As much as there are lots of good things in the new PHB, I don't believe in changing things just to make them feel 'new.'
Some of the Feats are renamed (Mobile to Speedy? Seriously?). Why? We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
The Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb, particularly because they come right out and say that the DM can just allow players to build whatever Background they want. Why not simply give everyone the choice between +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and their Skills and Languages?
'Species' versus 'Race.' Is this REALLY a thing now? And why have the entire range of mixed races been eliminated? Such things exist, so why not include them?
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
Rangers have always sucked because they are the least focused of the classes design-wise and the part they are focused on (travel and exploration) has traditionally been the most glossed over or handwaved pillar of the game's design (across all editions).
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
Yes, species, welcome to 2024.
I actually like the Ranger. I am looking to play one now, which makes this change a historical milestone for me.
We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
I said the same thing when they changed thief to rogue and Magic-user to wizard. And don’t get me started about John Cougar Mellencamp dropping the cougar. Congratulations, you’re officially a grognard 😁. I think you’ll like it here, we have punch and pie.
As much as there are lots of good things in the new PHB, I don't believe in changing things just to make them feel 'new.'
Some of the Feats are renamed (Mobile to Speedy? Seriously?). Why? We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
The Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb, particularly because they come right out and say that the DM can just allow players to build whatever Background they want. Why not simply give everyone the choice between +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and their Skills and Languages?
'Species' versus 'Race.' Is this REALLY a thing now? And why have the entire range of mixed races been eliminated? Such things exist, so why not include them?
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
/end rant
Rangers were far superior in AD&D. They actually had unique features that made them quite lethal. But you will have to get your hands on an old book, and house rule the changes, and even then, I doubt they would work with the D&DB software, assuming you use it.
We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
I said the same thing when they changed thief to rogue and Magic-user to wizard. And don’t get me started about John Cougar Mellencamp dropping the cougar. Congratulations, you’re officially a grognard 😁. I think you’ll like it here, we have punch and pie.
Anyone who complained about changing 'magic-user' just likes to complain about things
I mean, was the rest of a traditional party the weapon-user, prayer-user and lockpick-user?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
hmm, it's an interesting take but I guess it kind of surprises me.
I think this is probably the best version of the Ranger class I have ever seen, it actually looks fun to play and has a lot of cool built-in themes that go beyond the simple cliches, when I read it I thought to myself, "This will end the debate". Guess I was wrong!
The shift from Magic-User to Wizard actually has some funny history behind it. It wasn't the only reason it was changed, but basically throughout the 70's and 80's all of the writers/designers of the books kept making this typo when writing settings, adventures etc and referencing "magic-users". Everyone kept calling Magic-Users - Wizards or Mages, it was the most common mass edit they had to do all the time, in fact, many Adventures and setting books were not correctly edited and they are called Wizards even in the old 1e books. So by 2e they got tired of having to correct everyone all the time. Even in the commercials and other media people kept referencing magic-users as Wizards. The change was kind of inevitable.
The Thief to Rogue thing also had a story. It was largely changed because player "stealing" in D&D was something DM's and Players complained about excessively. It was changed to indicate that the classes core premise was not to go around stealing from merchants and/or players.
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
I said the same thing when they changed thief to rogue and Magic-user to wizard. And don’t get me started about John Cougar Mellencamp dropping the cougar. Congratulations, you’re officially a grognard 😁. I think you’ll like it here, we have punch and pie.
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
Rangers have always sucked because they are the least focused of the classes design-wise and the part they are focused on (travel and exploration) has traditionally been the most glossed over or handwaved pillar of the game's design (across all editions).
Seems odd to say now since they are more focused, around using Hunter’s Mark, which gets buffed as you level. So less handwaving needed. And you can use other spells that require concentration when the situation warrants it. Not perfect, mind you, but buffed from 2014. I do wish some things were kept (in addition to what they added) that some found circumstantial.
As much as there are lots of good things in the new PHB, I don't believe in changing things just to make them feel 'new.'
Unless you play in AL, the changes do not matter, and no one is forcing you how to play. The new PHB is no different from expansions like XGTE or TCOE: you can pick and choose which rules you want to use, and often times you can use old and new versions of the rules at the same time. Nothing wrong with having both versions of Conjure Animals available, and letting players decide which version they want to cast. You can even have both surprise rules at the same time since they are mechanically separate from each other.
Some of the Feats are renamed (Mobile to Speedy? Seriously?). Why? We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
'Species' versus 'Race.' Is this REALLY a thing now? And why have the entire range of mixed races been eliminated? Such things exist, so why not include them?
If you are playing at your own table, just call things however you want. Hell, I never refer to myself as a dungeon master, I am a game master. It is really not difficult to rename terms however you want.
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
They do have a pretty bad and boring cap stone, but they seem fine until that point. If I were to spice the cap stone up a little, I would also make Hunter's Mark concentration-free and/or let it be cast-at-will on top of the damage boost.
The Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb, particularly because they come right out and say that the DM can just allow players to build whatever Background they want. Why not simply give everyone the choice between +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and their Skills and Languages?
I agree it is kind of stupid to bring back static ASIs when TCOE moved away from that, and I think the PHB should reflect how the game is most commonly played. I do not mind static ASIs, but I think it should be paired with custom ASIs as the primary rule.
I think a key thing that is demonstrated by this thread is that people disagree about which changes are 'unnecessary'; just because you don't see why a change was made doesn't mean other people don't see a reason.
Given that the new feats have different functionality, I don't have an issue with them being given different names.
The Backgrounds system I have to agree is a bit of a mess, I would have just changed ability score generation directly, but that's not an issue of an unnecessary change, that's an issue of the change not being what I wanted.
'Species' vs 'Race' has been a thing for years, we don't need to hash it out again here, but anything that spawns multiple mega-threads is obviously important to someone.
Rangers suffer from scattered design goals. However, they're adequate in 2024. Not spectacular, but not terrible either.
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
You did miss the point. Twice, now.
Stat buffs being tied to backgrounds is, I agree, the right way to go. Moving away from +1/+2 or +1/+1+1 to a three stat bonus is totally pointless if a player can make whatever background they want and tie in whatever three stats they want. All WotC had to do was move the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to background.
Some of the Feats are renamed (Mobile to Speedy? Seriously?). Why? We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
The Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb, particularly because they come right out and say that the DM can just allow players to build whatever Background they want. Why not simply give everyone the choice between +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and their Skills and Languages?
If everyone just gets a +2/+1 why not just increase the point buy? Or lower AC/DCs by 1?
They wanted ability scores boosts being tied to some part of character creation and this was the least bad.
'Species' versus 'Race.' Is this REALLY a thing now? And why have the entire range of mixed races been eliminated? Such things exist, so why not include them?
Because "race" is a term tied to outdated views on human ethnicities, and its origin is wholly tied to flagrant racism.
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
Because rangers got a big boost in Tasha's and needed less fixing this time. Because there were fewer unseen and new changes, it FEELS like they suck.
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
You did miss the point. Twice, now.
Stat buffs being tied to backgrounds is, I agree, the right way to go. Moving away from +1/+2 or +1/+1+1 to a three stat bonus is totally pointless if a player can make whatever background they want and tie in whatever three stats they want. All WotC had to do was move the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to background.
I did not and your continual assertions will not make it true. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same grounds. Further, I actually addressed this argument in full already, so it is impossible to have missed this point.
As I stated previously, which you ignored entirely, the game needs to have a basic framework of how to play and that the backgrounds serve to provide narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. That is not dumb because while other backgrounds or customization are available at the discretion of the DM, they are not required, the standard, nor are they permitted at all tables. The rules state 'your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options.' Might. The 16 backgrounds given are the standard. However, as I stated before, some people want to color outside the lines and the game is making room for those people. This is necessary to offer both because official and restrictive play is actually quite popular. Please see Adventures League for a better understanding. Even outside of that however, some DMs feel the need to rely on a more limited set of options and the game makes room for them too. Can is conditional and unless you are new to D&D, you should know that not all tables are alike.
I suppose the question is now: how do you keep missing this point?
Everything is changing so often, I have moved so many times in my life, no stableness. Aaah, well I used to thrive in the chaos of it all but I am tired now I just want to relax, a quiet life for me. https://19216811.cam/ Anyway, I am OK with change as I am used to it. It's part of life yes, but I suppose you have to draw line.
We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
I said the same thing when they changed thief to rogue and Magic-user to wizard. And don’t get me started about John Cougar Mellencamp dropping the cougar. Congratulations, you’re officially a grognard 😁. I think you’ll like it here, we have punch and pie.
Wait, y'all get pie? I uhhh... I don't like the name "Barbarian", they don't have barbs and you don't even have to roll a bear to be one. They should be called "smooth anger boys*" otherwise it's false advertising. *(Or girls or enbies as appropriate)
Seriously though OP, while there's plenty to both like and complain about in the new rules, I think getting hung up on things like the names of Feats is just hurting your own feelings. It's broadly true for games and life that you'll be happier if you learn to let the little things go.
We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
I said the same thing when they changed thief to rogue and Magic-user to wizard. And don’t get me started about John Cougar Mellencamp dropping the cougar. Congratulations, you’re officially a grognard 😁. I think you’ll like it here, we have punch and pie.
Wait, y'all get pie? I uhhh... I don't like the name "Barbarian", they don't have barbs and you don't even have to roll a bear to be one. They should be called "smooth anger boys*" otherwise it's false advertising. *(Or girls or enbies as appropriate)
Seriously though OP, while there's plenty to both like and complain about in the new rules, I think getting hung up on things like the names of Feats is just hurting your own feelings. It's broadly true for games and life that you'll be happier if you learn to let the little things go.
The proper grognard response to barbarians is being angry they no longer get xp for destroying magic items. But you’re on the right track. Just a couple more complaints and you should be there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As much as there are lots of good things in the new PHB, I don't believe in changing things just to make them feel 'new.'
Some of the Feats are renamed (Mobile to Speedy? Seriously?). Why? We've had a decade to get used to this terminology and now we have to learn new terms for no observable reason I can think of.
The Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb, particularly because they come right out and say that the DM can just allow players to build whatever Background they want. Why not simply give everyone the choice between +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and their Skills and Languages?
'Species' versus 'Race.' Is this REALLY a thing now? And why have the entire range of mixed races been eliminated? Such things exist, so why not include them?
And why do Rangers STILL suck? Many of the classes and subclasses that needed love got it (the Berzerker Barbarian and the entire Monk class, for example), so why can't people who make games for a living make a Ranger class that is both fun and effective? There have been tons of suggestions, many of which were very good, so why is this so hard?
/end rant
Rangers have always sucked because they are the least focused of the classes design-wise and the part they are focused on (travel and exploration) has traditionally been the most glossed over or handwaved pillar of the game's design (across all editions).
The number of things that were renamed is really low. Ranger has always been good and it got a ton of buffs just like every other class.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
Yes, species, welcome to 2024.
I actually like the Ranger. I am looking to play one now, which makes this change a historical milestone for me.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I said the same thing when they changed thief to rogue and Magic-user to wizard. And don’t get me started about John Cougar Mellencamp dropping the cougar.
Congratulations, you’re officially a grognard 😁. I think you’ll like it here, we have punch and pie.
Rangers were far superior in AD&D. They actually had unique features that made them quite lethal. But you will have to get your hands on an old book, and house rule the changes, and even then, I doubt they would work with the D&DB software, assuming you use it.
Anyone who complained about changing 'magic-user' just likes to complain about things
I mean, was the rest of a traditional party the weapon-user, prayer-user and lockpick-user?
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
hmm, it's an interesting take but I guess it kind of surprises me.
I think this is probably the best version of the Ranger class I have ever seen, it actually looks fun to play and has a lot of cool built-in themes that go beyond the simple cliches, when I read it I thought to myself, "This will end the debate". Guess I was wrong!
The shift from Magic-User to Wizard actually has some funny history behind it. It wasn't the only reason it was changed, but basically throughout the 70's and 80's all of the writers/designers of the books kept making this typo when writing settings, adventures etc and referencing "magic-users". Everyone kept calling Magic-Users - Wizards or Mages, it was the most common mass edit they had to do all the time, in fact, many Adventures and setting books were not correctly edited and they are called Wizards even in the old 1e books. So by 2e they got tired of having to correct everyone all the time. Even in the commercials and other media people kept referencing magic-users as Wizards. The change was kind of inevitable.
The Thief to Rogue thing also had a story. It was largely changed because player "stealing" in D&D was something DM's and Players complained about excessively. It was changed to indicate that the classes core premise was not to go around stealing from merchants and/or players.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This post made my day. Thanks
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Seems odd to say now since they are more focused, around using Hunter’s Mark, which gets buffed as you level. So less handwaving needed. And you can use other spells that require concentration when the situation warrants it. Not perfect, mind you, but buffed from 2014. I do wish some things were kept (in addition to what they added) that some found circumstantial.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Unless you play in AL, the changes do not matter, and no one is forcing you how to play. The new PHB is no different from expansions like XGTE or TCOE: you can pick and choose which rules you want to use, and often times you can use old and new versions of the rules at the same time. Nothing wrong with having both versions of Conjure Animals available, and letting players decide which version they want to cast. You can even have both surprise rules at the same time since they are mechanically separate from each other.
If you are playing at your own table, just call things however you want. Hell, I never refer to myself as a dungeon master, I am a game master. It is really not difficult to rename terms however you want.
They do have a pretty bad and boring cap stone, but they seem fine until that point. If I were to spice the cap stone up a little, I would also make Hunter's Mark concentration-free and/or let it be cast-at-will on top of the damage boost.
I agree it is kind of stupid to bring back static ASIs when TCOE moved away from that, and I think the PHB should reflect how the game is most commonly played. I do not mind static ASIs, but I think it should be paired with custom ASIs as the primary rule.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
I think a key thing that is demonstrated by this thread is that people disagree about which changes are 'unnecessary'; just because you don't see why a change was made doesn't mean other people don't see a reason.
You did miss the point. Twice, now.
Stat buffs being tied to backgrounds is, I agree, the right way to go. Moving away from +1/+2 or +1/+1+1 to a three stat bonus is totally pointless if a player can make whatever background they want and tie in whatever three stats they want. All WotC had to do was move the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to background.
Yup, that was unnecassary.
If everyone just gets a +2/+1 why not just increase the point buy? Or lower AC/DCs by 1?
They wanted ability scores boosts being tied to some part of character creation and this was the least bad.
Because "race" is a term tied to outdated views on human ethnicities, and its origin is wholly tied to flagrant racism.
But I agree on mixed species/ blended heritages.
Because rangers got a big boost in Tasha's and needed less fixing this time. Because there were fewer unseen and new changes, it FEELS like they suck.
I did not and your continual assertions will not make it true. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same grounds. Further, I actually addressed this argument in full already, so it is impossible to have missed this point.
As I stated previously, which you ignored entirely, the game needs to have a basic framework of how to play and that the backgrounds serve to provide narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. That is not dumb because while other backgrounds or customization are available at the discretion of the DM, they are not required, the standard, nor are they permitted at all tables. The rules state 'your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options.' Might. The 16 backgrounds given are the standard. However, as I stated before, some people want to color outside the lines and the game is making room for those people. This is necessary to offer both because official and restrictive play is actually quite popular. Please see Adventures League for a better understanding. Even outside of that however, some DMs feel the need to rely on a more limited set of options and the game makes room for them too. Can is conditional and unless you are new to D&D, you should know that not all tables are alike.
I suppose the question is now: how do you keep missing this point?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Everything is changing so often, I have moved so many times in my life, no stableness. Aaah, well I used to thrive in the chaos of it all but I am tired now I just want to relax, a quiet life for me. https://19216811.cam/ Anyway, I am OK with change as I am used to it. It's part of life yes, but I suppose you have to draw line.
Wait, y'all get pie? I uhhh... I don't like the name "Barbarian", they don't have barbs and you don't even have to roll a bear to be one. They should be called "smooth anger boys*" otherwise it's false advertising. *(Or girls or enbies as appropriate)
Seriously though OP, while there's plenty to both like and complain about in the new rules, I think getting hung up on things like the names of Feats is just hurting your own feelings. It's broadly true for games and life that you'll be happier if you learn to let the little things go.
The proper grognard response to barbarians is being angry they no longer get xp for destroying magic items.
But you’re on the right track. Just a couple more complaints and you should be there.