The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - D&D 2024 Player's Handbook

[@matthewheimbecker9055]

Totally agree with you on ability scores moving from species to background. It would have been better to just eliminate the bonus ability scores altogether and just use dice rolls or a modified point buy system.

[@shiny_button]

I think the rambling style of video is fine. It's interesting to hear your thoughts.

[@garethhamilton1252]

I’m all for DM approval during character creation. I already put multi-classing and feats in the realm of DM approval and adding backgrounds will not be an issue. So whilst I’m not a fan of the very limited number of backgrounds on offer, it does have its benefits.

[@XanderHarris1023]

Technically Tasha's +2/ +1 is an optional rule and standard they should still be tied to your species. I know no one *here* plays that way but those tables do exist. There will be overlapping ASI and even some origin feats will appear in multiple backgrounds so you aren't locked to one but two possibly three depending on the feat you want. Yeah it sucks that you would technically have to "homebrew" different ASIs if you have a very specific background in mind. If you want your unique background to matter in the story, then you should be working with your DM anyway. I'm not trying to defend the entirety of the design decisions they made. I have my issues with some of the updates, they just to seem to be different or at least in a different priority than the majority of opinions online.

[@geoffreyperrin4347]

For ability scores, I wish they had just given class 2 stats as "key stats" and then say "you get a +1 from your background, a +1 from your class, and a +1 of your choice (maybe from race/species) as long as you don't put all 3 in 1 ability" would be better

[@tobiasravntaastrm5898]

I really like this style of video! It's always interesting to hear what you have to say, and this unedited style just feels very grounded and honest. It's refreshing really, and this way you get to save your energy for other videos while still being able to make some content! Regarding backgrounds, I'm personally not too bothered by Ability Score bonuses being tied to your background instead of your species - but I don't really care about optimizing my characters anyway. The way I see it, both approaches are restrictive in some form - they're just shifting the same problem around. I had to choose, however, I think it would make more sense to keep Ability Score bonuses tied to your species. I just imagine elves being naturally more agile, dwarves being tougher, orcs being stronger, etc. I believe that WOTC made this change partly for political reasons - racial identity and representation in media is more important than ever, and I don't think WOTC wants to seem out of touch, or be labeled as racist. I also think that's why they've been experimenting with alternative labels such as "lineage" and "species" instead of "race". Personally I think "lineage" is much better than "species" which just sounds odd to me. Anyway, I would love to hear what you would do to address/fix all the 'Bad' and 'Ugly' stuff, but it's probably best to wait until after the new Player's Handbook is released, but to give an example; what about simply allowing rangers to concentrate on one other spell if they are already concentrating on Hunter's Mark? That gives them more options in combat, but they still have to apply by the rules for concentration as normal. No idea what to do about that capstone feature though.

[@kedraroth]

I just can't believe that after 10 years of people complaining about Rogues doesn't having a 6th level subclass feature, they made an entire revision of the game and don't give rogues a 6th level subclass feature

[@malmasterson3890]

They were going to do it, but since it conflicted with the backwards compatibility claims of the system, knowing that we wouldn't get all the subclasses, people complained so they gave us Cunning Strikes & Reliable Talent at level 7 as a compromise. Still not a fan of the 6 level gap either, but I do think they did a good job with the compromise.

[@donaldrohwer5545]

I'm good with this style of video. With the changes to conjuration spells, I really thought they were going to address the shield and forcecage like spells that were much stronger than I geel they should be. Alas, that doesn't appear to be the case. Ugh.

[@fortunatus1]

The way Backgrounds apply ability score bonuses during character creation is incredibly restrictive and will definitely mean some backgrounds are never taken. IMO it's worse than the way Races applied ability scores. I'm changing the way the bonuses are applied at 1st level to: Your Class provides +1 to your primary or secondary ability score. Background provides +1 to one of the three listed ability scores. Species provides +1 to one ability score of your choice. You can only apply a maximum of +2 to one ability score.

[@dabeef2112]

I agree that some backgrounds will never be taken. Acolyte for example has a really odd combo of ability scores to pick from: Int, Wis and Cha. What single class build needs any 2 of these to be their best stats? Maybe some niche multiclass builds might take it but otherwise...

[@someusername9591]

I doubt that the stats will be hard locked. They learned from 2014 “races”. They had already fixed the issue in Tasha’s. Those stat bonuses are likely not hard set, but rather just recommendations/the default pick and they probably have a rule saying that you van change stat bonuses however you want

[@dabeef2112]

@@someusername9591 It's been confirmed that they are.. You get a choice of 3 stats that you can spread your points across. There are optional rules in the DMG to create custom backgrounds.

[@aaronwyrd]

I don't get the hate the change to 'species' I keep seeing (in other vids). Human, dwarf, elf are not races. Races never made sense for entire type of being

[@EventyrGames]

I don't mind either. Personally, I think Ancestry is a better word that mroe encapsulates species and otherworldly stuff like aasimar or gravetouched or whatever, but I don't mind species. Just takes some getting used to :)

[@TwinSteel]

🥳🫂👍🏿

[@matthewberry3055]

Shield remaining unchanged is hardly 'ugly'. Trade a spell slot - and a reaction for a probable attack miss. If your DM is policing the adventuring day (encounter to rest ratio) to any degree, you're actually often better off simply taking the HP loss from the attack. I'm hearing spells like Wall of Force, Forcecage, Simulacrum, Wish and other problematic spells were left largely untouched. That's the biggie for mine. Shield is a 'meh'.

[@someusername9591]

Shield literally says “when you are hit by an attack.” Nothing is “probable” here. You’re only using shield if you know 100% that you can use it to deny the attack. Stack medium armor and a shield item on top of it and you’re straight up more tanky than 90% of martials

[@matthewberry3055]

@@someusername9591 you use it when hit by an attack but you don't know how well the attack hit (it might still hit anyway). It burns a spell slot and your reaction as well to do nothing other than mitigate damage from an attack, and even at mid levels you don't have many of those (especially assuming a 6-8 encounter adventuring day). If negating the odd bit of attack damage is causing your game problems, then I suggest you have bigger problems.

[@fortunatus1]

@@matthewberry3055 that's only true if the DM rolls behind a screen and doesn't tell the players what they rolled. Shield should be reduced to +3 and shield bonuses should not be able to stack.

[@matthewberry3055]

@@fortunatus1 There is no requirement for a DM to tell what he rolled. Shield has a S component, so that makes using a shield with it awkward at times. And all the Spell does is mitigate damage from an attack roll or two. It's hardly game breaking. Barbarians are halving all incoming damage, Monks can deflect attacks largely at will (for a Ki point), Warlocks are spamming Temp HP etc. Shield only becomes a little problematic at 18th+ level on Wizards who can spam it at will, and that's the least of your problems considering the other things a high level caster has access to (Simulacrum, Wish, Wall of Force etc). The fact is, even at mid levels (say 7th) your caster has 4/3/3/1 slots available and (assuming your DM is actually policing the adventuring day) several encounters to ration them out over. Aim for a 4-5 encounters per long rest median (the game actually suggests 6-8) and all this 'caster martial' disparity nonsense goes away.

[@malmasterson3890]

​@@matthewberry3055A +5 is reliable enough regardless, and a large portion of DM's will just tell you what they rolled cause they don't keep track of player AC. It lasts until the start of your next turn and also deters enemies from attacking you indirectly buffing your survivability even more. That's the last thing the Arcane casters need right now. It should've been nerfed. Halving all damage? Maybe for like the first tier, but we both know more and more enemies will use the other damage types as time goes on, even with the buffs Monk's reaction deflect isn't nearly as strong, nor is the temp from Warlock. Negating damage altogether is far more powerful than reducing it, and the Shield spell is insanely cost efficient at it, especially with spell scrolls now. The reality is, you can say DM's aren't doing enough encounters, but that doesn't mean everyone suddenly going to change how they play & run games. Across the board games have become more RP focused with this generation, which means less combat encounters, and thus we should have accommodated for it more. People aren't going to change their gaming styles just because you think they should.

[@master_rafiki]

The ranger's over-reliance on hunter's mark is bad. "Species" is the worst. ASIs and feats tied backgrounds force the player to conform to WotC's fantasy. They're bad design; they're overdesigned. I imagine they want to publish background cards like Daggerheart and need more than just the background feature, which is almost never used in actual gameplay.

[@malmasterson3890]

The DMG will have custom background rules and most DM's will just let you do it yourself anyway from what I've seen. The Ranger isn't over-reliant on the Hunter's Mark spell so much as it dedicated a ton of features to it that ultimately don't change much. There are better options, and the Ranger is stronger for it, but it I'd bad class design to build so much around it for sure. They had the opportunity to do some cool stuff for Ranger, or at least add new spells, but really we just got buffs to the spellcasting options & minor buffs here & there to specific features instead which is a bummer.