D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Corinnguard]

The tiefling/aasimar stuff in the 5e Manual of the Planes on Drivethru is also great, and easy to convert to heritage gifts.

The stuff being the other kinds of celestials and fiends present in its' bestiary?

 

[Corinnguard]

The Planetouched (Eodath) heritage would have six gifts then. One for each kind of Eodath.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The stuff being the other kinds of celestials and fiends present in its' bestiary?

No, they have a lot of planetouched variants in the book. At least I thought they did.

 

[Corinnguard]

It's still a good sourcebook.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But all those things they took away are just "niche", right?

A lot of them were, yes. Or poorly designed in the first place

 

[Chaosmancer]

Tasha's is a product that people had to paid for. Doesn't matter if less people have it than the PHB, it's still a regurgitation of material, not something really new.

I highly disagree that the Ranger can be called "a completely different class" between the two handbooks to begin with. Moving their spell table 1 level earlier is not a "a new class". That's a tweak. Same for the abilities they adjusted. There is nothing groundbreaking that was introduced. It's been widely jeered at how weak and completely vanilla their capstone ability is in the new handbook, and the reliance on Hunters Mark's, an already existing ability.

So, you are only looking at two of the abilities out of the seven replaced, 3 expanded, and 9 new abilities? Cool.

Yeah, some people purchased Tasha's. But not everyone. In fact, one of the people who I watched go over the live streams had to borrow a Tasha's book, because they were completely unfamiliar with it. So, it does make some sense to assume an optional book isn't something the majority. WoTC actually has the full numbers of copies of PHB compared to Tasha's sold, so they know precisely what percentage that is. And, again, hard to say they are liars, when the whole argument is based on changing their premise.

And yes, I am aware that people are fixated on the Hunter's mark ability at level 1 and level 20 and ignoring most of the rest of the class. I feel fairly confident people will be proven wrong about the ranger over time. Not that the level 20 feature will ever be good, but that most tables are going to be fine with the ranger from levels 1 to 11 that most games take place in.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Bringing things back to species, anyone else disappointed Aasinar were just MotM but more flexible version instead of more like the Tiefling with lineage options?

No, not really. I kind of like the thematic cross-purpose here, where a tiefling is born locked into a single power, where an Aasimar's power fluctuates based on their emotions, capable of falling at any time, or being consumed by wrath.

It makes them feel thematically opposed.

 

[Zuranthium]

So, you are only looking at two of the abilities out of the seven

I said more than two things, and shouldn't have to pedantically list every single thing. The "new abilities" are nothing special:

"Fighting Styles are now a type of feat", "You can now reduce Exhaustion by 1 level by taking a Short Rest", "Gain expertise in an additional skill", "increase in climbing and swimming speed"

SO interesting and class defining. It's a false claim to say the Ranger is "an entirely new class". Superficial adjustments of ribbon abilities does not qualify, nor does forcing people to build the class around an already existing spell, one that requires concentration, and adding a couple extra casts per day of it.

most tables are going to be fine with the ranger

Things were already "fine", it's not like it was unplayable. 2024 Ranger is still relatively dull and fails to bring any new mechanic or create the martial-master-of-the-wilderness feeling that many people want from the class.

 

[Maxperson]

Ability score adjustments for species aren't good. Ability scores don't enough unless they are vastly different.

A 18 Str Orc and a 14 Str Halfling don't really have that much of a different in actual strength. It only affects classes IE fun.

Instead every race should have traits that modify their formula and stats.

• STRENGTH
  • Powerful Build
• DEXTERITY
  • Naturally Stealthy
  • Nimble
  • Nimble Escape
• CONSTITUTION
  • Relentless
  • Resilience
  • Toughness
• INTELLIGENCE
  • Cunning
  • Extra Skill
• WISDOM
  • Keen Senses
• CHARISMA
  • ????

No. Not instead. In addition to. If you do it instead, you create a contradiction where your race is better at X stat than other races(special trait), yet simultaneously not better at X stat than other races(no stat bonus). You need both or a disconnect happens.

 

[Maxperson]

14 and 18 is a significant difference. Also, dice rolling for stats at character creation is bad, the player handbook should suggest every character having 80 points to work with, with only 2 stats that can go above 14 as the base, and only 1 above 16.

A 14 and 18 are not a significant difference. Not in 5e anyway. The difference is two hits every 20 swings, which for the bulk of play since most games never get to 10th level, means 2 extra hits spread over 4-5 combats. You're never even going to know they happened. The +2 to damage is likewise insignificant. 5e monsters are bloated bags of hit points, so the piddly extra damage to the hits you get during a combat aren't going to have a noticeable effect unless the DM tells you.

Stat bonuses are hugely overrated in 5e, probably for two reasons. 1) past editions. Up to 5e, the treadmill meant you needed all of those plusses just to stay even. 2) humans liking bigger numbers. Humans liking bigger numbers is the reason why the news always tells you that your chances of a heart attack have doubled, rather than tell you that your chances went from .001% to .002%.