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

[Scott Christian]

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.

You accuse me of false assumptions regarding your intent. Please read the first and last paragraph of your sentence. You can't seem to find a way to build your urchin that starts with a 16. That is my entire claim. People are not really upset that the urchin kid is less learned than the noble kid, they are upset because they can't start with a 16 in the ability they want. If we start with that premise, then debating the topic can lead to interesting insights. If people just want to find an inflammatory attack to make others feel bad about accepting these background ASIs, then there is no point in debating. It becomes a lose-lose for both sides.

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.

You are right here, you can make an acolyte using the 2014 rules with a 16 strength - provided you choose the right race. Using Tasha's, you don't need to worry about background or race.

But again, this just points out that all you want is a starting 16 in whatever ability you deem necessary - regardless of your choice of race or background. That seems to be your claim. And it is a very fair statement. I mean, why would the rulebook limit you in this option?

Here is where the other side comes in. Because character creation and development are all about choices. For some players, these choices allow them to keep certain tropes (great for world building), add a touch to their version of realism at the table, and force them to explore character paths they might not have considered before. An example would be the acolyte devoted to the god of strength which is also more charismatic than the other acolytes he's around. And that character focus, on charisma, leads them specializing in charisma-based skills, choosing influence type spells that they flavor with their charisma, and being the lead spokesperson of their group.

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.

5e took away many options that existed in 4e. Was that also bad game design?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

5e took away many options that existed in 4e. Was that also bad game design?

In some cases, yes. Some options were removed due to fear of backlash from edition warriors back then.

One option, that is now reintroduced with weapon mastery is "Damage on a Miss".
It was creating so muck backlash in the 5e playtest, so that the evocation wizard was left with an ability that did not work with a single evocation cantrip in the PHB, because all of them used attack rolls. And although the half damage on a failed save from the playtest stayed (and luckily also worked with conjurations spells), the half damage with a missed spell attack was removed last minute.

That was bad game design, but back in 2014 it was better for the health of the game to not pour oil on the fire.

 

[Remathilis]

But for this to be true someone has to actually have rolled a character this low.

The statement is there is no such thing as an unviable character, which is subtly different than it is not theoretically possible for a character to be unviable.

The question is, do you think such a character actually exists?

The chance of rolling so low you do not qualify for a single class on 3d6 (no stat higher than 8) is I believe 0.000054 or 54 characters in 1 million and that is without considering racial bonuses.

You only need four out of the six scores (SIWD) to be 8 or lower to be unplayable, Con and Cha aren't a factor. That is possible, though admittedly not overly likely, on 3d6 in order. That said, even if you manage to get a single 9, the ability to function in your class is still hampered.

But the bigger question for me is why?: why would you really want to play a character with terrible scores. Not in the "one bad score" model of weakness in an otherwise solid set, but in the "no score above a 12, multiple scores with penalties" model that 3d6 IO can produce? Is it fun when everyone else has great scores and you struggle with basic tasks? A fighter who misses most attacks, a thief who struggles with stealth and traps, a cleric with a chance to miscast their magic? A magic user who can't learn new spells? It's funny for a minute, but a whole campaign of being useless or worse, a resource drain on the party? Why?

I guess it's the same kind of challenge that playing Legend of Zelda without picking up the sword is: the thrill of playing with one hand tied behind your back. But the thing is, that is a deliberate flex, the game doesn't randomly decide if you get to use the sword or you're stuck without a weapon for most of the run.

If you want to play a suboptimal character, it should be a.) your choice, not a quirk of the dice and b.) the other players should be ok with you playing a character who isn't going to contribute as much. Neither should be randomly hoisted on a player unless they want.

 

[Parmandur]

You only need four out of the six scores (SIWD) to be 8 or lower to be unplayable, Con and Cha aren't a factor. That is possible, though admittedly not overly likely, on 3d6 in order. That said, even if you manage to get a single 9, the ability to function in your class is still hampered.

But the bigger question for me is why?: why would you really want to play a character with terrible scores. Not in the "one bad score" model of weakness in an otherwise solid set, but in the "no score above a 12, multiple scores with penalties" model that 3d6 IO can produce? Is it fun when everyone else has great scores and you struggle with basic tasks? A fighter who misses most attacks, a thief who struggles with stealth and traps, a cleric with a chance to miscast their magic? A magic user who can't learn new spells? It's funny for a minute, but a whole campaign of being useless or worse, a resource drain on the party? Why?

I guess it's the same kind of challenge that playing Legend of Zelda without picking up the sword is: the thrill of playing with one hand tied behind your back. But the thing is, that is a deliberate flex, the game doesn't randomly decide if you get to use the sword or you're stuck without a weapon for most of the run.

If you want to play a suboptimal character, it should be a.) your choice, not a quirk of the dice and b.) the other players should be ok with you playing a character who isn't going to contribute as much. Neither should be randomly hoisted on a player unless they want.

I mean, 5E really isn't that tightly balanced. You only need two decent scores to function in your Class, and I don't even mean high.

 

[OB1]

A PC who rolled 3s across the board could be a life cleric and be decently effective. Certainly enough to contribute to the party's success (instead of being someone the party just had to keep alive). And that's a pretty extreme example. A more likely 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 would make a decently effective character in several class/subclass combinations focused on support.

I think there's something pretty cool about the fact that a PC who starts well below average can still be a successful adventurer.

 

[CapnZapp]

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'm not sure that logic is sound.

Those that can't imagine playing a character even a single +1 away from the "optimal" scores will simply play the race or background or whatever that gives them that. They will never be satisfied with anything less than full unlimited freedom because it's only after they've locked in their stats they consider what options that give these scores.

Perhaps WotC has realized there actually was value in tying ability bonuses to races. When that became inconvenient backgrounds is the next best choice.

 

[Undrave]

I honestly hope that backgrounds force players to take more suboptimal-but-still-functional routes in character creation.

lol dream on.

 

[Remathilis]

A PC who rolled 3s across the board could be a life cleric and be decently effective. Certainly enough to contribute to the party's success (instead of being someone the party just had to keep alive). And that's a pretty extreme example. A more likely 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 would make a decently effective character in several class/subclass combinations focused on support.

I think there's something pretty cool about the fact that a PC who starts well below average can still be a successful adventurer.

I'm going to assume you are talking about 5e here.

Let's make your life cleric. First, I'm picking human life cleric because six +1s help.

S 8 (-1)
D 4 (-3)
C 7 (-2)
I 5 (-3)
W 9 (-1)
Ch 6 (-2)

AC 13 (scale, shield, Dex penalty)
HP 6
Init -3
Saves: Wis +1, Cha +0

Skills: history -1, religion -1, insight+1, medicine +1

Attacks: mace +1, 1d6-1. Light crossbow -1, 1d8-3
Spell atk. +1, DC 9
Prep: 1 spell + CLW and Bless (domain)

Notes: your spells prepped is Wis mod (-1) plus level (1), min 1. You will get 2 spells prepped at level 3.
Cure wounds: 1d8 (-1 Wis, +1 life domain)

Is that playable? Technically yes. You are going to struggle though. You will have very few spells prepped, your healing will be anemic in a game where healers already struggle and your attack or control magic will be very weak. You might get lucky with a sacred flame or the occasional attack roll with your mace, but otherwise your character is mechanically no better than a familiar with healing potions delivery. If that's your bliss, follow it. But that is a struggle of a character and there is a good chance you die to a good solid AOE or crit more than you live to see 9th level unless you play some low-dice rolling, high RP style of campaign.

 

[Undrave]

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).

Counterintuitively? Man, those designers are really naive if they really thought they could design out the optimizers.

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?

Exactly!

This is why I find the way 4e handled the stats for a class way better: Every member of a class had the same primary, but different builds had different secondary with their own bonuses. a INT/CON Wizard played differently from a INT/CHA Wizard or even a INT/DEX Wizard. You could build a DEX/STR Rogue if you wanted or play a more traditional DEX/CHA.

And, because INT could, by default, be used instead of DEX for AC, a STR/INT medium armour Fighter, Warlord or Ranger was perfectly fine. And you could even give that character the Ritualist feat if you wanted your character to have magical options available.

And 4e was way more willing to hand out alternate AC formulas. Warden and Barbarian could use CON or WIS for their AC, for exemple. The Dragon Sorcerer could use STR for AC!

 

[OB1]

@Remathilis don't forget as a life cleric you can take Chain Mail at 1st, so you're looking at AC 18 with a shield. Also, you're probably better off taking a +2 to Wis and +1 to Con at first level rather than variant human. Cure Wounds and Bless don't count against you're spells prepared, so you have those plus another 2 (Sanctuary and probably Detect Magic).

A difficult challenge for sure, but then I'm the type who likes playing BG3 on Honor Mode. Sure the above build would be tricky, especially at early levels, but once you start getting up around 8, between your Preserve life channel divinity and the stat bumps, you're going to be a pretty effective healer/buffer for the party.