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.

​

 

[mamba]

45 skills in 3e PHB vs. 18 skills in 5e. In 3e I can make someone who can swim, but can't climb. In 5e I can't. In 3e I can make someone who has both skills but is better at one than the other. In 5e I can't.

there is such a thing as too much granularity, I see no value in this differentiation, so not having it in 5e is a plus.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Edit: Saw the mod note after I posted this. Keeping it up, because I am legitimately trying to figure out if I missed something.

Don't worry. You can just scroll back and read everything again.

Sure, why not. I have time today.

Your first post was here

Spoiler: First post

I hated that.

It was too much. Aso, what about long lived gnomes?

The mountain dwarf clearly get their armor proficiency and +1 extra strength bonus together, so that always one or the other is useful.
The swap out system needed to be a bit more elaborated.

Arguments include:

• I hate it. - Not an argument.
• It was too much - No explanation for why it was too much
• What about Gnomes - I gave an explanation, but again, this is essentially asking why gnomes don't have weapon and armor proficiencies. The rule only covered those
• Mountain Dwarves "clearly" were designed so that two features were one - Not really clear to me that they were designed that way. I think the +2 strength was just legacy. Also, even if that was the original design, that doesn't mean it was good.
• The system needed to be a bit more elaborated - Agreed with this.

Not looking great for arguments here. Gnomes don't have the extra proficiencies, so the rule didn't apply to the, And other than trying to make a case for Mountain Dwarves being well-designed (which does nothing for the Gith, Hobgoblins or Elves) your arguments are... not arguments, just statements of not liking it.

Spoiler: Second Post

Nice rationalization for a bad feature.

Or lets not try and pretend that this swapping out was a good idea.

Not great. But very useful. Often more useful than many other features.
It certainly balanced out the extra armor proficiency lost.
It also allowed mountain dwarves to start with 1 more point of strength (17 if you want) and then take heavy armor mastery at level 4 and still have 18 str then.

Wrong.

Arguments include:

• Let us not pretend that swapping proficiencies is a good idea - No explanation for why it is bad.
• Focused on Mountain Dwarves, which again, even if I agreed with, does not make the feature bad for Elves, Gith, and Hobgoblins

Spoiler: Third Post

Different thing.

That idea was terrible. Of ot was good for you, ok. I hated it.

Again, if you don't see a difference there I can't help you.

Nothing vital there.

Ok, so your experience is universal? Maybe your type of players are different than mine. I have seen several mountain dwarf fighters, barbarians and paladins...

You are free to not see clearly.

Yes. The same thing... Lets count. You start with +2 ASI (lets assume con) . Then you take Heavy armor mastery for +1 Str and take ASI at level 4 for +2 str.
Which indeed is exact the same as mountain dwarf... And you get a skill proficiency on top. And 5 more movement speed.And you did not waste your redundand armor proficiencies and weapon proficiencies. So you got a good deal...

...

...

Oh wait. What is this on the dwarven sheet... Ah a useless feature called darkvision. And poison resistance, and stonecunning. And your speed is never reduced by burden. Nah. Noone needs those features. So the human is ahead.

Yeah... people...

+1 extra str and armor proficiencies are a single feature. If you swapped it out as a whole against tool proficiencies I'd be totally ok with. Swapping 1 for 1 and keeping the extra strength bonus is just what it is. Munchkin. Just IMHO.

And I have never seen anyone ask to swap anything out.

And of course, the 2024 is superior. But that is expected given 10 years of design. Where the designers noticed that people don't always see the design intend and tend to focus on the negative sides, in this case: wasted proficiencies.

And since I compared them to the goblin redundancy with rogue, the goblin has no ability that balances the loss out. The dwarf has.

Arguments include:

• Swapping Skill and Tool Proficiencies is different from swapping Weapon and Armor Proficiencies - No explanation for why they are different, and why being different
  • The ability to swap redundant skills and tools is not vital - No explanation for why you think that.
• The idea was terrible - No explanation for why it was bad
• Your experience isn't universal - Yeah, sure, I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek anyways. Trying to point out that I'd seen a lot of people drawn to other features for fighters, other than an additional +1 on con or strength. Still not an argument for why swapping the weapon and armor profs are bad.
• You are blind - Not an argument.
• Dwarves aren't humans - Okay, yes. Still not an argument for why swapping the armor proficiency is bad. THe closest I can understand to that is, you think that a few extra tool proficiencies are so powerful, that it makes Mountain Dwarves an absolutely Overpowered choice for fighter, paladin, cleric (anyone with armor profs). But, other than calling it "munchkin" you've never elaborated on that.
• You've never seen anyone swapping things - Not an argument, especially since you called me out on personal anecdotes.
• Of course 2024 is better, because the designers noticed people were too stupid to see their earlier design - Not an argument for why swapping profs is bad, and assumes that the original design was good
• The dwarf has abilities that balance out the redundancy (+1 strength) and Goblins don't for their redundancy - Well, we are talking different redundancies here. Also, if Goblins don't have anything extra... then neither do Gith, Elves, or Hobgoblins to balance out THEIR redundancies, that the swapping rule helps with.

Spoiler: Last post

Since you just ignore any arguments why swapping parts of packs is a bad idea, and instead attacl a strawman, I concede. Because I have pity with them.

"You are ignoring all my arguments"

So... the only thing you were arguing is mountain Dwarf is well-designed, powerful, and only munchkins would even consider swapping weapon and armor profs they can't use for tool profs they can. So, let's set that aside.

What about the Gith from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes?
What about the Hobgoblin?
What about all the Elves?

These are the other races (and the ONLY other races) that this swapping rule applies to. And none of them have two +2's. So, even if we accept that Mountain Dwarves never needed this rule because they get +2 strength and +2 Con... this doesn't apply to any other races that this rule helps. So 75% of all instances of the rule... are fine?

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

 

[Maxperson]

there is such a thing as too much granularity, I see no value in this differentiation, so not having it in 5e is a plus.

Some of us are very concept driven and cannot achieve many/most of our concepts with 5e as it currently stands. I could achieve 90%+ of them in 3e. I see much value in being able to achieve character concepts for the PCs that you(general you) want to roleplay.

 

[Maxperson]

I would honestly point to this as somewhere that 5E excels at: while there are technically fewer mathematical combinations, none of thst complexity added much to covering character concepts IMO, just added on bureaucratic overhead. And the Skill resolution system is different enough to make it less of an apples to apples comparison than it might seem ar first.

I can't achieve most of my concepts as I envision them in 5e. Having to kludge a square peg into a round hole because of the lack of complexity isn't something I like doing, so I don't do it.

5E Feats are, by design, meant to be worth 3 or more 3E Feats, so this is not apples to apples.

Except this fails on its face. Many of 5e's feats do more things, but that is a weakness when it comes to character concept. Take Athlete. If I want a character that can quickly stand up from prone, I'm forced to also climb quickly and jump well, two things that break my concept. Dungeon Delver doesn't allow me to be someone who is a trap master, but not a secret door master.

Less fiddley differences, sure, but that doesn't mean that more character concepts are necessarily going to be represented in the 3E PHB.

It absolutely does mean that. The addition of all the character destroying aspects that come with the "less fiddly" means exactly that.

I cannot achieve anywhere near the same number of concepts that 3e allows, because I am forced to take things that include my PC being really good at things he isn't good at in my concept, or else he is skilled in something he isn't skilled in with my concept. And before you say, "Well you can just ignore those things," no I can't. They exist within the character whether I use them or not.

 

[Parmandur]

I can't achieve most of my concepts as I envision them in 5e.

I honestly cannot fathom why not...?

Except this fails on its face. Many of 5e's feats do more things, but that is a weakness when it comes to character concept. Take Athlete. If I want a character that can quickly stand up from prone, I'm forced to also climb quickly and jump well, two things that break my concept. Dungeon Delver doesn't allow me to be someone who is a trap master, but not a secret door master.

Those don't seem to be conceptual differences, though, but matters of smaller detail?

It absolutely does mean that. The addition of all the character destroying aspects that come with the "less fiddly" means exactly that.

I cannot achieve anywhere near the same number of concepts that 3e allows, because I am forced to take things that include my PC being really good at things he isn't good at in my concept, or else he is skilled in something he isn't skilled in with my concept. And before you say, "Well you can just ignore those things," no I can't. They exist within the character whether I use them or not.

What do yoy mean by "character concept"? That term implies, to me, abstract broad strokes outlines of a character like "former slave who is an expert Spearman with a spirit companion who gives him magical powers" or "skilled forester who honors the gods of the woods and has been granted holy powers as a result," and not fiddley details about climbing or standing quickly?

 

[mamba]

Some of us are very concept driven and cannot achieve many/most of our concepts with 5e as it currently stands. I could achieve 90%+ of them in 3e. I see much value in being able to achieve character concepts for the PCs that you(general you) want to roleplay.

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

 

[Oofta]

I believe the original comparison that the designers were making was just PHB to PHB.

I would honestly point to this as somewhere that 5E excels at: while there are technically fewer mathematical combinations, none of thst complexity added much to covering character concepts IMO, just added on bureaucratic overhead. And the Skill resolution system is different enough to make it less of an apples to apples comparison than it might seem ar first.

5E Feats are, by design, meant to be worth 3 or more 3E Feats, so this is not apples to apples.

A more apples to apples comparison is the number of Class options, of which the 2024 PHB will have 24 options, or Spwcies, where we will have at least 26 options (9 Species, with Lineages expanding it to 26) in the new PHB with rumors suggesting they may have added some beyond the UA test. Those are both far more central to any character concept, and the 3E PHB had 12 Classes without really having an equivalent to Subclass, and 7 Rave options. Being able to play a Tiefling Pau Warrior or a Goliath Elemetns Monk right out of the Gaye is more important than distinguishing climbing and swimming.

Less fiddley differences, sure, but that doesn't mean that more character concepts are necessarily going to be represented in the 3E PHB.

A lot of 3.5's feats were either feat taxes or later just improved versions of older feats. In many ways 5E is more flexible, especially if you limit yourself to the core books. I no longer need a special class to have a high dex fighter that can also pick locks for example, I just need to take the right background. Pluses and minuses to both approaches of course, I prefer the relative lack of bloat in 5E.

 

[Parmandur]

A lot of 3.5's feats were either feat taxes or later just improved versions of older feats. In many ways 5E is more flexible, especially if you limit yourself to the core books. I no longer need a special class to have a high dex fighter that can also pick locks for example, I just need to take the right background. Pluses and minuses to both approaches of course, I prefer the relative lack of bloat in 5E.

The only advantage that I can see for 3.x over 5E for allowing more concepts is the rather permissive Level Adjuatment system that could let someone play a MN Awakened Donkey or a Hill Giant or something. 5E has a long way to go in facilitating outré Species options.

 

[Nikosandros]

The only advantage that I can see for 3.x over 5E for allowing more concepts is the rather permissive Level Adjuatment system that could let someone play a MN Awakened Donkey or a Hill Giant or something. 5E has a long way to go in facilitating outré Species options.

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

 

[Maxperson]

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

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.