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

[Minigiant]

I mentioned earlier in the thread but I think it’s been long enough to bear repeating: I’m loathe to increase the amount of influence your class has on character creation, it’s already like 95% of it considering species and background don’t typically add anything past 1st level, maybe it’s a tiny bit less with background feats being added but class is still the overwhelming majority.

They made class way too strong and important that there was littler room to adjust race and background.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

The truth is that the game is clear that different races are actually species.

Humans of all types in game have the same modifiers by subgroup or origin. That should take care of it. But ok. No bonus or penalty for species for reasons.

Reality knows there is nature and nurture in all living creatures. It is indisputable. But this is a game. I understand we don’t want to rehash the racial pseudo science of yesteryear.

In the end, we just need some parameters and baselines so that we can interface with the world and its challenges and presumably make decisions that interest us.

All we are really doing is moving stuff around. Having a bonus to strength as a half orc is evocative and cool to me…but it’s been decided. So…what is the effect on the game if we roll with this equally valid/absurd choice?

I can work with or around this just like race..er..species. The drive for everything to be maxed, gel easily and never require sacrifice comes with costs. And that I will never identify with.

I am in this to rolplay, overcome challenges and so on. Grounding abilities in the world and its variables is just there to add to the immersion and illusion.

However this is actually a very small slice of the variability of the game! The d20 has a lot of sides. Your decisions and strategy should account for a lot. Feat choices class choices…all have an impact. The +1 for one ability. Not huge in light of all of that.

I guess it’s a lot of debate about not much. I am not a fan of the change in total but its impact is not going to be huge unless you convince yourself it’s an issue. It’s actually not a big deal either way as much as I gripe and shake my head.

Give me a beer and some d20s. This is fun to talk about but is not going to alter the game in a huge way. And that is coming from someone would argue for old ASIs

 

[Micah Sweet]

As someone who had no particular fondness for species mandated ASIs, but also likes attaching them to backgrounds (would have also probably been fine with cultures) more than them being pure free floating, a huge part of the reason why is that backgrounds aren't innate, at all, at least not how I most commonly hear and use the term in this context. Innate, to me, is even if you change most of the circumstances of your life, this part still expresses largely the same.

Likewise, I don't see any connection between having a different starting point in life and the idea that a person could "never better themselves." Nothing about a background stops a character from working to improve any part of themselves.

Nothing about having ASIs attached to species did that either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Also, your term, "always be thicker" is incorrect. By level twelve, they are all the same, with the exception that the urchin has the possibility to be more dexterous or some other ability that the "starting 16" player has.

Again, the same would be true if ASIs were still attached to species.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I agreed with him on that point. A lot of players will complain when they don't get to start with a 16. He is correct. My claim was that for many players, it won't matter. And equally, the mindset needs to be taught that a 15 vs a 16 is not as big as what it seems in our heads. With all the table variants and variables, a 15 vs 16 is miniscule over the course of a campaign.

I don't understand your point here. I claimed that both a 15 and 16 are way above the general population for a D&D world. Therefore, it is not essentialism (an inflammatory argument) when someone starts out with a 15 intelligence versus a 16. Both scores put the PC in the top 10% of the population using the old bell curve.

I don't see a problem with having a 15 instead of a 16, but some players do, and it does matter to the game to some degree. Telling people they shouldn't care, whether you're saying it or WotC is, won't matter so long as the game math cares.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A much less severe case of plot armor. In 13th Age I want to say one doesn't die to unnamed bad guys. (Which makes it fun when the bard asks every opponent they meat what there name is).

If nothing else, even in games where the DM tries not to do anything special to favor the PCs, I'm guessing their speed of advancement is vastly out of scale with what the world building would imply (especially for spell casters).

That's what I was afraid you were going to say. I'll never accept PCs as being any better or more likely to win or survive than an equivalent NPC in the setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Race and background.

Ah. See, I think both of those deserve robust mechanics.

 

[Xamnam]

Nothing about having ASIs attached to species did that either.

No, as I defined/understand it, that does become innate, which was an aspect I actively did not care for, especially when considering other peoples' vocal dislike of it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Again, the same would be true if ASIs were still attached to species.

And again, one is not innate. The other is. The one that is innate has been considered inflammatory for a very long time. The other one, not so much. That is until people try to make it about something that is inflammatory. But when presented with:

PC One grew up around scholars, laboratories, books, wizards, and had private tutors. PC Two grew up around beggars, thieves, and inside a brothel. Therefore, PC One knows more arcana than the latter at the start of the game.

Versus this take:

PC One was born a half-orc. While he is stronger than the average wizard, he is not as smart. PC Two was born a high elf. Therefore, he knows more arcana than the half-orc.

For some, this second example is a representation of racist ideas that are sometimes reflected in modern society. Hence, it's more inflammatory.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, as I defined/understand it, that does become innate, which was an aspect I actively did not care for, especially when considering other peoples' vocal dislike of it.

Unless those other players are at your table, I don't see how that has anything to with what you do.