D&D (2024) D&D species article

[SkidAce]

They chose a simpler, easier to design path. I think it's fair to see that as lazy subjectively.

Or it could be fair to see it as elegant.

 

[mellored]

That was not a problem. What they needed to do was to follow suit with A5E and added in the society where you were raised. If they would have just bumped the power level of the backgrounds a bit more to include let's say 3 tool, weapon, or armor proficiencies or hell, just give all players 2 of their choices to show how they were raised it would have been ok

They did bump the power level of the background.

 

[WanderingMystic]

They did bump the power level of the background.

Yes they did but from what we have seen they also removed the language so you only get 1 tool proficiency and no language.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, that's because they are.

Large and tiny creatures require an arrangement between player and DM on what the character's limitations are. Not just mechanically (such as carry capacity or food intake) but interacting with the world around them. A large PC might not be able to enter a building that accommodates medium sized beings, while a tiny character cannot manipulate larger objects. So the player has to accept that their character will be excluded from some things by virtue of their size. Some players will be cool with that, but I wager there are enough who wouldn't be that making those options official would be a headache and require everyone to accommodate them. (It is possible that you could have a whole party of large PCs who could not even get into a dungeon door or a whole group of tiny ones unable to move the stone blocks of a trap/puzzle, for example).

Honesty, small encompasses 2 ft and medium up to 8 ft, that's good enough for fairies though goliaths.

And large in particular is adventure breaking.

Let's take a very simple adventure hook. The dwarves have hired you to clear the kobolds out of the mines. One of the problems the dwarves are having is that some of the tunnels are kobold sized (and the kobolds like it that way). So a medium creature like a dwarf, human, or even goliath is going to have to squeeze to face the kobolds in those tunnels. It's a challenge - and the adventure is written that way. If the kobolds are playing smart they will even have a few tiny kobold-sized squeezes to keep the dwarves out entirely - but the adventure itself will be written with the limitations of medium characters in mind so there will be a way round or through.

Now let's assume an ogre PC is part of the party. They get to the first kobold sized tunnel and they are SOL. They can't go through it because that would be squeezing two sizes. There's no bypass written in because there are no large PCs by default and it wasn't written with large PCs in mind. So the ogre can't go into the kobold section of the mines. So what do they do? Play someone else? Sit outside the mine and sulk? Get shrunk down to size? Because it's not good whichever way.

I don't think Tiny is such a problem (at least not for a flier) - or rather it wouldn't be if tiny was actually defined in 5e. There's no lower bound on Tiny. This could be fixed by (as 3.5 did) including diminutive and fine as size categories below tiny, but at that point you're just kicking the can down the road.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes they did but from what we have seen they also removed the language so you only get 1 tool proficiency and no language.

It is entirely possible that language has been removed as an active mechanic...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It is entirely possible that language has been removed as an active mechanic...

Or maybe now a function of intelligence?
Both could be possible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes they did but from what we have seen they also removed the language so you only get 1 tool proficiency and no language.

Nice find. And I think it is a good change. Question is: how do languages work now. Function of int as it was in editions before? I really liked that. Or just chose 3 in the beginning? Or maybe as many as you like (which I would not like). Maybe an optional rule (which would somehow match the reality of gaming).

 

[Parmandur]

Or maybe now a function of intelligence?
Both could be possible.

It is still listed on the Aphinx of Wonder stat block (Celestial and Common), but it doesn't appear to come up in either Species or Background. Function on Intelligence as in 2E, ia certainly possible.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As soon as they've actually made good on the "promise" (note quotes) to get non-3rd/5th editions into the OGL, I sincerely hope someone comes along and makes a real 4e clone. Not a "completely rewrite 4e into a game it isn't"--an actual 4e clone. Like what PF1 was for 3.5e, light tweaks at most--at least initially.

The problem with 4e and cloning isn't that you need to clone the game. It's that you need to clone the character builder. That's IMO the single hardest part of introducing players to 4e; getting them to make their characters, and it's a minor nightmare to get pre-Essentials characters out of new players with no assistance and no character builder.

 

[CreamCloud0]

A big part of the problem is deciding that proficiencies are no longer an option.

rather than proficiencies i think a better implemntation might've been more things like innate advantage or reliable talent, a halfling might have a -2 DEX but advantage still makes it so they'll consistently have a better chance at not totally whiffing their stealth rolls, it doesn't make a clumsy halfling a master at sneaking but it'll put them ahead of a human or a dwarf in the same position, an elf having reliable talent on INT checks makes sure they'll be more likely to have a passing knowledge on any topic, they've lived long lives, they've picked up some all around knowledge of things here and there.