I'm trying to understand. The 2024 rules don't give elves proficiency in bow & swords, something that has been an elf thing since at least 1980. Is this an error? Is there an explanation posted somewhere as to why?
Also, if I make a bard & then multiclass into rogue, I'm still stuck with only simple weapons, as it appears we don't get to add any weapon proficiencies when multiclassing (at least to rogue). Again, should I hope this will show up in errata, or is there a post somewhere that explains this change?
To be clear, I like the new layout. I was one of those that kept telling people to have patience, to not make judgement until the PHB was out. Well, it's out, & I'm struggling to grasp how they think this is backwards compatible? The major change of attaching all the bonuses to background instead of race makes that terribly problematic at best.
Also, if I make a bard & then multiclass into rogue, I'm still stuck with only simple weapons, as it appears we don't get to add any weapon proficiencies when multiclassing (at least to rogue). Again, should I hope this will show up in errata, or is there a post somewhere that explains this change?
That is correct, it is also exactly the same as in the 2014 rules.
Proficiencies gained from Rogue multiclass (2024).
proficiency in one skill of your choice from the Rogue’s skill list, proficiency with Thieves’ Tools, and training with Light armor.
Proficiencies gained from Rogue multiclass (2014).
Light armor, one skill from the class’s skill list, thieves’ tools
I'm trying to understand. The 2024 rules don't give elves proficiency in bow & swords, something that has been an elf thing since at least 1980. Is this an error? Is there an explanation posted somewhere as to why?
All species in the PHB lost their proficiencies, not just Elf. It's a change in design philosophy for how species should work in 2024. As an example Rock Gnome no longer gets proficiency with tinkerer's tools, dwarf no longer gets weapon or tool proficiencies.
It's a fix to some of the issues some races had in 2014, it was most noticeable on races like Githyanki, who as a Wizard or Sorcerer could sport half-plate armour with no additional feats or investment at all. Personally I think they should have made a weapon training origin feat, only choice for now is the martial weapon training feat which is a general feat. To me, proficiencies being removed from species makes sense, a proficiency is something you pick up through practice, so what of the high elf sorcerer that was raised in the city and never held a bow?
I'm trying to understand. The 2024 rules don't give elves proficiency in bow & swords, something that has been an elf thing since at least 1980. Is this an error? Is there an explanation posted somewhere as to why?
Also, if I make a bard & then multiclass into rogue, I'm still stuck with only simple weapons, as it appears we don't get to add any weapon proficiencies when multiclassing (at least to rogue). Again, should I hope this will show up in errata, or is there a post somewhere that explains this change?
To be clear, I like the new layout. I was one of those that kept telling people to have patience, to not make judgement until the PHB was out. Well, it's out, & I'm struggling to grasp how they think this is backwards compatible? The major change of attaching all the bonuses to background instead of race makes that terribly problematic at best.
Am I going to have to keep with the 2014 rules?
It's backwards compatible. Some rules are problematic, for sure, but the bonuses going from races to backgrounds is not one of them. It's easy to do and the book even tells you how. It's annoying, for sure, but it's not problematic.
You don't have to keep with the 2014 rules. You can, though, if you like them better. But no errata is coming to change this.
I'm trying to understand. The 2024 rules don't give elves proficiency in bow & swords, something that has been an elf thing since at least 1980. Is this an error? Is there an explanation posted somewhere as to why?
All species in the PHB lost their proficiencies, not just Elf. It's a change in design philosophy for how species should work in 2024. As an example Rock Gnome no longer gets proficiency with tinkerer's tools, dwarf no longer gets weapon or tool proficiencies.
It's a fix to some of the issues some races had in 2014, it was most noticeable on races like Githyanki, who as a Wizard or Sorcerer could sport half-plate armour with no additional feats or investment at all. Personally I think they should have made a weapon training origin feat, only choice for now is the martial weapon training feat which is a general feat. To me, proficiencies being removed from species makes sense, a proficiency is something you pick up through practice, so what of the high elf sorcerer that was raised in the city and never held a bow?
I agree that it makes sense. If you want to play an elf raised by dwarves, why should you be forced into knowing elvish? It would make no sense. I like this change. It was already there as an optional rule in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but it's nice to see it in the PHB.
I totally get and mostly appreciate the changes of moving proficiencies and ASIs to backgrounds rather than species. But I also acknowledge that it nerfs some cool build dynamics and classic tropes. I think it would be nice to recover those for those who want them. I think there should be a "species stereotype" background or origin feat that anyone raised by a given species (whether OF that species or not) can take, that would "give back" things like Dwarven armor and combat training, Gnomish tinker abilities, Elven bow proficiencies, etc, and would give a +1 adjustment to the player's choice of one of the ability scores that used be among those increased by that "race" in 2014 rules.
Honestly, given that they dropped gaining proficiencies from Trance- which was very explicitly supernatural “ancestral knowledge” rather than something cultural- I get the sense they just want to pare back initial sources of tool profs.
Weapon profs additionally were probably dropped because they’re almost always useless- the dedicated weapon users already get all of them and the remainder already get most if not all weapons actually effective for their class. Armor was probably dropped because it was too good from a min/max or optimization perspective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm trying to understand. The 2024 rules don't give elves proficiency in bow & swords, something that has been an elf thing since at least 1980. Is this an error? Is there an explanation posted somewhere as to why?
Also, if I make a bard & then multiclass into rogue, I'm still stuck with only simple weapons, as it appears we don't get to add any weapon proficiencies when multiclassing (at least to rogue). Again, should I hope this will show up in errata, or is there a post somewhere that explains this change?
To be clear, I like the new layout. I was one of those that kept telling people to have patience, to not make judgement until the PHB was out. Well, it's out, & I'm struggling to grasp how they think this is backwards compatible? The major change of attaching all the bonuses to background instead of race makes that terribly problematic at best.
Am I going to have to keep with the 2014 rules?
That is correct, it is also exactly the same as in the 2014 rules.
Proficiencies gained from Rogue multiclass (2024).
Proficiencies gained from Rogue multiclass (2014).
All species in the PHB lost their proficiencies, not just Elf. It's a change in design philosophy for how species should work in 2024. As an example Rock Gnome no longer gets proficiency with tinkerer's tools, dwarf no longer gets weapon or tool proficiencies.
It's a fix to some of the issues some races had in 2014, it was most noticeable on races like Githyanki, who as a Wizard or Sorcerer could sport half-plate armour with no additional feats or investment at all. Personally I think they should have made a weapon training origin feat, only choice for now is the martial weapon training feat which is a general feat. To me, proficiencies being removed from species makes sense, a proficiency is something you pick up through practice, so what of the high elf sorcerer that was raised in the city and never held a bow?
It's backwards compatible. Some rules are problematic, for sure, but the bonuses going from races to backgrounds is not one of them. It's easy to do and the book even tells you how. It's annoying, for sure, but it's not problematic.
You don't have to keep with the 2014 rules. You can, though, if you like them better. But no errata is coming to change this.
I agree that it makes sense. If you want to play an elf raised by dwarves, why should you be forced into knowing elvish? It would make no sense. I like this change. It was already there as an optional rule in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything, but it's nice to see it in the PHB.
I totally get and mostly appreciate the changes of moving proficiencies and ASIs to backgrounds rather than species. But I also acknowledge that it nerfs some cool build dynamics and classic tropes. I think it would be nice to recover those for those who want them. I think there should be a "species stereotype" background or origin feat that anyone raised by a given species (whether OF that species or not) can take, that would "give back" things like Dwarven armor and combat training, Gnomish tinker abilities, Elven bow proficiencies, etc, and would give a +1 adjustment to the player's choice of one of the ability scores that used be among those increased by that "race" in 2014 rules.
Honestly, given that they dropped gaining proficiencies from Trance- which was very explicitly supernatural “ancestral knowledge” rather than something cultural- I get the sense they just want to pare back initial sources of tool profs.
Weapon profs additionally were probably dropped because they’re almost always useless- the dedicated weapon users already get all of them and the remainder already get most if not all weapons actually effective for their class. Armor was probably dropped because it was too good from a min/max or optimization perspective.