Yeah, the premade ones are just some quickie templates; for all practical purposes there's no such thing as truly discreet and defined backgrounds going forward, just combinations of stats, profs, feat, and starting gear.
That was true in the playtest, but apparently not in the final product.
Yeah, the premade ones are just some quickie templates; for all practical purposes there's no such thing as truly discreet and defined backgrounds going forward, just combinations of stats, profs, feat, and starting gear.
That was true in the playtest, but apparently not in the final product.
I haven't been able to keep up with what they've been saying in the recent releases, but I'll be really surprise if they go back and say that your character creation ASI's need to be chosen from a pool of fixed combinations rather than being wildcards; and that's before we consider starter feats as well. Even if they write up a bunch of examples I expect it to also pretty prominently give the parameters for designing your own in the PHB as a "variant" option.
Yay for "variant", that has a great history on DDB. Anyways, wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I haven't been able to keep up with what they've been saying in the recent releases, but I'll be really surprise if they go back and say that your character creation ASI's need to be chosen from a pool of fixed combinations rather than being wildcards; and that's before we consider starter feats as well. Even if they write up a bunch of examples I expect it to also pretty prominently give the parameters for designing your own in the PHB as a "variant" option.
AFAWCT, "design your own" is in the DMG now. But we'll have to wait and see for sure.
Wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
I'm against it too, but if we must have it, background (i.e. what you did) is a hell of a lot better than species (biological destiny.)
What it's likely to mean if true is that a background tiering/meta will pop up in the online fandom, which may very well be what they're after. Offline, groups will just ask their DM to swap stuff around and that will be the end of it.
I like a lot of the changes and fixes, but I'm sad to see that the paladin aura did not get reworked in some way.
Optimized groups/builds basically require paladins for their saving throw aura and combat dynamics change radically with the paladin aura, meaning DMs have to design differently for groups with a paladin of level 6+ and groups without.
I like a lot of the changes and fixes, but I'm sad to see that the paladin aura did not get reworked in some way.
Optimized groups/builds basically require paladins for their saving throw aura and combat dynamics change radically with the paladin aura, meaning DMs have to design differently for groups with a paladin of level 6+ and groups without.
The aura is only 10ft until 18th level though; no matter how optimal making saves is, packing the entire party in cheek-by-jowl with the Paladin is likely to put them in more danger rather than less. The aura's power level is totally fine, and groups without a paladin are fine too unless their DM is really cranking the game's difficulty beyond what the designers intend.
Honestly, I think the Paladin is fine. I think limiting the Paladin's smite to once per turn is a good thing for the health of the game. The biggest factor is it limits the amount of burst allowing the game's combat to be more predictable for GM's so even less experienced GM's can set proper difficulty encounters. The encounter building starts to fall apart at certain levels and the hope is that the new encounter making rules in the DMG will be all around better and easier to use with better guidelines for GM's. Part of making those better is making how much can be done on a single turn more limited. Paladin's daily strength is up, but their single turn strength is down and I consider that good.
Just remember, making things easier to get started and smooth running for GM's makes it easier and better for Players to find quality games.
The smite being once per round honestly was not the biggest dealbreaker here, its the fact that you are forced into using your bonus action to do it... big reason why other smite spells were not as often used, in the playtest they kind of tried to compensate by have you prepare the smites for free but they even removed that. If the smite was once per turn on an atack id be fine with it
The smite being once per round honestly was not the biggest dealbreaker here, its the fact that you are forced into using your bonus action to do it... big reason why other smite spells were not as often used, in the playtest they kind of tried to compensate by have you prepare the smites for free but they even removed that. If the smite was once per turn on an atack id be fine with it
Weren't they also removing some things from the bonus action in the subclasses so that you could do them along side smiting still? I am assuming the real issue with the bonus action thing is polearm master which may have been changed as we don't know the feat changes yet either.
The smite being once per round honestly was not the biggest dealbreaker here, its the fact that you are forced into using your bonus action to do it... big reason why other smite spells were not as often used, in the playtest they kind of tried to compensate by have you prepare the smites for free but they even removed that. If the smite was once per turn on an atack id be fine with it
Weren't they also removing some things from the bonus action in the subclasses so that you could do them along side smiting still? I am assuming the real issue with the bonus action thing is polearm master which may have been changed as we don't know the feat changes yet either.
Sure hope so, but as is so many things work off bonus action, in feats it would be Fey touched(Misty step)/ shield master(BA shield bash)/telekinetic(movement of friend or foe)/Polearm master(ba atack) first that come to mind, not to mention spells and .... the new rules on POTION USAGE
The smite being once per round honestly was not the biggest dealbreaker here, its the fact that you are forced into using your bonus action to do it... big reason why other smite spells were not as often used, in the playtest they kind of tried to compensate by have you prepare the smites for free but they even removed that. If the smite was once per turn on an atack id be fine with it
Weren't they also removing some things from the bonus action in the subclasses so that you could do them along side smiting still? I am assuming the real issue with the bonus action thing is polearm master which may have been changed as we don't know the feat changes yet either.
Sure hope so, but as is so many things work off bonus action, in feats it would be Fey touched(Misty step)/ shield master(BA shield bash)/telekinetic(movement of friend or foe)/Polearm master(ba atack) first that come to mind, not to mention spells and .... the new rules on POTION USAGE
Of course we do not know how shield master or polearm master are going to look. the others consume a resource just as smiting does. I don't think it is a bad thing to have to choose what to do on your turn with your bonus action. Monks work that same way with dodging vs disengaging vs flurry of blows. Most classes have multiple things they can do with their bonus action I think it is ok to have to choose what you do. Player choice is player agency. So this means you choose if you want more damage or more of something else at the cost of a spell slot or something else. While also meaning that the GM can be more secure in how much is going to happen on any particular turn or any particular combat which makes balancing encounters easier which makes the play experience for all better.
Yay for "variant", that has a great history on DDB. Anyways, wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
I don’t think it’s a miscommunication. They showed the pages with each background giving 3 choices for ability scores.
This was my first thought, too, is it locks you in to a “correct” background for each class. Or at least a couple the are most correct. But then I thought actually, it might make sense. If you were an acolyte (choose to boost int, wis or cha) and got drummed out of your religious order, or left for some reason, it stands to reason you’d have better mental stats since that’s how you spent your time. It seems reasonable you won’t have as high a str score as someone who did lots of physical stuff in some other background. That’s the trade off you make for playing against type. You’re primary ability will be a little lower, but you’ll have proficiency in different skills that will make you more well-rounded. And practically, we’re talking about having a 15 str for the acolyte vs a 16 or 17 for the other, so you’re only 1 point behind in terms of your modifier. I know the math says that makes a big difference, but I doubt you’ll really notice it.
But, as with all of these changes, I don’t think we’ll really know until we see it in play.
I'm okay with Smite not working with Polearm Master, literally every strength-based martial wants PAM and it's so samey. Now we have a class where a greatsword or sword-and-board are actually optimal and I'm here for it.
Personally I like the limit of 1 smite per turn; I was tired of paladins showing up their party members by deleting major enemies in the first two rounds by themselves with their insane nova potential. Not to sound like I hate paladins — they’re my favorite class — but other party members need chances to shine.
Yay for "variant", that has a great history on DDB. Anyways, wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
I don’t think it’s a miscommunication. They showed the pages with each background giving 3 choices for ability scores.
This was my first thought, too, is it locks you in to a “correct” background for each class. Or at least a couple the are most correct. But then I thought actually, it might make sense. If you were an acolyte (choose to boost int, wis or cha) and got drummed out of your religious order, or left for some reason, it stands to reason you’d have better mental stats since that’s how you spent your time. It seems reasonable you won’t have as high a str score as someone who did lots of physical stuff in some other background. That’s the trade off you make for playing against type. You’re primary ability will be a little lower, but you’ll have proficiency in different skills that will make you more well-rounded. And practically, we’re talking about having a 15 str for the acolyte vs a 16 or 17 for the other, so you’re only 1 point behind in terms of your modifier. I know the math says that makes a big difference, but I doubt you’ll really notice it.
But, as with all of these changes, I don’t think we’ll really know until we see it in play.
It was a blink and you missed it sentence but Crawford said for additional customization for your backgrounds talk to your DM because rules for that will be in the DMG.
Maybe so you can flesh out how your character arrived out those abilities...
I don’t think it’s a miscommunication. They showed the pages with each background giving 3 choices for ability scores.
This was my first thought, too, is it locks you in to a “correct” background for each class. Or at least a couple the are most correct.
With three attributes per background and choice on which to focus on, there's going to be a pretty large number of suitable backgrounds for most characters.
It was a blink and you missed it sentence but Crawford said for additional customization for your backgrounds talk to your DM because rules for that will be in the DMG.
I've been hunting for that sentence for the better part of an hour because I wanted to double-check it too. Was it in the big hour-long PHB reveal video? Got a timestamp by any chance?
I wouldn’t mind so much if they weren’t tying skills, ASI, and your starting feat to this model, even if it’s not completely rigid. If it was just two of the three it’d seem a lot less restrictive.
It was a blink and you missed it sentence but Crawford said for additional customization for your backgrounds talk to your DM because rules for that will be in the DMG.
I've been hunting for that sentence for the better part of an hour because I wanted to double-check it too. Was it in the big hour-long PHB reveal video? Got a timestamp by any chance?
This video has it
I am skimming for time stamp. Edit: at the 8:00 mark
My only worry now is AL. Will the DM be able to allow that option, or will we be hard-locked to the 16 in the PHB? Acolyte for example gets a resounding meh from me, since so few classes will want to boost more than one mental ability score, unless my cleric starts with an awkward 9 or 11 in Int or Cha.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That was true in the playtest, but apparently not in the final product.
I haven't been able to keep up with what they've been saying in the recent releases, but I'll be really surprise if they go back and say that your character creation ASI's need to be chosen from a pool of fixed combinations rather than being wildcards; and that's before we consider starter feats as well. Even if they write up a bunch of examples I expect it to also pretty prominently give the parameters for designing your own in the PHB as a "variant" option.
Yay for "variant", that has a great history on DDB. Anyways, wasn't their rationale behind removing racial ASIs that they didn't want to lock people into "correct" combinations (eh "Oh, I can't be an Orc Wizard because Orcs don't get to boost their intelligence!")? I'm hoping that the bit about locking the choices down to a couple of Attributes is a miscommunication somewhere - I'm all for suggestions, but it feels counterproductive to go back to mandatory choices at this stage.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
AFAWCT, "design your own" is in the DMG now. But we'll have to wait and see for sure.
I'm against it too, but if we must have it, background (i.e. what you did) is a hell of a lot better than species (biological destiny.)
What it's likely to mean if true is that a background tiering/meta will pop up in the online fandom, which may very well be what they're after. Offline, groups will just ask their DM to swap stuff around and that will be the end of it.
I like a lot of the changes and fixes, but I'm sad to see that the paladin aura did not get reworked in some way.
Optimized groups/builds basically require paladins for their saving throw aura and combat dynamics change radically with the paladin aura, meaning DMs have to design differently for groups with a paladin of level 6+ and groups without.
The aura is only 10ft until 18th level though; no matter how optimal making saves is, packing the entire party in cheek-by-jowl with the Paladin is likely to put them in more danger rather than less. The aura's power level is totally fine, and groups without a paladin are fine too unless their DM is really cranking the game's difficulty beyond what the designers intend.
Honestly, I think the Paladin is fine. I think limiting the Paladin's smite to once per turn is a good thing for the health of the game. The biggest factor is it limits the amount of burst allowing the game's combat to be more predictable for GM's so even less experienced GM's can set proper difficulty encounters. The encounter building starts to fall apart at certain levels and the hope is that the new encounter making rules in the DMG will be all around better and easier to use with better guidelines for GM's. Part of making those better is making how much can be done on a single turn more limited. Paladin's daily strength is up, but their single turn strength is down and I consider that good.
Just remember, making things easier to get started and smooth running for GM's makes it easier and better for Players to find quality games.
The smite being once per round honestly was not the biggest dealbreaker here, its the fact that you are forced into using your bonus action to do it... big reason why other smite spells were not as often used, in the playtest they kind of tried to compensate by have you prepare the smites for free but they even removed that. If the smite was once per turn on an atack id be fine with it
Weren't they also removing some things from the bonus action in the subclasses so that you could do them along side smiting still? I am assuming the real issue with the bonus action thing is polearm master which may have been changed as we don't know the feat changes yet either.
Sure hope so, but as is so many things work off bonus action, in feats it would be Fey touched(Misty step)/ shield master(BA shield bash)/telekinetic(movement of friend or foe)/Polearm master(ba atack) first that come to mind, not to mention spells and .... the new rules on POTION USAGE
Of course we do not know how shield master or polearm master are going to look. the others consume a resource just as smiting does. I don't think it is a bad thing to have to choose what to do on your turn with your bonus action. Monks work that same way with dodging vs disengaging vs flurry of blows. Most classes have multiple things they can do with their bonus action I think it is ok to have to choose what you do. Player choice is player agency. So this means you choose if you want more damage or more of something else at the cost of a spell slot or something else. While also meaning that the GM can be more secure in how much is going to happen on any particular turn or any particular combat which makes balancing encounters easier which makes the play experience for all better.
I don’t think it’s a miscommunication. They showed the pages with each background giving 3 choices for ability scores.
This was my first thought, too, is it locks you in to a “correct” background for each class. Or at least a couple the are most correct. But then I thought actually, it might make sense. If you were an acolyte (choose to boost int, wis or cha) and got drummed out of your religious order, or left for some reason, it stands to reason you’d have better mental stats since that’s how you spent your time. It seems reasonable you won’t have as high a str score as someone who did lots of physical stuff in some other background. That’s the trade off you make for playing against type. You’re primary ability will be a little lower, but you’ll have proficiency in different skills that will make you more well-rounded.
And practically, we’re talking about having a 15 str for the acolyte vs a 16 or 17 for the other, so you’re only 1 point behind in terms of your modifier. I know the math says that makes a big difference, but I doubt you’ll really notice it.
But, as with all of these changes, I don’t think we’ll really know until we see it in play.
I'm okay with Smite not working with Polearm Master, literally every strength-based martial wants PAM and it's so samey. Now we have a class where a greatsword or sword-and-board are actually optimal and I'm here for it.
Personally I like the limit of 1 smite per turn; I was tired of paladins showing up their party members by deleting major enemies in the first two rounds by themselves with their insane nova potential. Not to sound like I hate paladins — they’re my favorite class — but other party members need chances to shine.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXIV?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
It was a blink and you missed it sentence but Crawford said for additional customization for your backgrounds talk to your DM because rules for that will be in the DMG.
Maybe so you can flesh out how your character arrived out those abilities...
With three attributes per background and choice on which to focus on, there's going to be a pretty large number of suitable backgrounds for most characters.
I've been hunting for that sentence for the better part of an hour because I wanted to double-check it too. Was it in the big hour-long PHB reveal video? Got a timestamp by any chance?
I wouldn’t mind so much if they weren’t tying skills, ASI, and your starting feat to this model, even if it’s not completely rigid. If it was just two of the three it’d seem a lot less restrictive.
This video has it
I am skimming for time stamp. Edit: at the 8:00 mark
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
Thanks a ton! That was it.
My only worry now is AL. Will the DM be able to allow that option, or will we be hard-locked to the 16 in the PHB? Acolyte for example gets a resounding meh from me, since so few classes will want to boost more than one mental ability score, unless my cleric starts with an awkward 9 or 11 in Int or Cha.