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

[CapnZapp]

To be fair, I think @Horwath is worried about the same thing that others used to complain about - to get to the coveted 16 at first level, you must play this (fill the blank) race. There were many, and I mean many, complaints about that. Personally, it never bothered me because not having a 16 never bothered me. But for many, it bothered them a lot!

I quite liked the idea you had to play an Elf (or whatever) to reach the very top echelons of Intelligence.

Allowing characters of every race to be equally good at everything means something got lost, in my opinion.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Not sure if this is applicable, but one rule from 2014 I did not like was the way you could pick a skill you knew you would get anyway, in order to turn that pick into "anything I want".

It created a game where there ostensibly was a limitation, but where system mastery let you circumvent said limitation in a trivial and costless way.

i feel like a better more apt solution to that would've been to instead let any 'double proficiencies' stack into expertise, i agree turning it into a floating skill proficiency to put anywhere doesn't really make a ton of sense, the other less exciting choice is just saying to reassign to another one of your class proficiencies.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are 16 backgrounds. It would be interesting if there is at least one for each of the 20 possible combinations.

Are you saying four backgrounds offer two alternatives? (12 single-combo backgrounds + 4 dual-combo ones = 20 combos)

Maybe I just don't follow.

 

[Staffan]

While I get why they moved custom backgrounds to the DMG (for ease of onboarding new players by providing some inspiration and guidance), I'll definitely be making custom backgrounds the default for my games, adding to my list of house rules from UA changes that didn't make it into the final version but that I think are great.

That said, I think a better implementation for the PHB would have been getting a +1 in your primary stat from class, and then have the background give you either +2 or +1/+1 chosen from three possibilities in the background. I may use that for new players in my games.

That's sort of what 13th Age does, except with race/species instead of background. Most races gives a +2 bonus to one of two stats, and so do most classes (except Wizard, which only gives Int IIRC), but you can't put them in the same stat. I like this because it means you can be guaranteed a Dex bonus as a Rogue, but still gives different races different tendencies with their stats.

 

[CapnZapp]

A bunch of Feats aren't "general purpose" - i.e. they're either bad or only suitable for some characters. Some may even be literally useless - "lightly armoured" is useless to what, 9 out of 12 classes? 10 out of 12? If a Background has that, few will want it.

Wouldn't something like this be very desirable to the few classes that get no armor proficiences?

Much like how Mountain Dwarf Wizard was a thing back in 2014?

More generally, you can't evaluate an option based on its popularity or average value.

Every minmaxer knows that the cost of an option must be set based upon the optimal use case!
(So so so many developers that fail to realize this sigh)

(Even if a feat or whatever is only useful to one character out of a thousand, it's still overpowered if it is overpowered for that character.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

I quite liked the idea you had to play an Elf (or whatever) to reach the very top echelons of Intelligence.

Allowing characters of every race to be equally good at everything means something got lost, in my opinion.

i strongly agree with the latter half of this statement, i less agree with the first half that it should be in the form of directly impacting your base stats however.

things more like elves getting advantage when using an INT skill rather than the flat +2 INT still lets them be these very inteligent learned species but without a direct mechanical advantage at performing the abilities of certain classes.

 

[CapnZapp]

It would be kind of weird if the Player's Handbook content in Beyond includes more options than the physical Player's Handbook. If anything, I'd be a bit annoyed if there were Beyond-exclusive Player's Handbook options that aren't in my hard copy of the book.

This would both surprise and not surprise me.

Since we all agree that the future of everything is the subscription model, where you lose access to your stuff when you stop paying monthly, it wouldn't surprise me.

But since WotC only recently put their foot in their mouth (re OGL) I would be surprised if the executive decision was to introduce this concept now

 

[CapnZapp]

But Str/Int/Cha?

Those three are definitely the ones I'd associate with Nobles.

At least male nobles usually were martially trained, hence the Str.
Nobles were generally far better educated than others except priests, hence the Int.
And while I'm sure there were lots of dull RL noblemen, the D&D Noble is a leader, hence the Cha.

Trying to align Backgrounds with in-game build choices, that way lies insanity. I can't fault WotC for not even trying. The backgrounds get stats that "makes sense", not the stats that line up with class needs.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't get it. I mean, I do get it, but the reasons almost certainly aren't better gameplay.

Counterpoint: chargen with no restrictions is inherently less interesting than chargen with restrictions. Clarification: talking arbitrary restrictions here.

There is value in having to weigh some options against others. Having to weigh "I really don't want to play an Elf, but I do want to play a Wizard" added value to the game in my meaning. Either you compromised with the first or you compromised with the second. The end results (like Elf Wizard, Orc Wizard or Elf Ranger) embodied this give and take.

I expect the new Backgrounds to result in the same.

Sure there were people bitching about the former and I'm sure there will be bitching about the latter too.

But that's not a sufficient reason to abandon the idea.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, this is what I see happening, too. It's going to be the exact same problem that the Custom Lineage rules had: it's just always optimal to ignore the built-in design. I'm reminded of the Soren Johnson/Sid Meier quote: "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game."

Stats are just too important. Players used to look at race as primarily a bag of stats, and now they've replaced backgrounds with a bag of stats.

I expect that everyone will just use "Custom Background" and they will now treat it as exactly what @Horwath said. Like I entirely agree with the sentiment that backgrounds should narrow your focus and should make sense. But from my experience that just isn't how players think. Backgrounds in 5e14 were absolutely undercooked, but I don't think this design is an improvement. There would need to be dozens of backgrounds that overlap and provide real choice for this design to just not be ignored.

The fact Custom Background was right there in the PHB basically meant all those pages were wasted IMO.

At least now (if it is true the Custom Background rule will be in the DMG) there will be tables where the DM upholds the implied rule you need to choose out of a given selection. Which pretty much is needed or the pages are wasted on everybody except those who need examples for inspiration.