New Feats | Backgrounds | Species | 2024 Player's Handbook | D&D

[@MrHarryw87]

I’d be interested to watch a 2024 rule actual play from the D&D team… i feel like I pick up rules better when I’m watching them being enacted

[@TheBucketOfTruth]

Oh I'm sure they'll do this closer to the actual release

[@mattbriddell9246]

YES! One of the ways I picked up rules from 4th and 5th edition was watching/listening to the original Acq. Inc. series and I'd love to see a return to something like that.

[@tksje]

Not quite the same but this is very similar to the Pathfinder heritage system so might be worth looking at that .

[@dragonboyjgh]

If nothing else, I'd love to see how they've been playing monk so differently from most of the fanbase. Because they kept nerfing it from UA version, meaning they're worried about making it TOO powerful, but the general consensus among players is it's the weakest class. I trust the internal playtests to be accurate, but this means the majority of people are getting lackluster results from monk because they're playing it wrong. Personally, my guess is it has something to do with who you target in combat. I think monks might be designed to be anti-mage skirmishers, think Ty Lee from Avatar, but people keep trying to use them as frontliners that go toe-to-toe fisticuffs with the biggest guy in the room, like they're Goku or Luke Cage or VI.

[@AcePlaysTCGs]

I know Gen Con will be a month early, but that sounds like the perfect spot for a special 2024 rulebook preview one shot.

[@AunShiLord]

Funny, I like to create characters in reverse - to create a character concept at first and THEN decide which class fits better.

[@JKSSubstandard]

Same. But there's nothing stopping you from doing it that way.

[@AunShiLord]

Yeah, that is true

[@stephengreen6683]

I get a picture that inspires me, then work my way from there

[@garthodowd6846]

Same I work backwards from the end point.

[@astaroththedaeva9717]

Likewise. Almost all my characters start with a concept for a personality and whatnot before settling on a class.

[@espinos13]

"Humans start off each day with heroic inspiration." I've never seen ego/hubris turned into a stat, but there it is.

[@chipmercury]

Humans: "I'm a genius!" Humans 5 seconds later: "OH NO!"

[@sketchyfox7368]

Indomitable human spirit

[@SophiaAphrodite]

They don't get a stat buff.

[@smugreptile6695]

@@SophiaAphrodite What was wrong with the plus one to everything?

[@GrandGoblin]

Hobgoblins have been here the whole time with the racial feat of "Clutch or kick."

[@ZachVahlia]

For years, I've felt that Backgrounds in 5e were the most undercooked system in the game. Most of the background abilities were useless so it more or less just ended up being how your PC gained two skill proficiencies. I'm really optimistic about the new Background system!

[@BlackShardStudio]

Really wish they'd reworked them into being life paths, but I suppose they wanted to keep it minimalist.

[@LithmusEarth]

I mean, with create-your-own in the PHB, they have felt just moot altogether. Usually as the DM I just remove them. The most fun we had with them, was probably when we had to roll randomly on the origins tables I put together based on the everything book, xanathar's. @timhaldane7588

[@NageIfar]

I'm just annoyed that 5e pretends that your ASI choice can ever be driven by flavor and thus be a free choice no matter what class you are playing. It's a core design issue with the game, and while ASIs have been shifted from species to backgrounds, it's still the same old issue of the illusion of choice. It might make minor differences in Tier 1 play, but quickly loses all relevancy. 5e dictates maxing your main stat, requires high Con, and doesn't provide nearly enough ASIs to do anything interesting with attributes, and ALSO has them compete with Feats. Attributes don't give linear or diminishing returns but rather quadratic ones, and if an Attribute is low already, increasing it to catch up is always a waste, no exception (except for multiclassing i guess?). Enemy and challenge DCs increase more and more as you level, and your weaknesses grow in severity faster than you could ever hope to catch up. Proficiency bonus also grows, quickly making it 4 times (!!!!) more valuable than an ASI for e.g. Skill Checks. Other games solve this with diminishing returns, allowing you to actually choose between patching weaknesses or squeezing out maximum power. But beyond that, the game system requires you to plan your builds. No matter how often they pretend that isn't true, it's a fact that people who don't plan multiclassing in advance are basically screwed. ASIs are rare and valuable, and compete with the number 1 method of character customization (feats).

[@BuddhaMonkey7]

I think the old background abilities were meant to formalize the roleplay impact of a given background, allowing players to have associations and social advantages in a way that would be balanced and wouldn't be totally dependent on negotiation with the DM. That hasn't turned out to be the way people play, though -- instead, most players and DMs care more about the story they want to tell than about perks that might come with it, and no one is much worried about whether one player has more useful friends than another. Like most of 5e's bigger weaknesses, it comes down to the game not being played the way the designers expected.

[@FrankDrebbin-de3te]

Agree. In the original 5e playtest rules, backgrounds were very deep both in terms of mechanics and roleplaying. These new, expanded backgrounds are returning to the original ideas that were brushed aside for something simpler and less meaningful.

[@dariobc8398]

Honestly think locking which abilities you get to increase is just creating the same problem that Tasha's fixed. If I want to play an Acolyte fighter I just have to accept that my character will be worse? I know they've said their bringing the rule to create custom Backgrounds in the new DMG, but that means I have to rely on the DM to grant something out of the normal which many of them don't by default plus I have to own 2 books instead of one for character creation. The PHB should have all the rules a player needs.

[@Hyruler]

Having set ones is smart. It means people can just get into the game and start playing. Putting the custom stuff, you know where the game is being edited, makes sense being in the dungeon master guide as the dungeon master oversees the game. It also makes sense because what if your background was "reanimated" and are you trying to say you're a zombie. If it doesn't fit the setting, the dungeon master will say "no" because that's not one of the 16 in the player's handbook.

[@dariobc8398]

@@Hyruler I think that's not a problem this stops though? The fiction of your backstory has to always be approved by the DM anyway. With these rules you could pick the soldier background and say you are a reanimated soldier - or the noble background and say you are king. This doesn't stop that, the DM still has to approve that kind of stuff - it only stops people being able to customise theirs skills and ASIs. I'm fine with having premade template backgrounds AS WELL as the custom option but we don't - its a non-standard exception the DM will have to make. The impact of this is that we will see fewer background class combos as the majority of fighters will have the soldier background for example. Or you won't see many Soldier Wizards because they don't have good ASIs for a Wizard an it feels bad to be playing a character that is less good at things just because you wanted a specific backstory.

[@Savage-Destiny]

@@dariobc8398 Right, but that's likely what the custom rules will allow for, and if your DM is such a stickler about the ASIs for a specific background, then maybe try to convince them to lighten up and let D&D just be fun. To me as a DM, this sounds like recommendations as opposed to set in stone rules anyways. If my player wants to have a soldier background, but be a wizard, and wants to min-max their ASIs, I'd let it happen, and I think most DMs would do the same.

[@MewJoy]

They also said in this very video that there’s 75 feats for you to create your own at DM’s discretion. Obviously the DM should have a say in the origin feat you make.

[@dariobc8398]

@@MewJoy if you’re customising a new feat I agree. My main things is I just want the ASI to be floating instead of restricted - and that rule to be in the PHB.

[@hexipo2352]

Pretty redundant for the statement to be “we don’t want species or backgrounds to constrict which classes are played alongside them” paraphrased - when that is still exactly what they’re doing

[@Felrohan]

@5:40 "it hard locked backgrounds into specific classes, which is the problem we wanted to get away from in the 2014 races" So you're locking backgrounds into specific classes anyway? My mind is blown. Because the way youve presented it, i cant place relevant stat bonuses into a Fighter (STR, DEX, CON) as an Auhcolyte (INT, WIS, CHA).

[@Jabberwokee]

That’s correct: they shifted the problem, didn’t fix it - the OPTIONAL RULE, and therefore up to the DM, in the DMG allows you to choose whatever things you want and make your own background… but now that it optional, I know with 100% certainty there are going to be DMs that say “No, it’s not a core rule”

[@elkilian2]

But doesn't it make more sense for people who have been working in specific fields such as the temple to have improvements in related aspects? Rare would be an acolyte who would later be barbaric, rare but possible. That would make it more sense for your barbarian to drop to a subclass that takes better advantage of the pool of stats that the acolyte section offers since that is in fact what he was doing earlier in the adventure. In addition, he said that there are 16 backgrounds and that the pools of statistics are repeated. I have done the calculations and the maximum number of possibilities is 20 without repeating, so at least 4 have been repeated. Furthermore, I think that since there are 3 of 6 statistics, there will always be one that is good for one of the subclasses of the classes that specialize in 2 statistics. Like for example you could make an Eldrich Knight.

[@Jabberwokee]

@@elkilian2 it makes MORE sense that one part of your development would come from genetic, one part from how you’re raised, and one part from your “job” (class) but that’s not what they did *either* They decided to make it so an Acolyte who’s always been a Fighter, even while they’ve been an Acolyte, didn’t develop any muscle 💪 because apparently being a Fighter means nothing? Yeeeah, not buying it bro Either make it make sense like I specified or make it free-floating and let people do what they like, don’t bind it behind a single aspect of your character

[@elkilian2]

@@Jabberwokee It's also not saying that all your points are going to disappear in strength. He is saying that for example a soldier will be stronger than an acolyte for the simple fact that he has exerted more strength throughout his life. I hope you're not confusing "being optimal" with how the character develops. That is, the background influences 2 points, however you can vary from 8 to 15 manually, that is, a difference of 7 points compared to 2. What without those two points do you not do maximum damage? That's right, but your fighter has not been in constant struggle to improve his strength but has been in a temple. Another thing is if he has been in a kind of monk-style place that trains with weapons (which I think would not be an acolyte) and because of that he has better developed his strength, dexterity and such. But of course, we are judging based on 2 out of 16. Maybe the others have the weapon monk lore we are looking for. Even a "Soldier" background could coincide with being in a temple as a soldier-monk.

[@AxleDoomrod]

​@elkilian2 Define the Acolyte though. What if you're an acolyte of a warrior god? There is an entire barbarian subclass based on this. The narrow view of an acolyte being a weak armed priest doesn't make sense when a paladin is essentially a warrior priest. The acolyte alone shows how restricting this doesn't make sense.

[@TearDownGenesis]

The way he says Acolyte grates on me.

[@heatran1919]

It would be incredibly funny if Ocalyte is actually a completely separate background from Acolyte

[@Phourc]

Akkolyte

[@jaxwarp8373]

Glad its not just me

[@Shroom-Mage]

The auto captions couldn't even figure out what he was saying

[@Snoozems]

yay! i'm not the only one lol

[@erickingram5223]

So, now your Paladin being an Acolyte or a Barbarian Guide is sub-optimal right out of the gate. Just let people chose their scores as +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1.

[@elkilian2]

But doesn't it make more sense for people who have been working in specific fields such as the temple to have improvements in related aspects? Rare would be an acolyte who would later be barbaric, rare but possible. That would make it more sense for your barbarian to drop to a subclass that takes better advantage of the pool of stats that the acolyte section offers since that is in fact what he was doing earlier in the adventure. In addition, he said that there are 16 backgrounds and that the pools of statistics are repeated. I have done the calculations and the maximum number of possibilities is 20 without repeating, so at least 4 have been repeated. Furthermore, I think that since there are 3 of 6 statistics, there will always be one that is good for one of the subclasses of the classes that specialize in 2 statistics. Like for example he could make an Eldrich Knight and it would make sense because he is a person who studied in a temple and then became a knight. And yes, it would not be optimal. But are you playing at being the best or playing the role of a character?

[@therofllamma]

@@kevinduron3753sorry im not reading that but you are a poo poo head

[@erickingram5223]

I understand the narrative logic behind it, but the rules are for game balance. The narrative should be left up to the table and the stories they are trying to tell. Besides, a Paladin Acolyte and Barbarian Guide from my example both make perfect narrative sense and they will still start out weaker than the Soldier background (I assume that one will give a Str boost). I personally build to concept vs optimization, but these arbitrary rules do not help people think outside of the box. All it does is shoehorn certain backgrounds with certain classes, which seems counter-intuitive to giving players the freedom to create unique and interesting characters. -shrug- Who knows, though. Maybe there is something we haven't seen yet that works along with it (like the starting feats and such) which will help balance the limitation. I realize I should just be patient and see how it all plays out in the final book.

[@stachu5049]

"Just let people choose [...]" Dude Gary Gygax ain't gonna come into your house and threaten your family if you do some cool homebrew

[@erickingram5223]

@@stachu5049 There is no way you can know that for sure.

[@madcat1865]

I know you can customize your own background, but they essentially re-created a restriction they got rid of in Tasha's.

[@trise2033]

No, they didn't. They just explained it differently. You still choose the stats.

[@xadielplasencia3674]

​@trise2033 No, you choose the stats between the options they give you

[@AlvarM]

@@xadielplasencia3674 they explained it literally like you can either choose from the options they give you or do your own thing, based on your background and what makes sense to your character....🤷🏻‍♂️

[@xadielplasencia3674]

@@AlvarM They also said that is locked behind the DMG, not the PHB, so a lot of people won't ever use it.

[@mariop8852]

yeah, restricting custom background to DMG makes no sense to me either.

[@nickcampbell3812]

Are they saying they took the "Build your background" section out of the PHB? I think that section gave a lot of freedom and customizability. You could simply choose a sample background if you wished, customize an existing background by replacing features with the customizable ones, or create your own entirely custom background. I don't really like when options like that that should be core are treated as optional by being put in the DMG rather than the PHB.

[@arbitrary_thoughts]

The "set backgrounds" were supposed to be just examples. Custom backgrounds were great as the default. What the heck.

[@Hyruler]

But your background may not work with the setting. That is why it is now in the Dungeon Master Guide.

[@arbitrary_thoughts]

@@NickNobody161 My group will certainly keep using custom backgrounds, but that is not guarenteed for everyone. They have made it an optional rule that requires the DM's permission. They have also placed it in the DMG, which is considerably less read than the PHB or the MM. This leads to custom backgrounds being less known and viewed less favorably.

[@narlantweed]

@@arbitrary_thoughts I'll definitely be allowing my players to use custom backgrounds! no need to entrench the false dichotomy between flavour and optimisation.

[@Lunar-Makeshift]

Restrictions are important. If anyone can customize anything with no limitations, you homogenize everything and choice no longer matters. This is a great change.

[@Bigryguy95-epic]

@@Lunar-Makeshiftyou could keep everything with the current set backgrounds, such as feats. That is a HUGE choice. But you can still let me choose to let my character have decent stats so I can keep up with people who used more ideal backgrounds for their class

[@xiongray]

I definitely like the backgrounds being more prominent than before. I hope though that these are merely samples, retaining its accessibility to customize, mix & match ability scores, proficiencies & languages, and origin feat.

[@egrettacaerulea]

We recognize the council has made a decision, etc etc

[@ShurikenSean]

that was mentioned in the UA that they are sample feats and you could create your own just like in 2014 In this video they mentioned that the DMG has rules on making custom backgrounds, but think it should have been in the phb

[@SadBoi_1066]

that functionality is part of the game still, its just going ro be in the DMG, instead of the PHB.

[@outofideas42]

It sounds like the option to customise backgrounds has been made an optional rule that DMs can allow or not. I can understand why

[@CooperAATE]

He stated in the video that you could, the rules for it are in the DMG.

[@EdibleFriend05]

I cannot believe they've done so much work getting your +2/+1 ability score options in a good place only to go back to the restricted option as your crossing the finish line with what is supposed to be your definitive rework Like, I could maybe almost overlook tying specific skill proficiencies and feats to backgrounds, but not on top of also now restricting your character creation asi's They literally recreated the very issue they said they wanted to avoid and their flaunting it like a victory

[@trise2033]

Read it again.

[@Sexpizza]

I agree. Limiting the options for your ASI during character creation based on your background is a terrible idea. Separate the ASI from any function of creating your character and just let players choose a +2 and a +1 or a +1 to three different scores. Anything else is just restrictive and poor design.

[@collectorsalmanac]

No they are right. They have just moved the stats from Species to Backgrounds instead of just saying +2/+1 in any stats.

[@PauLtus_B]

@@collectorsalmanac ...yeah... I don't get this.

[@noahholderman5725]

No one ever accused the designers of being intelligent or knowing what the players want

[@ryuutama8622]

Custom backgrounds should be part of the Players Handbook. Its great that the book has examples for newer players, but some of us would like to do more.

[@astutheit]

I mean, then just make one w/the DM's input for the campaign that falls in line with how they are currently making background in the new version.

[@WeaselSpanzor]

@@astutheit Exactly this, just because it's not in the core rule book (which could arguably make things more confusing for new players), doesn't mean you need to buy whatever sourcebook these options come from. Just work with the DM.

[@AunShiLord]

@@WeaselSpanzor it will be easier to work with the DM if the is some sourcematerial. Jeremy mentioned that this will be a part of DMG, but it will be nice for players to know about that "variant" rule.

[@TheDeadb3ar]

Custom backgrounds are handled in the new DMG. So we Gucci

[@astutheit]

@@TheDeadb3ar which won't be out till what, January right?

[@MisterSmith00]

Hell yeah! They added the different elemental features to the Goliaths! Cloud Goliath, here I come…!

[@marcducorsky8736]

So, you almost have to pick a background based on your class not your character unless you want to start with 15 in class stat (if not in Background you want) and wait till level 4 catch up to players who have Class stat at 18/19 by Level 4 (+2 bonus vs + 4 Bonus and DC 12 vs DC14). Hoping Adventurers League allows Custome Backgrounds.

[@SophiaAphrodite]

Since the backgrounds seem to have 3 stats to buff. This seems like a bad take. Expanding to 3 stats to buff for a background is literally HALF your stats.

[@narlantweed]

​@@SophiaAphrodite pretty sure you can just make a custom background as well, with mechanically optimised stats, if you wish. (at least, it was like that in the unearthed arcana).

[@davidlewis5312]

@@SophiaAphrodite and is irrevelent unless you pick an background that is optimal to your class.

[@Bigryguy95-epic]

@@SophiaAphrodite(example) I’m playing a barbarian but I want to roleplay them as a holy warrior, a brute who is loyal to their religion/church. They may not be the smartest or most charismatic but they attend every sermon and prayer session. They are by most accounts eligible to be considered an acolyte. I want my barbarian to at LEAST get a bonus to strength if I want it to feel comparable to other characters in the party. A barbarian with a 15 strength is just so sad to see.

[@jayjaybob2]

@@Bigryguy95-epic exactly this. Let us just put the bonuses where we want, I can't begin to understand why they are restricting it again. Why would anyone care where we want to put our ASIs?

[@RoninXDarknight]

Dunno why they thought it was a good idea to limit the ability scores you could pick from for each background. Now people are going to feel forced to pick a background that matches their class...they literally took the issue they said they were trying to fix and just moved it elsewhere. My guess is that'll be the first homebrew change which will become an official optional rule in Tasha's 2.0.

[@Klaital1]

I am sure that between 16 backgrounds, each giving you 3 stats to choose from, they will cover every 2 stat combo there is, so you can still put your stat bonuses to whichever stats you want.

[@RoninXDarknight]

@@Klaital1 You're misunderstanding the issue. Each class still has a set of 2-3 stats it wants to prioritize over others. Thus if only certain backgrounds bump those 2-3 stats you're effectively locking each class to those specific backgrounds if you want to play optimally and punishing players if they want to go a different route.

[@JeremiahGosdin]

​@@RoninXDarknight This is just false. You aren't forced to min/max 3 stats with every character. There are many characters that will be incredibly fun, varied, and powerful regardless of what you choose to do with these 3 stat points.

[@Klaital1]

@@RoninXDarknight Why is that a problem? Minmaxers don't care about the flavor anyways, and rpers don't care about the minmaxing.

[@asterodon]

​@@Klaital1That's just untrue, many players, myself included, love to both maximize power levels and make interesting characters. This new change just makes that a greater challenge than it has any right being.

[@lordcinderwell]

This honestly seems a lot worse than 5e+Tasha's. There should be a lot more than 16 backgrounds if they're this rigid, I guess I just won't play at tables that don't allow custom background.

[@GenericUser860]

"Species ASIs are bad because they're restrictive and often lead to many species playing certain classes. Anyway, we're moving those ASIs to the backgrounds where they are slightly less restrictive!" Now instead of certain species tending to be certain classes, certain backgrounds will tend to be certain classes. They've moved the homogeneity inherent to non-custom ASIs from visual appearance to backstory. Just like how many Half-Orcs were Barbarians, now many Fighters will be Soldiers. Genuinely how did this happen? People liked the custom background default in the UA, but now they're making that an optional rule and moving it to the DMG which doesn't even come out at the same time as the PHB.

[@PearlHarbor138]

i really feel like they should have ditched the linking the ability score improvements to a background. Feels like they learned nothing regarding that with TCE

[@Fenrush]

I loved the changes to backgrounds in the UA. The new system sounds terrible. - There is a very high chance, you won' t be able to take a specific feat and attribute combination. - Some choices will just suck (i.e. the Acolythe background that was talked about is bad for almost every character, with the exception of really niche characters). - Ultimately a huge percentage of characters of a specific class will have the exact same background... - Let's say you are playing a naval campaign and want your whole group to start with the sailor background? Well that is gonna suck for 3/4 of the group. Overall this limits creative freedom, gimps new players characters because they just don't know better, and is going to be ignored by many people. Why would they move custom backgrounds to the DMG? I am really disappointed. (Not that it matters a lot to me, because my groups will belong to the people that ignore this stupid rule). Great, backgrounds go right from being ignored back to being ignored.

[@ASMRipz]

Agree, I'll be sticking with the Lineage rules from Tasha's for ASIs at 1st level in my games

[@Ricardo-zo1ti]

I hope this doesn't mean there's some backgrounds that are more optimized than others and we see with some of them the same as we saw with variant humans or hexblade dips with 2014 rules...

[@demonheart13]

Yep, they just moved the problem to a new area of character building. Instead of every drow being a rogue, it will be ever soldier is now a barbarian or something similar. The problem was never that races were linked to skills, it was that problem players were problem players and nothing will stop that some people just want to win. Nothing wrong with that if they are playing in a party with a similar mindset and a DM that facilitates it, but there are definitely going to be players who don't care about the flavor and enter parties where rule play is a thing.

[@johnrhoadhouse1377]

We see that even with the 2 they mentioned here. How many single class builds need 2 of the mental stats offered by Acolyte versus Dex, Con, and Wis given by Guide. Just based on that Guides will make better clerics than Acolyte and if Acolyte isn't a good choice for Cleric what IS it a good choice for?

[@edarddragon]

being a human now gives you 2 feats so, way ore customisation as regular

[@tnatstrat7495]

I always feel like this was talked about on the internet more than it was actually done. This isn't a competitive game.

[@ASMRipz]

@@johnrhoadhouse1377 yea you almost never need more than one of int, wis or cha - the other 2 are generally dump stats. I think they should have just stuck with the lineage of pick where your ASIs go at 1st level. Removes any limitation.

[@ticozayas6430]

So we went from having full autonomy on where stats go to having them fixed again... seems like a step backward not forward

[@williamtorres4140]

I think. It was mentioned that Rules are backwards compatible so You can use that Rule from Tasha's still

[@avsabari1263]

I like it that way. So it's good they give the option for me, and you can always use the optional rule.

[@damondusklight]

Overall, it's something we'd have to test when the new rules come out. I'm personally all for a change that makes a characters history more relevant.

[@graemehutton2433]

Or an acknowledgement that giving full autonomy was not a step forward at all, but instead a misstep? Thus making this a step back in the right direction? Lol in terms of having a bit of realism and weight to how an upbringing affects a person, some restrictions make sense.

[@Jabberwokee]

They have said a few times this is backwards compatible I’m telling you now that this will not be without significant revision

[@jakelecroy5553]

The Beholder hot air balloon is the best! 😂

[@Ciberbuster]

They clearly drop the ball with the backgrounds.

[@Kolobius]

Feats at 1st level is something I have been doing since 2014, but I limited them to a dozen or so. Ones that make sense that you were born with or something and not trained. Like Observant for instance. Glad to see that idea put into the game.

[@MarcusArtorius]

I wish any of my DM's did that. Feats are fun, add flavor, but you get so few.

[@samtro]

Why not just put the ASI at the _Class_ or even better, bake it into Attribute Generation directly?

[@sk8rdman]

Or just keep it with races where it makes the most sense, and let DMs decide whether to allow any exceptions, like they've always done. My group has always used the racial abilities and we've never found them problematic. Certain races being better with certain classes isn't a bad thing.

[@Sexpizza]

YES THIS. They need to separate the ASI in character creation from EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE CHARACTER CREATION. It should be a standalone part of the character creation process. Stop trying to package it with other things that limit player agency.

[@RulesLawyerDnD]

Because sometimes you like to play it differently. The strength rogue. The strength ranger and not dex. The wisdom casting paladin and not heavy tank. It can still be done but they are trying to make the background actually important and make the players have more depth to the character and also have the players actually remember what their background is.

[@jackdiddles4304]

@@sk8rdman why does the ASI make the most sense from species (from a concept level or a game mechanic level)? from a concept level, doesn't it make more sense that a fighter is a fighter because they were a gladiator in their past, rather than because they're a half-orc? from a mechanics level, doesn't it make more sense to incentivise species/class combinations equally rather than disincentivising certain combinations by not allowing their primary ability to be as high? is it really good for game design and variety of play that people lean more towards certain combinations of the two rather than any combination being (roughly) equally viable numerically?

[@RulesLawyerDnD]

@jackdiddles4304 I think it's fine to have it work either way. The problem is people if we are being honest. Because people want to mid max as much as possible. Because why would you play the farmer who has okay strength and some Con to back it up just to play a wizard with a starting 14 Int. Because people want that 16, people want to mid-max, people believe that if you don't mid-maz than you are playing the game wrong.

[@scarletpastereau]

it makes sense for backgrounds to be the causes of ability score increases. especially compared to species. if i spent my time studying and learning in a school rather than working at a fighting ring, of course its going to mean that im more versed in the related ability scores instead of str con or dex

[@marcos2492]

Anyone think they went back like two steps with backgrounds? They buried the more free form in the DMG instead of making it the default. I'm glad pre-made backgrounds are available for people who don't want to mix-and-match, but the default should not be THIS limited IMO

[@BackflipBucky]

I'm going to be honest, I'm just going to keep it like BG3 and let people do the +2/+1 wherever they want (or the +1/+1/+1)

[@mikefarnsworth772]

I wish stat bonuses were based on class and not background. I like making Nobles or Acolytes that could be either a Fighter or a Wizard. It seems like now there will be a strong incentive to optimize background/class combinations.

[@mikefarnsworth772]

Okay, I listened a little longer and they did address this.

[@egrettacaerulea]

Not every experienced playgroup *immediately* reverting to free floating Ability Score Bonuses.

[@ShurikenSean]

they mention that the option to make custom backgrounds are in the DMG, so already have that option. though yeah probably most experienced groups will do that anyway

[@pdegan2814]

If they don't offer the Custom Background option in the D&D Beyond Character Creator, that's gonna SUCK.

[@GLORPDORP]

They learned their lesson with the Tasha's racial ASI rules then forgot the lesson immediately 😂

[@CooperAATE]

You're right, not every group. Including mine, who is really liking what we see in the new books.

[@Shroom-Mage]

Being able to put +1 to three is very cool, though!

[@carlcramer9269]

Having ability modifiers in background sounds very restrictive. You will only be able to choose the backgrounds that give you ability modifiers in ability scores you want at 14 or higher. :o

[@finncullen]

Ahwcolytes sound interesting, but I'm more comfortable playing a Fyeaghter.

[@trise2033]

A "fuckter"?

[@tylerreed2409]

This is all cool, but it does further frontload all the choices. It would have been nice if they had made specialization points at successive levels, or something of that sort so you aren't just locked into a set path after level 3

[@SilentSooYun]

"We wanted to give the players the flexibility to create their ideal character... so we limited their choices"

[@HowdyItLovll]

I mean, it seems like they gave flexibility where they could, it was boring choosing half elf every time for Bard

[@smugreptile6695]

@@HowdyItLovll Then pick something other than half elf?

[@ryushi17]

So which backgrounds give charisma and strength? Paladin will always pick that. No more acolyte Paladin.

[@narlantweed]

in the unearthed arcana, the optional floating ability score rule from tasha's had been moved from lineage to background. they're completely customisable. so you can have a flavourful background without sacrificing mechanical optimisation, should you so wish.

[@Ike_of_pyke]

I'd actually not choose it as my paladin as I'm a dexy paladin

[@adamg0013]

Why isn't custom background still not the default... the other backgrounds are way too restrictive. I don't care what whiteboard warriors say about lightly armored. I just want to my witcher like ranger with the crafter feat. Dex wisdom or possibly con.

[@OnslaughtSix]

When will WotC finally just abolish stat bonuses at character creation? If you want them to have a 17, just change standard array and point buy so you start with a 17.

[@amuletguy4873]

I don't know why they went on a more restricted system for backgrounds. Like, why didn't they make it so that you could pick one of the ability scores out of any of them and have the smaller pool for the secondary abilities?. If I want to play a paladin who was an acolyte before they went out and started adventuring; there is no way for me to increase my strength. I'm just going to run it like before where you can have a +2 and a +1 in any ability because that gives my players more freedom

[@LithmusEarth]

Since I as a DM run point buy, to me having to then add another number seems pointless (if you don't restrict), so I just extend the point buy and races and backgrounds don't give you ability bumps, you just pay for it all at once. Why even make it additional math, just make it one step, it's wild. Now when you roll randomly, you do have to make a second step to add bonuses so. you know I understand there even if you don't restrict.

[@rhylin26]

At least a paladin has some built in use for wisdom and charisma. My issue is what if I want a plain fighter who was raised as an acolyte? I’ve just nerfed my stats for sake of roleplay.

[@evilcleaver]

I mean as always, you are free to use and or ignore any of the rules Wizards proposes

[@Manahyde]

​@@rhylin26Looking at this from a watsonian standpoint, life as an acolyte, swinging incence around and praying all day, nerfed you ability as a fighter when compared to a fighter who spent their youth as, let's say, a soldier, swinging a flail around and training all day. It's probably a rare occasion but I'd find it weird if I played a fighter with a bg in martial stuff and the dude who was wearing robes and reading books was as good or even better than me at fighter things. I do hope they give us some sort of martial monastry background though.

[@jwall1646]

@@rhylin26perhaps you play this way but in my experience Fighters (and all classes really) shouldn’t be all combat all the time. Surely you can make use of a higher wisdom stat even if you aren’t a Druid. Even still in combat for things like Wisdom saving throws. This feels like such a nonissue to me.

[@j.j.scotch4207]

I agree with many others that saving custom backgrounds for the DMG was...not good. I concede that there could be good publishing reasons for it, but players will definitely want it as they start making characters in September. Please consider putting it on D&D Beyond when the PHB goes live as an optional rule. Let us have the customization we want and need.

[@chazhodge512]

fingers crossed for guidance on using xanathar's and tasha's subclass with the 2024 classes like there is for races and backgrounds

[@xySuperManxy]

I think at least one from each will be in the new PHB, so there should be a roadmap to what that looks like.

[@pontusleblanc1481]

I really hope they include custom background where you pick the ability scores, proficiencies and feats...

[@CooperAATE]

He mentioned in the video that rules for that are in the DMG

[@pontusleblanc1481]

@@CooperAATE Yeah I posted before I got to that part in the video. My bad!

[@theREALfearsKLOWNs]

​@@CooperAATETranslation: "Buy even more book$!!"

[@andrewdowns3673]

I'm just gonna use the 16 backgrounds they provide as examples for what Starting Equipment ya get, but the Ability Scores, Proficiencies, Languages, and Origin Feats are customizable.

[@AlvarM]

@@theREALfearsKLOWNs a company that mainly sells books is shilling for their own books? What's next, you telling me live in a capitalist society? 😂

[@Vespuchian]

Oh nice, Goliaths get different abilities depending on giant affinity. That's the sort of thing I always felt was missing in the last edition. Looking very forward to reading the full thing!

[@DefaultSeaTurtle]

I'm so excited to ignore the stat increase options completely. ❤

[@CorpusInsanus]

I'm not sold on the backgrounds, seems like they're just recreating the flawed system in a different way. Feats at level 1 were always a mandatory rule in games I played in so it's heartening to see a step in the right direction here. I just hope these "origin feats" aren't just the safest or least impactful of the bunch. Having the whole feat pool available at level one allows players to get their character builds up and running much faster with less sacrifice later on, as an example crossbow expert on a character who will specialize in that weapon not having to deal with the loading mechanic for their first 4 levels when they could than have taken the aforementioned feat. I also love seeing more flexibility with races! I hope what has been done with Aasimar's revelation will happen with more of the races, giving less stringent more fluid choices to players only encourages more experimentation and flexibility making fore better characters.

[@heysianpopnley5198]

XBM won't be part of the 1st level feats if you look at some of the playtests - this may change with publication but most likely most builds will still be shunted by this - you just can get some free skills at 1st level or something

[@promatheus951]

Doesn't that just restrict it back down from where Tasha's had made us able to choose whatever ability scores we wanted? I mean, yeah, we have 3 to choose from up from 2, but that wasn't even an issue anymore with Tasha's.

[@asuitfullofbees]

Just attach ASI to the stat generation portion of character creation. Otherwise you will run into the same issue as when it was tied to ancestry/species.

[@johnobrien7562]

it feels like tying stat bonuses to just background is a bit weird. I would think it should be split among background and class, reflecting the training to hone your mind and/or body to pursue that as your "occupation"

[@masongoodyear9258]

I believe it’s tied to character level or class level still when obtaining an Ability Score Increase feat, so you have the starting ability score increase through background and the rest through character/class progression. If you meant the class should decide which stats increase through level up after you choose a background then never mind, but I don’t believe it’s all tied to your background as I believe you’ve inferred.

[@jasonsumma1530]

I believe 3.5 did it this way. I think the even spaced it out, mostly, where you would get the ASI and feat at different levels. The only exception was 12th level.

[@Gismidon]

Not all Skill Proficiencies are worth the same. Perception is obviously far more valuable than Animal Handling. D&D 5E has not been good at balancing options. Some Backgrounds will inevitably be better than others.

[@goji253]

Some of these upgrades sound fun but I swear they oughta have playtested some of the stuff they just pulled out of nowhere now. No one wanted locked ASI's. Yet they moved them to backgrounds as if it is better. And they straight up made variant human the standard now as if the reason why a lot of people homebrew beginners feats wasn't specifically to avoid people picking variant human for the sake of the feat.

[@korichiart6853]

I guess they moved the custom origin to he in the power of the DM? I hope there is a note or side bar saying that if you want to create a custom origin background talk to your DM. In all honestly that's how it should be but not every DM is going to allow it.

[@michaelmuirhead910]

So the fighting classes will pretty much all be farmers because that’s the background that has Str, Dex, and Con for stat boosts with the tough feat. Great…so many new options. Thanks. You want to make the new core rules dumbed down for beginners, that’s fine. I’m good with customized background options. It was in the 2014 book, why remove it? Just seems overly restrictive to move that to the new DMG.

[@SophiaAphrodite]

Who is giving +1 to 3 stats? We ALL know it is almost ALWAYS +2/+1. I swear you 3.5 transplants whine about everything.

[@narlantweed]

@@SophiaAphrodite but consider! point buy for 3x 15s and 3x 8s, then +1 to each 15 to get a +3 to 3 ability scores at first level :D

[@heatran1919]

Hold on, did they put a Warforged in this thumbnail despite not having Warforged in the new PHB? Thats just mean

[@warioskapelli3100]

Yeah still excited by the reveals but I was kinda hoping, even if it wasn’t Warforged specifically, we’d get a golem or golem equivalent.

[@Aidscapade71]

Do you not know what a Construct is..? 😂

[@warioskapelli3100]

@@Aidscapade71 in his defense, many artists outside of official DnD draw Warforged with solid wood limbs instead of the twisted branches they’re known for in official art. Simple mistake, especially for a video advertising character building.

[@silentbobkris]

It looks like a Shield Guardian construct. Having the chest plate open to store the spell they can use looks like it's one of those. Great if you can get control of one in a game.

[@jonnil1997]

Thats not a warforged, thats a Shield Guardian

[@darkblue099]

I wonder what Jeremy thinks of Star Wars: The "Ockolyte"

[@PauLtus_B]

A feat at level 1 is what most campaigns I've played have done. ... so this is great! I think it can really give an edge in making your character feel more personalized at lower levels.

[@richardmorton374]

For more personalisation for my players, I separated Feats from ASI's altogether. Any feat that gave 1 ASI point no longer does so, but they gain feats at 1st, 5th, 10th, and 15th level

[@PauLtus_B]

@@richardmorton374 That could work! The feats that give one ASI point usually aren't THAT powerful either, so I think that might be a pretty good approach.

[@j.r.bergwick1826]

Hearing that the changes to goliath in the UA were kept has made my day!

[@Manahyde]

Love how even Jeremy has to think for a sec when he needs to differentiate between 5e and 5.5 and has to settle on awkwardly saying the year the versions were released lol. I wonder if the baffling decision to still call it 5e is to sneak the profits 5e made into the profits they can report for "5e 2024", maybe even towards Hasbro.

[@John-Dennehy]

I am mostly a fan of 5.5e but I'm an already seeing almost universal agreement that the backgrounds need overhauling with homebrew due to overbearing limitations to character choice and flavour. These 16 background are totally insufficient if people are being forced to pick one to get the feat and abilities scores we need.

[@phistoroboto8419]

My initial thoughts on the backgrounds giving stat bonuses is it seems to really limit what that background looks like. For example, what if I wanted to play a guide that has spent their life reading books and maps in a study and uses their vast knowledge of the maps to guide people, so Intelligence and Wisdom would make more sense for the character to have gained in their training. I will obviously have to wait to see the book before making any real judgements, but yeah it seems to limit concepts that you can play of that background. Like maybe I want to be an Acolyte but one that didn't like book learning and spent their days avoiding studies by climbing/running around the monastery/church and surrounding area.

[@chrisg8989]

I'm sure there is a custom background option. Which means you can do whatever you want and get the stats you want too.

[@zachmitchell4616]

Haven't watched the whole video yet, but is there an optional rule that would allow you to take any background, and add any stat boost, you'd like?

[@zachmitchell4616]

Ah. Just read through more of the comments. Apparently its in the dmg. Yeah, that's a bit restrictive.

[@TylerHanna]

@@chrisg8989 There is, but only in the DMG (@7:57)

[@davescrams]

@@zachmitchell4616 That customization is apparently in the DMG.

[@ibervang]

With my current half-elf I could decide between 5 stats, where I wanted to place my extra points. So with the new backgrounds, you could be more limited, as some races/species, could place them as they wanted. So no, we don't have more flexibility, we have less. F.x with my half-elf I put 1 point in con and 1 in Dex. You probably can't do that with a background that also gives charisma. Plus now people are more likely to just pick a background for certain stats.

[@beajoh]

Looks like a nod to the D&D cartoon at the start.

[@Manahyde]

Yeah I heard somewhere that they're gonna use the 80s cartoon characters like Pathfinder their Iconics

[@twincast2005]

They already used them for the 2022 Dragons of Stormwreck Isle starter set. And yes, they've said that they'll be using them a lot (at least in the 2024 core books; not sure whether they've said anything about the edition going forward). I just find the timing odd, as we're no longer in 1980s nostalgia era, but firmly in 1990s nostalgia era.

[@leifcatt]

Yep. Nerfed it all.

[@longhaulpreacher5823]

That last parting shot is confusing to me. Using D&D Beyond, does this mean the program has to get completely revamped to make up for the backgrounds that are still not updated? Will a player easily be able to do this or will it be like pulling teeth and stitching them back in?

[@masterenyus]

I really liked the Tasha´s version of +2/+1 in any diferent attribute (+1 in three is fine), but making background limit to 3 attributes is a step back imo...

[@opmaus]

I'm not entirely sold on all of the changes for the new PHB and such. I thought it would be a better idea to just build on what they already had in 5e by adding more races, spells, subclasses, etc. I'm not sure the drastic overhaul was needed, and from what I saw in the UA updates, I was not that impressed. It might turn out to be really cool, but so far I haven't seen anything that truly wows me or excites me. And hopefully on D&D Beyond, we will have the option to play 5e or this new version, not be forced to make a change.

[@ElocNodnarb]

Will Backgrounds have the option from Tasha’s Cauldron to choose how to assign ability score adjustments rather than being locked into prescribed ability score adjustments?

[@animewatcha]

Feel like this backgrounds portion is gonna bomb a bit cause a creative enough person can link +2 +1 to any score for any background. Also, woulda been better to do an ASI AND a feat at levels like 4th, 8th, etc.

[@JohnvanCapel]

Tbh I'm still not sure if I like how backgrounds provide ability score boosts. It still feels very much like a restrictive element rather than providing creative freedom - let's say I want to play a Guide Wizard, I've still done a self-nerf because Intelligence isn't an option there. The only way to really un-restrict it is to just bake the ability score boosts directly into the class. Pretty much all characters of a certain class are going to follow the same build anyway - good luck finding a Paladin that won't put their +2 and +1 into Strength and Charisma.

[@partyontheobjective]

13:23 That gnome Rosie the Riveter over there is absolutely amazing. Huuuge kudos to the author of this artwork.

[@danjbundrick]

I don't like the idea of my preferred proficiencies being locked behind certain backgrounds. I hope this isn't too restrictive. Or if they want it to be restrictive, leave the idea of "custom lineage" in the game.

[@AdamRox42]

Wouldn't it make more sense and allow for more diverse storytelling with character backstories if you just tied the stat changes directly to class? Your class is what really should be caring about your main stats and it feels bad when your backstory is limited by what stats you need for your class of choice. Many monks would reasonably take the acolyte background for storytelling, but lack of DEX makes it feel very bad for them. Then you could just add a rule to multi-classing that says you don't get the level 1 class stat boosts when multiclassing. I feel that it would also help to streamline the character creation process since you're now choosing your class first (especially for new players). You can get all of your stats and class skill tree set before you start looking at other character choices.

[@Jason-96]

I created a custom acolyte background for my players to apply to their characters. This is how I wanted them to be linked together. It was very flexible to allow them to get the skills they wanted while also giving them a common denominator....

[@Gismidon]

Custom Backgrounds were part of the 2014 Players Handbook. Sad to see this option taken away from players.

[@explorer47422]

I love the original animated series reference in the book art at the beginning of the video

[@steven_r33d]

Are certain species features still available? Specifically, the elf weapons training that gives proficiency with shortswords, longswords, shortbows, longbows?

[@thescoon1]

2:12 - The problem with putting ability score improvements into backgrounds is the the same problem as having ability score improvements baked in with races. Put plainly, ASI's are way too important for a character not to min/max. This means, unless you want a deliberately underpowered experience with your character, you will *have* to choose a background that has the ASI's you need. I don't like this, because it actually stifles character creativity rather than opens it up, much like how it is simply worse to play a half-orc wizard vs. a human wizard. The fix for this is really simple: Either just give *everyone* a +2 and a +1 in whatever they want, or bake these restrictions into the classes, as class determines what ability scores really matter to you. Honestly, I still think that the former is better. The player has full agency in what their character has spent time improving. Backgrounds aren't a part of character history that reflect the kind of intense dedication that would improve ability scores in my humble opinion. Compare being an acolyte - a mere clergyman, compared to months of hard adventuring and killing monsters, in which you only get an ASI after *four levels,* yet as an acolyte, you get a +2 to Wisdom before you even embark on your first journey. The wisdom increase comes from being a Cleric, not an acolyte. Just like how people say: 'Don't make your backstory more epic than the adventure you're about to go on', also don't make your background the source of your power either. A few perks and proficiencies was already cool and valid enough to have in the game; it doesn't require more than that.

[@anthonydavid3348]

I agree with you overall, but I understand the rationale for the ability score background thing. Unless your character is very young, their background is going to account for at least 5-10 years of life, if not more. I believe it’s very reasonable amount of time to earn an ability score increase. In addition, if that training and life experience is incongruous with their ideal job, it makes sense that they’re going to feel it. For example, I have a passion for visual art, but my academic background is in biology; I have been able to pursue art as a hobby between my studies, but I won’t be as good at any given point as someone who went to art school. A 1st level acolyte fighter who trained in between sermons would likely feel the same way. Does this make it a pain to character-build? Absolutely. My first planned character for this edition is a warlock sailor, and I’m confident that I won’t be getting any help with my Charisma when I sit down to assign my ability scores. I’m going to be paying very close attention to whether rounding out my other stats helps mitigate that difficulty.

[@parheliaa]

Predefined abilities restrict it somewhat from an optimization perspective Custom backgrounds should be in PHB (maybe marked "Needs DM approval" or something) As a DM probably I would allow 1 any, and 2 from those predefined three (of course no stacking allowed)

[@Mr_Maiq_The_Liar]

Honestly, there's no reason why making a background couldn't just be, the base rule. There's not really any way to combine origin feat, ability scores, and 2 proficiencies that would problematic on any class, Especially if it included restrictions such as only providing proficiencies in skills governed by ability scores that the background also increases. Save the paper on 16 examples, just print the rules for making them in the PHB So we can avoid situations like how barbarians can't be acalytes because it doesn't increase your strength. That kind of "This option that I wanted doesn't increase an ability score that I need to increase to be good at my neiche" Was the kind of thing that you were trying to move away from in the first place when you distanced lineage from ability scores back in Tasha's, And it's a shame That the solution to that is simply to push the problem onto a different aspect of your character's origin And hiding the real solution to the problem in an optional rule That players don't even know exists.

[@chaseguymon1877]

I love the Background origin direction, but only 16? It seems a shallow number.

[@mojin7470]

Then start creating your own backgrounds analoguous to the presented options. Its not that hard.

[@heatran1919]

​@@mojin7470but Custom Backgrounds are officially a Variant Rule, and isn't an option in the PHB. It's still bad game design even if you can technically ignore it!

[@jasonsumma1530]

If you did the math, you would have 12 base classes X 16 backgrounds X 10? "species" to get 1920 different character combinations. If you intend on playing only one class and species with your backgrounds, than you will get 16 different character options.

[@jesse-kz8ru]

​@jasonsumma1530 but you don't... they said some backgrounds are locked to class so it will be much less

[@magnificent_cat]

I don't get how the new rules will be "backward compatible" with 5e when the differences between a 2024 character and a 5e character is so unfair. I can't allow one player to go for options in the new rules because we would all have to upgrade our books or lag behind. Existing feats have been "massively reworked"? Races even? How is that backwards compatible?

[@bcatgamering]

I was hoping that WotC would have learned that letting the players decide their own stat bumps allows for much more creativity than pidgeonholing people into picking specific species/backgrounds. Funny that they even mention it in the video... D&D lore is FILLED with legendary characters whose stat sheets don't align with their species and background- looking at all of the greatsword and spear-wielding Elves here. My tables are probably just going to continue to do allow free starter stat boost selection as homebrew.

[@johnjackett368]

Quick question . . . Can you use other 5E races in the 2024 rules? How would ability score modifiers work? Are they still attached to race or do you ignore racial modifiers?

[@snoweefrost4412]

You can use D&D 5E races from 2014 and its associated supplemental books with the upcoming 2024 Core Rules. He said that there will be a section in the book explaining how the transition of 2014-2023 races can be updated to the 2024 system

[@jonathanstern5537]

Honestly, I'd rather the stat bonuses be related to both background and species... I also don't like that they used species instead of something like lineage, bloodline, or heritage since there are half-orcs, half-elves, etc. in this world, and that means that they are the same species. Here's how I would have done it. 2 points from lineage that can be put into one or two out of three specific stats, same with background. For example, you're a halfling bard with the entertainer background. As a halfling, you'd get 2 points you can put into either DEX, CON, or CHA, and as an entertainer you have 2 points you can put into either STR, DEX, or CHA. You decide to put everything into CHA, and you end up, with point buy, with a 19 CHA.

[@przemek-v7k]

Tying backgrounds to specific abilities and feats is terrible. Most casters want dex, con and spellcasting ability, most melle classes want str, dex, con or wis. Combination of two abilities from these 3: str, cha and int will leave it unusable for all classes apart from paladin... So I guess 1/3 backgrounds might be bad just based on abilities. Then we add feats on top of it, so the amount of optimal backgrounds decreases even further.... It might turn out that characters based on specific ability score might be better than others if they get access to a really good background.

[@elkilian2]

But doesn't it make more sense for people who have been working in specific fields such as the temple to have improvements in related aspects? Rare would be an acolyte who would later be barbaric, rare but possible. That would make it more sense for your barbarian to drop to a subclass that takes better advantage of the pool of stats that the acolyte section offers since that is in fact what he was doing earlier in the adventure. In addition, he said that there are 16 backgrounds and that the pools of statistics are repeated. I have done the calculations and the maximum number of possibilities is 20 without repeating, so at least 4 have been repeated. Furthermore, I think that since there are 3 of 6 statistics, there will always be one that is good for one of the subclasses of the classes that specialize in 2 statistics. Like for example I could make an Eldrich Knight.

[@DanishHellhound]

@@elkilian2 no, you ruin the freedom of creativity. this way, there will never be an acolyte ANYTHING because that stat spread is terrible for every class. they took away creative freedom. Any DM and player worth playing with will rip out those pages of the new book.

[@reedjos08]

Love that wizzards is assisting people in sampling feets.

[@pederw4900]

Wizards LOVES feets!

[@someoneelse4939]

F E E T S ...for free!

[@ReinoudvanReekumナウト]

Look at those characters in the very first frame. If you recognize them from long ago, then you know.

[@binolombardi]

seems like a failure that they locked to 3 attributes in the PHB. already figured it out with floating scores and went a step backwards. “optional” DMG rules limit the customize rule from players and DMs. most DMs don’t know the optional rules, let alone entertain their use.

[@EmeraldUsakaze]

16:44 Sweet. That means I can still bring over my planned/wanted Fairy and Centaur characters from Monsters of the Multiverse into 1D&D.

[@bookmarkyourthoughtsblog]

I don't know If I'm just misunderstanding, but are Expanded Feats considered 2014 feats? one of my campaigns is allowing us to remake our characters but we're trying to not use the 2014 rules, so I'm figuring out if Metamagic Adept is one I'm able to use lol

[@jamesfoster9613]

I am disappointed that we are taking a step backwards on creation attribute bump. I am fine with it coming from background and the sample backgrounds kisting options, but custom should always be default and in the PHB. Not allowing the flat bonus per Tasha's is...a bad call. And I'm ine if your biggest yes folk.

[@Mark-ki7ic]

More Dwarven and Halfling spell casters builds now at least

[@kedraroth]

I really hope that I at least can choose my 1st level feat freely no matter what background....

[@CooperAATE]

They specifically mentioned that Origin Feats are the ones you can take at 1st level. So if it isn't in that category.... Ask your DM

[@GALL0WSHUM0R]

​@@CooperAATEi believe they meant that they hope the choice of 1st level feat isn't specified in the background e.g. you could be a Soldier and then pick Alert or Healer. sounds like a lot of the feats are background-locked though. i'm personally massively disappointed in this announcement. backgrounds were the weakest part of 1st level character creation and the UA made great strides in fixing that. they basically rolled back half of the changes and made the best version a variant rule in the DMG

[@rhylin26]

It sounds like each background has a preselected list. The only way around that is play a human for an extra one, or ask your DM for a custom background.

[@djscrawny1565]

I haven't listened all the way through yet and it might be awhile. Are they pushing feats now like the 3rd edition or is still not as robust?

[@GALL0WSHUM0R]

@@djscrawny1565 some things like ability score improvement & fighting styles are feats now, and there's a category of feats available at level 1; you get one as part of your background, and humans get an extra one, both from that limited list. feats are mandatory now, but because ASI is a feat and a lot of them are background locked, it doesn't actually change much conplexity-wise

[@VinceValentine]

Since my favorite class is Clay Rack, I will be sure to check out the Occolyte background. Jokes aside, I like how they reworked the backgrounds. The special abilities they gave in the 2014 version were very situational - what if you play a sailor in a desert campaign, or a noble traveling to a democracy, or even a completely lawless place? This rework makes more sense.

[@damengundo]

10:29 sad to hear the warforged aren't joining the phb, hopefully they can get an updated version too

[@jwall1646]

I would want for them to stay in Ebberon where here we’re in Grayhawk

[@xParanoiiia]

I mean you say it is kinda limited but not really ? It is incredibly limiting. A guide gets increases to a choice of Con, Wis & Dex. This means that REALISTICALLY. No one that playing a charisma caster, strength character or an intelligence caster will take this because its just not good. You have con and everyone likes that but the rest isnt their main stats. I will call that this will go right back to tashas and people will allow free distribution because this is nearly as limiting as the old system and limiting stats to backgrounds is just as bad as limiting them to specific races prior. Use it as suggestion or a guideline for new players but dont make this a forced upon restriction again, I thought we were finally past limiting character option for the sake of holding on to stereotypical correlations... I'm so excited about the new rules but that is downright disappointing and this video constantly contradicting itself and you guys struggling to make that part sound appealing shouldve shown you it's just not a good idea. Unlimited freedom isnt always good but this is just character creation and world/character building. Limit gameplay after but not peoples creativity.

[@elkilian2]

REALISTICALLY, a person who has been in a temple all his life is not going to abruptly change what he has been doing all his life. A person who has dedicated himself to tempering himself in a temple is not going to suddenly be a barbarian. If so, it would be interesting to see how his plot develops or which subclass he chooses so that his past and the future he is carving go hand in hand together. An example of this would be becoming a warrior acolyte which could lead to an Eldrich Knight. "Unlimited freedom is not always good" "Limit the game afterwards, but not people's creativity." In fact, what they are trying to limit is that the characters grow a little according to their past instead of what they want to be. If the first thing you do in the game is unbalance the character and then give the DM the responsibility of having to balance it as best he can, it seems a bit shameless to me.

[@MarcoPecoraro]

custom backgrounds should be the default option, while giving standard background as examples or for speed up creation for newbies. And backgrounds are still irrelevant and useless after creation. They should expand relations with npc and pc, and give a mechanic useful while in game tied on relations. 10 years passed and all changed so nothing changed

[@RotaFury]

I haven't finished watching yet BUT I am a little worried on ability scores restriction to backgrou d if I heard that right as it could narrow options. Example what if I want to be a fighter in the rogues guild? A sorta bruiser or guard or such. The other funny thing i find is there taking pathfinder 2.0's ideas which is fine....but doing a worse job with them. I havent played pathfinder 2 yet but ive read it and looked over videos and find this amusing. Isnt to say i wont get this new edition but i will be heavily tweaking the hell out of this already.

[@zacharylowery5139]

10:27 so, will there be options to create half species, since they've removed half-elf and Half-orc?

[@MrFoxxy18]

that's what I wanna know

[@stidgemon]

Stat bonuses tied to background are still going to hard lock people into classes. What if i wanted to play an acolyte who became jaded with the church and decided to become a fighter? Choosing that background would hamper them stat wise. Species choice should be cosmetic only and should not driven by abilities or bonuses that it gives. Backgrounds should be story driven and not a choice you wont make because the stats are bad for my class.