This is not correct. There are no stock backgrounds. The default method is build your own, and the samples are just there to show you what is possible. They even state the samples are just inspiration and that you should change the sample backgrounds to fit your needs.
You do not need a full selection of titled backgrounds as 'samples.' It is like saying that the spell lists are samples. They would not be taken just as samples any more than the current list of backgrounds are taken as samples.
If people are that bad at reading and then complain about stereotyping it is for sure not WotC's fault.
One thing they really need to do is hire a good editor to put together the new versions of the PHB so that you can actually find things. Some of the rules (particularly around spellcasting) are scattered throughout the book at present with no real thought as to how the information can be located.
For example one of my players wanted to figure out how many spells his wizard could know. You would think it would be in the Spellcasting chapter, right? Nope...it's buried in the middle of a paragraph in the Wizard class description. Not highlighted or broken out from the main text in any way.
And don't get me started on how useless the index is...
Yes this is the right section for it to be in. Anything Class specific is under the class, for a Wizard how many spells you know is a class specific feature. As a Wizard player I don't want to be going through the book looking for all my wizard stuff I want it in a simple to find place, which is under the section titled "Wizard".
This is not correct. There are no stock backgrounds. The default method is build your own, and the samples are just there to show you what is possible. They even state the samples are just inspiration and that you should change the sample backgrounds to fit your needs.
You do not need a full selection of titled backgrounds as 'samples.' It is like saying that the spell lists are samples. They would not be taken just as samples any more than the current list of backgrounds are taken as samples.
The sample backgrounds are just that samples, that are put there to help new players quick build a character. Not sure what you want to play for your first character, ok here are some standard ones as inspiration have a look and then make changes as you see fit.
This is not correct. There are no stock backgrounds. The default method is build your own, and the samples are just there to show you what is possible. They even state the samples are just inspiration and that you should change the sample backgrounds to fit your needs.
You do not need a full selection of titled backgrounds as 'samples.' It is like saying that the spell lists are samples. They would not be taken just as samples any more than the current list of backgrounds are taken as samples.
The sample backgrounds are just that samples, that are put there to help new players quick build a character. Not sure what you want to play for your first character, ok here are some standard ones as inspiration have a look and then make changes as you see fit.
Again, in practice, that is going to mean most will chose one of the samples. They can already choose a custom background right now under the current rules. How many do?
I mean I don't know about your tables but mine tend to make cosmetic changes, or outright ask me if they can make mechanical ones,
End of the day the same choices are being made, it is just that anything to do with mechanics (stats skills etc) are at a background level. Also, we have not seen how these rules will be presented in the book, it might be that come the PHB the feedback we give means they include no samples, or, the sample is just that an example of how to build one. Give your feedback about the sample backgrounds when the survey opens, it is all very valid.
Instead of clutching my pearls or handwringing, I had players create sheets with the new rules. We maintained all the rules labeled in the UA. Races were kept to the UA. The only exception is I let the Warlock have Eldritch Blast (notably missing from the level one Arcane spell list). We had a Human, Gnome (forest), Dwarf, and Ardling. Then I ran a level one one shot adventure. And you know what happened? We played D&D for 2 1/2 hours. Ardling Fly ability used and Tremorsense were used. But to the actual gameplay very few changes besides those different abilites.
I highly recommend just trying it out. Character creation is more intuitive and player friendly and less intensive on the DM because they are asking about less exceptions. Customization is built in.
Dwarves were nerfed: especially Mountain. But my dwarf took the tough feat so he's getting 3 + Con + average HP per level. And he's a monk. A monk with 12 HP at level one what? At no loss or nagging the dm. Super fun times.
I highly recommend keeping an open mind and applying the UA.
We had negative feedback too. When the DM rolls a 20 it feels bad to not get something out of it. I'm not sure it has to be a crit. But that's a valid concern. We celebrate 20's as players and the DM (essentially a player also) does not. Feels really bad.
Our Ardling Fighter rolled 6 20's inspiration was plentiful.
Got rid of the Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds & Flaws?
I hope not as I’d actually like to see more of those tables
We don't know what 1DD is doing with anything yet. The playtest document is just that. It's a document for testing, and for Wizards to get the measure of people's reaction to their ideas.
Speculation: PIBF are almost certainly not disappearing, but they may not be tied to specific backgrounds anymore. 'Example' PIBF, if they exist at all, will have to come from somewhere else. That's a bit of a shame since the example lists were useful as seeds of inspiration, but far too many players also believed they HAD to pick an option from the lists and weren't allowed to write in their own, which is awful. How PIBF are generated/chosen will depend on what chargen looks like in two years when we actually get these books, because I guarantee this playtest will not go through unaltered.
I do believe that the rule for half-races is kinda meh and should be given customization rules as in Tasha's. Say, a half-elf/half-human bases themself on an elf, but disregards Trance while getting Resourceful (or perhaps just an extra language to keep it roughly equivalent?), and maybe disregards its lineage and picks up proficience in one skill. Or, a half-halfling/half-dwarf bases themself on a halfling, swaps Naturally Stealthy for Dwarven Resilience, and you've got a 5e Stout. The thing is, would be nice to have it, not only without homebrewing, but without the future PHB pretty much saying "one of the classical races has to be merely cosmetic".
Kinda wished Hill and Mountain Dwarves got racial spells at level 3 and 5 to go with MGTTM's duergar's Enlarge and Invisibility. And, the Ardlings are kinda neat, but, honestly, just roll Aasimar into them as the ones that have a human head.
Fond of having a level 1 feat rolled into the origin, and fond of ASIs being bound to the origin rather than to race. Spells not criting is good enough, NPCs not criting is kinda bad, and the Nat-1/Nat-20 rules shouldn't really be taken too literally; don't move a mountain if you roll a 20 when trying to move it, but, I dunno, find some gold in the place you pushed. Degrees of success, degrees of failure, smart takes on critical success and critical failure...
I'm not very experienced, but, these are my grievances and how I'd handle them.
I do believe that the rule for half-races is kinda meh and should be given customization rules as in Tasha's. Say, a half-elf/half-human bases themself on an elf, but disregards Trance while getting Resourceful (or perhaps just an extra language to keep it roughly equivalent?), and maybe disregards its lineage and picks up proficience in one skill. Or, a half-halfling/half-dwarf bases themself on a halfling, swaps Naturally Stealthy for Dwarven Resilience, and you've got a 5e Stout. The thing is, would be nice to have it, not only without homebrewing, but without the future PHB pretty much saying "one of the classical races has to be merely cosmetic".
Kinda wished Hill and Mountain Dwarves got racial spells at level 3 and 5 to go with MGTTM's duergar's Enlarge and Invisibility. And, the Ardlings are kinda neat, but, honestly, just roll Aasimar into them as the ones that have a human head.
Fond of having a level 1 feat rolled into the origin, and fond of ASIs being bound to the origin rather than to race. Spells not criting is good enough, NPCs not criting is kinda bad, and the Nat-1/Nat-20 rules shouldn't really be taken too literally; don't move a mountain if you roll a 20 when trying to move it, but, I dunno, find some gold in the place you pushed. Degrees of success, degrees of failure, smart takes on critical success and critical failure...
I'm not very experienced, but, these are my grievances and how I'd handle them.
i suppose the one issue with swapping traits for half races is it starts to lean into "builds" rather than story, but I do agree as they are right now the half races feel very flat.
I don't tend to see any issue with "buildyness". The same tools one player uses to 'munchkin' are the ones another player uses to realize a cool concept they'd really enjoy playing as, to get the one you kinda have to allow the other. And frankly I really don't see why people are so het up about munchkinning. 5e doesn't allow it to nearly the extent other games do sim ply because all your progression is on rails, and any DM who frequents these forums knows where all the multiclassing pitfalls are. Nobody here is going to be surprised when some dickhead tries to blindside them with a Coffeelock, and in the meantime putting iron restrictions in place to stop munchkins also stops people from building cool characters they'd like to play the stories of.
I don't tend to see any issue with "buildyness". The same tools one player uses to 'munchkin' are the ones another player uses to realize a cool concept they'd really enjoy playing as, to get the one you kinda have to allow the other. And frankly I really don't see why people are so het up about munchkinning. 5e doesn't allow it to nearly the extent other games do sim ply because all your progression is on rails, and any DM who frequents these forums knows where all the multiclassing pitfalls are. Nobody here is going to be surprised when some dickhead tries to blindside them with a Coffeelock, and in the meantime putting iron restrictions in place to stop munchkins also stops people from building cool characters they'd like to play the stories of.
You raise a really good point. I love how versatile 5e in allowing you to create really unique character concepts, and I just disallow anything that seems too munchkin-y.
I don't tend to see any issue with "buildyness". The same tools one player uses to 'munchkin' are the ones another player uses to realize a cool concept they'd really enjoy playing as, to get the one you kinda have to allow the other. And frankly I really don't see why people are so het up about munchkinning. 5e doesn't allow it to nearly the extent other games do sim ply because all your progression is on rails, and any DM who frequents these forums knows where all the multiclassing pitfalls are. Nobody here is going to be surprised when some dickhead tries to blindside them with a Coffeelock, and in the meantime putting iron restrictions in place to stop munchkins also stops people from building cool characters they'd like to play the stories of.
I am not fully disagreeing, I just wanted to point out what Wizards might be trying to move away from, the idea that you have a party full of half x half y because it is the best build, or that people start to workout the best half race mix for each class. But, Wizards need to do something because currently the half races I have built have just felt really flat.
"An Elf and an orc had a baby" may be a bit overly through, but, bit better than just making halfelves not a thing.
It also handles the built-in nonbiological stuff quite well, as the upbringing component (which is not the same as the background). Rather than making all dwarves good at blacksmithing due to a divine decree (worse IMO than having it built in due to their culture), just have the upbringing part be a thing. "You grew up in a culture that puts value in artisanship, choose a proficience out of those", separate from race.
I mean, it is kind of a bad take for inclussion. Making all Giffs good at firearms due to their culture is not as bad as making all Giffs good at firearms because of intrinsic reasons. Just have a cultural component separate from the racial one, and a dwarf raised by giffs can be good at guns and not care for blacksmithing.
If people are that bad at reading and then complain about stereotyping it is for sure not WotC's fault.
Yes this is the right section for it to be in.
Anything Class specific is under the class, for a Wizard how many spells you know is a class specific feature. As a Wizard player I don't want to be going through the book looking for all my wizard stuff I want it in a simple to find place, which is under the section titled "Wizard".
The sample backgrounds are just that samples, that are put there to help new players quick build a character. Not sure what you want to play for your first character, ok here are some standard ones as inspiration have a look and then make changes as you see fit.
I mean I don't know about your tables but mine tend to make cosmetic changes, or outright ask me if they can make mechanical ones,
End of the day the same choices are being made, it is just that anything to do with mechanics (stats skills etc) are at a background level. Also, we have not seen how these rules will be presented in the book, it might be that come the PHB the feedback we give means they include no samples, or, the sample is just that an example of how to build one. Give your feedback about the sample backgrounds when the survey opens, it is all very valid.
I almost always change at least one thing about a Background.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Instead of clutching my pearls or handwringing, I had players create sheets with the new rules. We maintained all the rules labeled in the UA. Races were kept to the UA. The only exception is I let the Warlock have Eldritch Blast (notably missing from the level one Arcane spell list). We had a Human, Gnome (forest), Dwarf, and Ardling. Then I ran a level one one shot adventure. And you know what happened? We played D&D for 2 1/2 hours. Ardling Fly ability used and Tremorsense were used. But to the actual gameplay very few changes besides those different abilites.
I highly recommend just trying it out. Character creation is more intuitive and player friendly and less intensive on the DM because they are asking about less exceptions. Customization is built in.
Dwarves were nerfed: especially Mountain. But my dwarf took the tough feat so he's getting 3 + Con + average HP per level. And he's a monk. A monk with 12 HP at level one what? At no loss or nagging the dm. Super fun times.
I highly recommend keeping an open mind and applying the UA.
We had negative feedback too. When the DM rolls a 20 it feels bad to not get something out of it. I'm not sure it has to be a crit. But that's a valid concern. We celebrate 20's as players and the DM (essentially a player also) does not. Feels really bad.
Our Ardling Fighter rolled 6 20's inspiration was plentiful.
Does anyone here know if One D&D
Got rid of the Personality Traits, Ideals, Bonds & Flaws?
I hope not as I’d actually like to see more of those tables
I wouldn't think so. They are not mechanics and pure RP elements, so they will probably not be in the UA Playtest material.
We don't know what 1DD is doing with anything yet. The playtest document is just that. It's a document for testing, and for Wizards to get the measure of people's reaction to their ideas.
Speculation:
PIBF are almost certainly not disappearing, but they may not be tied to specific backgrounds anymore. 'Example' PIBF, if they exist at all, will have to come from somewhere else. That's a bit of a shame since the example lists were useful as seeds of inspiration, but far too many players also believed they HAD to pick an option from the lists and weren't allowed to write in their own, which is awful. How PIBF are generated/chosen will depend on what chargen looks like in two years when we actually get these books, because I guarantee this playtest will not go through unaltered.
Please do not contact or message me.
As RP Elements they are fine but should not be in anyway required.
Some of us put those in without needing tables or so static.
I do believe that the rule for half-races is kinda meh and should be given customization rules as in Tasha's. Say, a half-elf/half-human bases themself on an elf, but disregards Trance while getting Resourceful (or perhaps just an extra language to keep it roughly equivalent?), and maybe disregards its lineage and picks up proficience in one skill. Or, a half-halfling/half-dwarf bases themself on a halfling, swaps Naturally Stealthy for Dwarven Resilience, and you've got a 5e Stout. The thing is, would be nice to have it, not only without homebrewing, but without the future PHB pretty much saying "one of the classical races has to be merely cosmetic".
Kinda wished Hill and Mountain Dwarves got racial spells at level 3 and 5 to go with MGTTM's duergar's Enlarge and Invisibility. And, the Ardlings are kinda neat, but, honestly, just roll Aasimar into them as the ones that have a human head.
Fond of having a level 1 feat rolled into the origin, and fond of ASIs being bound to the origin rather than to race. Spells not criting is good enough, NPCs not criting is kinda bad, and the Nat-1/Nat-20 rules shouldn't really be taken too literally; don't move a mountain if you roll a 20 when trying to move it, but, I dunno, find some gold in the place you pushed. Degrees of success, degrees of failure, smart takes on critical success and critical failure...
I'm not very experienced, but, these are my grievances and how I'd handle them.
i suppose the one issue with swapping traits for half races is it starts to lean into "builds" rather than story, but I do agree as they are right now the half races feel very flat.
I don't tend to see any issue with "buildyness". The same tools one player uses to 'munchkin' are the ones another player uses to realize a cool concept they'd really enjoy playing as, to get the one you kinda have to allow the other. And frankly I really don't see why people are so het up about munchkinning. 5e doesn't allow it to nearly the extent other games do sim ply because all your progression is on rails, and any DM who frequents these forums knows where all the multiclassing pitfalls are. Nobody here is going to be surprised when some dickhead tries to blindside them with a Coffeelock, and in the meantime putting iron restrictions in place to stop munchkins also stops people from building cool characters they'd like to play the stories of.
Please do not contact or message me.
You raise a really good point. I love how versatile 5e in allowing you to create really unique character concepts, and I just disallow anything that seems too munchkin-y.
I am not fully disagreeing, I just wanted to point out what Wizards might be trying to move away from, the idea that you have a party full of half x half y because it is the best build, or that people start to workout the best half race mix for each class. But, Wizards need to do something because currently the half races I have built have just felt really flat.
"An Elf and an orc had a baby" may be a bit overly through, but, bit better than just making halfelves not a thing.
It also handles the built-in nonbiological stuff quite well, as the upbringing component (which is not the same as the background). Rather than making all dwarves good at blacksmithing due to a divine decree (worse IMO than having it built in due to their culture), just have the upbringing part be a thing. "You grew up in a culture that puts value in artisanship, choose a proficience out of those", separate from race.
I mean, it is kind of a bad take for inclussion. Making all Giffs good at firearms due to their culture is not as bad as making all Giffs good at firearms because of intrinsic reasons. Just have a cultural component separate from the racial one, and a dwarf raised by giffs can be good at guns and not care for blacksmithing.