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.

​

 

[Faolyn]

Maybe. It is just no funny anymore. Both extremes.

If anyone was content with just putting pointy ears on, why bother with species at all. This is the exact problem many have with playing half-species as of UA 2024.

Because for many people, not being human is the point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is there a post that shows all the changes so far?

One post? No. But the last playtest packet for each class plus the connected YouTube video by Jeremy Crawford that talks about how those packets scored for each of the classes will be the closest thing we could know about until the book goes into previews.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Because for many people, not being human is the point.

So no need for species specific rules. Just say you are an elf and be done with it?

 

[Faolyn]

So no need for species specific rules. Just say you are an elf and be done with it?

In many games, that's exactly what happens.

However, in D&D, each species has tons of different traits that differentiate each of the other species. So it continues to have species-specific rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In many games, that's exactly what happens.

However, in D&D, each species has tons of different traits that differentiate each of the other species. So it continues to have species-specific rules.

Yes. They have... I am really not sure what you want to say...

I just said that a redundand ability is no fun. Even for people who don't care about optimizing. And since D&D is a game with species specific rules, I expect those abilities to be useful and meaningful, especially for classes that look like a good fit. Especially when species based ability bonuses are gone.

Why be a goblin and have only parts abilities that are standing out for goblins?

What if dwarves would get at least 1d10 hp regardless of class, instead of +1 hp per level? Would that be a well designed ability? I don't think so.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I just said that a redundand ability is no fun. Even for people who don't care about optimizing. And since D&D is a game with species specific rules, I expect those abilities to be useful and meaningful, especially for classes that look like a good fit. Especially when species based ability bonuses are gone.

I understand this position, and agree that some redundant abilities are not fun. At the same time, I don't want every single ability a character gets needs to be always useful, and part of the elegance of the system, in my view, the possibility of overlap adds pressure to be creative.

Dwarves having armor proficiency is a good example: it means that every dwarf look a bit like a fighter, even though the ability is redundant for Dwarf fighters. There are, however, other aspects of dwarfdom that do compliment a fighter (such as the extra hit points), and someone choosing to take a dwarf fighter knows that when they take it. In any case, this has been taken away in the One playtests, where the option for any character to take a feat (Lightly Armored, which gives proficiency in Light and Medium armors and Shield).

More interesting for me is the Goblin example: I think it's okay for goblins to have an ability that overlaps with Rogues, because that tells me something about the world: that goblins are generally sneaky but they don't specialize as thieves -- they are fighters, casters, whatever. But they tend not to become rogues. Those that do get cunning action, which is a benefit, just not as great a one as it is for other species. In this case, design shapes the story being told, and that is a win.

What I don't think should be possible is the subbing-out so that everything is always useful. The clearest example of this is the rule in Tasha's about substituting a tool for a racial weapon proficiency in 2024. With that rule, every Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger who is a Dwarf or Elf can take four additional tool proficiencies (3 for a Drow), and that, in my view, is cheesy, even for something as low-powered as a tool proficiency. Again, I am glad that this workaround is being eliminated in 2024, given what we've seen in the playtest.

All that's to say: I think redundancy is not necessarily bad, but it looks like the new material will avoid it because some people clearly do feel as you do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I understand this position, and agree that some redundant abilities are not fun. At the same time, I don't want every single ability a character gets needs to be always useful, and part of the elegance of the system, in my view, the possibility of overlap adds pressure to be creative.

Dwarves having armor proficiency is a good example: it means that every dwarf look a bit like a fighter, even though the ability is redundant for Dwarf fighters. There are, however, other aspects of dwarfdom that do compliment a fighter (such as the extra hit points), and someone choosing to take a dwarf fighter knows that when they take it. In any case, this has been taken away in the One playtests, where the option for any character to take a feat (Lightly Armored, which gives proficiency in Light and Medium armors and Shield).

More interesting for me is the Goblin example: I think it's okay for goblins to have an ability that overlaps with Rogues, because that tells me something about the world: that goblins are generally sneaky but they don't specialize as thieves -- they are fighters, casters, whatever. But they tend not to become rogues. Those that do get cunning action, which is a benefit, just not as great a one as it is for other species. In this case, design shapes the story being told, and that is a win.

What I don't think should be possible is the subbing-out so that everything is always useful. The clearest example of this is the rule in Tasha's about substituting a tool for a racial weapon proficiency in 2024. With that rule, every Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger who is a Dwarf or Elf can take four additional tool proficiencies (3 for a Drow), and that, in my view, is cheesy, even for something as low-powered as a tool proficiency. Again, I am glad that this workaround is being eliminated in 2024, given what we've seen in the playtest.

All that's to say: I think redundancy is not necessarily bad, but it looks like the new material will avoid it because some people clearly do feel as you do.

I admit, I kind of liked the Tasha's tools, because it felt right to me.

The two races it affected the most were the Elves and the Dwarves, and this meant that these incredibly long-lived races had a hugely diverse set of skills. The Elf Ranger was also a chef, a tanner, a painter, and a blacksmith... because they are three hundred years old and they picked up some other skills along the way.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I admit, I kind of liked the Tasha's tools, because it felt right to me.

The two races it affected the most were the Elves and the Dwarves, and this meant that these incredibly long-lived races had a hugely diverse set of skills. The Elf Ranger was also a chef, a tanner, a painter, and a blacksmith... because they are three hundred years old and they picked up some other skills along the way.

See? That's the sort of explanation that I love: as with the goblins, it's a feature of the world that emerges from the mechanics. You've convinced me of its value! Thanks. I'd not thought of it that way, and I like it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In many games, that's exactly what happens.

However, in D&D, each species has tons of different traits that differentiate each of the other species. So it continues to have species-specific rules.

What are these "many games" where they have different heritages but no mechanical differentiation?

 

[Staffan]

What are these "many games" where they have different heritages but no mechanical differentiation?

I don't know about no differentiation at all, but there are certainly games where said differentiation is more fluid – generally ones where character stats are more fluid to begin with. In FATE, for example, your heritage would be an aspect which you could invoke for a bonus when doing something related to it (as long as you have the fate points to spend of course). Cortex has a similar mechanic, except you don't have to pay anything to use it.