, they'll be restricting people's stats.

The end result will be some rules that almost no-one likes, and almost no-ones RAW (or even close to it), but that everyone complains about. It's absolutely outright bad design. The first piece of genuinely bad design I've seen "go live" with 2024. Maybe not the last.


Sure but anything that misses CON is almost as bad, and a lot of ones which miss DEX will be pretty bad.

EDIT - To be clear, we're going from a situation, where, for the vast majority of groups, the player could choose:

1) What stats they had bonuses to.

2) What skills they had

3) What tool proficiencies they had

To one where they cannot choose ANY of those things. And also cannot choose a Feat! And WotC thinks this is going to go well why?

I can only imagine how this going to go over at AL tables, where they have to follow the official rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it isn't. Because background isn't just stats - it's also Skills and a Feat, and we can be very sure that there will be a small number of backgrounds that are optimal for a very large number of classes - and I'd bet money, like real money, that those backgrounds are not the most thematically common backgrounds in D&D at all.

They should have kept stats out of this entirely. Stats should have been a player decision, as they have been for 5+ years for easily most D&D groups. You cannot put the cat back into the bag. And WotC are, inexplicably and rather stupidly, trying to do exactly that.

This will create a situation where people just whinge continuously from now until whenever the next version of D&D comes out. Because you can say "Oh well as a DM I'd allow people to create backgrounds freely!", but like, a lot of people will be in groups where the DM doesn't do that, either because they think the restrictions are smart, or because they're too scared to "overrule" the books or the like. It'll be particularly annoying on any digital platform, because unless they just put an override in, they'll be restricting people's stats.

The end result will be some rules that almost no-one likes, and almost no-ones RAW (or even close to it), but that everyone complains about. It's absolutely outright bad design. The first piece of genuinely bad design I've seen "go live" with 2024. Maybe not the last.


Sure but anything that misses CON is almost as bad, and a lot of ones which miss DEX will be pretty bad.

EDIT - To be clear, we're going from a situation, where, for the vast majority of groups, the player could choose:

1) What stats they had bonuses to.

2) What skills they had

3) What tool proficiencies they had

To one where they cannot choose ANY of those things. And also cannot choose a Feat! And WotC thinks this is going to go well why?

Because none of that is connected to species, which remains the hot button social issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which I've already accounted for. A bunch of new, scared, or just rules-conservative DMs will make sure this is a problem for a huge number of people.

You can't put the cat back in the bag - the cat has been out for 10 years for skills, and 5 years for stats. And you're trying to suggest trying to shove this cat back in is smart lol.

They won't - instead we'll just see the very small number of more optimal backgrounds used over and over and over.

Also certain classes will have an absolutely perfect background, with stats, skills and Feat all good, and others will have no backgrounds which line up with their better stat arrays - or only one. God help us if there's only one which has both CHA and CON lol because like 20% of characters will have it.

Perhaps WotC is hoping a bunch of brand new players with no previous expectations will magically appear when the books are released?

 

[Micah Sweet]

We're Playing D&D; not "Rules&Reality". Just saying.

Also... ACAB ;-)

What evidence do you have that these are corner cases? Loaded statements where you claim the equivalents of one-offs or outliers without demonstrating such doesn't prove your point.

What does ACAB mean?