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

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

IMHO "character build diversity" is a strong argument against floating ASI by default. But has Wizards hinted that this is their reason for this rather unexpected change? It's plausible, but I wasn't aware that they'd addressed it.

Need to go back through their videos from early last week to double check the exact wording, but that was how I understood the matter.

They've had floating ASIs since Tasha's, but found that it was counterintuitively not resulting in more varied sets of character statblocks. Most people were putting them in the same places - implicitly, whatever they're class was good at - which is why they decided to tie them to backgrounds (albeit with more flexibility than how species-locked ASIs were handled previously).

 

[TwoSix]

Need to go back through their videos from early last week to double check the exact wording, but that was how I understood the matter.

They've had floating ASIs since Tasha's, but found that it was counterintuitively not resulting in more varied sets of character statblocks. Most people were putting them in the same places - implicitly, whatever they're class was good at - which is why they decided to tie them to backgrounds (albeit with more flexibility than how species-locked ASIs were handled previously).

But...I don't think that people having the same stat spread is actually a problem. Having every member of a class be one of only three backgrounds or four races (unless the player actively picks a non-obvious option) is, to me, much more of a problem than every barbarian or wizard having the same stat spread.

 

[Maxperson]

If you go though the same training, you get the same skills.

So yes.

Pretty sure the job is the same, so the skills are the same.

I'm having a hard time imagining a guard without perception and intimidation. If your letting all the thieves sneak by constantly, and people think you won't stop them, your not doing a good job guardian anything.

I'm going to agree with @Horwath on this one. A guard at a mage tower is likely to have spellcraft as part of his background. He will need to be able to recognize potentially hostile spells from visiting spellcasters. It makes perfect sense for my first option in my response to him above to be used.

As a DM if my player came to me and asked for that change, I'd grant it in a heartbeat. Hell, since I run the Realms if that same player had his guard at a mage tower be from Halruaa where something like a full third of the population can at least cast cantrips, I'd also let him swap out the background proficiency for magic initiate. I love when my players get creative like that.

 

[Maxperson]

Truly stupid decision that will cause absolute havoc with the backgrounds. People have got used to being able to assigning stats as they want, and restricting it this way is going to force people to be ludicrously suboptimal in ways that people really, really, really hate.

Ways that generally speaking, even race-based limits placement didn't do. Acolyte is a prime example - absolutely NO-ONE wants to primary CHA, INT or WIS, and then put the +1 into the one of the others on that list. They've created a joke background no-one will take.

If this rule goes in on D&D Beyond, people will be insanely mad. They'll have to put in an override or people will literally be demanding refunds.

I imagine 80-90% of groups will ignore it anyway, because it's putting a restriction in after a restriction has been gone for 5+ years, and the restriction makes absolutely no sense and isn't balanced (c.f. Guide vs Acolyte - Guide offers a hugely more advantageous choice - no Cleric will ever be an Acolyte again - but most will be Guides).

I will play that Acolyte background. Those stats are just fine. Especially since bonuses mean so little in 5e.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We do all of this to ourselves.

We worry too much about optimization and create cookie cutter stuff. I love it when people go off script.

But the truth is I fall prey to it too so no judgment. There are rare folks who play a lot and don’t care but I start off with something wild and end up taking the edge off before finalization more that I would like.

For variety maybe not tying stats to anything is the answer. I have fought against it but human nature is a strong push to conformity in the land of +3 to hit…

 

[Epic Meepo]

My feeling isn't that anyone on here is upset that the kid that grew up on the street isn't as learned as the noble's kid, it's that they can't make the character they want that starts with a 16.

You seem to be making false assumptions about my motivations. My intent is to call out the game designers for adding new, arbitrary restrictions to existing character builds.

You have mentioned several times how you would build an intelligent street urchin character. As I said in my last post, I'm not trying to convince you to build that character differently. The game has no restrictions preventing you from building that character, so by all means, built it.

I continue to mention how I would build an intelligent street urchin to highlight the new restrictions in the game rules. I can build the character I describe using the rules in the 2014 PHB, but I'm not yet seeing any way to build that same character using the rules in the 2024 PHB.

That's also why I keep mentioning the acolyte dedicated to the God of Strength. Using only the 2014 PHB, I can make an acolyte of Strength as strong as the strongest starting character of the same species. From what we've seen, using only the 2024 PHB, I can't do that.

Arbitrarily taking away options that already exist in the game is bad game design. There's no game balance issue being addressed here. Nothing's being streamlined. (In fact, the rules are getting wordier, thanks to non-floating bonuses.) As far as I'm concerned, this is a step backwards.

 

[Maxperson]

No-one who has actually played D&D 5E values WIS saves over CON for HP and very few would value it over DEX for AC (mostly those already in Heavy armour). It's a joke combo for a now-joke background.

Sure, if you don't understand how meaningless bonuses are in 5e. I mean, we just saw that CR 1 Sphinx and it's 6-19 damage range. How much difference will it really make for your 13 con sorcerer to go from 7 hit points to 8 hit points by adding +1 to con? You're still getting knocked to 0 if you are hit. And getting that additional 1 hit point more at level 2? Just as meaningless. Not that +1 wisdom is any better. These bonuses are mostly fluff anyway due to bounded accuracy.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Need to go back through their videos from early last week to double check the exact wording, but that was how I understood the matter.

They've had floating ASIs since Tasha's, but found that it was counterintuitively not resulting in more varied sets of character statblocks. Most people were putting them in the same places - implicitly, whatever they're class was good at - which is why they decided to tie them to backgrounds (albeit with more flexibility than how species-locked ASIs were handled previously).

i don't think the solution to standardised stat distribution will ever be found in fixed or floating modifiers, i think the solution will be found in creating classes that can actually benefit from different stat distributions, and giving better benefits provided from simply having the stats themselves.

if STR provides my rogue no unique benefits and the only STR weapon they can get sneak attack on is darts it a surprise you never get any STR rogues?
why would my wizard ever invest in WIS or CHA beyond the reasons anyone would invest in those stats? which are mostly minor passive benefits.
why would my fighter invests in INT they get nothing to represent their smarts besides a few extra +1s on the one INT skill they learn?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

The solution to standardized stat distributions is 3d6 down the line.

 

[SkidAce]

I'm often DM and I honestly don't care about any of that and it's also not something I think other DMs consider when I'm a player. Like, that has never come up, we just play and if you die, you die.

I don't even know their hit points most of the time.