I just want to throw this here to say that overall, I'm very positive about most of the changes to D&D in the new rules update. After speaking pretty glowingly about the system last week, this was just my one bone to pick and I wanted to discuss it. This video wasn't meant to spark outrage or anger, just wanted to point out why I disliked it. Cheers, and thanks for watching!

Here is an idea I had. What if you had a choice of abilities based on all three choices. Your species gives you two abilities choice, your background gives you two more choices and finally your class gives you two choices. You then have 3 points to boost any of those ability scores. Example: an orc has a choice of str and con, the fighter has a choice of str and dex, and the veteran gives you a choice of con and wis. In the end you have a choice of str, dex, con, and wis. Classic build with a bit of room for a unique build. If you chose a different background as an orc fighter you would still have a chose of str, dex, and con. If you chose sage you would get int and wis. This would be great for a eldritch knight and make sense. Does this sound good or am I off the mark.

@blade4408

15 күн бұрын

Thats what Pathfinder 2e does

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

I don't think you're off the Mark at all! There's a few systems that do this already, namely Pathfinder. I just don't think that's the direction WotC wants to take for D&D. But I also think this direction misses the mark.

@jamesrichardson3322

8 күн бұрын

​​​@@RookiesAndRulebooks D&D Background Folk Hero is in the 2024 D&D Player's Handbook? I want to build your own background and I want my monk to be a Folk Hero as he existed now!! He is Variant Human Monk , The Way of the Ascending Dragon.

@ErrorlessQuill9

7 күн бұрын

@@Shop_S-mart Sounds like you’d enjoy Pathfinder 2e.

@KevinVideo

6 күн бұрын

TPK Games made this suggestion in Players' Options 5e, and I love it. I've been using it ever since.

Origin Ability Scores should have always been tied to the Classes. Don’t know why they decided to choose Backgrounds, and then limit your choices in the same way they did in 5e.

@BSRJR

12 күн бұрын

Technically the ball was always in the DM’s court because the DM had to allow the optional rules from Tasha’s. Nothing has really changed here. You always had the option to either use the standard increases or ask for an alternative. And any reasonable DM will agree. It’s always been that way and it continues to be that way. They’re just in a different chapter of the book now.

@ilyaterk110

7 күн бұрын

Absolutely not, this just takes away choice. Strength rogue? Nah, no strength increase. Charismatic fighter? Nah, no charisma increase. The fun of building a character is combining stuff with your class, not picking a class and having a largely predetermined path before you

@teddux

Күн бұрын

​@@ilyaterk110 than you should stop playing the 5e cause is limited in everything in that aspect

I think even if an orc was raised as a salad-eating choir boy, he should be able to fly into a murderous rage and throw clerics through stained glass. Always thought of Ability Scores as "what you are" not "what you do". Meaning, if nature gave you 18 Strength might be easier to become a Barbarian, but not the other way around. Nobody in life get 18 Str because of "Barbarian Training".

In the Unearthed Arcana book for AD&D 1st edition, your species gave you a number of dice to roll for each attribute, and you take the best 3 dice. The best was 9 dice, the lowest was 3 dice. It made your race matter even when rolling up your character. There was also a version to roll by your class instead, which is what my group preferred out of the two options.

@MrHighlander666

15 күн бұрын

I don't remember the table for stat rolling based on species, but I do remember the table for rolling by class (this was only for humans though).

@grr-OUCH

15 күн бұрын

@@MrHighlander666 Thinking about, we might have gotten those from Dragon Magazine articles.

@MrHighlander666

15 күн бұрын

@@grr-OUCH ok cool, no worries. Just thought I was losing it for a second there! Flipping through UA for it as I couldn't remember using it ever. 😂

@grr-OUCH

15 күн бұрын

@@MrHighlander666 I used to photocopy articles out of my Dragon Magazine collection and keep them in a notebook. I also sometimes photocopied stuff from my D&D books and put them into the same notebook. It is legal, provided you still own the sources, and I did. It was great at the table, but makes some of my memories from the 80s/90s get a bit muddled.

This is the biggest bone to pick with because custom backgrounds now, the ball in the DM's court instead of the players. You make perfect points and sure, you can talk with your DM... but I don't want to ask for permission for an optional rule that what was & should've stayed a core rule.

@quillogist2875

8 күн бұрын

I like it being a DM option. This makes sure it fits the campaign. I understand why others prefer it being a player choice.

So this is a non issue, and I'll explain a couple reasons why: 1: That Tasha's rule was already an optional one, and nothing about this book prevents you from using that opinional rule. Even if this is an optional rule its literally the same as the system you're saying is better. 2. Fifth Edition Backrounds were already examples, not gospel. If you read the rules for backgrounds in the 2014 PHB(yes 2014), you'll see that. These are functionally the same because they want you to work with your DM DIRECTLY(like you said in this video) 3. Not a lot of people are talking about this, because its legitimately not a problem that exists. This is borderline ragebait until we get to see whats actually written in the book, but even if the "worst case scenario" your describing is true, it's pretty easy to fix.

Honestly, they should just let players choose whatever bonus they want like in Tasha's. I don't know why they felt the need to tie it to a specific aspect of character creation again.

Back in Gygax AD&D, it wasn't like picking a race usually modified your character (besides things like dark or low light vision). How it worked was that first you rolled up your stats and then you looked on the races and choose 1 within the parameters you rolled. Sure, there were racial and stat limits of some classes but your roll basically decided what character you would be playing (back then we usually rolled a single time and no rerolls so Pally's and worse, bards were rare). You could see it as the game forcing you to play certain classes, or you could see it as you getting to try something different most times you made a new character. Far too many players tend to pick basically the sane character every time they make a new character if they get total freedom which actually can get tiring for everyone after a few campaigns. I don't think focusing on the stats that you roll, race or background is better or worse but I admit I rather have the characters to roll for their background unless I as the DM want them from a specific background for a campaign. Having everyone start out as farmer from a small village who decides to be adventurers for instance could make a fun campaign. I do think the DM should be able to limit the background depending on the campaign, the barbarian campaign where all the players pick noble background would be a bit silly.

At this point I just let my players pick whatever ability scores they want. Most of the time my players pick non optimal choices anyways because the flavor to them is more important. Some (flavors) aren’t options and it should be completely up to the player.

Arya doesnt make sense to you because you incorrectly believe shes a noble background.....shes 8 years old when the story starts....she was out of type for a noble at that point, and basically from the start of the story onward lives as an urchin background. Youre watching her formative years in the show. Basically she has a noble birthright, but shes an urchin.

@leintati

13 күн бұрын

I had the same thought

@declanmorden

10 күн бұрын

Yeah too many peopel assoiate certain backgrounds with birth when in reality they are about one's formative years which is why ability scores being based on backgrounds doe make sense to a degree, however certain ability scores also make sense to be based on species (STR for an Orc, CON for a Dwarf, WIS for an Elf, etc.)

The thing I find odd about backgrounds is they give us 16, but there are 20 possible combinations of three ability scores. Why not just give us all 20 so we can have an example of each? I have to wonder if Crawford intended custom backgrounds as a default option in the new edition and the suits told him no because of how some of those out of control builds affected organized play, which I know should not be a factor in a perfect world.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

16 күн бұрын

Interesting, I didn't do the math on that, but I probably should have. I think most likely it was deemed too complex, or possibly, the UA feedback pushed against the custom backgrounds as the default. There are still a lot of Dungeon Masters that want their players to have more restricted options, or have a narrow view of which options should be available to players.

@bradleyhurley6755

15 күн бұрын

If I had to guess it is because you can really only select two of the three (or is +1 to all 3 an option?). There are some combinations that probably don't make sense. Like do you really Need Strength, Dex, and Int as options? I would also say maybe there are only 16 1st level feats? Either way I assume the missing options wouldn't be used that much.

@xadielplasencia3674

15 күн бұрын

​@@bradleyhurley6755That would make sense, but; 1) im pretty sure they explicitly talk about having feats that repeat (maybe im missremembering) and 2) no one needs 2 of the 3 mental stats and they have shown a background with all 3

@bradleyhurley6755

15 күн бұрын

@@xadielplasencia3674 okay fair. I really can't keep track. I wish they would just have everything in one spot. I can not keep up with all the creators who get sneak peaks but don't really do a great job of them or can't show stuff that probably is essential.

So...build your own background with your DM, as Jerremy said.

I think something that is missing from Ability score bonuses in races is that it was also flavour and mechanically represented the lore. Like, oh Elves are dextris because of there more slim frame, but High elves gain a bonus too Intelligence not cause they are "born smarter" but because their culture valued educational and academics more, and wood elves get Wisdom because they are a culture of hunters and druids. And literally every race has this, the plus 2 bonus his related to their physical body and there plus 1 is tide to their culture. I hate how people just ignored this, kinda dismissing the effect of your culture and heritage has on your life.

I can also see how this creates a system where every fighter has the same feat because they’re all noble or something because that’s optimal. And so there is less variety through that. I can see how it makes more sense that ability score increases being connected to what you did in your life (aka backgrounds) but it’s just more fun to have the freedom of a build your own option.

You can still customize your backgrounds... Same as always. The DMG has guidelines on how to do it, you can basically pick and choose skills, proficiencies, ability scores and your origin feat. These "standard" background choices have always exist as guidelines or to help newer players

I think it makes sense to have classes sorta tied to certain backgrounds. I mean if I were a cleric I'd most like be working on a church or temple or something. And as a fighter I'd most likely start out as a soldier. And so on. Makes a little more sense than having certain species be better at certain classes cause I'm sure those species would have some variation of at least most of the classes in their society. There will always be exceptions of course.

If it's an optional rule in the book than it's offical, read the book, there is no reason why you can't find it online if you can't get one , things in the book are guides to make jumping in easier, optinal rules are often for more complex players.

Noble is a kinda the problem child from the backgrounds. Noble basically means, you had access to everything. GoT also makes a point that the Stark kids (or Jaime) not only had access to the best education, but they also had access to the best physical training. So nobles technically could have a bonus to all abilities. Noble is also problematic because just by definition (not as a game mechanic) Noble just describes who your parents are, you don't really have to do anything. Arya would not have the noble Background. You could make a case for Noble, urchin, acolyte, soldier/assassin/bounty hunter, outlander, but which one does she use?. If Arya would have learned from listening to Tywin and become a battle commander her background would be Courtier. Arya fled very early and missed out on a lot of education and later turned special agent. And yes, she can lie and act to infiltrate but I'd argue that's proficiency not high Charisma (above 15). Let me compare it to classes: If your character learned to fight in the army but later discovered Jesus+magic powers, you don't have to multiclass into Fighter. Clerics also need to learn how to fight. Arya is a noble by definitiion but her game-Background should besomething else. A character can have various experiences, but you should pick the one that influenced your Characters abilities. You don't have to pick Noble just because you are royalty. John and Rob could also have the Soldier or something else. I think I'll continue doing this: Yeah sure as a noble you might have the highest Cha score, but the DC to convince the authority and taxes hating Farmer will be higher for you than for the farmboy sorcerer (and I might give him adv. if he roleplays right and tries to establish realatable connection to the NPC.)

Midway through 5.5s life, they'll change to 4e, and it'll be skills and abilities are completely disassociated with background, race, or class. All you'll need is prerequisite stats to pluck abilities from anywhere. "Be what you want to be," Everyone will choose the same optimized options

Custom background was a thing in 5e. When I discovered this option in D&DBeyond, I started using it regularly to better make the character I wanted. Hopefully something like this in the new version. In any event, I've learned to not let rulebooks dictate how to have fun.

@5-Volt

11 күн бұрын

This. My group always uses custom backgrounds. Just pick your skills, tools, languages & now feat. Pick which ability scores to raise. Then give a brief description of why you have them as a background. So the origin feats are a nice addition to that system.

In a game where you can literally do whatever you want, they fumble at character creation 🤦🏾 I will probably still use 5e custom background rules until they improve this, but I might mess around with some of these options too. It baffles me that with all the time constraints Wotc had to publish this book, they got lost in the weeds of a game element that needed little to no adjustment.

@rayortiz313

8 күн бұрын

Setting aside the quirkiness of descending AC, Moldvay and 2nd edition are near perfect versions of the game and no new editions were needed. You can't milk gamers for more money that way, though. I guess we should all update our Monopoly sets every few years too? Old school for life, baby.

@ilyaterk110

7 күн бұрын

​@@rayortiz3132nd edition is abismal for new players

Players also want the background to matter. A wizard farmer should be overcoming their lack of education. If you can have the same Int as a farmer as you can as a Sage, the background becomes just backstory, with no mechanical impact. Also the same thing can be said for the origin feats. Why limit what background gets what feat, doesn't it make it so there is a "correct" background for every class?

Last video i saw, I'm sure it was said that the book gives clear instructions on how to build a custom background if you want to. Don't get the problem, this being the case. Couple people mentioned that it's a problem having to talk to your DM about it but: A) why wouldn't you be working with your DM at every step of creation anyway to make sure it fits with the world, even with standard choices- "Actually being a noble in this world would be a biy odd as there was recently a revolution in which all nobility was beheaded or imprisoned." is a valid comment for a DM to make about even a standard background. B) if you have a DM that you feel won't give fair consideration to your ideas for a custom background, get a new DM cos he's an arse.

as a player, i just say split the ability score between race and background but then it just create the same problem as to min/max as before so just remove those and buff up the point score or whatever. those people complaint about that problem and yet i never saw or hear of a scrany orc or goliat wizard or a giant gnome or hafling barbarian before.

But I'd argue that Arya rejected the Noble background and wouldn't have that as her background. And it could be said that based on her age that her background didn't really become evident until after her father's death and when she began having to survive on her own. I'd give her the urchin or criminal background because those are the skills she used to survive.

There are a few issues with what was said in this video, so with peace and love I'm just gonna go into some of the things said and why I believe they're not really that big of a deal. 1. The PHB states at the beginning that all of the rules in the book are up the DMs discretion. Even if it didn't, there's nothing stopping you from asking your DM to let you swap STR with DEX for a Noble, I'm sure most will oblige. 2. The Custom Lineage rule isn't just removed now, you can still use it in place of the Background ASI. Nothing about this new book prevents you from doing that. 3. Them saying that creating a new background would be a new default happened during the UA phase. Every UA is prefaced by the idea that these are changes which are currently in flux and open to change. Sure he should've worded it better and they should have clarified more, but stuff said during development and prefaced by the knowledge that this isn't final result material should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

Hey! So, I agree with everything you've said here. But they're releasing a product, with a version of rules they've already fixed. And while GM discression can go a long way, not every GM and Every table is as forgiving or as experienced to know the bevy of options. This book is "Backwards" compatible, but it also should function as a core ruleset on its own, in the same way the 2014 version did. And you're right, UAs are not final. Nor should they be. But I still prefer the previous version, which is basically what you outline in your first option.

@simonfernandes6809

15 күн бұрын

​@@RookiesAndRulebooksI would argue the rules on lineages/backgrounds were NOT already fixed. In fact, I had to step in to stop one of my players abusing the custom lineage rules in Tasha's.

@jefR6875

14 күн бұрын

@@simonfernandes6809 let me guess: it involved Elven Accuracy.

They need to take more rules away and make creation more flexible, as opposed to piling on rules on top of every concept ever thought of. This creates the illusion of freedom, when in reality they’re actually restrictions.

The best way of doing this was Tahsas where you can just put a +2 and +1 wherever, or three +1's. Idk why they changed that and tied it to backgrounds, and on my table I will absolutely ignore that change xd.

The difference is that you can't use the bad design of 2014 to bully the DM into playing commander luke skywalker of the USS Enterprise as a permanent fixture in the B5 Nightwatch unit any longer and actually talk with the gm to see if you can work something out or need to choose between revise the concept/walk while admitting not the game for you for a change. We saw Pg33 ch2 Creating a character:"talk to your gm. Start by talking to youe DM about the type of d&d game *they* plan to run. If the DM draws inspiration from greek myth for example you might choose a different direction for your character than if the DM is planning for swashbuckling on the high seas. Think about the kind of adventurer you want to play in *this* game. If you don't know where to begin look at the character illustrations in this book" below that is a session zero sidebar that includes the text "session zero is a great opportunity to talk with other players *and the DM* and decide how your characters know one another, how they met, and what sorts of quests the group might undertake together"..

As both DM and player, ever since Tasha's challenged the idea of where ability score improvements come from, I've treated it as somewhat malleable. A lot of the stat blocks and things like that are suggestions all the way around. It's to help people spark their creativity or to balance certain things out. If they followed a formula to make a background or a subclass, we could also do the same thing if we took the time to put it together and balance it out. That said, I don't know if this was recorded before the Druid was discussed on the official channel, but I got attached to that part of your House Stark example. Jeremy mentioned that in this new PHB, there will be a branching path option for a Druid that is more melee and less dirt wizard. That feels like pretty strong wish fulfillment to me. There's a chance that we should be considering the book as a whole once its all said and done rather than assessing each piece separate from the rest of its parts in addition to using the preconstructed backgrounds as options that we're more than welcome to tweak if something RAW isn't satisfying our builds. I also understand that there are some players out there who have never owned a DMG and they don't have to own the new one either, but they've also been referring to the entire core rulebook set as a collection of tomes that are also parts of a bigger whole. They are thousands of pages written and illustrated with each other in mind. Not every person needs all three, but all three coexist as a single unit. Knowing the contents or intentions offered within each one wouldn't be a bad idea and I'd imagine that's what some of the videos they've been dropping are for. Giving the details to promote the material, but also to let people know what they might want to know what the book is capable of - or what to inquire of someone with access to the book.

theatre kids want to be the main character, and really dont care about balance playing

There's a 5E variant published by ENWorld called "Level Up (Advanced 5E)", and they did a LOT of this stuff a couple years ago. They changed terminology, going with "heritage" instead of "race". Your heritage determines strictly physical traits, like darkvision and movement speed, but your Culture determines learned abilities -- want to play a dwarf raised by elves? Take the dwarf heritage, and the wood elf culture (f'rinstance). Your background determines your ability bonus points, with one +1 being set, and a second +1 open to wherever you want. (Yes, you get 1 fewer stat point. The skill system makes up for this by giving out Expertise Dice, adding a d4 -- or bigger -- to specific uses of skills.) Plus, A5E gives you a way to play with the 5E rules without giving WotC a dime. Given their shenanigans over the past couple years, it's hard to justify giving them any more money.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

I will still give WotC some of my dime. I don't think the designers and artists are responsible for the actions of their superiors. BUT, I do own A5e, just haven't had a good chance to sit down and pour through it yet. I think there's a lot of rules there that I do like. It sounds like A5e is using a the Pathfinder Ancestry/Heritage/Background system, or something very similar. I swapped to Pathfinder during the OGL crisis last year. I really dug that system, but I still love 5e as well.

Is the option to customize your background in the character origins UA not in the new PHB?

@RookiesAndRulebooks

13 күн бұрын

Sadly it won't be. It's been moved to the DMG per Jeremy in the "Origins" video.

I agree with you. I wanted to do a way of mercy monk that came from a noble background. He wasn't interested in politics but chose to study this ancient fighting style. The noble background would not help this character at all. Then again, if he is choosing not to be an active ruler and let a brother rule instead, perhaps another background could be chosen since noble really doesn't fit his current role.

@kevoreilly6557

Күн бұрын

Call me Buddha …

I think your assertion that “most players” will be out off by building something sub optimal is an overestimation. It’s been my experience that optimizers are a vocal subset rather than a majority. Also, you don’t have to choose any of the premade backgrounds, you can always make a custom background with custom ability increases and feats. That’s always been and option in 5e and continues to be. And that’s not homebrew because it’s baked into the rules. So you’re there really isn’t a reason to pick a sub-optimal choice if you don’t want to.

This is the problem with class based systems like DnD and it always will be. Instead of chosing whatever skills, attributes and proficiencies you want to based on experience points as a resource you will always have to rely on premade stuff or homebrew. Homebrewing will make the system incompatible with other groups, so you might not want to use that path. In short: I prefer experience points as a resource for everything over any other system. I saw that done best in The Dark Eye 5.0. In that system you can calculate your character at any point in time by the experience points gained and the abilities you have. You could even go so far and re-skill some time later just by adding the experience points from skills you lower to your pool and subtracting the experience points from the pool of free experience points when you add new skills or get better in one. This is quite helpful when you have a group of new players, because more often than not new players are not as deep in the game mechanics and it makes the game for them less frustrating.

I’m pretty sure they said there’s a section at the end with instructions on building your own background so I don’t really see an issue with saying instead of strength I want a dex bonus Also with your examples you wouldn’t have to choose noble as a background for Ariya you could chosen urchin etc. by basing it off a more recent period in her life when she’s wandering after Ned’s killed. I see why they’ve gone for a halfway house option and provided more choice but still limited the options. It is a bit odd to say because I was a scholar who spent years sat in a library reading I now have a +2 to strength

It’s funny everyone’s chasing their tails trying to homebrew around this, when the answer is so simple. Just add the primary ability score for a class to alternatively be selected by the background ability score bonus. This represents time the character had as that particular class to train up to now, which is in a way part of their background, just their more recent background.

I'm thinking this might just be so each player has to have a digital copy of the DMG to do custom backgrounds in the WotC/Hasbro virtual tabletop. It could literally be that simple and dumb of a reason.

@ilyaterk110

7 күн бұрын

You only need one player to have the book on dndbeyond for all players to have access to it

I like to make characters first, background second, and backstory third. For example, I made a noble elven warlock, with a sage background. At that point is when I make a backstory.

Thank you for covering this. I agree with you they are kinda just remaking the same problems, they would have to go extremely abstract (and lose the compatibility) to really get away from it. Back when I ran a DnD 5e campaign, my players wanted to be 'heros' so i gave them an extra feat, and tweaked a class little but then upscaling the enemies. Half the time I just double enemy HP or something to make it feel like a challenge they were beating. 🤣

@bradleyhurley6755

15 күн бұрын

Important Note, the playtest had the option to build your own background, which I'm not sure isn't still in the player's handbook, which would eliminate all the problems because you get to decide your ability scores in the build your own background. I think backgrounds also have 3 options for ability score backgrounds. I'd imagine largely if you are playing a wizard you wouldn't really want a background for Fighting because the ability scores and feat isn't going to do you any good.

Things like stats and the like should never be lick to story elements but for large things like race.

All of the characters you mentioned are humans, and the default human works great for building any of those characters. +1 to all ability scores is solid for any class. Are you forgetting that the variant rule in Tasha's was also optional? Maybe you and your group preferred it, and that's fine for you, but there are other groups who didn't and choose to ignore it. The whole point of having a rules system at all is to have underlying mechanics to represent how the world works, and racial modifiers do that. A half-orc should usually be stronger than a halfling, and a halfling more nimble than a dwarf, and a dwarf more hardy than an elf, etc. This is not a bad thing. It's the system working as intended. If you instead let players pick any modifiers they want, then that defeats the whole point of the modifiers existing in the first place. You can argue that this restricts optimal build options, but I don't think that's a problem. Restrictions like these force you to be more creative with your character building. Some of my favorite character backstories only came about because we felt beholden to the racial modifiers, and if we wanted anything different then we needed to work with the DM and come up with a good way to justify it in the backstory. Saying, "My gnome has the strength of an orc because he's a fighter and I want an optimal build," is boring. But "My gnome has the strength of an orc because of alchemical experiment gone awry." is much more interesting. It leads to more questions that become story telling opportunities, and answering those gives you a much richer and interesting character backstory. These new rules, just like the rules in Tasha's, and the rules in the 2014 PHB are just going to be another example of how character creation could work. In the end it's going to be up to the DM which ones get used, or if some alternative homebrew system is used instead. Just as with every other rule in the book, if DMs don't like them then they'll come up with an alternative to use instead, just as they've always done. Homebrew and houserules have always been a part of the game, and there's no core rulebook that could change that.

So... at 9:30... He has the sage background? "Comes from arich enough family to afford a proper education ". Don't see a problem

yeah idk why they didnt keep the UA. list bunch of backgrounds with suggested stats and feats but make the custom background the default.

I translated the Octopath Traveler TTRPG, and what I liked about the background stuff is that it only added like, 1 point to skill *checks,* rather than actual main stats. It's a very small enhancement, but it's just enough for even a Farmer wizard to be, say, burly enough to get a guy in a chokehold a teensy bit easier than the Scientist background wizard, while still be powerful enough magically to do some insane spell damage. Something extremely slight that it won't be a problem, and *don't tie it to anything that will be used in the battles.* That makes players feel that their characters are unique, but not in a way that makes them feel "worse" than another character of the same class. The only difference is that OTRPG is a 2d6 based system, so +1 is a big enough enhancement to seem big with their skill checks. Since DND is a d20 based system, it can change it to be a +2 bonus in their backgrounds, and still have essentially the same thing without feeling like a player is stuck making "the correct background".

Arguably Bran and Arya would have been too young as nobles to be player characters and wouldn’t have their backgrounds until later. Bran would probably be a hermit I guess. He also gained his wisdom from the becoming the 3 eyed raven. Arya would most likely be an urchin. I get the point you are going for but those two didn’t become their “classes” until they left winterfell. The other three are sound.

I think they just should let you put the points where you want them. Baldurs gate 3 did a good Job with it.

Hard agree on this. I had a character build idea that's effectively a fighter who also uses cleric spells (Shield of Faith, Guidance) to defend allies, so +2 Str, +1 Con or Wis, Magic Initiate (Cleric). However, that's no longer possible without custom rules. The Acolyte background concept fit my character well, but the stat bonuses are all wrong, even though a cleric of a War Domain god, especially Kord, would have reasonably trained in Str. The only way to get the stats and feat I want would be to pick a different background (not the one I envisioned for this character) and specifically the human species. So, for optimizers, we may be back to humans best species for another ten years.

I'm good with ability points being tied to background. the optimal time being in the dmg. No one but he dm willl need to buy the dmg, and i imagine it will be simple to make new ones. Just in this case, the dm has the ability to determine whether the custom background fits the campaign. I think this video is an overreaction, but to be fair, we won't know until we get the new phb and give it a tryout.

I thought John was a Targarian?

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

You know... I thought about that when I was editing. 😂 You're right.

@TheShardFenix

15 күн бұрын

He is also still half Stark. Just like Robb is half Stark and half Tully.

@everlonggaming1966

15 күн бұрын

@@TheShardFenix yea i guess it could go either way

Only take four? Damn good!

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

Still a lot to learn on my end, and a lot to improve. But it's certainly been a lot of fun learning how to film and edit these videos.

Short answer. They can publish more backgrounds and could even introduce new origin feats this way. With only 16 backgrounds there is no way they got every magic initiate option in there (I bet we'll see Wizard, Cleric, and Druid) and we know they doubled up Alert and Skilled. I don't think there is any more room to double up after that which means feats like Lucky and Tough will be tied to one background. I'm curious if lightly armored made it in as an origin feat because it didn't appear in the same UA document as the others but was availbe at level one.

I mean, you can also just ignore the flavor of the backgrounds

I think one plausible and quite simple solution is to give one more choice of attribute, skill and origin feat for each background. But custom backgrounds from UA were just perfect

Although I agree with your overall comments on this issue. I will make the point in your game of thrones example that just because the Starks were born into nobility and that played a huge party in that book/movie. There is no reason to say that their background is tied to “birth”… Arya’s background could easily be criminal or urchin from her time In braavos. Bran’s could be hermit, acolyte or even outlander from the trip up to the three eyed raven. My point is I don’t think you have to set your background with the family you were born into (and it’s probably later in their lifetimes that matter more say early teen years - and maybe that is why Robb, Jon and Sansa character fit noble reasonably well). That being said your point is well taken that if the feat isn’t flexible and the stats are particularly rigid - it does take away from customization and flavor! Final comment is does a slightly or even moderate suboptimal choice in background really cause your group to suffer? Probably not, there are so many other places you make choices if you get those right it probably doesn’t matter (or you get them wrong and those choices make it worse). Honestly, DMs should be able to adjust difficulty for their players, what is hard is a mixed group w half highly optimized and half not optimized at all and that leads to “main characters” and “sidekicks” but even that can work depending on the table it’s just not ideal.

Honestly im already thinking about modifications to the backgrounds to give depth and flavor such as noble with the family history having its roots in organized crime. Swap strength for dex and swap a skill proficiency to something appropriate. Simple just give flavor to the backgrounds so they remain similar, but not always the same between two characters

@leintati

13 күн бұрын

Like the case for Arya. Take from urchin and take from noble.

I think that backgrounds were a terrible idea to begin with. There are many professions that people in a fantasy world can have. Backgrounds can never have all those options. Whole D&D 5 made building your own background rather easy, that was a patch to an unnecessary problem - and with the origin feats, that just became a bit harder. What feat do I give a former ratcatcher? For that matter, why does a zoologist learn wizard spells? Those probably all are problems that can be solved without much hassle. I just don't think that backgrounds really add something. D&D is not simulationist enough to make a lifepath system work. So why doesnt it treat background like traits, bonds and flaws? Or D&D could go the 20 questions route.

Personally I always thought "backgrounds" as per 5e were bullshit. Write your background and THEN the DM can add bonuses or not.This is why I moved to DC20

So build your own background isn't in the PHB?

You're right. Why are we doing all the work that should have been done already - again. 5e is most likely the best version of D&D and will remain so.

I'm using the system on a game I'm starting now, and I'll create customized a background for each player according to their character history. More work for the DM, but it's fun to jam with the player as they flesh out their character. I think there's nothing impeding anyone from doing this, and the rules are straightforward: give the player a feat, a couple skills, a tool, a language and some social advantage in a particular group, then let them decide which scores make sense. Done! Honestly I think the rules will be there in a simplified form, and expanded in the DMG. It doesn't make sense to force players to use static backgrounds

I’ll stick to 1e, a more elegant system for a more elegant time.

Great coverage. I noticed you have some inconsistent audio. My hot-take suggestion is to even out all your audio (whatever you use for editor should have a way to do this), then add basic compression and, if you have a master function add some subtle clarity. No disrespect, just trying to help a follow creator.

I prefer the "build your own background", especially with the hybridizing of species/races. I don't typically do the min-max thing, going for thematic and fun, creative characters to play instead.

THere will be even fewer options, once it all goes digital. Just try and deviate from the rules then.

Please remember that there is _nothing_ that says you have to play "One D&D." 5e still works just fine as a game system, and most material is tailor made for it. Older versions have also been around for decades. STOP INSISTING THAT NEWER = BETTER!

Just stumbled across your channel. Great video. Informative and engaging. I like your energy.

I dig your example of the farmer wizard!

Don’t be so narrow minded. You can be a Noble without taking the Noble background. Several of the characters you mentioned are Nobles in name only

As a dm i would allow just about anything

My two cents… the worst RPG system is one without mechanics. One without theme. One without tropes. You never let players make a completely custom character. (Not never, but most the time.) Now I want to make a well thought out video… 🤔

@RookiesAndRulebooks

12 күн бұрын

I think I agree with the intent behind that statement. But I also think that holds much more true for a system that is tied more strongly to a specific setting. I.e. Shadowrun, Edge of the Empire, Numenera. As it stands, D&D is split between 4-ish core settings (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk) with 2 sort of in-between settings (Spelljammer & Planescape). The system is slowly being designed as a generic catch-all, for better or worse. Because of this, the core needs to do a lot of things in a generic way, with restrictions put on by setting per the GM. But yeah, I largely agree. DM/GM oversight is sort of key to customization.

@homebrewfeverdreams

12 күн бұрын

@@RookiesAndRulebooks I make the Statement from the #1 rule of game design. “Game needs to be fun to play.” I have no issue with DnD becoming generic. But it will lose market to games that are focused. I don’t think that’s good or bad. I don’t really care what happens to Wotc. 😀 I think about GMs and players having a great time RPing. What I think is lost on many gamers is that the “boundaries” the game mechanics are critical to fun. Certainly some players are so into RP that they don’t need dice and can just free form play. But most people aren’t that. The millions of DnD videos online are about character and mechanics. People LOVE those parts of the game. The ways you can assemble species, occupation and backstory are massive. It’s the fun of the game you can do alone, before the game. The part of the game you can play without playing.

@homebrewfeverdreams

12 күн бұрын

FYI - I’m not arguing with you. I love your video and takes. I fully agree with you.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

12 күн бұрын

@homebrewfeverdreams I dont think you are at all. I think you bring up a really good point.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

12 күн бұрын

I've certainly felt the pull as a Player towards more defined systems and stylized systems recently. As a GM, I have always appreciated the openness of D&D for the ability to hone it's broad options to specifics for world building & theme. But also, for a system that is the most conductive to in-store play, the Adventures League, and people joining games without full knowledge of table attitudes, I just worry about locking options behind a second book that should be (and were in 2014) standard options.

So WotC lied to us. *AGAIN.* Gee, what a shocker ... 🤣

@quillogist2875

8 күн бұрын

They didn't lie. It was s playtest, and it changed after playtesting.

easiest solution: Hero System 😎

I completely disagree. I believe the build your own is in the players handbook and the noble and the others that we've seen are examples of backgrounds. So you'll be able to build whatever background you need to make your min/Max character

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

Hey Adam! I wish you were correct. They were very clear that the Custom Option would be in the DMG. You can find that video here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/kaKJ1beLnKqzqaQ.htmlsi=GQeEbz8t5Xy9qFOq (There statement is around the 7:50 matrk. )

I'm mixed on this. It seems silly to put custom in the DMG if they were trying to make this change. That being said I think if you want to go outside the box it should include worse stats. It is not outside the box if it is still optimized. You are not playing something unique and different when playing the orc wizard if you get the stats you want, it just turns everyone into humans with pointy ears.

@hawkname1234

15 күн бұрын

You know, there are other ways of playing and philosophies of the game other than yours, right?

I love how people complain about Wotc all the time and they can't make anyone happy.

What Crawford lie. Never. He just rewrites history and forgets what he said in his last post.

Isnt it John Tagarian?

I am so tired of the argument of "Abilities Scores shouldnt be tied to race/background". a +2 bonus is literally a 5% difference, it won't kill you to play an elf barbarian or any other character against trope. If you want to play against trope, then play with the consequences.

I’d like to hear your opinion on the changes to divine smite. Taking it into account that as a spell now the barbarian Paladin is a poor multi-class option now since you can’t smite raging. Along with that, the requirement of a bonus action relegates polearm master and adds even more bonus action bloat with an abundance of multi-class options and class abilities.

@XanderHarris1023

15 күн бұрын

Yeah, that was the point. You can not like it but they achieved their goal.

Uh, why not use the custom background in the DMs guide if none of the backgrounds are what you want? Nothing stops you, doubly so if you are that DM.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

Hey you know what, you're correct. In all of my games, both as a player and a GM, we will most likely use the Custom option. But as I said in the video, that then becomes an optional rule. It becomes something cut of to many players due to stubborn GMs or just ignorance to the rules existence.

If you need really high stats to be successful in a class, you do not know how to play it well. Anyone with a Dex of 13+ can be a competent Swashbuckler. Take the +1 Str and +2 Cha, and be a noble. You'll be fine.

How do you know that the Player's Handbook doesn't have custom backgrounds as a core option?

@RookiesAndRulebooks

16 күн бұрын

Fair question. They said during the "everything you need to know about the 2024 players handbook" that the information on Custom Backgrounds would be in the Dungeon Masters Guide.

@badmojo0777

16 күн бұрын

Vusdtom backgournds ar ein the DMG.. theyve said this already...... i suggest tha tif youre going to do youtube content and act like someone who knows what they are talking about, atleast watcht he video,,, do some research and be informed. Im not tyrin to be a dic,, but people wathcing your videos are now misinformed and the internet rage lynchg mob is on the warpath....

@josephbeckett2330

15 күн бұрын

Because if they did, there would be no point in having other Backgrounds.

@hawkname1234

15 күн бұрын

@@RookiesAndRulebooks All of your outrage is about the fact that they gave you EXACTLY what you want, but put it in the DMG, right? That's it? All of this blather, but they DID give you what you want, and you're STILL finding a reason to complain. Gotta make that content, I guess.

@MrSeals1000

15 күн бұрын

​@@hawkname1234Do you know what putting custom backgrounds into the DMG means? It means the power to customize a character has been taken out of the hands of the players, and put behind a locked door that the GM has the key to. They did not in fact "give you Exactly what you want". Because now, you have to beg your GM if you want to use it. Do you know how many 5e optional rules are flat out ignored because they're in the DMG? No? Most of them. Even ones that are fantastic. As long as rules like this are not in the players power, it immediately creates a huge barrier of entry to them. So no, its not what is wanted. It just ends up creating unnecessary bullshit.

give race/species 2 fixed ASIs and a fixed feat, all characters get 2 custom ASIs and a feat on character creation and 1 custom ASI every cuple levels. backgrounds are just level 1 templates for newbies to get started. done. jesus christ.

I was looking forward to making a Psi Warrior with the Noble background. I was hoping I could take Magic Initiate and re-flavor it as psionics since you most likely get the Telekinetic feat until lvl 4. Nevermind, I guess.

At this stage you're better off making your own rules and just using old 2d adventures and monsters

I have done this so many times and it is so frustrating!

So... we see a few blurry snapshots of the official PHB that only show a few default backgrounds, and that suddenly means the "build your own" option isn't there anymore? Did they directly state in a later video that they removed it, because I don't recall that. Seems like a jump to assume it's not there.

@RookiesAndRulebooks

15 күн бұрын

They were very clear that the Custom Option would be in the DMG. You can find that video here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/kaKJ1beLnKqzqaQ.htmlsi=GQeEbz8t5Xy9qFOq (There statement is around the 7:50 matrk. )

@UltimateMustacheX

15 күн бұрын

@@RookiesAndRulebooks I still don't see it as much of an issue. Anything custom should have DM approval. Customizing the rest of the background choices definitely fits DMG territory more, and outweighs keeping it in the PHB just so the stat portion is easy to see. And it's not like the DM can't just say "pick from any stat" when a new player starts building. Most DMs at this point will automatically use custom stats, regardless of what's in the PHB, so they're highly likely to mention it to a player that isn't aware. Sure they could have the ability score portion pulled out of background customization entirely and have just that piece by itself added back to the PHB (and technically we don't know for sure that they didn't), but it's more streamlined to keep all customization options bundled together.

I liked Tasha's customization, just let people custom-build their character.

Fuzion/Champions/Hero and GURPS point buy systems with skills never looked so good. Or Basic Fantasy RPG. Or 3rd edition. Or 2nd. Or Basic. Or children squabbling over whether finger-pointy-bang-bang-oh-no-they-ded. Good to see WotC is keeping up such a great reputation for playtesting and mass-computer-simulating their battle systems. Funny, seeing as they're so desperate to push everyone to their VTT.

see I dont get the issue why people are upset at the change. Its basically nature vs nurture at this point. Yeah the race/specie you play as will have its own unique features. but it makes no sense that you should automatically be smart stronger faster as a result. you can be born frail or have no interest in the given general understanding of a race and do your own thing as most people do. Makes me think of the MD parents upset that their kid doesn't want to be a doctor or a lawyer just because they are.

Saying ability scores shouldn't be associated with species is wrong. First, they ARE "races". Species can't have offspring together so "custom lineages" wouldn't be possible. Saying that makes it possible for a halfling to be as strong as an orc. That's like saying a human can be as strong as a gorilla. Having it associated with background is ok but doesn't fix it either because the world's strongest man isn't stronger than a gorilla either. Babies can't crawl for 6 months but a foal can trot within hours of birth. And where does it stop? What about the other racial traits? How long before a human has tusks, lives 1500 yrs and can talk to fish? It is perfectly ok to have classes that a race is good at. There was nothing wrong with the system before Tasha's CoE. People forget that rolling for stats, point buy and standard array are what accounts for individual diversity. When you put that 15 in STR you are saying that your character spent their formative years doing rigorous physical labor or lifting weights etc. A better fix would have been for point buy to be 23 and get +2 in your class's primary ability and +1 where you choose, ALONG WITH racial bonuses. Cattle and horses can both pull wagons but a cow will never be faster than a horse and the horse will probably not be stronger than the cow.

@WolforNuva

8 күн бұрын

There is a bit of a problem with your analogies though; none of the races in D&D demonstrate such a wide gap in abilities as humans and gorillas. Even when these bonuses did apply to the races, they were a difference at most of 2, something that can just as easily be explained by orcs having a warlike culture, rather than just all orcs are innately stronger. Either an average orc has a strength of 12, which is small enough of a factor that it's not really that important to keep (mathematically it's only 5% or 10% stronger, depending on if you're measuring lifting capacity or rate of success), or we were already dealing with atypical characters for game balance's sake. Plus no matter what race you play, you also share the same peaks, a max of 20 (with a few rare exceptions pushing it beyond like the Barbarian's lv 20 feature). The peak scores being the same imo send a much stronger message than a mere +2 bonus here or there, since as you know a gorilla's max strength is lot stronger than a human can ever hope to obtain. Since they're the same though, the implication is that all races are actually very similar in terms of all abilities. (there are also cases of different species producing offspring, it's rare but it happens. But I prefer the term race anyway.)

@stevengrass6800

6 күн бұрын

@@WolforNuva if that 5 or 10% isn't important to you, then don't take the bonus at all. Ever. That's the worst argument I've ever heard. I used human and gorilla because that's the kind of difference between gnomes and orcs. An orc would have more muscle in their thigh than a gnome would have in their whole body. Do you really think that a gnome would be able to lift as much as an orc, literally 5-10 times his size? How about a human genius having more knowledge than an average elf who can study everything that human can in his entire lifetime before she begins to remember her past lives, becoming an adult and an adventurer? The attribute cap is specifically for game balance. Personally I think it's as dumb as auto fails and auto success. The only cap a player should have is the amount of advancements they commit to a specific attribute. If you want to play an orc fighter, roll an 18 and assign it to STR, then put all (5?) of your ASIs in STR, then I think you should absolutely be able to have a STR of 30. And yes because humans are smaller than orcs (probably that same 5 - 10%), while still being Medium creatures, they would have a 28. I also think humans should NOT get ANY bonuses since they are the baseline that the other races are being compared to. They are our only familiar reference after all.

@WolforNuva

5 күн бұрын

​@@stevengrass6800 If the bonus for being an Orc over any other race is a 10% difference, then it's just not a big deal if it gets removed. We're also dealing with a system where a gorilla (Ape monster block) has 16 strength, equal to the typical knight. We're in a fantasy land, if humans can so easily catch up to Apes and even more powerful creatures, then it's not unusual for halflings and orcs to catch up in strength. That said, Orcs actually get a feature to double their carrying capacity, so you'd need a 20 str Gnome to match what a 10 str Orc can carry, isn't that the problem solved? I brought up the 20 cap because I see racial bonuses argued over constantly, but I never see anyone complain that there's an equal cap for all races (yes it's game balance, but so are the racial bonuses being replaced with background bonuses). I guess I just find it hypocritical that people so loudly complain about one and only mention the other when I point out that it's just as equal a problem to the verisimilitude. I am actually not very fond of 5e myself. I'm not arguing to defend the system (I currently prefer Pathfinder which does have both racial and background bonuses, or GURPS which is whatever the fuck the GM says), just I find this a weird hill to die on. There are much bigger issues in 5e than removing racial bonuses, especially when 5e opened the gate with a watered down version of them (no racial stat penalties), and your background does still make just as much sense for where you get your stats from - or at least where you will get a +2 or +1 from, if racial bonuses went as high as +6 or something normally, and that was being removed, I'd probably be with you.

VERY GOOD

I will still call it races rather than species. Species make a lot more sense than races, but the reason behind the change is irritating. Orcs are not, and never were, based on a negative racial stereotype of African Americans, neither did Drow represent the same thing. The new artwork is another prime example for all these modern day inserts into the game. Orcs are now visually stereotypical Mexicans, while most of the rest are African American with the same haircut. Leave DnD as a fantasy world for everyone, not filled with modern day divisiveness and grievance politics.

So Species are not allowed to give you racial bonusses. Because no race should be said to be weaker or better. But also, its species now. Totally not races.

Or just don’t switch to this new system. I am unimpressed by every single thing I’ve seen about it, and regular 5E is just fine. Not my favorite RPG but it works just fine.

Everytime I ear about DnD 6e I hate more. I’ll come back to AD&D… Thanks Hasbro to not translate it to pt-br.

This "update" is just an average miss mash of old ideas it has nothing new to offer very basic and disappointing just moving deck chairs