WOTC are in the unenviable position of having a playerbase that demands an overhaul to D&D, while also demanding that D&D remains completely the same, and so every new idea has to be implemented as either a subclass or a feat.
@@worldwarlock That's why they can't come up with good ideas. They still have no idea what people like about 5e besides the name "D&D", and every new idea they've had has been met with widespread backlash, so they're terrified of taking any risks - and when you can't take risks, you can't have ideas.
The UA with the origin feats has only 10 feats, which means that if you want a specific feat then you will probably be locked into one or two specific backgrounds. I think it would have been better if only one (or two, if you want 3 +1's) ability was locked into a background and one that can be chosen from any. That way you can choose Acolyte you can choose Int, wis or cha for one (or two) of your abilities, then one ability that can be chosen from any.
I'm about to start my first new D&D campaign since the OGL debacle. Character rules are PHB 2014 Classes/Subclass, species, spells. Standard array, no feats, no multi classing.
@worldwarlock it's an optional rule. So are feats. I don't want power players trying to break the game. If players don't like it, they can find another DM, or DM themselves.
The differentiation of feats isn't about complexity, it's about power level. All of the non-starter feats include an ability score increase, for example.
I don't know, I feel like the game has been being dumbed down since 4th edition. 3.5 and pathfinder 1e were not well balanced, but I do think it allowed for a much wider range of types of characters you can play, especially with how they did the multi-classing system, which I am still a huge fan of for the most part. I tried to get my group in 5e, but they always felt like they were too limited with that system. The same happened when we tried 4e, which I actually came to like (although I absolutely hated it at first).
Oh 100% it's been a complaint I've seen over and over. In their quest to make dnd as accessible as possible (so they can make more money) they've really dumbed the game down
Yep. Playing the Owlcat Kingmaker game and discovering just how much flexibility and character concept I was missing out on in 5e's very rigid system, was a huge contributing factor to me quitting D&D. And Kingmaker's not even a good game.
They didn't need to take that many options out of the player's hands in backgrounds but now they have a format to introduce new backgrounds in future supplements (or a format for you to create your own backgrounds).
They definitely didn't actually talk about feet. Just like how feet are tied to your characters. Which is fine but like I was hoping they would drop some spicy new stuff. What they gave us feels like something akin to a patch in a game. Ya know, nothing truly special, just optimizations you could have figured out yourself as homebrew.
It is. It's a balance patch with some new features that raise up some abilities and drag some abilities down. The people calling this 6e are insane. It's 5.5 at best and probably more like 5.2.
Backgrounds are stupid and making them more important is the biggest reason I never intend to play 5.24. Letting every race pick whatever bonuses was fine. This is just flat-out garbage.
@@worldwarlock The problem is, the 27 points you assign to your ability scores should already be representing how your character grew up and trained. If "the impact of your backstory on your ability scores" is instead now going to be represented by a replacement to racial modifiers, what do your point buy points or your die rolls represent? If you're not doing racial bonuses, you can just cut bonuses entirely and fold them into point buy, with extra points and an increased score cap. That way, any ability point can represent anything you feel best fits your character, instead of having some points that must represent your backstory, and a whole load more points that must represent "anything other than your backstory". The only bonuses outside the point buy pool that would make sense would be racial modifiers, if you wanted to mechanically represent natural or supernatural biological aptitudes that are inescapable facts of a character's birth. Anything else is best handled in the common pool, which means if you aren't a fan of elves being dextrous, you should just use an expanded point buy, instead of moving racial bonuses somewhere else.
@@DanielMWJ that's actually so surprising to me, I love creating my backstory and thought that it was actually kind of a big deal for a lot of people. Obviously what's to come is always more important but I like the idea of using your past to explain what you're good at
WOTC are in the unenviable position of having a playerbase that demands an overhaul to D&D, while also demanding that D&D remains completely the same, and so every new idea has to be implemented as either a subclass or a feat.
Yeah it's a tricky situation to be in tbf, but they should be able to come up with some good ideas, being the biggest ttrpg and all that
@@worldwarlock That's why they can't come up with good ideas. They still have no idea what people like about 5e besides the name "D&D", and every new idea they've had has been met with widespread backlash, so they're terrified of taking any risks - and when you can't take risks, you can't have ideas.
The UA with the origin feats has only 10 feats, which means that if you want a specific feat then you will probably be locked into one or two specific backgrounds.
I think it would have been better if only one (or two, if you want 3 +1's) ability was locked into a background and one that can be chosen from any. That way you can choose Acolyte you can choose Int, wis or cha for one (or two) of your abilities, then one ability that can be chosen from any.
Yeah same, that way it makes sense thematically but you still have some freedom
I'm about to start my first new D&D campaign since the OGL debacle. Character rules are PHB 2014 Classes/Subclass, species, spells. Standard array, no feats, no multi classing.
Oh wow no multiclassing either?
@worldwarlock it's an optional rule. So are feats. I don't want power players trying to break the game. If players don't like it, they can find another DM, or DM themselves.
Fair
The differentiation of feats isn't about complexity, it's about power level. All of the non-starter feats include an ability score increase, for example.
Ahh okay that makes sense to be honest
You dont have to pick your race before your class in dnd beyond, it just comes first in the options, you can select your class first.
Yeah no ofc you don't have to but it always feels weird that they put the race option before class
I don't know, I feel like the game has been being dumbed down since 4th edition. 3.5 and pathfinder 1e were not well balanced, but I do think it allowed for a much wider range of types of characters you can play, especially with how they did the multi-classing system, which I am still a huge fan of for the most part. I tried to get my group in 5e, but they always felt like they were too limited with that system. The same happened when we tried 4e, which I actually came to like (although I absolutely hated it at first).
Oh 100% it's been a complaint I've seen over and over. In their quest to make dnd as accessible as possible (so they can make more money) they've really dumbed the game down
Yep. Playing the Owlcat Kingmaker game and discovering just how much flexibility and character concept I was missing out on in 5e's very rigid system, was a huge contributing factor to me quitting D&D. And Kingmaker's not even a good game.
Why don't they just remove the level 1 ability score bonuses? Just make it part of the ability score allocation.
I think they do want to try and make things as thematic as possible which isn't necessarily a bad thing tbf
1.5x1.5=(1+0.5)(1+0.5)=1(1+0.5)+0.5(1+0.5)=1+0.5+0.5+0.5x0.5=2+( half of a half )=2+0.25=2.25
2.25x speed.
Thank you😭
This sounds like it's going to make things difficult for DMs. Players changing abilities is going to lead to problem games.
Yeah potentially, this edition seems very player focused tbh
They didn't need to take that many options out of the player's hands in backgrounds but now they have a format to introduce new backgrounds in future supplements (or a format for you to create your own backgrounds).
True!
"peter" 💀💀💀
Yeah i kept forgetting his name so it's peter now, nothing i can do about it🤷🏻♂️
lol at Jeremy Crawford being renamed.😂
They said there will be the possibility to choose a custom background
Oh oops I must've missed that😳 but that makes a lot of sense actually
@@worldwarlock yep, they released a lot of stuff, probably the custom background will be part of the DMG
Only in the DMG so it means you have to ask your DM to allow it first
@@xadielplasencia3674 I mean, literally everything needs to be allowed by the DM anyways.
@@Klaital1 No it doesnt, everything in the PHB is assumed until the DM bans it, the opposite of things that are assumed banned and must be allowed
They definitely didn't actually talk about feet. Just like how feet are tied to your characters. Which is fine but like I was hoping they would drop some spicy new stuff. What they gave us feels like something akin to a patch in a game. Ya know, nothing truly special, just optimizations you could have figured out yourself as homebrew.
No exactly, it feels like a quality of life update rather than an overhaul of the system
It is. It's a balance patch with some new features that raise up some abilities and drag some abilities down. The people calling this 6e are insane. It's 5.5 at best and probably more like 5.2.
Yeah no this feels a bit strange all in all, i get you
2,25
Is that Harvest Moon?
Do you mean the music?
@@worldwarlock yes
It's stardew valley!
@@worldwarlock Oh, really? Knew it was familiar, but I've only played harvest moon gamed as of late, so I was quite sure. Well, great games either eay
Backgrounds are stupid and making them more important is the biggest reason I never intend to play 5.24. Letting every race pick whatever bonuses was fine. This is just flat-out garbage.
Do you not think it makes sense for your background to have an impact on what your character is like and what they're good at?
@@worldwarlock The problem is, the 27 points you assign to your ability scores should already be representing how your character grew up and trained. If "the impact of your backstory on your ability scores" is instead now going to be represented by a replacement to racial modifiers, what do your point buy points or your die rolls represent? If you're not doing racial bonuses, you can just cut bonuses entirely and fold them into point buy, with extra points and an increased score cap. That way, any ability point can represent anything you feel best fits your character, instead of having some points that must represent your backstory, and a whole load more points that must represent "anything other than your backstory".
The only bonuses outside the point buy pool that would make sense would be racial modifiers, if you wanted to mechanically represent natural or supernatural biological aptitudes that are inescapable facts of a character's birth. Anything else is best handled in the common pool, which means if you aren't a fan of elves being dextrous, you should just use an expanded point buy, instead of moving racial bonuses somewhere else.
@@worldwarlockSome people are just not interested in exploring their characters' pasts, but are here for the adventures in the present/future.
@@DanielMWJ that's actually so surprising to me, I love creating my backstory and thought that it was actually kind of a big deal for a lot of people. Obviously what's to come is always more important but I like the idea of using your past to explain what you're good at