D&D (2024) PHB Playtest Packet 7 drops Thrusday, September 7.

[humble minion]

Good riddance to bad rubbish with the size-based lockout.

Punishing species choice with less weapon options was just terrible.

I haven't really been keeping up, but is there any reason at all to having size be a thing for PCs at all any more?

We did away with species based ability modifiers, we've almost entirely done away with small creatures moving slower, now there's no restrictions on small species using heavy weapons, there's never been any penalties to grappling or shoving like in previous editions. Being small seems entirely like a positive now. You get everything a medium species does, except you can ride Medium creatures (a big deal for Drakewardens etc) and you can squeeze through smaller gaps.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Beeing small should mean something. Also they get some advantages thanks to the size .. having mounts that can be used in dungeons, fitting in openings to small for medium chars,...

And they can get stepped over by Large things, and cannot grapple Large things, while Large things can carry them around without losing any speed. It's roughly equal now.

Losing movement speed AND weapon access on top of it was just unnecessary. There are no balance worries about Small people.

 

[Nikosandros]

Well, it's a Feat: technically a Feat tax is a Feat chain where one of the Feats does nothing useful but be a Prerequisite for a further Feat.

Well, I don't know if there is an international agreed-upon definition of "feat tax", but the way I've always seen it used is for a feat that is more or less necessary to achieve "standard" functionality for a certain class, build, role, etc.

 

[Stalker0]

but the way I've always seen it used is for a feat that is more or less necessary to achieve "standard" functionality for a certain class, build, role, etc.

For a specific class I could see, but a specific build?

I mean to me that's the whole point of feats, is they give your character options to realize certain builds. That's not a tax....that's the system giving you the tools to make the character you want.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean to me that's the whole point of feats, is they give your character options to realize certain builds. That's not a tax....that's the system giving you the tools to make the character you want.

I mean, it basically is a tax if certain obvious and only balanced options are locked behind Feats.

If you can pick between one Feat that doesn't give you a meaningful advantage, just opens up an option equal to other options you already had, or a Feat that gives you a meaningful advantage, then obviously the former essentially a Feat tax.

 

[Nikosandros]

For a specific class I could see, but a specific build?

I mean to me that's the whole point of feats, is they give your character options to realize certain builds. That's not a tax....that's the system giving you the tools to make the character you want.

Look, I'm not here to debate the exact meaning, just substitute sub-class for build, if you prefer. The point was just that the use I've seen is not (solely) feat chains, but also single feats that are necessary for something that the person calling it a "tax" thinks that instead should just came with the choice of class, subclass, etc.

 

[Parmandur]

I haven't really been keeping up, but is there any reason at all to having size be a thing for PCs at all any more?

We did away with species based ability modifiers, we've almost entirely done away with small creatures moving slower, now there's no restrictions on small species using heavy weapons, there's never been any penalties to grappling or shoving like in previous editions. Being small seems entirely like a positive now. You get everything a medium species does, except you can ride Medium creatures (a big deal for Drakewardens etc) and you can squeeze through smaller gaps.

Carrying capacity.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, I don't know if there is an international agreed-upon definition of "feat tax", but the way I've always seen it used is for a feat that is more or less necessary to achieve "standard" functionality for a certain class, build, role, etc.

Originally, it referred to certain Feat chains in 3E where the Feat needed to he taken, but the only thing it did was open the possibility of another Feat being available at Level 8. Hence taking the Feat was purely a tax that needed to be paid amd provided nothing else.

Making a Feat give a certain ability is just what a Feat is, it's not a "tax." An ability has a certain value (equivalence to an ASI), so to get it you use that resource. That's a transaction, not a tax like people talked about in 3.x.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Beeing small should mean something.

Problem is, it feels like they installed the restrictions assuming it was still 3x where you got bonuses to attack and AC for being Small instead of 5e where it is all bad.

Also they get some advantages thanks to the size .. having mounts that can be used in dungeons, fitting in openings to small for medium chars,...

These aren't even approaching not having weapon variety, including disallowing the entire polearm group. You get to bring an extra thing for the DM to kill into dungeons and can split the party? Not really advantages.

 

[Nikosandros]

Originally, it referred to certain Feat chains in 3E where the Feat needed to he taken, but the only thing it did was open the possibility of another Feat being available at Level 8. Hence taking the Feat was purely a tax that needed to be paid amd provided nothing else.

Making a Feat give a certain ability is just what a Feat is, it's not a "tax." An ability has a certain value (equivalence to an ASI), so to get it you use that resource. That's a transaction, not a tax like people talked about in 3.x.

I've seen many times the other use, where a single feat is still necessary. However, knowing that this conversation would go on and on and on, I won't post anymore about this issue.