What are your favorite concepts and principles introduced/remastered in this edition?

[Coidzor]

Much like how the concept of taking 10 was introduced in 3e(IIRC anyway) and rather liked by some and then refined into the formalized rules for passive skill checks in 4e and how 4e introduced, at least in the D&D lineage, the concept/status condition of "Bloodied," which has seen some further expansion here and there, what have you touched upon in 5e that you've really liked as far as rules concepts that are new or been made to feel fresh and new by how well they've been done?

[LordVonDerp]

Bounded accuracy. For the first time in DND history, armies actually stand a chance of doing their jobs.

[Pex]

Advantage/Disadvantage

Moving more than 5 ft does not prevent you from doing anything you want and can even do what you want between moving

[pwykersotz]

I love the GM and the players being a little more free to imagine. With fewer subsystems and more variability in adjudication, players can try more without feeling limited by invisible chains and DM's don't have to worry about some random codified ability shattering their view of their own world without having to pour through splat and make sure they mention a contradictory rule ahead of time.

My players are trying to solve problems with creativity instead of spells now. For example, the latest villain they fought was holding a powerful item, and they cut off his hand with an adamantine blade to disarm him. In previous editions, I would have had a multitude of questions. Can you attack a specific body part? Is there an AC increase? What percent of the HP does a hand have, or is it a static amount? Do you need a crit to succeed?

This situation was resolved with an attack roll, a hit, and the fact that flesh is no match for an adamantine blade. I always had this power in 3.5, but I never felt right using it. Would I step on the toes of someone's special ability? Would I be setting a precedent that would interact strangely with a special ability down the road?

Now I don't have to worry. Now it feels more like my players and I are collectively building a narrative. I build the framework, they flesh it out, and we test its limits together.

I love that.

[Zyzzyva]

Inspiration, ideals/bonds/flaws, backgrounds. My 3.5e group always basically houseruled FATE points onto the roleplaying side of 3.5e, so it's nice to see the official design agree with us.

[Naanomi]

To me 5e isn't so much about new concepts as it is about refining and modernizing old concepts.

That being said; 5es Oath based paladin (3e and earlier had alignment base, 4e was a specialized cleric); and differentiating classes based on reliance on resting were nice, if small, additions

[mephnick]

Finally tossing the alignment system all but officially.

[themaque]

Finally tossing the alignment system all but officially.

But the meme's man. won't anyone think of the meme's?!


I actually love the Background system, Alternate Paths for every class and most races.

Plus a real encouragement to tell stories rather than just make bigger numbers. I can make a character over an optimized stat set and not feel like I'm wasting my time.

[Knaight]

Finally tossing the alignment system all but officially.

Seconded. I'm also going to go ahead and support Advantage/Disadvantage here, they're a nice mechanic that work quite well.

[Sindeloke]

I'll also agree with Advantage/Disadvantage and free movement with built-in multi-target Spring Attack, and add Concentration to the list. It's not perfectly implemented, but it's such an elegant, powerful, simple limit on casting.

(Spells leveling by spell slot use instead of automatically, likewise, but I can't give 5e credit for that, since it's been a D&D concept since 3e psionics at minimum. Possibly earlier, but that's when I jumped on board so that's as far back as I can personally be certain. I like that they finally just applied it to spells by default, though, and made preparation less limiting as well. The further we can get from the sacred Vancian cow, the happier I am.)

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Overall the blending of concepts from all the editions. In many ways it does feel as simplistic in nature as what 1st/2nd edition (to me at least) was. Though the manner of gaining abilities still has the 3.0/3.5 feel, while various minor concepts of 4th were included. Mainly it was the way the optional rules were presented to mimic an older setting with new school ideas or combine the best of each version.

Specifically:
- the fact that the 3 incarnations of the 4e warlock were combined into one class
- most of the melee based classes can do more now that just be a meat shield for spell casters
- feats are optional

[Milo v3]

Weirdly, how it handled low-light/dark vision.

[Coidzor]

Weirdly, how it handled low-light/dark vision.

What about it do you like that it stands out so clearly to you?


Mainly it was the way the optional rules were presented to mimic an older setting with new school ideas or combine the best of each version.

That does make sense as far as the ethos of the edition, yeah.


- feats are optional

Why does feats being optional stand out to you here?


To me 5e isn't so much about new concepts as it is about refining and modernizing old concepts.

Well, I did mention remastering for a reason, after all. :smallsmile:

I'm also interested in things cribbed, adapted, or outright stolen from other branches of the phyllogenetic tree of table top RPGs, and, as someone indicated, they did seem to take a bit more than a nod from FATE, for instance.

[M Placeholder]

Flumphs.

:smallsmile:

[M Placeholder]

Oh yeah, and Bards. They are great in this edition.

Forest Gnomes too. Minor Illusion and a pet? Yes please.

[Demonic Spoon]

Coming from 3.5 and never having played 4:

Balance

I like that I and my players really don't have to care about optimization. A character concept can be built out in its simplest form without having to do a bunch of research or number crunching in order for it to be competitive with other players in the game.

[Myzz]

I really love the dis/advantage system...

and while I LOVE having tons of skills... I think I am happy with them being streamlined as is!

[MadGrady]

Hands down, I will echo what others have said here and say that the Advantage/Disadvantage system is my favorite thing from 5e. The streamlined bonus/penalty makes running the game as a DM so much easier for me.

I also really love how character creation can be as simple or as complex as the player wants. Want to just build something fast and run with it - take a quick build and go. Want to spend hours pouring over the advantages of taking one level multiclass here, a couple multiclass levels over here, you totally can. Recently we have brought several brand new people who have never played the system before into our tables, and they picked it up really quickly - something I couldn't necessarily say was possible when we were playing Pathfinder.

[Milo v3]

What about it do you like that it stands out so clearly to you?
That they combined low-light vision and darkvision into one thing, and it allows previously low-light vision races to see in the darkness better.

[Pex]

Oh yeah, and Bards. They are great in this edition.


Seconded. For the first time I'm actually tempted to play one. :smallsmile:

[themaque]

Seconded. For the first time I'm actually tempted to play one. :smallsmile:

poor misunderstood bards. I've always been a fan. But the new boys are nice.

I failed to mention advantage/disadvantage but like everyone else I think it's a good simple easily implemented idea.

[JAL_1138]

A return to quick combat resolution. It's not quite as fast as 2e if you're watching the clock, but it never feels like it bogs down too badly and the new movement rules keep things hectic enough that it's not an issue.

Simplicity. What I considered to be excessive crunch and endless fiddly bits are largely gone.

Optional rules. I'm not a huge fan of the default easy healing, so things like healing kit dependency and lingering wounds are nifty. I also like that something pretty much like 2e initiative can be dropped right in without a fuss. Really, the ability to extensively customize the rules without a bunch of splats or homebrew in general.

Feel. Hardest thing to quantify or explain, but it feels like AD&D again. This is purely my opinion and I'm well aware it's not universal, but 3rd and 4th felt like new games with the old name tacked on to me. For all that's been modernized, all the new influences, and all the little nitpicks and quibbles I have with it, and even the few things that infuriate me, it's a new edition of AD&D, not a new game. Somehow it managed this with completely different mechanics and math in virtually every respect (and with terrible halfling art), and I can't begin to explain how they pulled that off.

Also, bards. Because bards.

[Rallicus]

Lack of Wealth by Level and less reliance on magic items.

Also bounded accuracy.

Makes DMing a whole lot easier when I'm not spending a good portion of time mulling over how much gold/what magic items to give to the party, or calculating ridiculously high modifiers.

[mephnick]

Makes DMing a whole lot easier when I'm not spending a good portion of time mulling over how much gold/what magic items to give to the party, or calculating ridiculously high modifiers.

I haven't had time for that kind of stuff in years, so I'd usually just do whatever and roll with the consequences. I know my campaigns suffered for it. Now I can give them whatever, they can spend it on whatever, and they can get a cool magic item when it makes sense in the narrative.

[b4ndito]

I like that I won't ever have to deal with my skill-check-trigger-finger DM making me do 3 skill checks every time I jump on a table or walk past a corpse.

In short, skills are just way better now, especially with the tiered system. It is easy, and encourages players to use their environment more.


A return to quick combat resolution. It's not quite as fast as 2e if you're watching the clock, but it never feels like it bogs down too badly and the new movement rules keep things hectic enough that it's not an issue.

YES!!! The ability to move around in combat with relatively little concern for AOO make combat so much more fun. Otherwise it just turned into a massive blob of melee combatants never moving from each other and ranged players never getting hit.

[heavyfuel]

Coming from 3.5 and never having played 4:

Balance

I like that I and my players really don't have to care about optimization. A character concept can be built out in its simplest form without having to do a bunch of research or number crunching in order for it to be competitive with other players in the game.

One thousand times this. I really dislike adv/disadvantage and rules-lite nature of 5e compared to 3.x's bonuses and penalties and very legal language, but this is the one thing that really makes me keep playing 5e. No more blocking classes based on Tier, or making houserules to nerf casters. This is really 5e's best feature in my opinion.


Bounded accuracy. For the first time in DND history, armies actually stand a chance of doing their jobs.

This too is a big one. No longer can one character go against 5000 and emerge victorious. You didn't even need to be high level, just enough AC that enemies would only hit on a nat 20 (about 25, not hard at all), some form of DR, and fast healing. You could get that at lv 7 with little effort.

[claricorp]

The overall reduction of various bonuses to remember, now its all pretty much stat+prof+magic(maybe). Makes playing the game more fun and faster by not making players second guess themselves. Also makes teaching the game to new players less of a chore for both them and the teacher.

Sure there was a good bunch of fun of fun messing around/theorycrafting with modifiers and seeing what absurd bonus combos you could get, but I dont think it made actually playing any better.

[JFahy]

Alright - let's see if I can keep this list reasonably short.

The assumption of less magical gear,
the largely-marginalized alignment system,
a good level of mechanical balance, accomplished pretty elegantly, and
increased emphasis on the DM's judgement.

Not all these things are good for every player/group, but I happen to like 'em all.

[XmonkTad]

Proficiency bonus is the catch-all for "you're better at this" and it's shared by all classes. It's so simple, and deals with so much optimization.
I also like how they got rid of banned schools for wizards.

[Tvtyrant]

Concentration/sustain mechaNic. Invented in 3, used widely in 4, works best in 5.

[bokodasu]

This is going to sound terrible, but I like that they took a lot of rules back away from the players.

I like rules. I think rules are important; if I didn't, I'd be playing story games instead of D&D. But I also like the separation of story and mechanics. I want a game where the players say what they want their characters to do, and not worry too much about what the rules for doing that are. For one, because then they do cool stuff that rules don't think to cover, and you're like, hey, that's awesome, sure, do that! And for two, because then they DON'T do dumb stuff like say "my character jumps to the moon because he has this feat and these boots and blah blah blah and that's RAW". It opens up the possibility space and closes down the silliness space and those are both goals I support.

Obviously that can go too far, and I'm not talking about extreme edge cases where your DM starts saying things like "no, your fighter can't attack twice in a round because that's OP, wizard, go ahead and cast your Meteor Storm," because that is not how reasonable adults play and I play with reasonable adults.

I also appreciate that the very few things I'm saying "no" to are specifically, in their rules, called out as things that need DM approval before players can use them. Makes my life easier. (Actually so far the only thing I've banned is Drow, and that is entirely because of my antipathy for all the Drizzt clones that used to run all over the place, too ridiculous, yuck.)

[Gritmonger]

I also appreciate that the very few things I'm saying "no" to are specifically, in their rules, called out as things that need DM approval before players can use them. Makes my life easier. (Actually so far the only thing I've banned is Drow, and that is entirely because of my antipathy for all the Drizzt clones that used to run all over the place, too ridiculous, yuck.)


I'd be on the fence about a drow - person wants to take a hit on any checks with sight in daylight? The campaign I'm running isn't particularly friendly towards elves - not because of any personal antipathy, but because players helped make a setting that is mainly points-of-light with chaos versus law, rather than good versus evil, and elves tended to be lumped with the chaos camp.

Now, if somebody came to me with a drow with the Charlatan background with an alternate identity as a "blind" half-elf (make-up and all), I might consider it...

I do like a lot of the leeway present now - players are more free to address their concepts and not so bound to exactly this and this and this in advancement, plotting a character from 1 to 20 before the first session. I have a fighter who originally felt bound to be a champion because damage, and has since instead gone with battlemaster, because he wants to play his guy a little more thoughtful and less straightforward damage. Parry has already saved his life twice, so he's liking the concept...

[Dralnu]

Clean, simpler design, without sacrificing the fun. Better balance than 3.5 and mundanes suck far less, are not completely overshadowed.

- Bonded Accuracy
- Advantage/Disadvantage
- backgrounds
- Proficiency
- Action / Move / Bonus Actions function so much better than in 3.5
- Unlimited cantrips
- Subclasses
- Paladin Oaths diversifying a once very narrow class
- Sneak Attack is way easier to use
- Ranger combat bonuses aren't tied with favored enemy (ugh)
- Monks are super fun
- less MAD in general for most classes
- many of the spells have been smartly nerfed, far less wizards ending an encounter with a spells, or full casters fighting better than fighters
- in 3.5 multiclassing / prestige classes were almost always superior than straight X class, now in 5e multiclassing is actually a choice between pros/cons


Simply put, 5e did a lot of things right in my book compared to 3e. I still love 4e but 5e has become my favorite.

[themaque]

An inclusive nature in both writing and artwork making an attempt to make it welcoming to a much wider fanbase. No inappropriate bikini mail.

[M Placeholder]

An inclusive nature in both writing and artwork making an attempt to make it welcoming to a much wider fanbase. No inappropriate bikini mail.

The artwork in particular has been brilliant. All of the publications have been beautifully illustrated and the artwork has given it a sense of wonder, like you are actually stepping into a world of magic and wonder. I also like the illustrations for most of the monsters in the MM, in particular the Kuo-Toa and the Otyugh are great. The sketch of the Otyugh running is just magic.

I also like that they've remembered most of the campaign settings. Hopefully Athas.org will have a 5th ed update of the Dark Sun setting soon......

[Zyzzyva]

The sketch of the Otyugh running is just magic.

Not to mention the Otyugh on the last page of the MM! :smallbiggrin:

[ChubbyRain]

Pros
Advantage/Disadvantage
Bounded Accuracy (huge plus mostly)
Action Economy
Roles for Casters (striker, leader, controller, or defender)
Races (mostly)
Magic Items (except class based items for the most part, screw that)


Con's
Skill System
Backgrounds
Unbalanced Backgrounds
Racial Ability Score Adjustments
Action Surge
Roles for noncasters
Tone of the book
Lack of focus on what 5e really is.
Lack of clear design, trying to make a race, class, or background is up in the air.
Monster creation is like beating your head into a wall and then setting your head on fire (4e was fantastic in this regard).
Class based magic items




Coming from 3.5 and never having played 4:

Balance

I like that I and my players really don't have to care about optimization. A character concept can be built out in its simplest form without having to do a bunch of research or number crunching in order for it to be competitive with other players in the game.

Coming from 3e I can see how you think 5e is balanced but it is not balanced between class and class. Actually even between class and rest of the game it isn't balanced. You still have the haves and have nots, though in a different way than 3e.

5e at low levels 1-3 wish, is very balanced but beyond that the balance goes out the window.

Plus 5e is very restrictive on what your character can become and the options they have. This sort of unbalanced approach to the game is laughable. Casters may not *have all the options at all time* but they can become any type of character and have a very flexible casting system which allows them to have *a lot of the options most of the time*.

Noncasters get to be effective strikers, and this all they can effectively become.

This means that in order to do anything effectively other than move and hit really really hard you ave to have magic. If you don't have magic you get to Bea striker. Add on the fact that magic also gets to be a striker...

Now are meat shields useful? Sure, but they were useful for being meat shields in 3e too. Stop others from touching the big boys and girls so the big boys and girls can take care of everything.

[silveralen]

Personally, I think the skill contest system is elegant in it's simplicity. It's a good way of handling characters doing different things in combat, rather than 3e's feat approach and 4es power approach. It means combat feels less repetitive for me than in any other edition (though I have noticed a lot of people have experienced the opposite regarding it. YMMV.)


Noncasters get to be effective strikers, and this all they can effectively become.

Well, of the 4 non casters, at the very least monk can be an effective defender, if we are using 4e terminology. Or controller. Though defender basically seemed to be melee controller with striker elements and stronger defenses. He can toss out tons of stuns by default with high saves, immunity to many conditions, and eventually the ability to resist most damage/go give disadvantage on enemy attacks. Open hand supplements this by giving him a few additional low cost options like trip, push, and his reaction denying ability along with the scariest AoO in the game (you can set up quivering palm on any attack, even a reaction). Elemental has a few neat tricks as well, grabbing some of the better AoE abilities if he chooses, plus gems like water whip for pull/trip fun and hold person/wall of fire to control the field. Though elemental might be considered a spell caster by some, YMMV.

[ChubbyRain]

Personally, I think the skill contest system is elegant in it's simplicity. It's a good way of handling characters doing different things in combat, rather than 3e's feat approach and 4es power approach. It means combat feels less repetitive for me than in any other edition (though I have noticed a lot of people have experienced the opposite regarding it. YMMV.)

Well, of the 4 non casters, at the very least monk can be an effective defender, if we are using 4e terminology. Or controller. Though defender basically seemed to be melee controller with striker elements and stronger defenses. He can toss out tons of stuns by default with high saves, immunity to many conditions, and eventually the ability to resist most damage/go give disadvantage on enemy attacks. Open hand supplements this by giving him a few additional low cost options like trip, push, and his reaction denying ability along with the scariest AoO in the game (you can set up quivering palm on any attack, even a reaction). Elemental has a few neat tricks as well, grabbing some of the better AoE abilities if he chooses, plus gems like water whip for pull/trip fun and hold person/wall of fire to control the field. Though elemental might be considered a spell caster by some, YMMV.

Monks are partial casters with "mystic energy" or Ki, as it is more commonly known as, as their source. Just like Arcane or Divine energies the monk manipulates this mystic energy and does stuff with it. In a vastly different way, much like how the Warlock is vastly different but still a caster. They make great controllers,

Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues are the non-casters base classes. They can become casters but their base isn't a caster as they don't use arcane, divine, or mystic energies to fuel their abilities.

The skill system's base idea is fantastic. However D&D doesn't know what it wants to be and causes players to suck as fantasy skills users. This causes the skill system to lack behind because never knowing what your character can effectively do (which is silly since knowing what you can do is part of being skilled in an area) and being treating as if you are in the real world (in a magic elf game) it causes a lot of problems. The skill system is purposely vague, but not vague enough to work as a vague skilled system. 13th age is a good vague skill system that actually is allowed to be vague. The combination of specific skills within a vague skill system like 5e just causes so many problems.

The skill contests are great, but there are issues with size limitations once again. A halfling with 20 strength should equal a dragon with 20 strength. The dragon shouldn't be stronger just because they are bigger. 20 should equal 20, or else why even allow said halfling to get 20 strength? It is just a way to hide racial caps within a system that caps you at a specific number already. My level 20 halfling grappler should be able to grapple anything in the fricken universe it wants to attempt to grapple. It may have a chance of failure but no more than a wizard casting a spell at a creature or a fighter swinging their sword at a creature. They shouldn't auto-fail just because the creature is more than one size larger than my halfling.

tl;dr: Skill system wants to be vague, but isn't vague and that screws things up. Also X should equal X.

Oh I have a new addition.

The casting system that uses "per long rest". If you focus your casters to be per short and at-will casters, leaving all the awesome spells and such, then you can make non-casters just as awesome. This issue of having per long rest (or per day) abilities causes a mind fart in people and they think you need to make noncasters weaker or based on real world physics (when nothing else in the game is set to such except for commoners and the like) in order to create a balance that doesn't exist.

[Gwendol]

Attacks are an action instead of the illogical attack/full attack distinction of 3.X.
Also TWF, grappling, shoving, etc. It's just done right.

[Zyzzyva]

Backgrounds
Unbalanced Backgrounds
Racial Ability Score Adjustments
Action Surge
Tone of the book
Lack of focus on what 5e really is.

Curious about these ones... why are backgrounds bad? Why is "Half orcs +2STR" bad? What's wrong with actions surge? What's wrong with the book's tone and focus?

[Gritmonger]

Curious about these ones... why are backgrounds bad? Why is "Half orcs +2STR" bad? What's wrong with actions surge? What's wrong with the book's tone and focus?

I thought this was a "favorite concepts and principles introduced/remastered" in this edit thread. I think this list of issues has already been detailed in other threads.

I'm a fan of the backgrounds, particularly because they are loose categorizations with a lot of room for and emphasis on what motivates a character, as well as a reward system for adhering to how the character is envisioned.

[Zyzzyva]

I thought this was a "favorite concepts and principles introduced/remastered" in this edit thread. I think this list of issues has already been detailed in other threads.

Fair enough. ChubbyRain, you don't have to respond here; we can keep this thread clean. :smallsmile:


I'm a fan of the backgrounds, particularly because they are loose categorizations with a lot of room for and emphasis on what motivates a character, as well as a reward system for adhering to how the character is envisioned.

Oh, indeed. I like the new mechanical RP hooks a lot.

[Milo v3]

Curious about these ones... why are backgrounds bad?

I personally don't like them because I prefer for mechanics and fluff to be separate, and its meshing them together in a weird way.

Though, some of my friends consider them one of the best things about 5e.

[Knaight]

I'm going to second (or third) skills. I'm not that impressed with them, but compared to earlier editions of D&D? There's a vast improvement. No more fighters with too few skill points to pay for the equivalent of most of Athletics, no weird skill point budgeting for prestige class requirements, just actually getting a meaningful number of skills. If I weren't spoiled by actual skill based systems, I'd probably love it.

[ChubbyRain]

Curious about these ones... why are backgrounds bad? Why is "Half orcs +2STR" bad? What's wrong with actions surge? What's wrong with the book's tone and focus?

Backgrounds are unbalanced, look at the urchin and look at say... Soldier. The urchin synergizes with itself and gives two two kits while the soldier doesn't synergize and gives a gaming set (and vehicles I think). They could have just made "build your own" be the base RAW style and give examples of backgrounds.

Race giving ability score adjustments doesn't make sense depending on background and personal fluff. If my character's background is sage and I never touched physical activity then why does my half orc gain a bonus to strength? Also if my halfling spent his life weight lifting and wearing heavy armor why does he get a bonus to Dex? The only thing this does is push certain races toward certain classes and forces tired old stereotypes. Seriously why would my Outlander High Elf get a bonus to Int? He has never used his Int in his life, he has relied on wisdom and cha.

+3 points but no ability score can have more than +2 would have worked. Humans could be an exception but we don't need dwarves and half elves getting more points that other races.

But then again I like mixing it up a bit and being able to create my character instead of having old stereotypes ruin that. My half orc is a lore bard because he wasn't as strong as his brothers and sisters and yet he still gets that +2 str? I shouldn't be pigeonheld into making him a physical beast. My wood elf is clumsy and not very perceptive so he doesn't get to play in wood elf games and thus became a paladin so show them that he can be just as awesome.

The only race I see that could have premade stats is subclass warforged. All the warforged to have that +2 in X (player choice) and then each subrace of warforged would have their own +1.

[Gwendol]

I find racial ability scores to be alright. The non-human races are (genetically?) predisposed to be stronger, tougher, smarter, wiser, etc than the human norm. Since abilities still fall in the 3 - 18 range the racial bonuses just shift the distribution slightly.

[themaque]

Backgrounds are unbalanced, look at the urchin and look at say... Soldier. The urchin synergizes with itself and gives two two kits while the soldier doesn't synergize and gives a gaming set (and vehicles I think). They could have just made "build your own" be the base RAW style and give examples of backgrounds.

Race giving ability score adjustments doesn't make sense depending on background and personal fluff. If my character's background is sage and I never touched physical activity then why does my half orc gain a bonus to strength? Also if my halfling spent his life weight lifting and wearing heavy armor why does he get a bonus to Dex? The only thing this does is push certain races toward certain classes and forces tired old stereotypes. Seriously why would my Outlander High Elf get a bonus to Int? He has never used his Int in his life, he has relied on wisdom and cha.

+3 points but no ability score can have more than +2 would have worked. Humans could be an exception but we don't need dwarves and half elves getting more points that other races.

But then again I like mixing it up a bit and being able to create my character instead of having old stereotypes ruin that. My half orc is a lore bard because he wasn't as strong as his brothers and sisters and yet he still gets that +2 str? I shouldn't be pigeonheld into making him a physical beast. My wood elf is clumsy and not very perceptive so he doesn't get to okay in wood elf games and thus became a paladin so show them that he can be just as awesome.

The only race I see that could have premade stats is subclass warforged. All the warforged to have that +2 in X (player choice) and then each subrace of warforged would have their own +1.

Well, I can't say your wrong with backgrounds. They are not optimized but I don't think it was the point. The RAW as each one presented IS an example. page 124 "The sample backgrounds provide both concrete benefits(-examples cut-) and role playing suggestions" (emphasis my own)

It then goes on to describe how to customize your own.

As far as stats go look at it this way. A high elf, no matter his background, is going to be a little more intelligent than a human. It's just the way their brains are wired. The musculature of any half-orc is going to be denser and stronger than a typical human and will always be a little stronger than a human who works out a similar degree. That Half-Orc sage isn't going to win an arm wrestling contest with any of the dedicated fighters, but he's the toughest guy on the chess team!

Does this lend itself to certain stereotypes? Yes, but that doesn't mean your pigeonholed into certain classes. Your Wood Elf is a clumsy oaf, compared to other wood elves. He may be strictly average if he where to enter a human world, but to another elf he's a mess and thus went a non-traditional route to show his worth.

[ChubbyRain]

Well, I can't say your wrong with backgrounds. They are not optimized but I don't think it was the point. The RAW as each one presented IS an example. page 124 "The sample backgrounds provide both concrete benefits(-examples cut-) and role playing suggestions" (emphasis my own)

It then goes on to describe how to customize your own.

As far as stats go look at it this way. A high elf, no matter his background, is going to be a little more intelligent than a human. It's just the way their brains are wired. The musculature of any half-orc is going to be denser and stronger than a typical human and will always be a little stronger than a human who works out a similar degree. That Half-Orc sage isn't going to win an arm wrestling contest with any of the dedicated fighters, but he's the toughest guy on the chess team!

Does this lend itself to certain stereotypes? Yes, but that doesn't mean your pigeonholed into certain classes. Your Wood Elf is a clumsy oaf, compared to other wood elves. He may be strictly average if he where to enter a human world, but to another elf he's a mess and thus went a non-traditional route to show his worth.

Have you ever made a Soldier Tiefling War/Light/Tempest Cleric and felt left behind? Your wisdom isn't that good, your strength isn't that good, and you lack in HP and Dex. In a game that was made to be "balanced" (yes that was one of their goals, they failed) having racial ability scores dictate what you will and will not be effective at really forces you to choose between being effective or being fluff. I don't want to play a paladin I want to play a cleric. I don't want to play a wizard caster I want to play a cleric caster.

But I am straight out punished for making this choice and making this background fluff for my PC.

You shouldn't be punished for creating a character, creating a character a cleric should be creating a cleric no matter what race. Sure cleric has good and bad points along with a specific fluff but my race shouldn't make me automatically inferior to another race.

Punishing players is no way to make a game and no way to run a game, well unless you are playing ravenloft I guess.

[Gwendol]

Have you ever made a Soldier Tiefling War/Light/Tempest Cleric and felt left behind? Your wisdom isn't that good, your strength isn't that good, and you lack in HP and Dex. In a game that was made to be "balanced" (yes that was one of their goals, they failed) having racial ability scores dictate what you will and will not be effective at really forces you to choose between being effective or being fluff. I don't want to play a paladin I want to play a cleric. I don't want to play a wizard caster I want to play a cleric caster.

But I am straight out punished for making this choice and making this background fluff for my PC.

You shouldn't be punished for creating a character, creating a character a cleric should be creating a cleric no matter what race. Sure cleric has good and bad points along with a specific fluff but my race shouldn't make me automatically inferior to another race.

Punishing players is no way to make a game and no way to run a game, well unless you are playing ravenloft I guess.

Eh, maybe it's supposed to play that way? Why does balance mean your player choices have no (meta-) impact on the game, and who claims that was the intention?

You are hardly punished; depending on how you rolled/allocated your stats the character will still be functional. It may not be the most optimal of choices, but that will happen often enough anyway.

[themaque]

Have you ever made a Soldier Tiefling War/Light/Tempest Cleric and felt left behind? Your wisdom isn't that good, your strength isn't that good, and you lack in HP and Dex. In a game that was made to be "balanced" (yes that was one of their goals, they failed) having racial ability scores dictate what you will and will not be effective at really forces you to choose between being effective or being fluff. I don't want to play a paladin I want to play a cleric. I don't want to play a wizard caster I want to play a cleric caster.

But I am straight out punished for making this choice and making this background fluff for my PC.

You shouldn't be punished for creating a character, creating a character a cleric should be creating a cleric no matter what race. Sure cleric has good and bad points along with a specific fluff but my race shouldn't make me automatically inferior to another race.

Punishing players is no way to make a game and no way to run a game, well unless you are playing ravenloft I guess.

That's the difference in how we see things. I don't see myself as being "punished" because I'm slightly behind what I COULD be if I was a different race. Now if you had straight up penalties, like they have in other editions, I would agree with you. However, as is I think differences are a good. You don't and that's not wrong either.

[Forrestfire]

Grappling.

Grappling functions quite nicely in this edition, is one of the best ways to be an "aggro-drawing" tank (hell, if you use the passage for using different ability scores, you could use Cha for athletics to grapple and refluff it as literal aggro-drawing), and overall, is just really awesome.

[themaque]

Grappling.

Grappling functions quite nicely in this edition, is one of the best ways to be an "aggro-drawing" tank (hell, if you use the passage ability different ability scores, you could use Cha for athletics to grapple and refluff it as literal aggro-drawing), and overall, is just really awesome.

ooh, I like this Idea. -yoink- stolen for character queue!

[pwykersotz]

Grappling.

Grappling functions quite nicely in this edition, is one of the best ways to be an "aggro-drawing" tank (hell, if you use the passage for using different ability scores, you could use Cha for athletics to grapple and refluff it as literal aggro-drawing), and overall, is just really awesome.

That's...huh...very clever. I never even thought about that.

[ChubbyRain]

Eh, maybe it's supposed to play that way? Why does balance mean your player choices have no (meta-) impact on the game, and who claims that was the intention?

You are hardly punished; depending on how you rolled/allocated your stats the character will still be functional. It may not be the most optimal of choices, but that will happen often enough anyway.

You aren't just punished because you are slightly behind but you never catch up till later levels AND if your DM does allow feats you can't take the feats if you want yo catch up. Means you have to choose between being caught up or having your character design built. Meanwhile a class that synergizes can spare the ASI and go feat and not have to worry about falling behind the game's math. Having a 16 in your main stat is fine till level 8 when you will want an 18 and then having that is fine till you hit 16 or whatever.

However by being slightly behind you can't take that 4th level get because you will start to lag behind in your area of effectiveness.

So the punishment isn't just being slightly behind but being forced to take an ASI even if the DM allows for feats.

No matter how you want to out it, it is a punishment. Not a punishment based on a meganical standpoint (wizards are bad at using great swords) but a punishment based on an issue that is fluff. The fluff or mechanics of a race shouldn't effect the mechanics of a class.

You might as well bring back those ability score penalties that everyone so desperately loves. :smallannoyed:

[hawklost]

You aren't just punished because you are slightly behind but you never catch up till later levels AND if your DM does allow feats you can't take the feats if you want yo catch up. Means you have to choose between being caught up or having your character design built. Meanwhile a class that synergizes can spare the ASI and go feat and not have to worry about falling behind the game's math. Having a 16 in your main stat is fine till level 8 when you will want an 18 and then having that is fine till you hit 16 or whatever.

However by being slightly behind you can't take that 4th level get because you will start to lag behind in your area of effectiveness.

So the punishment isn't just being slightly behind but being forced to take an ASI even if the DM allows for feats.

No matter how you want to out it, it is a punishment. Not a punishment based on a meganical standpoint (wizards are bad at using great swords) but a punishment based on an issue that is fluff. The fluff or mechanics of a race shouldn't effect the mechanics of a class.

You might as well bring back those ability score penalties that everyone so desperately loves. :smallannoyed:

Ummm, one this thread was about concepts that they changed in DnD from previous editions, they have always had Racial stats in every edition.

By the logic you are going by, the only way to not punish people would be to do the following
1) All Races have the same base stats of 10 (no bonuses)
2) All Races have no bonus abilities (don't want to punish people who don't have DV)
3) All Classes have same abilities (can have different fluff, but otherwise you are punishing one class over others by giving one class certain abilities over others)
4) All Races should be human since a dm would 'punish' players differently based on how a campaign world perceives different races (don't want one player being punished for playing Tiefling do we)
5) All weapons should be limited to 1 kind of Ranged and 1 kind of Melee so that no one feels like they are being unfairly punished for choosing the wrong one
6) All backgrounds should be removed (even though they are suggestions and a player can make up anything and ask DM for approval with any bonuses)

Now, to reality here.
You do not even need to have your primary stat up high depending on how you play it. I have seen a Cleric with a Wis of 12 play perfectly fine since he did not use any spells that required a Save (I can see the same with a Wizard or Sorc but slightly harder).

By making everyone the same starting, you are boring players who want choice. Most players like the option to be something different in both stats and name and not just say "I am an Orc fighter.... who has exactly the same stats as a human fighter but I got sharper teeth....."

There are games out there that start every single person out as human and only have classes differentiate them. DnD has never been that kind of game though, you have always had bonuses (and previously negatives) for choosing a race. Its one of those things that people like about dnd. We aren't all cookie cutters with different titles.

--------------------------------------------
To the actual thread

- Love how backgrounds flesh out a character more and actually give people some thought of where they came from.
- I find the concentration mechanic to help tone down Caster buffing (possibly too much but need more testing, still prefer it over 3.x)
- Like how they went back to 3.x style of characters over 4e characters (personal preference, not attacking 4e)
- Like how they removed the negatives from Race
- Love the simplicity of Adv/Dis when it comes to combat and checks

[Vogonjeltz]

Backgrounds are unbalanced, look at the urchin and look at say... Soldier. The urchin synergizes with itself and gives two two kits while the soldier doesn't synergize and gives a gaming set (and vehicles I think). They could have just made "build your own" be the base RAW style and give examples of backgrounds.

I love the backgrounds, they are one thing that really helps to flesh out characters.

I guess I don't get what you mean by the urchin synergizing with itself and the soldier not. Both grant abilities that compliment each other and work together greater than the sum of their parts, that's synergy defined. Do you disagree that Intimidation and the Military Rank work hand in hand, or that Athletics, Intimidation, and Proficiency with land vehicles are all combat related, giving the Soldier background an improved ability to engage in combat? Also, the gaming tool is one of the things I really enjoy about the Soldier background, as it provides a good roleplaying opportunity for a Player to engage in a game of chance for high stakes (ala Casino Royale).

[Gwendol]

You aren't just punished because you are slightly behind but you never catch up till later levels AND if your DM does allow feats you can't take the feats if you want yo catch up. Means you have to choose between being caught up or having your character design built. Meanwhile a class that synergizes can spare the ASI and go feat and not have to worry about falling behind the game's math. Having a 16 in your main stat is fine till level 8 when you will want an 18 and then having that is fine till you hit 16 or whatever.

You might as well bring back those ability score penalties that everyone so desperately loves. :smallannoyed:

I still fail to see the cause of aggravation here. The races should be different, mechanically, as they are a source of diversity in the game. The player making less than optimal choices has no bearing on the "balance" of the game, or the way the races are being differentiated.
In the case of your tiefling cleric, darkvision and spellcasting will round out the build, and with the right rolls you will do fine. The bonuses to INT and CHA may be used to qualify for a second class.