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

[Remathilis]

You're still forgetting about your bonus spells which don't count against the number you can prepare. So again, at 1st level, that's Cure Wounds and Bless always on, plus one more spell. .

I didn't forget bonus spells. They are listed right there.

 

[Undrave]

Totally get that it's not your cuppa, but not sure why this style would be any more or less superior than any other style. It's all about what the table finds fun. The point is, it is a build that is viable, and one that will lead to a unique story.

Characters take too long to build to waste my time on a guy who will die to a sneeze.

 

[Epic Meepo]

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.

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.

If you'd like to debate players who are upset about not starting with a 16 Intelligence, please reply to one of those players instead replying to me and putting words in my mouth.

As it so happens, I'm a DM. The implication that I'm motivated by some sort of player entitlement is misplaced, because I'm not a player. I just happen to think it's asinine that an update to an existing game removes some restrictions on character concepts only to add entirely new restrictions somewhere else. That's one step forward and two steps back.

And for the record, if I were a player in a system with 2024-style ability score restrictions, I would accept it if the noble and the urchin-equivalent were both capped at 15 Intelligence instead of 16 Intelligence, even if I was playing one of those characters. I care about those two particular characters having the same starting limit, even if that means a lower score for my character.

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

If the goal of 5e was to create an updated version of 4e, then yes, arbitrarily taking away options that were available in 4e was clearly bad game design.

 

[OB1]

I didn't forget bonus spells. They are listed right there.

Missed that in your post, my mistake.

And look, I agree that the intent of the game is that PCs are better than you're average Joe, and that at baseline, the game works better with stats that look like the standard array. And I certainly wouldn't force a player or a group to go with it. My only argument is that such a style of play is viable, creates a different type of story, and is a unique challenge (that some groups will find fun, like BG3 Honor Mode, and some won't).

For my games, I give players the choice between standard array and point buy, 4d6 drop lowest and arrange, or 5d6 drop 2 lowest in order. I've only DMd 5e for one slightly below average PC (highest stat at 1st level was 14, and had 2 negatives), and it didn't disrupt play at all.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Characters take too long to build to waste my time on a guy who will die to a sneeze.

This one of the benefits of OSR games. You can build and play straight off, with time to make a back up or two in case bad stuff happens.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Missed that in your post, my mistake.

And look, I agree that the intent of the game is that PCs are better than you're average Joe, and that at baseline, the game works better with stats that look like the standard array. And I certainly wouldn't force a player or a group to go with it. My only argument is that such a style of play is viable, creates a different type of story, and is a unique challenge (that some groups will find fun, like BG3 Honor Mode, and some won't).

For my games, I give players the choice between standard array and point buy, 4d6 drop lowest and arrange, or 5d6 drop 2 lowest in order. I've only DMd 5e for one slightly below average PC (highest stat at 1st level was 14, and had 2 negatives), and it didn't disrupt play at all.

I've been tinkering with a new idea I read about recently. 5d6 drop two for one stat, 4d6 drop 1 for two stats, 3d6 for the other three. Arrange as desired. My new players seem enthused about it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Keep in mind my point such a character is more a liability than a boon. If your PC is going to spend most combats on the floor bleeding out, soaking up the actions and healing that could be used to support characters who act actually fighting the monsters, I question why that character is there. The character OB1 and I discussed in 5e is minimally viable as a healbot, but isn't contributing meaningfully beyond that. If your joy is to be a walking, talking potion of healing, that's fine. But don't be too surprised if the other players stop wasting their actions to stabilize you after the 30th time you go down in round one to a fireball or critical hit.

Look, I can't convince you that playing a character with all 3s isn't possible. I'm saying though it's not the enjoyable experience people who advocate for rolled scores say it is. If it was, Gary wouldn't have wasted space creating 12 alternative ways to generate ability scores in the DMG and UA, one of which becoming the default method in all subsequent versions of rolling (4d6).

All I'm saying is if you play a character that sucks and can't contribute meaningfully, don't be surprised if I don't waste precious resources to save them.

I also want to briefly hit this from the other side. A game I am currently in we all rolled for stats, and we all rolled GODLIKE stats. After the +2/+1 my character is sitting at a 16, 16, 16, 13, 19, 12 and I know another party member started with at least two 18's before the mods, and I think currently has two 20's.

We barely notice.

Legitimately, we are not running around like gods among men. I've occasionally referenced my character's unusually high strength for a cleric, and I've taken advantage of having a decent dex score since I'm playing a trickery cleric and ended up defaulting into being the rogue of the group, but none of us feel we aren't challenged or that the game is too easy. Heck, we nearly TPK'd in our last fight.

I know people are going to claim that this means we wouldn't notice the low scores either, but that's actually wrong. I've played in games with someone who decided to play with consistently low stats... and we all noticed it. We were very aware that they just had a worse chance of success than most of the rest of the party. They did consistently fall short, their spells did consistently fail to land. In another game we just had our sorcerer one-shot because at level 3 they have only 14 hp. They rolled a crit to avoid being kidnapped and warned us of an ambush, then was instantly dropped before they could do anything else. No one else in the party is that fragile, including the wizard.

I know it seems counter-intuitive to people. But a 16 seems to be the pivot point in the math. I've seen multiple characters who had multiple scores above that number, and other than the occasional "oh, the wizard broke down the door... neat" it is hardly noticeable. And I have seen multiple characters without a 16 in any score, struggle and grasp at straws to not burden the party. Yes, it is a one point difference, but it seems to actually matter to the math of the game. Maybe it is just my games, maybe it is just my sample size, but it does seem to actually make a significant difference. And a character with no score higher than 10? No one is interested.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Missed that in your post, my mistake.

And look, I agree that the intent of the game is that PCs are better than you're average Joe, and that at baseline, the game works better with stats that look like the standard array. And I certainly wouldn't force a player or a group to go with it. My only argument is that such a style of play is viable, creates a different type of story, and is a unique challenge (that some groups will find fun, like BG3 Honor Mode, and some won't).

For my games, I give players the choice between standard array and point buy, 4d6 drop lowest and arrange, or 5d6 drop 2 lowest in order. I've only DMd 5e for one slightly below average PC (highest stat at 1st level was 14, and had 2 negatives), and it didn't disrupt play at all.

Would you accept that, since it is very group dependent, very much like an extreme flex in a video game where you are purposefully making things harder on yourself... that the base game should instead cater more to the group that wants a normal, non-honor mode experience?

Like, if you want to play that way, you can play that way. IF a player came to me and said "I want to roll a 1d12 for each of my stats so I have all low numbers"... well, I'd tell them I think it is a bad idea, and that the party might get frustrated with them if they can't contribute, but I wouldn't stop them. You are free to choose that style if you want.

But the opposite rarely seems to be true. If I want to play a merchant fighter who starts with a 16 strength and a 16 constitution, despite the fact that the merchant background only allows INT, Cha, and Wis bonuses... that isn't being respected. I'm being told I am wrong, that I'm just a power-gamer, that I'm obsessed with the number 16, that I'm whining instead of accepting that my choices have consequences.

No one has ever stated that you can't choose to have low stats. All that has ever been said is that the rest of us don't want that. Play DnD on Extreme Honor Mode if that is your bliss. But let us play the way we want to as well. Stop looking down on us because we are frustrated that our character concepts keep getting limited by mechanics we don't really need.

 

[OB1]

@Chaosmancer I do agree that it's group dependent and that the game should cater to what the typical player wants, and that the base game should be forgiving, so that newer players don't get frustrated with a FromSoft type of experience.

That said, the difference between +2 and +3 at level 1 is nearly insignificant to the baseline game, and I'm fine with the idea that choices mater with backgrounds, species and classes, and that not every potential concept can be actualized in the most optimal way at 1st level.

The BG3 honor mode comparison is for starting with scores far below a standard array with no background bonus to your main stat. In fact, I'd argue that the math of 5e is balanced around only having a +2 to your main stat (available via standard array) at 1st level, otherwise, they would have allowed a 16 for the highest and not given a +2 bonus from background (or species in 14).

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm not referring to Ad&d, I mean with 5e.

Sure. But what he said is largely edition agnostic:

"[D&D's] premise is that each player character is above average — at least in some respects — and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character’s survival to be exceptional. As [the game] is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession they desire. [M]arginal characters tend to [...] discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can’t or won’t identify with."

I think that sentiment very easily fits into 5e D&D (and both 3e and 4e). Indeed, I think it is quite a modern take.

It certainly flies in the face of the 2e AD&D PHB telling people the default method is 3d6 straight with no adjustments, but also we should use AD&D's stat tables. Nevermind that the 2e AD&D DMG spends all of Chapter 1 telling DMs that they need to look out for and deal with "too-powerful characters" and that hopeless characters don't exist and are just "a roleplaying challenge." As I recall the suggestion for dealing with a player that wants to play a ranger but didn't roll the attributes for it is literally, "Don't increase his stats to allow him to be a ranger. That wouldn't be fair to people that did roll well. Instead, tell the player to play a fighter and roleplay them as an aspiring ranger that's allergic to trees." Cripes. They might as well call the chapter, "Dungeon Master, Fun Police." I don't know what happened between 1978 and 1989, but there are a lot of very bizarre choices in those 2e books.