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

[Scott Christian]

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.

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.

That is your claim then: All characters should start with the same score in their primary ability. (Quick question, should their starting secondary ability be the same too?) It's a good claim. I don't see why you care though if you are only DMing. Would it still bother you if none of your players cared?

And, since we're on the record here, please understand I hold no grudge or think it is entitled to start with a 16. I think it is a fine debate point. I think it is a fair question. I think it holds merit and can easily be argued for.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@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).

Right, you completely agree it is group dependent... as long as you can also say that it doesn't matter, we are wrong, and your way is the way it should be.

Edit: Because, to be clear, in my post I literally stated that the difference has been notable in my games. Actually made an impact. Is not "nearly insignificant". But you are going to keep insisting that I am wrong, and that you are right.

 

[Epic Meepo]

That is your claim then: All characters should start with the same score in their primary ability. (Quick question, should their starting secondary ability be the same too?) It's a good claim. I don't see why you care though if you are only DMing. Would it still bother you if none of your players cared?

And, since we're on the record here, please understand I hold no grudge or think it is entitled to start with a 16. I think it is a fine debate point. I think it is a fair question. I think it holds merit and can easily be argued for.

Interesting questions.

For background, I’m the sort of DM who believes randomness should occur during play, not during character creation. I don’t like randomly generated ability scores or hit points, because they can have an outsized impact on the game, making in-game rolls less dramatic in comparison.

When I’m sticking close to the standard 5e rules, I usually allow point buy, since some players appreciate the extra custimization. Ideally, I would instead use a fixed stat array or two, because it speeds things up, and because most point buy characters end up with similar stat arrays anyway.

Given my preference for faster, less-variable stat generation, I do believe all characters should have the option of starting with the same highest score. They should also have the the option of having a few moderately-high scores instead of one maxed-out score, if they so choose.

I care about this while I’m DMing because I find running a game more interesting when optimizers are given a long list of optimized builds to choose from. I don’t want to see the same two or three cookie-cutter builds popping up every time I start a new campaign or run a new one-shot.

I liked “making backgrounds matter” in the playtest when custom backgrounds were the default, because optimizers weren’t locked into certain combos. They could fine-tune their mechanics and flavor it however they wanted, freeing them up to create interesting mechanic-agnostic backstories.

Without custom backgrounds in the default rules, optimal class/background combos are going to see more play than other builds. I'm going to start seeing optimizers bringing the same two or three "justify-my-combo" backstories to the table, making things more homogenous and predictable.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Absolutely 100%.

I have a soft spot for 2nd edition rules, but 2nd edition advice is absolutely atrocious. The DMG feels like it was written by someone who held an active grudge against their players. The vast majority of what made 2e playable is the universal house rules nearly everyone used (4d6, Max HP at level 1, automatic spells learned on level up) so much so that Baldur's Gate 1 and on incorporated them.

 

[OB1]

Right, you completely agree it is group dependent... as long as you can also say that it doesn't matter, we are wrong, and your way is the way it should be.

Edit: Because, to be clear, in my post I literally stated that the difference has been notable in my games. Actually made an impact. Is not "nearly insignificant". But you are going to keep insisting that I am wrong, and that you are right.

Maybe I'm confused about what you are arguing.

I responded that playing an 'Honor Mode' type game isn't typical and doesn't follow the baseline assumptions of the game. I then went on to clarify that having 1 (or many) players starting with a +2 doesn't break game math in a significant way. Perhaps I should have clarified that I meant only if you are following the baseline assumptions of encounter/adventure day guidelines and that by 'significant', I meant the chances of TPK/Mission Failure due to the difference in stats. That's not to say that there is no difference (ie, PCs may end the day with fewer HP, Hit Die, and spell slots if they start with a +2 main stat instead of a +3) but that the difference doesn't effect the ability to survive the adventuring day and complete the party's objectives by the written encounter/adventuring day guidelines.

Honest curiosity, what is it that you saw being a notable difference in your games when this occurred? Were you seeing more mission failures or TPKs? If so, were you following the baseline assumptions on the DM side?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Maybe I'm confused about what you are arguing.

I responded that playing an 'Honor Mode' type game isn't typical and doesn't follow the baseline assumptions of the game. I then went on to clarify that having 1 (or many) players starting with a +2 doesn't break game math in a significant way. Perhaps I should have clarified that I meant only if you are following the baseline assumptions of encounter/adventure day guidelines and that by 'significant', I meant the chances of TPK/Mission Failure due to the difference in stats. That's not to say that there is no difference (ie, PCs may end the day with fewer HP, Hit Die, and spell slots if they start with a +2 main stat instead of a +3) but that the difference doesn't effect the ability to survive the adventuring day and complete the party's objectives by the written encounter/adventuring day guidelines.

Honest curiosity, what is it that you saw being a notable difference in your games when this occurred? Were you seeing more mission failures or TPKs? If so, were you following the baseline assumptions on the DM side?

Honestly? The biggest thing I am arguing for is to have people stop dismissing our concerns about this. You don't have to argue in favor of changing back, you can say it is something that you don't care about for your games, but every time this discussion comes up, the same arguments get leveraged against people who are frustrated by this.

As for the differences I noticed? Luckily I have not noticed TPKs, because it is usually a single player and not the entire group who are 15 or lower in their prime stat. Instead, I notice that player missing more often, their spells landing less often, and them failing at their primary skills more often. This does drag on the other party members, making things more likely to fail.

As for the baseline DM assumptions, I know I don't always keep to the "proper" number of combats, sometimes I have more sometimes less. I also eyeball encounter balance more, I don't typically calculate it out and I am more likely to use reskinned, or homebrewed monsters to keep people on their toes. I am also generally a bit more generous with magical gear, and have bumped up the power of various spells or abilities. I also tend to have people roll or take the higher on HP to give people a little more leeway with their characters. I also use feats.

I know my games are a little higher powered on both sides of the table than normal.

 

[Belen]

Honestly? The biggest thing I am arguing for is to have people stop dismissing our concerns about this. You don't have to argue in favor of changing back, you can say it is something that you don't care about for your games, but every time this discussion comes up, the same arguments get leveraged against people who are frustrated by this.

Your concerns are completely valid. The vast majority of players will have a pavlovan reaction to their stats.

They can argue that a 16 does not matter all day long. It matters because it makes players feel good.

 

[WanderingMystic]

So I personally don't mind because I will get to level 4 in a few games since they are now recommending to start at level 3 for experienced players. The fact that fears now give you a +1 to a stat means that it should be easy for me to find a feat that my character would want with a +1 to my primary stat.

While I do not think that high stars are a necessity I do agree that the +3 seems to be the breaking point between mostly hitting and mostly missing in the levels between 3-11. By 12 it feels like you need a +4 to keep up.

 

[Belen]

So I personally don't mind because I will get to level 4 in a few games since they are now recommending to start at level 3 for experienced players. The fact that fears now give you a +1 to a stat means that it should be easy for me to find a feat that my character would want with a +1 to my primary stat.

While I do not think that high stars are a necessity I do agree that the +3 seems to be the breaking point between mostly hitting and mostly missing in the levels between 3-11. By 12 it feels like you need a +4 to keep up.

They are recommending you start at level 3? Yuck.

 

[WanderingMystic]

They are recommending you start at level 3? Yuck.

There is a part in character creation that says that if you are experienced players it might be better to just start at lvl 3 so you can jump right in to where play starts to get fun.

Lvl 1 and 2 were only supposed to last for 1 maybe 2 gaming sessions each and are really just there so that you can get a feel for the basics of your class.