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

[mellored]

I thought levels 1 and 2 were kept as they were in 5.0 because experienced players wanted them, not in spite of them.

There are plenty of people who said "I don't want to wait 3 levels for my character concept to come online".

But you also don't want new players having to pick from 10 species * 16 background * 12 classes * 4 subclass = 7,680 different combinations.

And that doesn't count spells or fighting styles or weapon mastery...

Better to move a few choices up a few levels to not be quite as overwhelming.

Also, it helps balance multi-classing.

Anyways. It's optional. You can more easily start where you want to start.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Whether or not that PC is a liability is a matter of opinion. And if you are playing in a game where no evil characters are allowed, letting someone die when you could save them isn't on the table.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I've listed that or something really close to that as my method several times in various threads. The differences are that players place their stats before rolling, so the player who wanted to play a fighter might assign 5d6-2L to str and con, 4d6-L to dex and cha, and 3d6 to int and wis. Then they would roll. Since I really want them to be able to play the class they desire and bad luck does happen, at the end they can swap any two numbers.

 

[Maxperson]

They are recommending you start at level 3? Yuck.

In 5e level 3 is actually level 1. That's the level when you finally get all the abilities you would have had at level 1 in other editions. I've been starting my players off at level 3 since the second campaign.

 

[mellored]

I've played games where my PC was intentionally nearly useless. The 6 year old child of a hero with a few cantips who didn't know any better. Destined to become great one day, and the forces of evil where trying to kill me before I grew up, I was the McGuffin. The group was defending me.

Basically baby yoda, but before the show came out.

Or maybe Frodo.

The DM basically ignored my existence when encounter building, as I could be as much of a liability as an asset.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've played games where my PC was intentionally nearly useless. The 6 year old child of a hero with a few cantips who didn't know any better. Destined to become great one day, and the forces of evil where trying to kill me before I grew up, I was the McGuffin. The group was defending me.

Basically baby yoda, but before the show came out.

Or maybe Frodo.

The DM basically ignored my existence when encounter building, as I could be as much of a liability as an asset.

I will also add, I've got a fellow player in a game doing something similar... and I have been very tempted more than once to abandon their character. They are actually far more effective in combat if they want to be, but they choose not to be, and they often choose to act in ways that are detrimental to the party's success.

I try to be supportive of what they want to do, but when we are fighting for the sake of a nation, and then we have the child preventing our ability to escape the BBEG and avoid a TPK... I get aggravated (they are swapping to a different character soon.)

 

[mellored]

I will also add, I've got a fellow player in a game doing something similar... and I have been very tempted more than once to abandon their character. They are actually far more effective in combat if they want to be, but they choose not to be, and they often choose to act in ways that are detrimental to the party's success.

I try to be supportive of what they want to do, but when we are fighting for the sake of a nation, and then we have the child preventing our ability to escape the BBEG and avoid a TPK... I get aggravated (they are swapping to a different character soon.)

RPing a young person i would listen to my elders. If they said run, I would run.

And I played tactically to support my party, with a decent to-hit and DC, just minimal damage and low HP. I had thunder wave in case anyone got close, which also alerted the party.

But mostly the BBEG was after me. I was the one at risk of being killed. The rest of the party, and towns, where mostly ignored, and the party got a lot of opportunity attacks, used Sentinel and control spells to keep enemies away from me. They didn't mind.

 

[Epic Meepo]

RPing a young person i would listen to my elders. If they said run, I would run.

And I played tactically to support my party, with a decent to-hit and DC, just minimal damage and low HP. I had thunder wave in case anyone got close, which also alerted the party.

But mostly the BBEG was after me. I was the one at risk of being killed. The rest of the party, and towns, where mostly ignored, and the party got a lot of opportunity attacks, used Sentinel and control spells to keep enemies away from me. They didn't mind.

I think the last sentence in the above quote is the most important one. If the group doesn't mind when one player's character is in need of constant protection (or is evil, or is comedic relief, or is a thief pilfering from everyone's backpacks, etc.), then it's all good.

Conversely, if the group wants to tell a story about a bunch of highly-competent, team-oriented adventurers who've recruited other highly-competent, team-oriented adventurers as their companions, players who aren't interested in that dynamic should find another group.

It all depends upon group expectations. DMs and players should decide what party make-up makes sense on a table-by-table basis. Ideally, no one will end up in a game where they can't think of any realistic, in-universe reason why their character would choose to travel with another PC.

 

[Maxperson]

RPing a young person i would listen to my elders. If they said run, I would run.

RPing a young person I would NOT listen to my elders. I would know better, even when I didn't, which would be most of the time. At inns I would go spend time in my room alone, hiring a bard to play loud music...

 

[MoonSong]

Re: Everybody starting with 16 int her prime stat.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't do optimization. I don't care about the difference between a 15 and a 16. I don't let "suboptimal" get in the way of a character concept. In fact I might seek suboptimal as part of the concept. I don't care for enabling minmax or charop. I don't even like these forms of play. Yet, I stand with most of the people here who don't like this change and come from the charop side of play.

My main argument is, if something can't be used for charop, it can't be used for meaningful creative expression either. That is even if we could weed out all charop potential, we shouldn't because we'd lose all potential for customization in the process. I find that unacceptable.

I like having control over my character. Yes, floating bonuses can be used for charop, but they can also be used for choosing less optimal or even entirely bad, and that choice is mostly invisible. Having them coupled to backgrounds, means there are optimal backgrounds for each class, and background choice is very visible, which means that well-meaning optimizers -and controlling optimizers- will easily have a reason to pester me for my character choices. And I have been pestered by both fellow players and DMs over my choices in the past. It has even costed me games because how I dare choosing a suboptimal class/race combo with a suboptimal weapon choice that I'm not proficient with and choosing to not use floating bonuses to patch the choice but instead to focus on somthing else?