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.

​

 

[Maxperson]

No, Class and Subclass are both significantly more important than either Skills or Feats, and both by a large margin. It is not at all white room, since both Class and Subclass are, literally, big far packages of character concept.

Not really. Class and subclass are like human. You can walk into a room with 20 humans(same class and subclass) and it's not the class and subclass that make the difference. It's all the little details that tell you that you are looking at Bob and not George.

The little details. What feats you take in combination with what skills you take in combination with what spells you take in combination with... are what differentiate your evoker wizard from my evoker wizard. Otherwise they are the same and unless your concept is some overly broad human evoker wizard and nothing more, you haven't achieved your concept by picking those things.

It's not enough to have human evoker wizard as your concept. Darmilok the Ice lord of the Great Glacier, who hurls spells that freeze the blood of the enemy and shatters their resolve. Darmilok was born under the blue star, and is blessed by the twin gods Chill and Sleet(divine initiate feat). Darmilok is as cold as his magic and as mercurial as the glacier(CN alignment). And so on. It's all the extras and small details that develop the concept. The class and subclass just give you a base to build on.

 

[Hussar]

As I said above, that wasn't an issue of the skills, but rather the number of given points at the bottom end and class/cross class. Get rid of those and the skill system blossomed.

I'm also not sure that it "really" got in the way of achieving concepts. It did get in the way, though, by slowing down part(s) of the concept.
/snip

But, we're not talking about how the game might have been. We're talking about the way the game is. If you refuse to make any compromises for 5e - ie. simply declaring that your character is bad at swimming and not taking a proficiency bonus when attempting to swim, for example, then you cannot then claim that 3e is superior once you change the rules to fit you concept.

And, note, if you choose to change the rules in 3e, then your complaints about 5e come into play. After all, now that I have these extra skill points, while I might not be good at swimming - to stay with the example - now I'm good at something else that may or may not fit with my character concept. I don't have the choice to not spend skill points. Which means under your altered 3e system, you get the same problems you have with 5e - that characters are too skilled.

 

[Hussar]

Yep, but objectively 3e provides a hell of a lot more ways for us to get to close our preferences than 5e does.

Who is "us"? It provides more ways for YOU, maybe. It certainly didn't for me. I can make my fighter ship captain in 5e with zero problem. Heck, can do it at 1st level even. Something that was outright impossible to do in 3e since the skills capped so low at 1st level and the DC's were so high. A ship's captain, in 3e, needed to be about 7th level just to be a competent captain. Not a great captain mind you. Just a competent one.

 

[Parmandur]

Not really. Class and subclass are like human. You can walk into a room with 20 humans(same class and subclass) and it's not the class and subclass that make the difference. It's all the little details that tell you that you are looking at Bob and not George.

The little details. What feats you take in combination with what skills you take in combination with what spells you take in combination with... are what differentiate your evoker wizard from my evoker wizard. Otherwise they are the same and unless your concept is some overly broad human evoker wizard and nothing more, you haven't achieved your concept by picking those things.

It's not enough to have human evoker wizard as your concept. Darmilok the Ice lord of the Great Glacier, who hurls spells that freeze the blood of the enemy and shatters their resolve. Darmilok was born under the blue star, and is blessed by the twin gods Chill and Sleet(divine initiate feat). Darmilok is as cold as his magic and as mercurial as the glacier(CN alignment). And so on. It's all the extras and small details that develop the concept. The class and subclass just give you a base to build on.

Eh, not really. Class, Subclass and Background do way more than those small details for a character concept, which by definition is big picture or concerned with non-rules elements (like a tragic childhood or struggle with self-confidence or something).

 

[Parmandur]

I juat gotta say, in an entire decade, I have never seen anyone concerned that they couldn't differentiate their characters ability to climb from their ability to swim, but I have seen plenty of people thinking about their Subclasa and Background choice. One of the more memorable examples I can think of ia how happy my wife was trying to describe her character concept, and finding that the Oarh of the Crown Paladin from ACAF fit the bill perfectly (albeit being generally recognized by the "community" as kind of a terrible Subclass, didn'tmatter, it made the conxept happen).

 

[Maxperson]

But, we're not talking about how the game might have been. We're talking about the way the game is. If you refuse to make any compromises for 5e - ie. simply declaring that your character is bad at swimming and not taking a proficiency bonus when attempting to swim, for example, then you cannot then claim that 3e is superior once you change the rules to fit you concept.

So I could do that, but having to do that sort of compromise is an admission that 5e fails to provide me with a way to achieve the concepts. It forces me to pound a square peg into a round hole.

And, note, if you choose to change the rules in 3e, then your complaints about 5e come into play. After all, now that I have these extra skill points, while I might not be good at swimming - to stay with the example - now I'm good at something else that may or may not fit with my character concept. I don't have the choice to not spend skill points. Which means under your altered 3e system, you get the same problems you have with 5e - that characters are too skilled.

As I said in a prior post, I could achieve all the same concepts following 3e RAW. It just took longer to get there for some of them. I didn't have any of the problems I am having with 5e. Different problems that were lesser, yes. The slow down due to low skill points and cross-class skills did have some impact. Those are not the same issues that 5e is presenting me which are gross over generalization of skills and feats, and a failure to be able to achieve most of my concepts through the rules as written.

 

[Parmandur]

So I could do that, but having to do that sort of compromise is an admission that 5e fails to provide me with a way to achieve the concepts. It forces me to pound a square peg into a round hole.

As I said in a prior post, I could achieve all the same concepts following 3e RAW. It just took longer to get there for some of them. I didn't have any of the problems I am having with 5e. Different problems that were lesser, yes. The slow down due to low skill points and cross-class skills did have some impact. Those are not the same issues that 5e is presenting me which are gross over generalization of skills and feats, and a failure to be able to achieve most of my concepts through the rules as written.

OK, in the PHB for 3E (and only thw PHB, mind you, as thst is the comparison in question) how do you build a Dragonborn Acolyte Psi-Warrior, a Goliath Sage Dance Bard, a Tiefling Laborer Great Old One Warlock, or a Drow Gladiator Wild Mage...?

Because thst is specifically what Chris Perkins was talking about the new PHB having more options than any other previous PHB. Not entire system, just the Players Handbook Class options.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, in the PHB for 3E (and only thw PHB, mind you, as thst is the comparison in question) how do you build a Dragonborn Acolyte Psi-Warrior, a Goliath Sage Dance Bard, a Tiefling Laborer Great Old One Warlock, or a Drow Gladiator Wild Mage...?

Because thst is specifically what Chris Perkins was talking about the new PHB having more options than any other previous PHB. Not entire system, just the Players Handbook Class options.

The same way you build in 5.5e a racially unique half-elf necromancer specialist wizard, or a half-orc barbarian, or a dwarven cleric with a 20 speed, or a human wizard/rogue with a 10 dex, or a human rogue from a desert region that can't swim, but is good at climbing

Look, I'm not saying the 3e PHB alone could meet all concepts, but it can meet a hell of a lot more of them RAW than 5e can. Between the skills and feats, I can use the small details to make many more concepts that the base race/class combos of 5.5e can.

 

[Parmandur]

The same way you build in 5.5e a racially unique half-elf necromancer specialist wizard, or a half-orc barbarian, or a dwarven cleric with a 20 speed, or a human wizard/rogue with a 10 dex, or a human rogue from a desert region that can't swim, but is good at climbing

Look, I'm not saying the 3e PHB alone could meet all concepts, but it can meet a hell of a lot more of them RAW than 5e can. Between the skills and feats, I can use the small details to make many more concepts that the base race/class combos of 5.5e can.

The video in the OP, where this sidetrack began, Chris Perkins was making rhe very specific claim that the new PHB has more Class options than any prior PHB, though he used the term "character conxept" it was in the context of the large number of Subclass options, not in terms of fiddly bits like Skills and Feats (they did point out that there are a bunch of Feats, too, but thst was not the point of the character concept quote). The new PHB has 48 Subclasses, which is more equivalent options than any prior PHB.

 

[Hussar]

The same way you build in 5.5e a racially unique half-elf necromancer specialist wizard, or a half-orc barbarian, or a dwarven cleric with a 20 speed, or a human wizard/rogue with a 10 dex, or a human rogue from a desert region that can't swim, but is good at climbing

Look, I'm not saying the 3e PHB alone could meet all concepts, but it can meet a hell of a lot more of them RAW than 5e can. Between the skills and feats, I can use the small details to make many more concepts that the base race/class combos of 5.5e can.

Wow. It’s almost like different systems allow you to build different characters.

Imagine that.

I mean “racially unique” half elf? In what way is a 3e half elf unique considering it has no abilities that another race doesn’t have?

Good grief. My 5e half elf could use Tiefling racial abilities if I choose. How unique do you want to be? Your half elves are all identical to each other and have no unique abilities or traits.

My half elf is resistant to fire and has a breath weapon.