D&D 5E (2024) Rate D&D 2024

[Rainbow Scissors]

Mind if I ask you to expand upon "Moving ability score improvements to background is something that I find to be weird"?

I do like 5.5E/2024 more than you appear to. I gave it an 8, but one of my least favorite changes were to the racial ability score bonuses. I preferred the bonuses as they were before. I'm aware of the public discourse surrounding that piece and the previous way of referring to different playable creatures as races, and I can appreciate how some people felt about that, but I do feel like it continues to make more sense for a Goliath to receive a +2 bonus to STR and a +1 bonus to CON than the new way.

I feel like there are clear attempts to reach out to different groups in the new version, but in some cases the conscientiousness confused some things (like ability score bonuses) and creatively watered some things down (some of the art) as well.

Very touchy subjects, I realize.

According to some people, the change was meant to make the game feel more inclusive. I do not know. I can only speak for myself and comment on what my usual group's thoughts have been. Myself and a few of the people in the usual group are within demographics and identities that the changes were meant to make feel more welcome. Maybe, for some people, it had that effect. If so, I think that is great. For me, that change did nothing to make me feel like D&D was somehow more welcoming to me or was a better game because of the changes.

According to some other people, the change was meant to give more creative freedom. But do I really have more creative freedom by moving a limitation from one piece of character creation while simultaneously adding the same exact limitation to a different piece of character creation? For me personally, no.

If anything, I feel that backgrounds are worse now than they were before. I liked that the old versions often had a narrative element that could interact with other pillars of play. Now, they have become race/species features in background's clothing, plus a feat. I'm happy for the improvements to feats overall, and it is nice to get another choice of one, but the end results for backgrounds are that they are simply less interesting. For race/species, do I feel that the game is less "problematic" or whatever because I get a +2 from being a farmer instead of from being a dwarf? No, so, what was the point?

I would have preferred something like what 4E did: Give each race/species one set bonus, and then allow floating choice for the other bonus. I feel that is a reasonable middle ground between giving creative freedom and having race/species actually mean something.

I have seen other people suggest getting part of your bonus from race/species and part of it from background. I would be okay with that. Maybe ever combine both ideas. From your race/species, you get one set bonus and one floating one that allows you to pick between two abilities. Then, from your background, you get a bonus that allows you to pick from a few abilities.

So, a dwarf might have +1 Con; +1 to your choice of either STR or WIS (plus some special racial ability)
The farmer background would give +1 to your choice of STR or CON (plus whatever narrative ability or whatever)
A Level 1 Dwarf Farmer could then possibly be any combination of those adjustments

On top of that, if you want me to have more feats then just give me more opportunities to choose a feat and no longer have feats and ability score increases be in the same bucket of character advancement pieces.

 

[kermit4karate]

According to some people, the change was meant to make the game feel more inclusive. I do not know. I can only speak for myself and comment on what my usual group's thoughts have been. Myself and a few of the people in the usual group are within demographics and identities that the changes were meant to make feel more welcome. Maybe, for some people, it had that effect. If so, I think that is great. For me, that change did nothing to make me feel like D&D was somehow more welcoming to me or was a better game because of the changes.

According to some other people, the change was meant to give more creative freedom. But do I really have more creative freedom by moving a limitation from one piece of character creation while simultaneously adding the same exact limitation to a different piece of character creation? For me personally, no.

If anything, I feel that backgrounds are worse now than they were before. I liked that the old versions often had a narrative element that could interact with other pillars of play. Now, they have become race/species features in background's clothing, plus a feat. I'm happy for the improvements to feats overall, and it is nice to get another choice of one, but the end results for backgrounds are that they are simply less interesting. For race/species, do I feel that the game is less "problematic" or whatever because I get a +2 from being a farmer instead of from being a dwarf? No, so, what was the point?

I would have preferred something like what 4E did: Give each race/species one set bonus, and then allow floating choice for the other bonus. I feel that is a reasonable middle ground between giving creative freedom and having race/species actually mean something.

I have seen other people suggest getting part of your bonus from race/species and part of it from background. I would be okay with that. Maybe ever combine both ideas. From your race/species, you get one set bonus and one floating one that allows you to pick between two abilities. Then, from your background, you get a bonus that allows you to pick from a few abilities.

So, a dwarf might have +1 Con; +1 to your choice of either STR or WIS (plus some special racial ability)
The farmer background would give +1 to your choice of STR or CON (plus whatever narrative ability or whatever)
A Level 1 Dwarf Farmer could then possibly be any combination of those adjustments

On top of that, if you want me to have more feats then just give me more opportunities to choose a feat and no longer have feats and ability score increases be in the same bucket of character advancement pieces.

What a thoughtful response. Thank you!

If it'd been up to me...I would have been reluctant to add much complexity. I would have renamed "race" to "species," because species is simply a more accurate term, but would have left the racial ability score bonuses as they had been, because in point of (fictional) fact Goliaths are almost always larger and stronger than Goblins. It is what it is, even in a world of fantasy.

Honestly, though, I don't believe there was a correct answer here. I think that D&D was paying a cultural price for what had been perceived of as decades of insensitivity (which I don't believe were that but rather were signs of the times), and society wanted its pound of flesh.

That said, the company flubbed their response a few times, which only served to fan the flames and incense people. Again, though, could they have handled things differently and appeased everyone? No, I really don't think so. For every "correct" answer someone could say they could have done, I don't believe it would have satisfied many people.

 

[Lazybones]

I was one of those folks who didn't like the shift away from racial stat boosts, at first. I didn't like the optional flexibility rule when it came out in Tasha's, and had to be convinced by my players to allow it in my most recent 2014 game. I felt the same way that others have posted here, that it seemed to rob the races of their distinctiveness. And at most we're talking about a +1/-1 change to a modifier, which hardly breaks the game.

But now that I've had a chance to think about it a bit more, I see where they're coming from and endorse the change. I was never the target audience for these kinds of changes; I'm an older (50s) white male, who started D&D when it was an almost 100% white and male game (at least in my area). In recent years I have seen a massive increase in diversity amongst the player base, including a large influx of female players, more ethnic diversity, and a very significant LGBTQ+ component. I followed the pushback threads here where folks were highly critical of how orcs, drow, and other "bad" races were presented in 2024 (apparently the "vaquero"-style orcs pictured in the new PHB offended a lot of folks somehow?), but I have come around to the view that a more inclusive presentation is good for the hobby. And tying innate abilities/traits/behaviors to one's "race," like it or not, is something that holds a very loaded meaning for a lot of people in both history and in contemporary society.

 

[FrogReaver]

they show 54k reviews for the 2014 PHB, and I doubt that is outselling the 2024 one (and the other 2024 core books)

And that time horizon could be product dependent.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I gave it a 9. There are a few changes I don't care for, but overall I like many of the improvements that the revision brought to the game. I'd give the 2014 version a 7.5-8 rating.

 

[cbwjm]

When it comes to stat adjustments, I was fine with them being tied to race, but once they became floating I happily adapted that (though felt that each race needed to have the same stat adjustments). I feel that tying the stat adjustments to background was a step backwards and, if I was to play 5.5 would ignore that and just make the stats floating adjustments again.

 

[Cadence]

I really like the PHB,.I really don't like a number of things in the MM, and I need to revisit the DMG.

Grade: incomplete

 

[kermit4karate]

I was one of those folks who didn't like the shift away from racial stat boosts, at first. I didn't like the optional flexibility rule when it came out in Tasha's, and had to be convinced by my players to allow it in my most recent 2014 game. I felt the same way that others have posted here, that it seemed to rob the races of their distinctiveness. And at most we're talking about a +1/-1 change to a modifier, which hardly breaks the game.

But now that I've had a chance to think about it a bit more, I see where they're coming from and endorse the change. I was never the target audience for these kinds of changes; I'm an older (50s) white male, who started D&D when it was an almost 100% white and male game (at least in my area). In recent years I have seen a massive increase in diversity amongst the player base, including a large influx of female players, more ethnic diversity, and a very significant LGBTQ+ component. I followed the pushback threads here where folks were highly critical of how orcs, drow, and other "bad" races were presented in 2024 (apparently the "vaquero"-style orcs pictured in the new PHB offended a lot of folks somehow?), but I have come around to the view that a more inclusive presentation is good for the hobby. And tying innate abilities/traits/behaviors to one's "race," like it or not, is something that holds a very loaded meaning for a lot of people in both history and in contemporary society.

Bravo, fellow human. That was very well put. Thank you.

There's something about feeling compelled, guilted or coerced to do something I disagree with for reasons I don't agree with.... It's been a lifelong pet peeve of mine, but I would gladly give a needy stranger the shirt off my back, so I can get behind doing something to make someone else feel better.

Again, not because I'm being made to feel guilty for disagreeing with them -- that's something I will never do. I never, ever, ever thought of different D&D races as different races of people and refuse to be made to feel like I had done something wrong for innocently enjoying the game that existed before these changes...but if conceding this point will make someone who felt left out or marginalized by something that someone else, someone other than me, may have intended a long time ago, then I could do that to make a marginalized person feel better about themselves.

But the instant the guilt/coercion stuff kicks in again where I'm being made to feel like I'm morally wrong for seeing it the way I grew up seeing it for 30 years, I'll retreat to my corner and resist again. I do not agree with the racial ability score changes, but I am willing to go along with them to get along with others who do.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

But the instant the guilt/coercion stuff kicks in again where I'm being made to feel like I'm morally wrong for seeing it the way I grew up seeing it for 30 years, I'll retreat to my corner and resist again.

As a human being, you will have had wrong ideas or have done wrong things earlier in your life. You cannot change the past, but you can decide -- on your own -- that you can change what you do or think in future.

But change is often uncomfortable. If that's enough to make you refuse to do it, then that's you -- in the present -- choosing to do something problematic, out of defiance.

 

[kermit4karate]

As a human being, you will have had wrong ideas or have done wrong things earlier in your life. You cannot change the past, but you can decide -- on your own -- that you can change what you do or think in future.

But change is often uncomfortable. If that's enough to make you refuse to do it, then that's you -- in the present -- choosing to do something problematic, out of defiance.

Hmm... Except that that is not what happened here? Like I previously stated, I do not agree with the new racial ability score changes. I believe the rules surrounding race are simply worse now. That's a period (.) there. I also do not believe they were wrong before. I am, however, willing to concede the point if it makes someone who disagrees with me feel better.