วีดีโอ

1st edition AD&D races and classes had different specialties. Modern DnD: race and class are just a skin.

I extend the hand of other systems. I promise if you look there is more and better content than anything D&D or Pathfinder has ever offered 🍻

Now that weapon mastery is out, it really turned out to be a terrible system that people will giddily love because it's more free stuff. In D&D 3, 3.5 as well as Pathfinder 1 and 2 the endeavor to make weapons distinct mostly just causes a big dichotomy between the weapons you'd want to use and the weapons that are optimal. Somehow, longswords are always bad. Players realistically decide what weapon they want to use based on cosmetics, I want to use longswords or greatswords because they're cool ect. Then find their favorite weapon isn't build optimal or just has less desirable traits. Like every greatsword user probably wants cleave for obvious reasons, but too bad they get graze. Graze isn't bad, it's great, but it isn't as cool. Meanwhile, sap, push, and slow are just be bad traits sub optimal weapons get. With push, slow, and vex being the most healthy for the game. Additionally, Jeremy Crawford goes on and on about this opening up player tactics, but these are just passive riders you get with every attack. Even if you're doing golf bag shenanigans to swap weapons on every hit, that's not a decision you're making since you're doing that same rotation on every turn. Otherwise, you're not swapping weapons at all you're just using the cool one that fit your character fantasy. Players don't even swap to maces to kill skeletons as is. Some weapons are completely pointless for fighter because they get access to 3 weapon mastery effects regardless of weapon making it completely pointless to pick a weapon that doesn't get a different effect. But hey, at least this gave somebody options in combat. RIP longsword again. That just leaves us with a bunch of OP weapon effects every martial passes out on every attack on every turn. And yeah, I know I know martials are weak, but do these kind of passive effects really improve the experience of melee combat? Advantage on every hit so the rogue never does anything creative for sneak attack ever again. Trips on every hit with the DM rolling 4 saves on every of the fighters turns, not even all at once but one at a time after each of the fighters attacks before they can roll the next one. We haven't given martials more options in combat, we've obsoleted half the weapon options, we've disrupted play. But it's going to be wildly popular because nobody ever says no to a power boost.

What's the difference between two "B/X" fighters? It's the players heroic choices not the fighter already being a "Hero".

i know its fantasy but its a bit friggin silly a 3ft skinny gnome could be stronger than a 6ft beefy orc

If they care about the ASI not conflicting with the classes, they should just add the ASI to the character class and be done with it.

Agree, the locked in ability scores based on my background is trash. Let it just be generic scores wherever you want them and build our own backgrounds since we can't have "races" that are or are not good at anything in particular.. Orcs are literally equal strong as Halflings, or less so because the Halfling was a Noble and the Orc was a Scribe? It makes no sense.

The main problem is that "Backgrounds" are essentially nothing more than starter kits for creating a character by-the-numbers. Experienced players (And more creative inexperienced players) will automatically come up with their own backstories for their characters. So tying so much to the "Background" component of character creation as a part of the rules is silly, when it's arguably the most flexible and unnecessary part of the standard character creation process.

All of these steps are disguising the fact that everyone has the standard array plus a bit more. Why not just boost the standard array?

If I were to run the new version I would tell my players to pick a background from 2014 book. apply the +2 ,+1 wherever they want and done :P

Just using the 2014 background, giving everyone and the Tasha's species. And then giving everyone a free Origin feat.

i dont mind the background system all too much. but if we're tlaking wish fulfillment, removing the ability to attack with two longswords in each hand is a direct middlefinger to mine.

Read the side-bar in the new PHB about adjusting backgrounds from older books, and then read the "Customizing a Background" section of P. 125 of the 2014 PHB. Custom backgrounds have always been RAW (just nobody cared because they weren't mechanically relevant aside from a couple of skill selections), and so the new book gives guidance on RAW backgrounds by referencing the old book. The way it's presented in the new book looks like it's there to not overwhelm new players with choices.

D&D Begone

race should affect abilities due to genetics, background, and class to a lesser extent, race should have negative penalties to some stats, background could also have bonuses and negative stats and then finally the class should also give some bonuses and negatives.

When are people going to realize that they are TERRIBLE designers.

I thought the idea to put some ability scores on backgrounds a good idea, as it makes sense in a narrative way; however the cost of removing ability scores from races, yeah no, does not. The defense that it is for balancing reasons, well the obvious answer is no. 100% is not, i just need to look at the utterly stupid skill split in 5e. After splitting social skills into three offensive and one defensive skill, nobody can tell me anything is done for balancing reason. I could rant about the skill system for hours. The minor rework of other things made magic even more common place in the 2024 ruleset than in the 2014 ruleset, which is quite a detriment in case you want to run a low magic world, meaning you now need to spend more time homebrewing. 2014 was already not good for that, 2024 is worse, while it streamlines it removes a lot of the flexibility you had.

Actually, a wizard probably want criminal to get alert, as his secondary abilities to increase are either DEX and CON anyway. Get ready to hear about how all wizard characters where raised as criminals. I don't have a problem with rogue being mostly criminals, and bard and warlock being mostly entertainers and merchants. Clerics and druids are really encouraged to go sage, which is not that terrible. So STR based fighters will usually be farmers, while DEX based fighters will usually be criminals, which is a little strange (though both could be entertainers in some cases if he party lack someone with the musician feat), as savage attacker is just a weaker feat than alert or tough so soldier is just a worse option.

Character should just have 2 "background" bonus, one should be from how the character was raised, their cultural heritage if you will, while the other should be more specific to the character such as their initial career or in other words, what they would have done if they didn't become an adventurer (street urchin, noble, sage, etc...). This would also lead to a rework of racial features since a lot of races have cultural bonus as racial features such as elf and dwarf that have weapon training.

This whole background thing is literally repeating the whole ASI thing with character races. I want to be a smart orc but orcs are dumb, new book means you can put a character’s race ASI into any stat, now we have the same thing as in 2014 but with backgrounds instead of races, or “species”. Literally a step back and I think *EVERYONE* is going to agree to homebrew this shit, no matter where they are

The whole book has abandoned character concept. The weapon rules completely shut out most iconic weapon combos. Paired long swords or battle axes aren't even possible. Paired Scimitars is possible but gimped since your main hand weapon will have no effective mastery as Nick doesn't do anything. Paired short swords won't have Nick. So many characters are just nonsensical now. Scimitar and shield, a staple of desert fantasy, is useless with no effective mastery. At least it's easy to house rule custom backgrounds. I have no idea how I am going to house rule these weapon rules.

its not like eveyr table doesnt have homebrew rules, customize backgrounds, end of argument but NO, i gotta put some click bait out their for the internet lynch mob. THE ENTIRE GAMe is nothing but a list of SUGGESTIONS.. Gygax said that DECADEs ago lol, Why are so many people with ZERO Friggin imagniation playng this game and expecting it operate like an MMO.?? this is not a video game, if yur enot CRTEATING, your eding it wrong and these no talent youtubers use this mentality to get clickbait becuz they dont hav emuch else to offer

I have no issue with the concept of the background driving these stats, feat and proficiencies; however it was only after i put them all into a spreadsheet I realised how restrictive they became. Most classes now have a MAXIMUM of ONE choice that is even vaguely optimal/and thematic. It's insanely badly implemented.

Where is the fantasy? Everything seems just like humans. What’s the difference between a dwarf, an elf and a tieflings? None they’re just humans in a different canvas.

You are overthinking this. Most (if not all) PCs (and literary characters that are PC caliber) have more than one background. The one that goes on a character's sheet is the one that the player is choosing to emphasize. It is not the sum total of that character's existence prior to campaign start. The existing backgrounds in the PHB are a fine starting point. That said, the reverse-engineering of backgrounds is pretty trivial (as you illustrate). Also to answer the question you posed - yes you are overreacting. Have a good one!

Oh wow. I had no idea that other people had this issue. It isn't just me. This is not good for minmaxers. I dislike this for another reason. It is way too overly complex. It is clunky. I made a house rule. When someone picks a class for a new character, they automatically get a set of ability scores that fit the class. I ignore the mechanical benefits of race and background. They should just be used for flavor. I ignored this in the old 5E Players Handbook. I will just ignore this in the new one. I didn't know Tasha's Cauldron had that. I do make the ability score due to class higher. This makes up for not getting it from race and background. I am not a fan of feats because they are too clunky. I just ignore them an increase ability scores instead. I do have a great idea. Maybe feats can be integrated into the class system. Each subclass can have its own unique set of feats. Then players can choose what they like from the list. It can be a lot like talent trees from World of Warcraft. That would be cool. A level capped character can continue to earn experience points. Then when they gain enough for another level, they are rewarded with another feat. It is possible to make the system streamlined but deep. This video went on some odd tangents. I never thought of using DND to play Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones has a low magic setting. DND has a high magic setting or at least something in the middle. With the difference I didn't think they would go together. Sure Game of Thrones has some magical characters like Bran and Mellosandra, but they are the exception to the rule. Melisandra would totally be a cleric with the light domain. It would take a ton of homebrewing to change DND to low magic. A bunch of classes would have been cut. Maybe they can be reflavored for something more martial. A gunslinger replaces arcane classes. A medic replaces clerics and druids. A warlord replaces bards. Hunters, paladins and monks could still exist. They would have to be reflavored so they lack magic.

Also, considering that there aren't a lot of different backgrounds - each background automatically coming with a specific feat means you will have each of these feats present a lot - every acolyte can now cast, every sage can now cast, every (i don't know) street urchin is now a brawler, etc. The idea of such broad RPGs like D&D is that every figure is unique in their own way. Such changes (and others I already know about) make things samey and repetitive.

this whole video is worthless when they release custom backgrounds in the dmg. chill

I dont mind 5th edition and GM it often.Although I entirely love 3rd edition.

In previous editions they weren't species, they were races. The word "races" does not correspond to human races, but is used in a literary sense to refer to "fantastic mythological peoples" who have some biological differences to humans, but also share biology with humans--because they're magical creatures. This is because words can have multiple definitions. Like a "fork" can mean a place where a road splits in two, or it could mean an eating utensil. Apparently this concept is hard for WOTC to grok. There are giant spiders in D&D who are clearly another species, yet they can talk without vocal chords. Why? Because it's freakin' magic, and D&D is a fantasy game with imaginary stuff in it! It's fun to imagine, "hey what if spiders could talk!" The sensitivity "experts" at WOTC only understand one definition of the word race, 'cause they only read DEI manuals instead of actual fantasy books, say one with a talking spider like Charlotte's web. Being "imaginative", they decided to go with species. This is a problem because A) it's a fantasy game full of imaginary stuff, B) fantasy creatures like elves and humans can have children, whereas species, by definition *cannot* sexually reproduce (except in rare cases, where the offspring is always sterile, like Mules). You could say they skirted around this problem by eliminating half-elves and half-orcs, but Crawford said they did that because "calling someone half- is racist", so it probably is just a virtue signal. The point it, this sucks the fun right out of the game, makes it's boring and inoffensive, and feels like you're playing a corporate training exercise, instead of a game of make-believe that's supposed to be fun.

Character origins sucks.. how does a Noble and scribe have the same skeleton. They should’ve given more options for feats you can choose is just one small thing they looked over (among many) Example; guards can choose one from alert, observant, or tavern brawler. A criminal should be alert, skilled or skulker etc locking down 1 feat that overlaps a few times is cheap. They spent more time worrying about making the book pretty, and inclusive they promised this would make more unique characters and it really made it worse.

Those tropes are learned life experience. Swordmenship is str. There is no correct race class or background. You can build any character. You dont need optomized. None of ur favorite fantasy or scifi characters have always been the badasses they are at the prime or end of the story. Also u are so obsessed with what rules they print u forgot what dnd was about. It has always been a skeleton of rules but just a jumping off point of using ur creativity to make the characters u want. N NEVER chose feats and ability score based off optimization. Do it with realism in mind. Limitaions breed creative and memorable moments.

Aria started as a character with +2 to charisma and +1 to intelligence. She didnt start off as an assassin She had to go through many 'adventures' and training to become that. So her background as a noble would fit her to the T and then her ability score improvements through levelong would allow her to increase her DEX and CON. i love ur video but ur point is moot. The characters had to gain experience to become the archtypes they end up as. That is why my previous point of adversity breeds good game play. Go to episode1-5 n show me how she showed signs of the class assassin

No! All players new or old will enjoy not being an optomized arch type. We arent using leader boards n would rsther play as fantasy characters with the realism of limitations. Gimli cant run as fast, jump ad far or see as far as Legolis. Legolis cant use brute force and small stature to brutalize a cave troll. Stryder cant sneak as well as a hobbit! Thats what makes the fellowship an amazing party.

The real issue is they added so many more mechanics solely to keep you from noticing that they destroyed the difference in Races. The limitations of each race is what made the unique styles fun. If u wanna min max for a ttrpg good for u. We had the ability to create unique characters only limited by ur imagination. It was much more realistic. In life if u excell in a field u are naturally going to lack in others. Thats what made it fun. Limitations are what makes epic moments of over coming them fun and special. This all inclusivewave has went n destroyed the best part about fantasy ttrpgs. The realism. No one wants to play a ttrpg that reminds them of thier actual life BUT even magic and was incredibly fun because of the basis in realism. A fireball doing massive damage was amazing to pull off. But having no ability or feat restriction based of race is like a dm saying oh 'well u did cast fireball BUT the fire doesnt hurt because it might offend other people, whom arent part of ur game or life, who are afraid of fire. Its gone to a point where ur race is nothing more than a skin and everyone's characters are all overpowered heros and no adversity is present. U need to struggle to enjoy the game otherwise lvling up means nothing more than stroking ur fantasy ego in a world full of paper targets.

As someone who was around when AD&D and 2nd edition players begged TSR to relax or do away with class and level restrictions for demi-humans, and when 3rd edition players applauded that they no longer needed to pretend they legally rolled three 15s, one 12, and a 10 on 3d6 in order to play as a bard, I find it funny that 5e players are outraged at the fact that no race/class combination will automatically be a suboptimal choice thanks to ability scores and 1st level feats being tied to backgrounds.

thank you for your video.

The "why" is well known, but maybe not obvious - homogenization. They've gone "all in on digital," and that's not very compatible with "do your own thing." Also, go easy on Crawford and his peers because chances are they didn't want this design either. Their jobs are posted on the careers page over at WotC...

I love Tasha's book, but this free choice on ability bonus is plain stupid. The new background options are slightly better, but in the end the best thing is still the traditional method. Is the one that makes more sense and translates better the lore of the game.

I hate Tasha's, not that they added an optional rule that you could just change out the stats on races if you wanted to power game but that they removed the stats from the races as a whole, the remade and new races all are now completely blank slates, they even removed flavor things like how long they live and things. Some people want the option to put the stats bonuses wherever they want, I want the option not to do that, if I play an Orc wizard I will be physically stronger than other wizards, that can be very fun, sure I could chose to put my stats unoptimally if the race is a blank slate but nobody will do that. I played a tiefling rogue and charisma and dex was my top highest scores, this made me play in to that, also that the rest of the party was 2 warlocks and a paladin meant that we were a high charisma party and that was very fun. Because WOTC forced this change I will most likely not allow the put your stats anywhere and the remade races at my table as a protest, good thing the people I play with are not the biggest fans of these changes either. I will most likely keep away from this new edition 5.5e, 6e or 1e or whatever they are calling it, if I tire of 5e there are other systems.

I mean... just customize it...? it might not say that in the PHB and instead in the DMG for some reason but people will do before hand, why would now be any different?

5e was already confusing, this is worse. Think I will stick with the Palladium Rifts megaverse for the most part. I hate 5e ad&d.

I understand they just moved the issue around; instead of limiting species choices, they're limiting background choices for optimal builds. But if they just allowed players to put those +2, +1 bonuses to any ability scores (whether from background, lineage, or class), then it's the equivalent of just giving extra points to divide using point buy. i.e. the choice of +1/+2 becomes illusory. 🤷 At any rate, DMs are still free to accomodate their players however they want. You want that +2 DEX bonus as a noble? Sure. Just take a -1 penalty in another score. You were so busy developping your dexterity-based skills growing up that you neglected your physical strength or intellectual studies. Or just allow the +2 to be applied to any ability score. Whatever works for the group.

SO the rule of cool is just look at what gives you the best stat scores to be the best you can and then screw the spirit of the game. One can always optimize in a game if you are willing to go off script

this whole "disaster" could have been avoided if they left the customize your background in the PHB where it was in 2014 and where it belongs. now i see an even worse problem, i choose what class i want to play then i have to look up the backgrounds and check which combination of stats + feat fits my character after that i throw all the background story i had in mind into the garbage can ( most of the time ) and have to rethink what the character was doing before it's very likely i will end up with not matching stas and the feat the background grants and i will have to think do i run with stats that don't fit or a background that don't fits next i will be settled with 2 skills which might be duplicates of the ones i choose as my class skills, in 2014 no problem i could swap the duplicate, oh lets just do that .... args i can't because that would mean i have to modify the background which is in the dmg every character will be pigeonholed into the background provided by the book, so you don't get to play the character you had in your mind, but will need to play a character the rules forces you too .... also the feats you can choose as your background feat are very limited and also vary alot on what they do provide you with. going by UA here : MI might provide you with a nice bonus under certain circumstances ( e.g. Wizard, sorcerer MI for a hybrid or priest class to gain access to the shield spell ) Now to get the MI : Arcane you need to have a culthist background, sounds "good" for a Paladin of Tyr to be a former culthist of a demon or devil doesn't it ? now lets see as skill thats Religion (duplicate ) and Arcane ( for a paladin pretty useless ) language : abyssal .... ( no comment ) tool : disguise kit ( for this character also completly useless) stats : int & chr ( depends on what is presented as 3rd in the new phb, otherwise your +1 is useless)

I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this to be honest. Overall I really like most of the changes in the new PHB, but they really took a massive step back with the backgrounds. In the campaign that my friends and I are playing right now we made our characters using the unearthed arcana custom backgrounds and everyone loved it for the imense flexability. Really scummy idea to put custom backgrounds in the DMG, HATE that. D&D is all about choice, let players CHOOSE.

Split the difference between species and background. Luxodons are big and strong. But give your lux rouge dex too.

I refuse to say species, it's RACE!!!

DnD players making "builds" instead of characters is where the brain rot begins

I still think there is a middle ground that was leaped over. How about a +1 from your race, +1 from your background, and +1 from your class, each with 2 options and a general rule of no +3.