D&D (2024) WotC Fireside Chat: Revised 2024 Player’s Handbook

In this video about the upcoming revised Player’s Handnook, WotC’s Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins reveal a few new tidbits.

• The books are near final and almost ready to go to print
• Psionic subclasses such as the Soulknife and Psi Warrior will appear in the core books
• Named spells have art depicting their creators.
• There are new species in the PHB.

​

 

[DEFCON 1]

while I agree that it is preferable to get close to your concept, I wonder whether ‘good climber but weak swimmer’ really is a concept or relevant to a concept and not just needless fiddling with details

Not to mention that if (general) you want your PC to be a good swimmer but poor climber, you can just not bother having your PC climb things. Don't do anything climbing-wise that requires an Athletics check and you can be the poor climber you always wanted to be by not ever climbing, even if your Athletics modifier is fairly good.

It's no different than wanting to play a klutzy character but having a DEX of 8. The stat says the PC is "less agile" than average person but not a klutz... but that doesn't mean you can't just play your character as a klutz and intentionally do things klutzy.

That's what roleplaying is, isn't it? Playing a role? And you don't need game mechanics to force the role, you can just play it. Does it help sometimes to have mechanics in the ballpark? Sure. But is it required? Nope. Especially considering that even a so-called klutzy character with a DEX of 4 (and a -3 modifier) is still going to roll 18s, 19s, and 20s on occasion and do things completely dexterous and graceful. So no one should rely on game mechanics to play out your character concept... you have to more often than not make intentional narrative choices that product your concept's results.

 

[Parmandur]

In theory it was a great idea, really flexible. In practice, at least IME, it was quite borked.

Yeah, but it was fun.

 

[Parmandur]

It can all be part of a concept. My post was to illustrate a point. The plethora of feats, skills, prestige classes, classes, etc. made 3e a million times(and that's probably way low) more options that allow you to achieve your concepts. It's literally impossible for 5e to be anywhere near as good at it. The math doesn't allow it.

45 Skills allows for a larger quantity of mathematical representations of a concept than 18, but that doesn't mean that qualitatively more concepts are doable, in the abstract.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because, other than declaring the rule bad... you only ever argued about the Mountain Dwarf. Nothing else.

Lets make it short:
you (or someone else I responded to) said: dwarves and elves as long lived races now have a lot of proficiencies... which makes sense...

I asked: what about gnomes... they are between dwarves and elves and don´t have extra proficiencies.

Then I said, the mountain dwarf abilities are seemingly well thought out and I explained, why it seems that way. Because one of the two abilities is (nearly) always redundand, and the other is usually useful. With Tasha´s rules, mountain dwarves are too good. Either by having great armor proficiencies for wizards and +2 con, +2 int, or by having +2 to two stat and very versatile proficiencies (although that does not make them too powerful in any way, but it is a lot of free proficiencies).

Even if you don´t agree with it, it is still an argument.

I also would not have brought it up if it was not for the goblin, that has a real redundant ability if they become rogues. And yes, I don´t like it, and it seems a bit counterintuitive to have no compensation.

So I really don´t know, what is your problem. If you like the swapping of proficiencies and think that is balanced, that is ok for me. But you don´t have more foundation for your arguments either than just you liking it instead of hating it.

So please make better use of our time and stop. In the end it is all still balanced enough and not worth arguing about, as in the end it just boils sown to taste if swapping is cool or not.

The only thing I want to ask is: how is +2 str mountain dwarf legacy when every other species only have +2 to 1 score and +1 to another (except for half elves and humans). I honestly can´t see any logical way to come to your conclusion.

 

[Maxperson]

Not to mention that if (general) you want your PC to be a good swimmer but poor climber, you can just not bother having your PC climb things.

No. That's complete fail, because whether or not I use it, my PC is in fact good at it. Not to mention that at some point I'm going to have to climb something. Virtually every campaign involves climbing at some point and the instant it happens, my PC is great at it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Lets make it short:
you (or someone else I responded to) said: dwarves and elves as long lived races now have a lot of proficiencies... which makes sense...

I asked: what about gnomes... they are between dwarves and elves and don´t have extra proficiencies.

Yes, I offered and explanation for elves and dwarves having more tool proficiencies because of age. As for why gnomes don't get this option, gnomes don't start with Weapon Proficiencies. Dwarves and Elves do. I can't help that. To be able to switch a weapon proficiency for a tool proficiency... you need a weapon proficiency in the first place.

Then I said, the mountain dwarf abilities are seemingly well thought out and I explained, why it seems that way. Because one of the two abilities is (nearly) always redundand, and the other is usually useful. With Tasha´s rules, mountain dwarves are too good. Either by having great armor proficiencies for wizards and +2 con, +2 int, or by having +2 to two stat and very versatile proficiencies (although that does not make them too powerful in any way, but it is a lot of free proficiencies).

Even if you don´t agree with it, it is still an argument.

Sure, and I've attempted to address that argument, not ignore it like you claimed. But even if I were to accept that argument... elves, githyanki and hobgoblins DON'T have that "well thought out" design of getting +2/+2. Heck, Elves get longswords and +2 dex, then +1 int or wisdom. They can't use longswords with any of those stats.

I also would not have brought it up if it was not for the goblin, that has a real redundant ability if they become rogues. And yes, I don´t like it, and it seems a bit counterintuitive to have no compensation.

And I agree, and I offered a theorical compensation for it already.

So I really don´t know, what is your problem. If you like the swapping of proficiencies and think that is balanced, that is ok for me. But you don´t have more foundation for your arguments either than just you liking it instead of hating it.


So please make better use of our time and stop. In the end it is all still balanced enough and not worth arguing about, as in the end it just boils sown to taste if swapping is cool or not.

You.. responded to me? I was answering an explanation for someone else, and then you came in and started telling me how much you hate the rule. I don't have a problem with you not liking it, but if you are going to jump into a conversation and start attacking a post I made, I'm going to defend my post.

I never once said you can't not like it. You just saw me saying I did like it, and felt the need to start telling me how much you hate it and how my explanation for how it works for elves and dwarves is nonsense because gnomes don't have weapon proficiencies to swap, but they are also long-lived.

The only thing I want to ask is: how is +2 str mountain dwarf legacy when every other species only have +2 to 1 score and +1 to another (except for half elves and humans). I honestly can´t see any logical way to come to your conclusion.

Um... because I am pretty sure Mountain Dwarves had a +2 strength and +2 Con in older editions? I could be wrong, I didn't exactly pull out all the old PHBs to cross-reference mountain dwarf, but they were always depicted as the stronger of the two types of dwarf, right?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes, I offered and explanation for elves and dwarves having more tool proficiencies because of age. As for why gnomes don't get this option, gnomes don't start with Weapon Proficiencies. Dwarves and Elves do. I can't help that. To be able to switch a weapon proficiency for a tool proficiency... you need a weapon proficiency in the first place.

No you can't help that. But your explanation falls flat when considering those 2 races don't stand out woth their age.

Sure, and I've attempted to address that argument, not ignore it like you claimed. But even if I were to accept that argument... elves, githyanki and hobgoblins DON'T have that "well thought out" design of getting +2/+2. Heck, Elves get longswords and +2 dex, then +1 int or wisdom. They can't use longswords with any of those stats.

Yes. You tried and failed to convince me.

And I agree, and I offered a theorical compensation for it already.

Nice.

You.. responded to me? I was answering an explanation for someone else, and then you came in and started telling me how much you hate the rule. I don't have a problem with you not liking it, but if you are going to jump into a conversation and start attacking a post I made, I'm going to defend my post.

You can. But your defense did nothing to convince me.
And you started to use dismissive terms:
"lets not try and pretend... ".

I never once said you can't not like it. You just saw me saying I did like it, and felt the need to start telling me how much you hate it and how my explanation for how it works for elves and dwarves is nonsense because gnomes don't have weapon proficiencies to swap, but they are also long-lived.

Exactly.

Um... because I am pretty sure Mountain Dwarves had a +2 strength and +2 Con in older editions? I could be wrong, I didn't exactly pull out all the old PHBs to cross-reference mountain dwarf, but they were always depicted as the stronger of the two types of dwarf, right?

Nope. Maybe in 4e. But there every species got +2/+2, so how did only they got +2 for legacy reasons and not others. There are other species lile goliaths who

So your explanations don't make sense as a whole, because only 2 species get some extra treatment.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No. That's complete fail, because whether or not I use it, my PC is in fact good at it. Not to mention that at some point I'm going to have to climb something. Virtually every campaign involves climbing at some point and the instant it happens, my PC is great at it.

Not if you roll badly!

(I joke, but really - your Roll makes more difference than your Proficiency or your Ability Score.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

No. That's complete fail, because whether or not I use it, my PC is in fact good at it. Not to mention that at some point I'm going to have to climb something. Virtually every campaign involves climbing at some point and the instant it happens, my PC is great at it.

What @FitzTheRuke said.

A character is only as good as their rolls. Don't take many rolls and you are more than capable of botching a bunch and being the loser you want your character to be.

Or of course... either go back to playing 3E or just incorporate the 3E skills and their advancement rules into 5E. Both are easily doable.

 

[Maxperson]

Not if you roll badly!

(I joke, but really - your Roll makes more difference than your Proficiency or your Ability Score.)

Proficiency AND ability score, and the ability score is good because I'm good at swimming. I would have to roll badly.