...oops! I was wrong about lifespans! There is a note that I missed on the first page of the "origins" chapter that mentions that every species lives about 80 years unless otherwise noted. (My joke was still hilarious, though.)
@@martinociaramidaro4200 Very specific. Then again, gnomes are the techy species, maybe they engineered their own lives to end very precisely so they won't have any surprises.
"Why didn't you introduce yourself when you first gave me these powers?" the warlock asked. The patron asnwered, "I just wanted to see what you'd do with them; I didn't expect to get invested."
The patron being like "i didn't want to get emotionnaly attached to my pet, the last died stomped by a horse because he didn't look left and right before crossing the road. But i love seing you squirming to try to end the rule of this evil guy. I hate you for being so entertaining"
I mean, you can absolutely use this. Character suffers tragedy and dreams/wishes they had more power in the face of helplessness. Suddenly they awaken with strange powers which seem to grow and grow - until *bam* now that you are so entwined with this power, the patron reveals himself and you realize you have been a puppet all along. Of course, that's not how everyone wants to play a warlock. :D
BG 3 isban EXCELLENT character profile maker. I got ALOT of Nexus dragonborn mods at the moment. Can finally have my Gem Topaz Dragonborn Amethyst ancestry Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer! So I can just jump into the game, Win key + PrintScreen, fine tune the screenshot to a picture size fitting for the character sheet, print out and glue on! A mod gives you Orange, Purple, Yellow dragonborns aswell with unique breath weapons like blinding saltwater, plasma breath and explosive/ flamnable sodium salvia. The mod got deep dragonborn ( deep dragons a shroomy sub-species of purples ), moonstone and gray ones too! The deep one is PERFECT for Spore Druid!
I've used ESO for a few of mine. I like to create the same characters in both games. Currently playing an Astral Elf circle of the stars druid based off my high elf magsorc with a galaxy themed skin and outfit
Feats being "way more fun at lower levels when you can only do like three total things, and being able to do one more thing is very exciting" is _such a good way_ to put that! I've never been able to express my frustration with why the current system bothers me so much. I feel so seen.
@anachronologist2017 Pathfinder 2e has a good feats system. still one of the best character and class creation I've seen, every character feels unique.
@@anachronologist2017 this is why 3rd edition (or to be more precise, 3.5) is still, and probably forever will be, the best D&D edition humanity has seen. Just the breadth and depth of possibilities, prestige classes, customization etc.
I really like what the Dungeon Scrawlers did with alignment: pick in one element a traditional alignment, and add an adjective. So you end up with alignments like "Chaotic Friendly", "Practical Good", or "Lawful Grumpy".
I actually like that a lot more!! I don't *mind* the lawful to chaotic scale. And combining with the other adjectives feels like a good source of inspiration 😊
Lawful Stupid was the traditional alignment for Paladins whose players wanted a functional party but were forced to play with annoying rogues, back when Paladins were always LG.
I'm a very experienced player and DM, but I often use the "This is Your Life" section in Xanathar's as inspiration to flesh out a character. Sometimes just to read and get ideas, sometimes to roll. Usually I'll roll a couple of times until something feels right for that character. So I still have control, but I'm not starting from a completely blank page.
I actually got out both my books because I was sad about the tables being gone (I pick different ones when I flesh out a character more but I still need them in the beginning) and reading through that section I’m thinking ‘Wow! This would be so helpful if I was having trouble fleshing out a character.’ We need ideas, not single words like helpful.
Scores and modifiers remain? Good thing I know of a highly informative (and catchy) Schoolhouse Rock-type parody about Attributes which teaches folks whilst they learn!
@@Dunybrook I Believe that I understand both, they still want it to be a characteristic to distinguish themselves from other roleplaying games, and in games like the hidden shrine of temoachan (supposedly retrocompatible) they use the scores a lot with strength and stuff by adding up their scores to perform a task without a check (which I now apply to my games), it's a love hate relationship for me, I love how it looks, but I hate it being so complex and not used anymore.
Just be glad they decided to keep that legacy mechanic and not Thac0! (looks around warily for other fellow grognards who are ready to leap to Thac0's defense)
@@Dunybrook This feels like an unfair generalization, friend! Just because I think having both an ability score AND a modifier is confusing and unnecessary doesn't mean that I "want to remove everything that makes D&D distinct from other games," and that kind of statement shuts down any real conversation we could have about this part of game design. 😕
Wizard: "You can't join the Caster Club. You don't know enough spells." Warlock: "What did you say, person-within-Eldritch-Blast-range?" Wizard: " Ah. Welcome in the club!"
Ginny’s walkthrough is really good! If you want in-depth analysis of the new rules to build your own characters ahead of release, Treantmonk’s Temple is going through all the rules, while D4 Deep Dive did a massive 3 hour video reviewing every change for every class. The whole content creation community is coming together for this one!
What you said about the new book not mentioning naming conventions made me realize that "species" might actually be an apt name for what they are now. When they were "races," they kinda covered both shared culture (how we tend to think about race in the modern world) *and* biology (in the uncomfortable yeah-they're-not-actually-human-but-man-this-feels-like-eugenics idea of race). Now that they've landed hard on "species", it makes sense not to wrap culture into it-sure, many tiefling communities in the Sword Coast use virtue names, but they're not *genetically predisposed* to it. But the problem is that culture should have gone *somewhere*, because that's a really important part of someone's identity! It feels like that could have been a third prong of "origin": What's your biology? (species) What did you do? (background) And who raised you? (culture). Then a human raised in a predominantly tiefling village might have a virtue name and first-hand experience with discrimination, while a tiefling adopted into a human family might have a human name and a fascination with romance and adventure. Maybe WotC will release more culture-focused supplements for different settings, sort of like the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide? (Sucks that we'd need to buy additional books, and that material might not be released under the Creative Commons license.)
In a way it makes sense to me to add cultures to a setting book rather than to the core rules, since they can vary greatly between settings. But then the character creation section should still mention that this is something to think / ask your DM about...
Sir, this is one outstanding comment. I love when competent people come from the 'Try to love it for 5 minutes' place. While my initial reaction to this was to second guess whether that was an unnecessary diversity'n'inclusion change I do agree that from the very limited knowledge of DnD I have the world seems to seamlessly stir all races/species in one pot. It would make sense, that the culture of a great city be of bigger importance than a race itself. A dragonborn coming from a great city of knowdlege where everything is based on merit and competence would themselves strugge to understand why other dragonborn are looked down on elsewhere. Secondly, as a terribly new wannabe player, who never played a game yet, it does seem very approachable for me to be able to create any character of any biology just because they seem cool and be able to roleplay their personality instead of worrying about hundreds hours of lore to uncover before I could make a conscious decision whether my thiefling can be cheerful or whether that might go against their culture. All this is also giving experienced players, who already know all that stuff to still roleplay and game their characters accordingly. I just got into this world and I always wished there was a sort of demo campaign that I could play with friends simply discovering the mechanics of the game without worrying about playing 'the right way'. I think I am greatly enabled to that that now.
There probably ought to be some canon, world-specific cultures-Faerun, etc.-but those should be supplemental rather than prescriptive. Otherwise the designers circle back to the same problems. Culture is a great place for DMs and players to flex their creativity, too, so leaving it vague allows for a lot of world building potential.
I just don't see how they're not going to do a supplement on species. I'm not arguing with what you said, and I actually agree totally. Culture should be setting-specific and not tied to a species/race/lineage, but I'm super bummed the got rid of half-__
I rarely stick strongly to alignment, EXCEPT if I’m playing a character with an inhuman morality system (like lizard morality, fey morality, or Cthulhu morality). In that case, I’ll make my own nine-square morality axis and place my character in one of the squares so that, while their actions are incredibly hard to predict to an outsider, I’m always able to track their next move. Here’s an example. When I run fey characters, I divide the grid into two axis points: Beautiful-Neutral-Corrupted and Truthful-Neutral-Deceitful. All characters loyal to the Seelie court are somewhere in the Beautiful category, all characters loyal to the Unseelie are somewhere in the Corrupted category, and Neutral folk are go-betweens. These are not necessarily to reflect their looks (many Corrupted or Neutral characters look attractive), but rather what they value-do they value things being surface-level pleasing, or do they prefer messy authenticity? To illustrate the extremes, a Disney Princess would be Beautiful-Truthful, Morticia Addams would be Corrupted-Truthful, Regina George would be Beautiful-Deceitful, and a typical Hag would be Corrupted-Deceitful. Here’s another example-a revised version of the first Alternate Morality Chart I ever made, which was for my GOOlock character who was raised by the cult of her eldritch horror patron. The two axis points for this are Eternal-Neutral-Pandemos and Involved-Neutral-Uncaring. Eternal means that they’re unchanging, that they are the way they are forever, while Pandemos means that their alien mind is a burbling well of madness. Involved vs Uncaring is basically about whether or not they care what puny earthlings do. My character’s patron would be Neutral-Involved, as they’re unknowably alien but also stable, and they care enough about what goes on for Earth that they engage with their cults. Meanwhile, my warlock would be True Neutral, as she has a firm-yet-mutable human brain, but only kind of cares about human affairs and feels alienated from the rest of her kind.
Or just let your behavior determine related alignment. Having an obtuse system for different races serve no purpose but flavor and intentional manipulation of related alignments.
Thank you! I really appreciate the previews. As a long-time player and DM, I've become wary of new editions, and your highly insightful videos are very helpful as I consider whether to bring the new material to my table.
I've been DMing for *DECADES*, and when I *finally* went to make a character as a *player*... I thought the Traits/Bonds/Flaws section really neat... and a great way to set a baseline for RP... Sorry to see it's gone...
I love the character creation and character journal videos. I can and do watch them over and over. Now if only you would leave the pencil sounds in when you are writing you would conquer the ASMR video world as well.
New Player Alert! I have never played a game in my entire life YET. I actually find cutting the backstories a bit very helpful. I think that the more I get into this game I will become more knowledgeable about what I can and cannot do. I will become more knowledgeable about races and culture. I will become more knowledgeable about stories and flaws of my future characters to truly up my game to a master level. But for now, I just really appreaciate that I get to start playing with a sort of DEMO version where I get to just pick whatever looks nicest on a picture and test this wondeful game for myself, without worrying about learning 100 hours of lore to play it right. This video was so freaking helpful that right after this comment I am going to watch it again! Love your work!
"Players can't rely on the book alone to teach them the game" THANK YOU. If a future civilization ever stumbles upon the complete 5e collection, no one will ever learn how to play because they won't have anyone there to explain the fiddly bits.
You have to dig up Jeremy Crawford and cast Speak with Dead and you still won't get all the information because you won't know which five questions to ask.
Idk if I agree, a big problem with the community is not enough people read the books and you get a lot of misinformation about the rules spread by youtube channels and actual play podcasts
@@verdurite I think you kind of ARE agreeing, though! Not enough people read the books because the books are difficult to use. A more accessible book means that people don't have to rely on UA-cam channels and AP shows to teach them the rules.
@@GinnyDiI've lost count of how many people ended up not wanting to play cause they thought it started to "feel like homework" if they had to read ... anything. I think it's excellent the book will make it easier for newer players to get in, but at this point I have little hope that it will actually make more people read it.
@@hironobu64 I agree. Obviously this is not an excuse to write a confusing or incomplete book, but an overwhelming mayority of new players de not read the books, and htis goes for any TTRPG, not just DnD. I havent got a clue how it should be though. Like teaching a new player what the Dodge or Disengage actions do before they ever roll iniative sonds conterproductive.
As someone who is literally paid to teach kids how to play D&D and run games for them, I would like to give my 2 cents on the new character creation process. (Thanks for the video Ginny. Loved it!). The way I teach kids how to make characters is to pick a class first, because as you said, it is the most impactful choice, at least mechanically speaking, then pick their species (a term I have been using since I started teaching kids), then background. After that, we go backwards filling in: 1) Background. It gives you the most static stuff, proficiencies, some gold, etc, very few choices to be made. 2) Species. Allowing them to pick up sub species and some proficiencies or magic. 3) Class. This is where the bulk of their decisions will be now and from now on as they level up. Doing this after background also avoids the kids thinking that because the background gave them a proficiency they already had they get nothing. 4) Ability Scores. Now that we have gone over what the different skills are, and what weapons or magic they want to wield, I can say "dexterity helps your stealth" and the rogue with expertise in stealth knows they want a high dexterity. 5) All the math. Hit points, skill bonus totals, AC, etc. Now that we have all the components we can actually do the calculations. Seeing all this, it looks like they agree that this is a pretty good method. I do have some thoughts though: 1) I am disappointed to hear that they replaced the class description with the "likes" column. I thought the descriptions were a good idea, if poorly executed. (I have my own that I give the kids) 2) I think the complexity column is a really bad idea. Yes, some classes are more complex than others. It can easily scare away newer players from a class whose flavor entrances them because they think they aren't well versed enough to play a "high complexity" character. I have seen this start to happen when a kid hears another talking about how, the druid for example, is hard to play and they start looking for another class, until I stop them and have to assure them that they can do it, and if they need help I am more than happy to. I think having the book advertizing some classes as difficult will only make this problem worse. 3) The changes of class abilities having levels in the heading and class spell lists being in the class's section are really nice. 4) Placing both Species and Background under the Origin section is a good change. Also an origin/background feat is great. (also more experienced players can ask their DM to swap out that feat for another that fits their character concept better) 5) More sub-species is always good, especially when they are put in the base book. 6) Ability score placement suggestions for classes is a good idea, although I think that explaining why those scores go there is going to require explanation from the DM. 7) I agree that ability scores should be scrapped to just leave modifiers, but that doesn't work with current D&D 5E, so we will have to wait for the next edition. 8) Alignment is vague and unhelpful. Unless you are doing something with an artifact or magic that can turn your personality upside down, like in "the Snow Queen", alignment poses more question than it answers. Overall, I think it is a good update, but implementing a complexity column and highlighting alignment are steps in the wrong direction. Thanks to any who read all of this.
😂 paid to teach kids dnd, I guess if your a librarian that has a dnd club at their location your technically still getting paid to show kids how to play while still on the clock 😂
i am kinda sad they removed half races, i personally really love them (especially half elves uwu) bc its me!! im biracial, my character is biracial, WOO! i think its been a cool way to kinda explore being someone of two worlds, and the complex feelings that can come with that. like think an half elf raised primarily by their human side family, barely knowing any elven culture or maybe even not knowing elvish.
Elf and an orc had a baby is a great resource for this. I'm currently running a campaign of custom half races, and my players are loving it. We even gave them unique names like Ignition Pixies (fairy/fire ginasi) Pooflings (tabaxi/Owlin) and Titans (firbolg/loxodon) Elf and an Orc really helps to keep the balance, while still allowing for a lot more fun and creative characters, without feeling all eugenics-y
Me too, I actually plan to keep those for any future '24/5.5e edition games I run. When I've had a chance to see the book (hesitant to get it for myself), I might mix things from that and original 5e for my table.
They've literally said if it's printed in the new editions, use that. If it's not, import it in using the new structure. Just use the old half elves without the ability increases. They didn't get rid of them anymore than they got rid of genasi, kenku, hobgoblins or any other race that didn't get printed.
5e24's PHB is a much better reference guide but you're 100% correct about a lot of the character creation feeling like the flavor has been stripped out Backgrounds feel anemic compared to 5e14, with the loss of descriptive flavor text, the tables, and the background feature which was usually a more roleplay focused thing rather than a combat mechanical element. In terms of flavor, I don't think the species have ever felt more like a bunch of humans wearing different hats. Stripping out the bioessentialism was good, but I definitely think they went too far. Things like suggested names were a great help to a brand new player to make a character that felt like a different species, whereas now the biggest differences in the text are mechanical, and thanks to level 1 feats you can achieve a lot of the feel of difference species with feats (make a small human with the lucky feat and you're a good chunk of the way to being a mechanical halfling, for example).
Thanks for covering this part of the new book! I play with new groups frequently as our local TTRPG club runs one-shots every month, and I see a bright future of considerably easier (and maybe faster) character creations. ALSO YOU HAIR LOOKS WONDERFUL IDK
You should come up with that list of questions and offer it as a supplement for 5.5. You could also take all of the little ideas, and put them in a book so we could buy them and we could use them in our games!
Page 4 of the 2014 DMG says "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM and you are in charge of the game."
I am here for Sailor Ginny. This was an excellent guide & it’s chock full of good advice. The complexity grade & multi-classing notes are handy. The pruning of Backgrounds is frustrating - the personality, bond, flaw tables helped cultivate roleplay hooks. I guess the character builder questions are an attempt to provide that. Cthonic Tiefling looks it’s going to be my new jam.
what i liked from the 5e phb background tables was selecting one based on the vibe i had for the character and slightly modifying the text to make it specific to that chr
Thank you for showing us all an approach to making a character. I appreciate how your Warlock build was cool and refreshing. I liked the spellcasting angle with the huge number of spells and cantrips. In short you made this old timer smile again. Keep on rocking and rolling!
Consider that the stated intent is that most campaigns with somewhat experienced players will start at L3, and it's not so odd. Levels 1 and 2 are basically training-wheel levels for new players to not have too much thrown on them at once. And you can always "play" your intended pact at levels 1 and 2, it's just that you aren't on your patron's radar enough to get the really close attention yet. By level three, they take notice and start giving you the good stuff.
A) if you know what you want to choose, you can still fully roleplay that. Maybe you only get the basic powers until you prove yourself worthy or being publically claimed. B) maybe a mysterious voice called to you in your dreams and part of your adventure is learning where your powers are coming from. C) just start at level 3 like the book refcommends if you’re an experienced player
As for complexity, my youngest daughter started playing a 5e druid in first grade. When we created her character I warned her that druids were one of the hardest classes to play but she really wanted to be a "nature wizard", so I let her do it. At that point she still needed a fair bit of help with basic TTRPG mechanics (she still frequently had to be reminded which one was the d20). Even though it took some patience and a bit more coaching than her older siblings required (who were playing a Barbarian and Ranger) it was the character she wanted to play. And she loved it so much that in our next campaign she chose to play another druid. All of which is to say, provided it fits with campaign and makes sense with the party, I'm all for letting your players play the characters they want to play.
My philosophy with alignment is this: it shouldn't dictate what your character does - but it probably should impact how they feel about their actions afterwards. Otherwise, it seems like they're trying to use alignment as a way to make personality more background agnostic - maybe it felt like some of the 2014 PIBF's played into stereotypes about their backgrounds? If so, I can see why they would want to change that - but I'm also going to miss those tables. Like, I love that my Twilight Cleric is agoraphobic as a result of a background flaw (Archeologist, ToA). And I also agree that they need more role play and character development advice/tools overall, and if this book has less then that's a shame. Role playing often seems to be the biggest hurdle for new players - and I agree that "you can do anything" isn't always helpful advice. Give me a list of options please.
I actually really like reframing alignment around feelings rather than actions! That solves a lot of my issues with how people use alignment in roleplay, honestly.
One of the ways I do alignment (in a way that makes CE playable) is that Lawful is needs of the many, chaotic is needs of the few. Good is the needs of others, evil is the needs of you. Neutral remains a character that examines on a case by case basis what they should. LG is some who’s going to likely make choices that prioritize helping as many people as possible, while a chaotic evil is someone that’s going to prioritize their own wants and desires above all else.
Alignment has always been troublesome (sticky?) In early versions it allowed a way for the spell detect good/evil to provide an easy answer to the kill/ no kill question. It also worked well for the protection from good/evil spell. Personally, I have always liked alignment as a guide to how a character, NPC, or race is generally perceived rather than their actual motivation. (shadowy cloaked individual in the tavern, not trusted by locals, watching your party intently... who turns out to be a noble outsider intent on protecting your characters? )
I’ve found ideals, flaws, and bonds more practically applicable as a player and as a DM making scenarios for them. I would take that over alignment, even for monster interests, like in Monster Overhaul.
Ginny, I have been watching your videos for years now, ever since I started playing dnd. I can't even express how much I've learned as a gm by absorbing the information you put out. All the tips, tricks, 5e supplements from third party creators, I genuinely feel like it's thanks to your channel, as well as several other dnd creators, that I was able to get to the point in my life where I can start professionally running dnd 5e games. Even as I now start learning new systems to run alongside dnd, there are so many of your tips that can apply to other tabletop games as well. I also know that there's a lot of awful horror stories about some guys in the dnd community who only gatekeep and are extremely exist, so it's nice to know that the ladies who are interested in the game have a familiar face to look to in this community. You're an inspiring creator who doesn't take any shit but still always seems to welcome people with a smile. I know UA-cam as a platform has changed a lot lately and it's causing a lot of discourse. But I hope I'm still learning new things from yours and other dnd creator videos 20 years from now. Thanks for everything so far!
The removal of ideals, bonds and flaws seems disappointing. I didnt adhere to them strictly but they were super helpful for inspiration and helping me keep my different characters distinguished. I often flip through those and mix and match them when forming a custom background. Edit: Your Tiefling Warlock naming herself Blasphemy is *chefs kiss*. I love the "trope" of characters giving themselves names. When I started my BG3 Durge run I made my PC a Teifling named Malice. Going in blind, only knowing Durge as a possibly evil route, the name turned out to fit really well. Since Durge has memory loss and introduces themselves as "Malice.. I think" so.. it's either her past name or a name that "feels right" based on "The Dark urge" she has. As Durge Ive been resisting/being good, so theres also room for her to pick a new name for herself, based on who she becomes by the end of the run. The poetry! Needless to say Im very enthusiastic about your new character.. and would be interested in seeing more after your BG3 design shenanigans. 👀
I had a Tiefling NPC who named himself "Indifferent". When the PCs introduced themselves (We're so-and-so and we are so glad to meet you"), he looked at them glumly and said, "And I am Indifferent." They later met his blasé brother. "And who are you?" "Me? I'm Bored."
Losing bonds and flaws is a tragedy for DMs. They weren't just PC fluff. Flaws were temptations DMs could blindside PCs with to trigger moments of character development, and bonds were carrots and sticks the DM could beat the party with whenever they lost track of the main questline or just plain forgot what they were supposed to be doing. "Don't worry, guys. I know you didn't find any of the 50 of 60 clues I placed in the last dungeon. It's fine. There's a knock on the door. The black market contact one of you got from the criminal background has the info you need. Also, a raven is sitting on the window sill, holding a letter from the scholar another one of you apprenticed under. If we don't get anywhere with those two leads, then I'll roll on this random table or family members and we'll start next session with you guys finding a ransom note and a map to the Big Bad's lair."
They specify that basically you can be anything - Half elf, 1/4elf 3/4 orc, whatever, but you only pick one mechanically. I also checked and man... half elves are basically... just elves with one ability removed.
You can use any species that isn't in the printed book. The book also has guidelines for how to implement to make sure they fully work using the new rules. Essentially, their reason for not including the "half" variants was because they were decently happy with them as-is, and they could use that space to include different species that needed the touch-up more than half-elves did.
same here. but being half- anything is still possible according to the book, but you have to decide if you take the elven or human stats. so i personally became a half-elf with human stats, which is still pretty good. You get inspiration after a long rest and a bonus origin feat. But yea, you can even be half orc half tiefling now, you can decide which parts of chose looks you adept, you just need to select one of the two stats
@Wopple Prior to floating ability scores, Half Elves had more total ability bonuses than any race except non-variant Human (which was six +1s, so not great). They and tieflings were also the only races with a bonus to Charisma.
Ginny, as a guy who got into D&D back when the red box came out I'm glad to see a young generation as passionate as us OG nerds were way back then. Carry on!
What I found with new players, and the goals, traits, etc. was that much like alignment is to some people, they became straight-jackets rather than starting points. Oh, my character has the "I will do anything to protect the temple where I served." bond, right, how does this adventure we're doing help with that, it doesn't? Right, why am I doing it then. Kind of behaviour. They certainly have more flavour, but without some guidance and support, they become either forgotten or too rigid for some people. I'm not sure the new approach is better or worse, I'll have to see how it plays out - but I think it speaks to a general point that for alignment, goals, backgrounds, etc. the players and DM should really work to be creative and not be constrained by the words in the book. Maybe they hoped by providing just one or two words it would be harder to be constrained by them, and easier to be inspired by them, which won't work for everyone. I dunno, we'll see how it plays out I guess.
The one trouble with stripping the ability scores becomes figuring out how to still improve your modifiers in stages without adding a similarly-arbitrary 'this counts for half of an ability score increase' function to various feats and features. The up-front mathiness of it is weird for sure, but it's one of those things that I think works itself out in balance, where ASIs can feel important to a player without inherently being instant power every time you get them. It lets sources of single AS points still feel like fun rewards to the player, while also allowing them to be given _more_ of them without rapidly power-scaling things. Crunching things down to just the mods would probably be a good choice from an approachability standpoint, but it'd require a lot more tinkering under the hood of the foundations of the system than I think they were broadly willing to do.
Well, yes, it would require... you know... game design 😅 like any major change to the mechanics would. I'm not saying it could be done in 15 minutes, I'm just saying I think if the designers could come up with a graceful solution to the scaling question, eliminating references to the full ability scores in spells, class features, etc. wouldn't be too big of an undertaking since they are referenced so infrequently compared to modifiers. But I guess I shouldn't have even mentioned it, because everyone is acting like I'm saying "cut ability scores, change nothing else, the game will still work perfectly," which is obviously nonsense and not true (and not what I said!)
@@GinnyDi Oh man, I hope I didn't come across that way! I think it's a perfectly valid criticism to pose! I suppose I was more pondering the difficulty of it all aloud, partially BECAUSE I know there will be folks making comments minimizing what you said and the effort involved in changing it. It's a problem they absolutely could have solved. Keeping it in suggests they didn't want to, but that doesn't have to keep us from wishing they did.
@@GinnyDi My off the cuff late night tweak might be to turn ability scores into ability descriptors. Incapable to Average to Olympic Athlete, sort of thing. Each would correspond to the existing bands and modifiers. This might be a little too.... role-play-y for an otherwise crunchy system, though, while allowing for a bit of the granularity of things and in some sense, encourage a bit more of the role-playing aspect upfront by getting (new) players to think less about if 15 is a good score and more about their character ("Yeah, I guess my wizard is Fairly Strong" "Why's that?" " Hm... maybe 'cause they use to be in the town militia until a magical creature passed though and they got really into magic. Especially the somatic and gesturing side of things cause it felt like bodybuilding.") Small increases would then be phrased merely as small increases that don't substantially change things eg. being able to lift 100 points versus 95 pounds is progress but isn't going radically change the strength of your punches.
My thoughts on Warlocks picking the subclass at level 3 are actually pretty simple: you already know which subclass you are picking. You and your DM have discussed it at character creation, so that they can account for your patron as a character in the story.
Easiest handwave ever: "You have a contract with your patron, but you have to show that you're worthy (getting to level 3) for them to bestow a fraction of their power unto you." Same thing can be done with any class really.
Tiefling virtue names are fantastic. Had a trickery cleric tiefling that ran around trying to destablise governments called Liberty, one of my favourite designs. such a unique and cool part of tieflings.
I particularly like this for my very-southern-belle tiefling bard who gave herself a name that indicated her wandering tendency to head for new horizons when things got boring. Adieu. Adieu d'Claire. (she was on good terms with her family, so kept the surname)
I really hope we get more character creation advice in the Dungeon Master's Guide, framed around the idea of a DM helping their players come up with a character for the campaign. This might be where we get tools to expand on goals and backgrounds, explaining to the DM how to best prompt and dive deeper on these things depending on what type of campaign settings and tone they're going for. For example, I could see a section going over how to write a mystery campaign including character questions, prompts, and tables specifically catered to a setting like that for the DM to ask their players. And this could be where we get a lot more options of description and flavor. At least, that's my hope! I really like the flavorful ideas packed into the 2014 PHB, but since not all campaign settings abide by those rules (maybe you want your world to have Virtue Names be a Dwarf thing, or you want Warlocks to be highly regarded members of society) I think it's a good idea to leave them out of the PHB and keep it light on flavor specifics. Leave those kinds of things for campaign settings and the Dungeon Master to provide, so they can be catered to each setting individually.
I hope so too! But also, wouldn't like them keeping all this flavor information on the DM's side. We already do SO much work as a DM - I'd love to have more tools to encourage my players to take agency and get creative with their characters
@@GinnyDi As a fellow DM I totally get it. I don't want to have to be relied on EVERY time to be the push to get my players creative juices flowing. It's part of why I'm so disappointed that questionnaire is so short and the backgrounds are so limited. That's the kind of thing that wouldn't limit worldbuilding at all but still light so many sparks of imagination in the player's minds. I see where they were coming from of not wanting to limit certain species' or backgrounds' stories too much, but giving us options for how they might play out would have been appreciated. Giving the tools for creativity like you suggested are the perfect middle ground between beautiful but set in stone flavor, and flavorless, directionless stats.
This is lovely, Ginny! I teach yoga full time and also rum pro DnD games at my local game shop but loved your charisma, explanations, and real talk. 🎉🎉🎉
I think what WotC could have done for species flavor would be to talk about how this group has been seen in 2-3 different play settings. Like, teiflings in the forgotten realms have not been trusted and this has lead to their virtue names. But maybe in this other setting they tend to be protectors of the realms from the nine hells, spurring the devil's they share a bloodline with. Gnomes in forgotten realms tend to have very long names, but in a spell jammer setting they tend to have nicknames related to the odd jobs they perform. That way it fleshes out a setting as having cultures and histories but also shows these aren't mandatory.
Really names should be based on country. Now-a-days you see names jump around a lot but I would say that most kingdoms or even areas in the kingdoms would have certain types of names. In some campaigns if you can name your character whatever you want, everyone chooses a flavor and one person choses the WHATEVER THEY WANT, then it could be bad. Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Samwise, and Purple Strawberry really kinda leaves one of those as... Standing out and maybe breaking things every time Purple Strawberry or Dunglerglerer the elf is up in initiative.
Whoa there that's way too sensible and was even the case for some races previously. Best to remove species and classes entirely from the game instead of offering up suggestions for them. If someone hears that tieflings might be distrusted in a completely separate fantasy setting than the one they're playing in, they might be offended or have their creativity stymied.
@@GinnyDiAs a fellow pact of the tome warlock with a sage background, I say that we are ABSOLUTELY in the club, and I’ll eldritch blast anyone who says otherwise. 😂
I agree on the traits and flaws table. The first tim I was creating a character I never used it because it's pretty specific. The character basically didn't have a personality or purpose. With other characters it's really helped shaped their backstories and gave me ideas to build off from. I tend to struggle coming up with ideas for backstory so I need all the help I can get!
The single best new addition to the rules that 5e brought to the game was traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws. Traits and ideals are infinitely better roleplaying tools than alignment ever was. Bonds and flaws are the perfect system of carrots and sticks that DMs need to prod players towards the main quest when they veer off track. Whichever chapter in the new DMG that is designed to teach players how to DM needs to have a page dedicated to "What to do when the players just don't get it." That page needs to tell the DM to write down all the Bonds and Flaws the PCs have and pin that list to the panel of the DM screen the DM doesn't need. The fact that traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws aren't in the new PHB ruins the core book reprints. When making up characters and backstories, I tell the players, "I don't need a novel. I don't need your alignment. The novel length story will come in play, and I never use alignment when I can use the Magic the Gathering color pie. What I need is your character's most tempting vice and guilty pleasure, and I need a list of 5 npcs. I need 5 people in the game world who your character will either go out of their way to defend or out of their way to destroy." This is why most of the "ribbon" abilities from the 5e backgrounds were so good. The 3 or 4 that just covered room and board were fine, but the best backgrounds gave the DM an NPC, a faction, or a destination they could tell the players to track down for any info they needed to progress the plot. Criminal wasn't just great because it gave proficiency in thieve's tools. It was great because it gave one PC a black market contact that the DM could always send to meet the party and tell them what they needed to do to get the ball rolling when they dropped or lost it. All the academic backgrounds gave the players a library or scholar they could track down and get crucial info from. This is ranger all over again. They stripped out all the flavor and thematic cores of the class/backgrounds and replaced them with slight mechanical advantages that will stop being useful or unique after level 5. I gave players feats at character creation all the time. Every time they asked me if they could pick a powerhouse feat, I smiled and said, "Sure. You can take either crossbow expert or great weapon master. Before you do that, though, I'm gonna need a few more bonds. I'm gonna need the name and description of the weapon master that taught you that feat, and I'm gonna need at least 5 living family members or childhood friends turned rivals. Being orphaned and raised by wolves didn't teach you to add 10 points of damage to your heavy two-handed weapon swings."
Although I don’t play D&D anymore, I found this quite interesting and thought-provoking. The last time I GM’d a campaign* was with D20 Star Wars, and looking back, I think this newest D&D edition has a nice process for any RPG system. However, were I ever to GM again, I think before doing any character creation, I would have a discussion with my players about the world they were playing in, what their goals might be as players, what they would imagine their lives to be like etc. and use that to serve as a guide in creating their characters along the lines of what you discussed. Very nice run-through; thank you. *Unfortunately, my gaming group dissolved when they decided to join the Army and Marines … but I don’t take that personally…no, really, I don’t...??? (Of course, it could have been after I ran them through a few Paranoia RPG sessions... 🤔)
The full ability score is still used for Long Jump. "You cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." The jump rules haven't changed between versions so it's still there.
Yes, as I clearly say in this video, there ARE still places the full score is used - I just said there aren’t many. I promise y’all don’t need to explain the rules to me 🫠
@@GinnyDiMy apologies! I didn't mean to come off as explaining it to you. I was trying to state where the score still exists for those that may not know.
First note: man, your hair is so cute in this video! Second note: I love alignment as a starting place. Not the be all, end all, this is how the character acts in every situation, but rather a general vibe. The Law to Chaos scale asks the question "Do you follow laws and rules?" and the Good to Evil scale asks "Are you selfless or selfish?" It's a nice reminder of the general direction of action, and certainly not ironclad for every interaction. Some of the best moments may come when a player acts "out of alignment." I also think alignment should be fluid, and that if a player acts more one way than what they stated, instead of correcting them to what they wrote down, change the words on their sheet!
Minor gripe about a character's age being removed: why? I'm playing a triton cleric right now in his eighties, with greying scales. From what I've read, tritons have an average lifespan of 200, so he's about middle-age for his race/species/lineage, but looks older due to the grey. This has inspired the DM to make a few (well-intended) ageist remarks at his expense, and the other PCs and I are having a great time RPing it.
Could also be, while they “took away” half-elf and half-orc you can now be any species combination you want, right? Maybe they wanted to avoid answering questions about what the age of a half elf/half dragonborn or half gnome/half tiefling would be etc.
I tend to think up a character concept first, including race, if it clicks with some flavor. Then I figure out which class fits it best. All my bonds/flaws/etc. usually comes as I develop their personality, which is often just me popping them into a scenario in my head and seeing how they react. Then I go digging for class details like spells or feats to fit the newly established vibes. So the new book no delving into flavor isn't as big an issue for me. For example, my most recent character idea is Gunther "Gunny" Jebediah 3rd Jr., who's basically a comedic play on a Southern Hick. The idea popped up while I was driving with my brother-in-law while talking about dnd (though I'll probably update him with the new PHB). Party member: We found a veterinarian to heal the ranger's beast. Gunny: Thank you for your service. Party member: No, they're a doctor. Gunny: Hey! That's stolen valor, sir. My Grandpappy was in the war. We don't take to kindly to that where I'm from. The idea of this country bumpkin casting spells without realizing he's doing magic was hilarious to us, along with the general "low IQ" comedy that came with it. And after some class digging, I finally settled on a Genie Warlock. He found a jug of moonshine that only had weird smoke in it. Now his shotgun can fire endlessly without loading bullets (Eldritch Blast), and he can go to his "Happy Place" that he assumes is just a mental retreat, and not him getting sucked into his jug. But don't bother trying to tell him otherwise. He's not one of them fancy magic-y users.
In 2014 Races had specific Ability Score bonuses that guided players to choose specific classes. Then they removed specific Ability Score Bonus and allowed player to place +2 to any stat and +1 to another other stat (Or +1 to any three). YAY Freedom. Now they tie Specific Ability Score Bonuses to Backgrounds. A WARLOCK scribe got his hands on a book of forgotten book and found he has to play catchup to Warlocks who had a background that aided Charisma. If all character gets the +2/+1 (Or +1/+1/+1) Why not just make it a step as part of determining Ability Scores? And what if I want to be an entertainer who just recite poems or paints. Why would I have Musician feat if I never touch an instrument? Sorry but I Feel backgrounds could have been done differently. That is my 2 Copper.
Love it! Though I agree the simplification does take away alot of the character spice. My newbies will have fun with the new book. Look forward to how it goes
Species is a Latin word meaning "appearance." It was used long before the Middle Ages, but not in the same sense we use it today. The medieval scholastics typically used the term species to denote a particular member of a genus (family, lineage, class). For example, Socrates was a species of the genus Man.
@@magister343 Come to think of it, I think it might’ve been the usage starting in the Middle Ages that I was remembering, not the invention of the word
Feels kinda like the Tiffany problem to me. There are plenty of words that have long histories but still feel modern. "Species" feels science-y, regardless of its linguistic roots.
Great video! This felt way more comprehensive and fair than the people who try to fearmonger about any changes in new D&D versions, and I think that the character creation is way more friendly to new players. I'm probably going to stick with 5e myself, but I'll take a leaf out of the 2024 book next time I'm playing with beginners! I am sad that they removed the traits/ideals/bonds/flaws mechanic, as I felt like it was such a great yet simple outline to help guide roleplay and first impressions of the character (I like it so much that I use it as a template for my non-D&D original characters!) and sad that half-elves and half-orcs don't exist mechanically anymore, but all in all it's not as bad as some have made it out to be.
25:29 I agree with you on this point 1000%. The most unpleasant TTRPG experience i ever had was when an old group of mine had Superhero System/Champions dropped on us out of nowhere. Our GM was selling it as being so amazing because "there is literally no character concept i have nor been able to create using this system," well, that turned me off immediately, because no matter how many times I have tried, no matter how many videos Seth Skorkowsky makes demoing skill-based character creation, I simply cannot wrap my head around it. I have sat for over two hours looking at a Shadow Run character sheet & the core rulebook, & been unable to do anything. I just get analysis paralysis. Too much freedom is not inspiring to me, its intimidating & I just clam up.
I’m glad I found your channel because your videos are very entertaining and informative about dungeons and dragons. It helps when you explain the rules and still be imaginative, which is everything about DnD. Awesome job 👍
Finally a fellow 5e 2014 Traits and Flaws enjoyer 🤝 My favorite thing to do with that is to look at the two backgrounds that best apply to my character (there's always at least two that could work just as good as the other) and pick or modify traits/flaws and bonds that best fit them. Makes for a lot more variety and roleplaying hooks. Might as well combine these with the alignment traits in 2024; can't have too many tools in the box
Probably my favorite take on variant 'alignment' systems is PF2E's Moral Intentions variant rule: "In this variant, every character, NPC, and monster selects one or more closely held beliefs, intentions, or loyalties. Simple statements about a character’s intentions, like the examples listed in the sidebar, flesh out characters and enliven roleplaying scenes. This system requires some back-and-forth between the GM and the other players, and more thought on the part of everyone at the table. Typically, specifying three intentions or loyalties works well to define a character. These personal intentions cover broad spectra of behavior and in large part define the subjective definition of good for that individual. Intentions could be as abstract as acting with honor or as concrete as devotion to the character’s mother. A person following their core beliefs or intentions feels like they are acting in a good manner, and they are likely to view actions against or restrictions to these beliefs as evil. For example, a character who believes strongly in the law would see allowing a crime to go unpunished as evil. A specific individual will likely have different levels of commitment for each of their intentions. Determine a relative order of commitment by considering what the character would do if these intentions came into conflict."
As a Mixed person, I typically play Half races and it feels really like a slap in the face that Mixed people can't exist in the World's Most Famous TTRPG
I hear you! I want to clarify that the 2024 rulebook does NOT say that Mixed people don't exist - their mechanical take on it is that you can be Mixed, but you have to pick which stats to use. (I think this is a pretty bullshit, lazy response.) But I also think it was really problematic that elves and orcs were the only races that had half-races (particularly orcs, in which half-orcs being the only playable version of the race was rooted in a really gross attitude towards orcs as a race overall, and led to some fucked up implications and lore of how those half-orcs came to be.) I would've liked to see that corrected in a more thoughtful way, instead of just removing problematic content and not replacing it with anything meaninful.
@@GinnyDi Oh I understand things weren't perfect, typically I play in homebrew settings were baseline assumptions don't typically apply. Or Eberron which has a much more favorable depiction of Orcs (not that Eberron is free of it's own issues with Xen'drik). I guess my issue is that from my experience my existence is made political all the time, it sucks to have that position validated in my escapist fantasy game. And I guess having to choose one side or the other like a LotR Elf is fine, but I preferred what we had to that. At least I could change the Lore on my own. Not angry at you, I know you didn't have any control of WotC's decision. I'm more just expressing my disappointment with the game I've loved for years.
I hope that didn't come off like I was disagreeing with you! I think your voice as a Mixed player is really valuable and I appreciate you weighing in. I did want to make sure I hadn't misrepresented the content by implying that half-races didn't exist IN-WORLD - just that they no longer exist mechanically.
@@GinnyDi Not at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way to you either! Just saying I liked the old way better than the limp representation they've given in the new book. My problem is squarely directed at WotC, not you at all. I'm sorry I came across the wrong way, that's probably my fault with phrasing and such.
As to the inclusivity comment- I just wish they hadn't thrown the baby of archetype out with the bathwater of stereotype. Providing some default details for species archetypes while stating clearly that individuals can and will vary allows playing against or to type without devolving into determinism. D&D is, in a significant part, a storytelling game, and that makes the stories literary in a sense. Sometimes in a story, archetype is a necessary shorthand, provided it is used thoughtfully. I much prefer a species description that includes two or three archetypal stat leanings and a few sample names to the current trend of making species mechanically little mare than humans in cosplay. (Nothing against humans in cosplay, Ginny. Love the cosplay!) I also am wary of the way stat bonuses seem to be tied to backgrounds via a selection of three stats you can boost. In some of the ones I've seen previewed, there is no choice for a defensive stat (Dex or Con) and many classes that will not have a primary stat boost available for many of the backgrounds. This means that for tactical players- and there's nothing wrong with that playstyle- some backgrounds will be altogether useless, and some others will be useless for certain classes. I know in my group of multi-decade players, the go-to background will likely be "custom". (I'm lucky to have players I can trust to that without oversight). Very excited to get my hands on the book on release! I know I complained about two things in this post, but there's a lot I see positive in the new rules. I even like the subclass-at-level-three change, provided you take into account that the stated intent is for experienced players to start at level 3, making levels 1 and 2 levels for new groups to get their feet wet before making such a character-defining decision.
The background thing is most odious to me. My group likes making tactically sound decisions, but also we spend hours upon hours roleplaying at each other with our fun, unique characters. With backgrounds as they are, you're making the origin of your character a solvable choice, it becomes objectively correct for all fighters to be the strength ones, or all wizards to pick con and int backgrounds.
@@pizza9798 I understand there is supposed to be a methods for customizing backgrounds in the DMG. I hope it is flexible and just included there so the DM has control over it (to prevent people coming up with bizarre and unwieldy backgrounds without DM approval and saying "but it's in the PH!!")
@@hqueso That's a lot of work to throw at the DM on top of everything else though. While I'm sure that most DMs have their own preferences anyway and would be taking some work on to their shoulders the Player's handbook should be there to let the players take as much off of the DM's plate as possible since they're prepping so much of the experience already. Players should have the most input on their part of the game as possible, and should only have to ask for the DM's opinion on matters of worldliness, in my opinion.
I think you nailed it your summary, I think the new edition of the PHB is primarily intended as a 'reference' tool, which, admittedly, after characters are created, is what it will mostly be used for. As for the lack of flavour text, it is a loss BUT, it is my hope that this will be addressed in the DMG, part of world and setting creation advice, and even example setting that's been mentioned. By stripping so much of that out of the PHB, it creates a blank(er) canvas for the DM's own or chosen setting to take precedent. To me, the PHB is a rules reference document now, not a background, flavour or fluff book... and I'm okay with that.
Re: Backgrounds - I am ALWAYS saying this. When I build my characters, I think about their class/background/race as three phases of growing up. For the race, I think of like, "what has my character sort of always been good at, what childhood memories do they have?" For the background, I think, "What kind of person were they/what were they doing prior to the event that set them on their path to their class?" And then for class, I always think, "What was the result of that event, how did they get to the point of training for the class?"
I don't think alignment is useful for you the player but I think alignment means a lot to other players. It's a great shorthand for potential party conflict, especially if players are leaning hard Lawful or even Neutral (ie rather than Good) without me having to read your 15 page backstory and read between the lines.
As always, I love your videos! You have amazing thoughts on character and backstory creation, which is something I struggle with sometimes in my writing. I completely agree that while alignments are kind of interesting, they are also overly simplistic and it is much more interesting to develop a backstory and a goal for a character and have their actions driven by those things. Love the name and the description of your Warlock!
I enjoyed this video, but I don't enjoy the book's organization in a few areas and I find the cut of the world building with nothing to take its place. I think once everything is out we'll see the impact of so many changes.
The "imagine your past" stuff is also in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. There's a section called "This is Your Life" that also asks these questions. I use them all the time :D
It's a bit weird that the Warlock doesn't have a patron at first level but it can be great to have the pact being made in a play session like our Paladin had a ceremony in a game session when we reach 3rd level in which his character made her sacred oath to her deity.
I could definitely see it being useful in roleplay if you're going down the accidental/unwilling pact route as well (like with this acolyte Tiefling - if they didn't know they were signing up to be a warlock but grow reliant on their "god" and its power)
I do like the idea that a Warlock is syphoning off energy from a powerful entity, through the use of religious texts/shrines, but only get that patron's attention/consideration once they have worked on their behalf for a while. Or a 'new' patron could be stealing them away from the path that they were going on before that point.
WotC's official position on the 2024 5th Edition is that it's not exactly a new edition, but it's a lot more than just a new addition. For example, Druids can now be a Magician, while half-species have been decommissioned, and are now a purposeful omission (a change not without its opposition). It's clear that WotC's ambition with backward compatibility was to give players permission to transition according to their own volition, but power creep means any tactician or statistician would view this proposition with suspicion. On the condition that character composition exceeds four hours, consult a physician. Thank you for attending my disquisition.
I think most people start with class. I also think "origin" is a good way to describe what species and background are supposed describe. I have my personal preferences on some of the new rules, but 2024 seems rather new player friendly, and probably a nice starter for us old gamers with kids.
This is your livelihood now, I guess here we go. (huge credit to you for the self-awareness and bringing your non-sponsored opinion to the table, its a huge part of why I still watch)
...oops! I was wrong about lifespans! There is a note that I missed on the first page of the "origins" chapter that mentions that every species lives about 80 years unless otherwise noted. (My joke was still hilarious, though.)
If I purchased the core books last year (5e). Will the electronic versions be automatically updated?
Dwarves and elves being the only longer-lived species is a bit boring, but ok.
@StacyInLove1 if you're referring to DnDBeyond, nothing has been announced yet
@@VinceValentine Gnomes do too, their lifespan is given a weirdly specific 425 years.
@@martinociaramidaro4200 Very specific. Then again, gnomes are the techy species, maybe they engineered their own lives to end very precisely so they won't have any surprises.
"Why didn't you introduce yourself when you first gave me these powers?" the warlock asked.
The patron asnwered, "I just wanted to see what you'd do with them; I didn't expect to get invested."
The patron being like "i didn't want to get emotionnaly attached to my pet, the last died stomped by a horse because he didn't look left and right before crossing the road. But i love seing you squirming to try to end the rule of this evil guy. I hate you for being so entertaining"
I imagine the patron saying "You weren't really supposed to get this far".
I mean, you can absolutely use this. Character suffers tragedy and dreams/wishes they had more power in the face of helplessness. Suddenly they awaken with strange powers which seem to grow and grow - until *bam* now that you are so entwined with this power, the patron reveals himself and you realize you have been a puppet all along.
Of course, that's not how everyone wants to play a warlock. :D
Her: "...I warned you that we were being self-indulgent."
Me: "It's a tiefling, isn't it?"
Her: "It's tiefling time."
Perfect lol
Literally thought the same thing
Ginny: "I'm a filthy lil rule follower."
_six minutes later_
Ginny: "BREAKING DA LAW!"
okay, I admit to being less concerned about ignoring a D&D rulebook than an FTC ruling 😂
"I need to go use Baldur's Gate 3 as an expensive dollmaker" Ginny was so real with this one. I feel called out 😆
The real illithid hivemind was the characters we created along the way 😂
Ya, this is so simple and effective of a tip, I love it!!! Screenshot it, awkwardly tape it onto character sheet, done! :D
BG 3 isban EXCELLENT character profile maker. I got ALOT of Nexus dragonborn mods at the moment. Can finally have my Gem Topaz Dragonborn Amethyst ancestry Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer! So I can just jump into the game, Win key + PrintScreen, fine tune the screenshot to a picture size fitting for the character sheet, print out and glue on! A mod gives you Orange, Purple, Yellow dragonborns aswell with unique breath weapons like blinding saltwater, plasma breath and explosive/ flamnable sodium salvia. The mod got deep dragonborn ( deep dragons a shroomy sub-species of purples ), moonstone and gray ones too! The deep one is PERFECT for Spore Druid!
I usually use HeroForge but I may start using BG3.
I've used ESO for a few of mine. I like to create the same characters in both games. Currently playing an Astral Elf circle of the stars druid based off my high elf magsorc with a galaxy themed skin and outfit
Feats being "way more fun at lower levels when you can only do like three total things, and being able to do one more thing is very exciting" is _such a good way_ to put that! I've never been able to express my frustration with why the current system bothers me so much. I feel so seen.
In 3rd edition, it was all about the feats. They were basically ways to customize you character class how you want it
@anachronologist2017 Pathfinder 2e has a good feats system. still one of the best character and class creation I've seen, every character feels unique.
@@anachronologist2017 this is why 3rd edition (or to be more precise, 3.5) is still, and probably forever will be, the best D&D edition humanity has seen. Just the breadth and depth of possibilities, prestige classes, customization etc.
I really like what the Dungeon Scrawlers did with alignment: pick in one element a traditional alignment, and add an adjective. So you end up with alignments like "Chaotic Friendly", "Practical Good", or "Lawful Grumpy".
I actually like that a lot more!! I don't *mind* the lawful to chaotic scale. And combining with the other adjectives feels like a good source of inspiration 😊
I declared a character to be "Chaotic Annoying" back in 1988. I was ahead of the curve!
Lawful Stupid was the traditional alignment for Paladins whose players wanted a functional party but were forced to play with annoying rogues, back when Paladins were always LG.
@@KeandeLacy more like Lawful annoying to be honest, the Vengeance Palindin would be Neutral Edgy.
Nuetral Grumpy would be mine
I've met my fair share of chaotic stupid, yes...
I'm a very experienced player and DM, but I often use the "This is Your Life" section in Xanathar's as inspiration to flesh out a character. Sometimes just to read and get ideas, sometimes to roll. Usually I'll roll a couple of times until something feels right for that character. So I still have control, but I'm not starting from a completely blank page.
I actually got out both my books because I was sad about the tables being gone (I pick different ones when I flesh out a character more but I still need them in the beginning) and reading through that section I’m thinking ‘Wow! This would be so helpful if I was having trouble fleshing out a character.’ We need ideas, not single words like helpful.
Scores and modifiers remain? Good thing I know of a highly informative (and catchy) Schoolhouse Rock-type parody about Attributes which teaches folks whilst they learn!
I do my best within a flawed system!! 😂
I love scores and hate that people always want to remove everything that makes D&D distinct from other games.
@@Dunybrook I Believe that I understand both, they still want it to be a characteristic to distinguish themselves from other roleplaying games, and in games like the hidden shrine of temoachan (supposedly retrocompatible) they use the scores a lot with strength and stuff by adding up their scores to perform a task without a check (which I now apply to my games), it's a love hate relationship for me, I love how it looks, but I hate it being so complex and not used anymore.
Just be glad they decided to keep that legacy mechanic and not Thac0! (looks around warily for other fellow grognards who are ready to leap to Thac0's defense)
@@Dunybrook This feels like an unfair generalization, friend! Just because I think having both an ability score AND a modifier is confusing and unnecessary doesn't mean that I "want to remove everything that makes D&D distinct from other games," and that kind of statement shuts down any real conversation we could have about this part of game design. 😕
Wizard: "You can't join the Caster Club. You don't know enough spells."
Warlock: "What did you say, person-within-Eldritch-Blast-range?"
Wizard: " Ah. Welcome in the club!"
Ginny is out here doing the most comprehensive pieces. Where would we be without her?
You can count on me to be right there when the news breaks! 😂
Online, looking at swords we want but cannot afford, probably.
@@GinnyDi And we all appreciate you deeply, especially us who want to play but haven't yet!
Ginny’s walkthrough is really good! If you want in-depth analysis of the new rules to build your own characters ahead of release, Treantmonk’s Temple is going through all the rules, while D4 Deep Dive did a massive 3 hour video reviewing every change for every class. The whole content creation community is coming together for this one!
What you said about the new book not mentioning naming conventions made me realize that "species" might actually be an apt name for what they are now. When they were "races," they kinda covered both shared culture (how we tend to think about race in the modern world) *and* biology (in the uncomfortable yeah-they're-not-actually-human-but-man-this-feels-like-eugenics idea of race). Now that they've landed hard on "species", it makes sense not to wrap culture into it-sure, many tiefling communities in the Sword Coast use virtue names, but they're not *genetically predisposed* to it.
But the problem is that culture should have gone *somewhere*, because that's a really important part of someone's identity! It feels like that could have been a third prong of "origin": What's your biology? (species) What did you do? (background) And who raised you? (culture). Then a human raised in a predominantly tiefling village might have a virtue name and first-hand experience with discrimination, while a tiefling adopted into a human family might have a human name and a fascination with romance and adventure.
Maybe WotC will release more culture-focused supplements for different settings, sort of like the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide? (Sucks that we'd need to buy additional books, and that material might not be released under the Creative Commons license.)
In a way it makes sense to me to add cultures to a setting book rather than to the core rules, since they can vary greatly between settings. But then the character creation section should still mention that this is something to think / ask your DM about...
Sir, this is one outstanding comment. I love when competent people come from the 'Try to love it for 5 minutes' place. While my initial reaction to this was to second guess whether that was an unnecessary diversity'n'inclusion change I do agree that from the very limited knowledge of DnD I have the world seems to seamlessly stir all races/species in one pot. It would make sense, that the culture of a great city be of bigger importance than a race itself. A dragonborn coming from a great city of knowdlege where everything is based on merit and competence would themselves strugge to understand why other dragonborn are looked down on elsewhere.
Secondly, as a terribly new wannabe player, who never played a game yet, it does seem very approachable for me to be able to create any character of any biology just because they seem cool and be able to roleplay their personality instead of worrying about hundreds hours of lore to uncover before I could make a conscious decision whether my thiefling can be cheerful or whether that might go against their culture.
All this is also giving experienced players, who already know all that stuff to still roleplay and game their characters accordingly.
I just got into this world and I always wished there was a sort of demo campaign that I could play with friends simply discovering the mechanics of the game without worrying about playing 'the right way'. I think I am greatly enabled to that that now.
There probably ought to be some canon, world-specific cultures-Faerun, etc.-but those should be supplemental rather than prescriptive. Otherwise the designers circle back to the same problems. Culture is a great place for DMs and players to flex their creativity, too, so leaving it vague allows for a lot of world building potential.
I just don't see how they're not going to do a supplement on species.
I'm not arguing with what you said, and I actually agree totally. Culture should be setting-specific and not tied to a species/race/lineage, but I'm super bummed the got rid of half-__
I read this as let's make a 2024 dnd calander and I still clicked lmao
Glad to know I've got at least one viewer when that video is released! 😂🥰
@@GinnyDi A behind-the-scenes making-of calendar video is true 1st-monitor content!
I did the same thing lol
I rarely stick strongly to alignment, EXCEPT if I’m playing a character with an inhuman morality system (like lizard morality, fey morality, or Cthulhu morality). In that case, I’ll make my own nine-square morality axis and place my character in one of the squares so that, while their actions are incredibly hard to predict to an outsider, I’m always able to track their next move.
Here’s an example.
When I run fey characters, I divide the grid into two axis points: Beautiful-Neutral-Corrupted and Truthful-Neutral-Deceitful. All characters loyal to the Seelie court are somewhere in the Beautiful category, all characters loyal to the Unseelie are somewhere in the Corrupted category, and Neutral folk are go-betweens. These are not necessarily to reflect their looks (many Corrupted or Neutral characters look attractive), but rather what they value-do they value things being surface-level pleasing, or do they prefer messy authenticity?
To illustrate the extremes, a Disney Princess would be Beautiful-Truthful, Morticia Addams would be Corrupted-Truthful, Regina George would be Beautiful-Deceitful, and a typical Hag would be Corrupted-Deceitful.
Here’s another example-a revised version of the first Alternate Morality Chart I ever made, which was for my GOOlock character who was raised by the cult of her eldritch horror patron.
The two axis points for this are Eternal-Neutral-Pandemos and Involved-Neutral-Uncaring. Eternal means that they’re unchanging, that they are the way they are forever, while Pandemos means that their alien mind is a burbling well of madness. Involved vs Uncaring is basically about whether or not they care what puny earthlings do.
My character’s patron would be Neutral-Involved, as they’re unknowably alien but also stable, and they care enough about what goes on for Earth that they engage with their cults. Meanwhile, my warlock would be True Neutral, as she has a firm-yet-mutable human brain, but only kind of cares about human affairs and feels alienated from the rest of her kind.
ooo this comment is gold. super creative and flexible.
What a good idea
Or just let your behavior determine related alignment. Having an obtuse system for different races serve no purpose but flavor and intentional manipulation of related alignments.
Thank you! I really appreciate the previews. As a long-time player and DM, I've become wary of new editions, and your highly insightful videos are very helpful as I consider whether to bring the new material to my table.
Glad I can help! 🥰
I've been DMing for *DECADES*, and when I *finally* went to make a character as a *player*... I thought the Traits/Bonds/Flaws section really neat... and a great way to set a baseline for RP...
Sorry to see it's gone...
Honestly, I could watch videos of you creating DnD characters for hours. The twenty minutes just flew by
So happy to hear that! 🥰
@@GinnyDi Was Jester the one who ingrained a deep love of Tieflings in you? I can't blame you if that is the case!
I love the character creation and character journal videos. I can and do watch them over and over. Now if only you would leave the pencil sounds in when you are writing you would conquer the ASMR video world as well.
New Player Alert! I have never played a game in my entire life YET. I actually find cutting the backstories a bit very helpful. I think that the more I get into this game I will become more knowledgeable about what I can and cannot do. I will become more knowledgeable about races and culture. I will become more knowledgeable about stories and flaws of my future characters to truly up my game to a master level. But for now, I just really appreaciate that I get to start playing with a sort of DEMO version where I get to just pick whatever looks nicest on a picture and test this wondeful game for myself, without worrying about learning 100 hours of lore to play it right.
This video was so freaking helpful that right after this comment I am going to watch it again! Love your work!
"Players can't rely on the book alone to teach them the game" THANK YOU. If a future civilization ever stumbles upon the complete 5e collection, no one will ever learn how to play because they won't have anyone there to explain the fiddly bits.
You have to dig up Jeremy Crawford and cast Speak with Dead and you still won't get all the information because you won't know which five questions to ask.
Idk if I agree, a big problem with the community is not enough people read the books and you get a lot of misinformation about the rules spread by youtube channels and actual play podcasts
@@verdurite I think you kind of ARE agreeing, though! Not enough people read the books because the books are difficult to use. A more accessible book means that people don't have to rely on UA-cam channels and AP shows to teach them the rules.
@@GinnyDiI've lost count of how many people ended up not wanting to play cause they thought it started to "feel like homework" if they had to read ... anything.
I think it's excellent the book will make it easier for newer players to get in, but at this point I have little hope that it will actually make more people read it.
@@hironobu64 I agree. Obviously this is not an excuse to write a confusing or incomplete book, but an overwhelming mayority of new players de not read the books, and htis goes for any TTRPG, not just DnD. I havent got a clue how it should be though. Like teaching a new player what the Dodge or Disengage actions do before they ever roll iniative sonds conterproductive.
Very excited for the Warlock video! As a Cleric player, I'm a bit...apprehensive about not getting a subclass until Level 3
It's pretty dumb, RPG wise. Very gamey.
you basically have to cosplay blasphemy now, we are bringing tiefling cosplay back
...wait, "bringing it back"? 😅 Was I supposed to have stopped at some point?
@@GinnyDi I want to see Blasphemy too! On Baldur's and Cosplay!!
Same! BG3 and Cosplay! 🔥💯❤️
As someone who is literally paid to teach kids how to play D&D and run games for them, I would like to give my 2 cents on the new character creation process. (Thanks for the video Ginny. Loved it!).
The way I teach kids how to make characters is to pick a class first, because as you said, it is the most impactful choice, at least mechanically speaking, then pick their species (a term I have been using since I started teaching kids), then background. After that, we go backwards filling in:
1) Background. It gives you the most static stuff, proficiencies, some gold, etc, very few choices to be made.
2) Species. Allowing them to pick up sub species and some proficiencies or magic.
3) Class. This is where the bulk of their decisions will be now and from now on as they level up. Doing this after background also avoids the kids thinking that because the background gave them a proficiency they already had they get nothing.
4) Ability Scores. Now that we have gone over what the different skills are, and what weapons or magic they want to wield, I can say "dexterity helps your stealth" and the rogue with expertise in stealth knows they want a high dexterity.
5) All the math. Hit points, skill bonus totals, AC, etc. Now that we have all the components we can actually do the calculations.
Seeing all this, it looks like they agree that this is a pretty good method. I do have some thoughts though:
1) I am disappointed to hear that they replaced the class description with the "likes" column. I thought the descriptions were a good idea, if poorly executed. (I have my own that I give the kids)
2) I think the complexity column is a really bad idea. Yes, some classes are more complex than others. It can easily scare away newer players from a class whose flavor entrances them because they think they aren't well versed enough to play a "high complexity" character. I have seen this start to happen when a kid hears another talking about how, the druid for example, is hard to play and they start looking for another class, until I stop them and have to assure them that they can do it, and if they need help I am more than happy to. I think having the book advertizing some classes as difficult will only make this problem worse.
3) The changes of class abilities having levels in the heading and class spell lists being in the class's section are really nice.
4) Placing both Species and Background under the Origin section is a good change. Also an origin/background feat is great. (also more experienced players can ask their DM to swap out that feat for another that fits their character concept better)
5) More sub-species is always good, especially when they are put in the base book.
6) Ability score placement suggestions for classes is a good idea, although I think that explaining why those scores go there is going to require explanation from the DM.
7) I agree that ability scores should be scrapped to just leave modifiers, but that doesn't work with current D&D 5E, so we will have to wait for the next edition.
8) Alignment is vague and unhelpful. Unless you are doing something with an artifact or magic that can turn your personality upside down, like in "the Snow Queen", alignment poses more question than it answers.
Overall, I think it is a good update, but implementing a complexity column and highlighting alignment are steps in the wrong direction.
Thanks to any who read all of this.
Yeah can you back that up a moment? You are paid to D&D with kids? I need a little more information about this, please. For a friend.
😂 paid to teach kids dnd, I guess if your a librarian that has a dnd club at their location your technically still getting paid to show kids how to play while still on the clock 😂
i am kinda sad they removed half races, i personally really love them (especially half elves uwu) bc its me!! im biracial, my character is biracial, WOO! i think its been a cool way to kinda explore being someone of two worlds, and the complex feelings that can come with that. like think an half elf raised primarily by their human side family, barely knowing any elven culture or maybe even not knowing elvish.
You can technically still do that, but you have to choose one race's abilities and basically "play it out"
@@teaz3139 or use the half elf from 2014 without the stat buffs
Elf and an orc had a baby is a great resource for this.
I'm currently running a campaign of custom half races, and my players are loving it. We even gave them unique names like Ignition Pixies (fairy/fire ginasi)
Pooflings (tabaxi/Owlin) and Titans (firbolg/loxodon)
Elf and an Orc really helps to keep the balance, while still allowing for a lot more fun and creative characters, without feeling all eugenics-y
Me too, I actually plan to keep those for any future '24/5.5e edition games I run. When I've had a chance to see the book (hesitant to get it for myself), I might mix things from that and original 5e for my table.
They've literally said if it's printed in the new editions, use that. If it's not, import it in using the new structure. Just use the old half elves without the ability increases. They didn't get rid of them anymore than they got rid of genasi, kenku, hobgoblins or any other race that didn't get printed.
5e24's PHB is a much better reference guide but you're 100% correct about a lot of the character creation feeling like the flavor has been stripped out
Backgrounds feel anemic compared to 5e14, with the loss of descriptive flavor text, the tables, and the background feature which was usually a more roleplay focused thing rather than a combat mechanical element.
In terms of flavor, I don't think the species have ever felt more like a bunch of humans wearing different hats. Stripping out the bioessentialism was good, but I definitely think they went too far. Things like suggested names were a great help to a brand new player to make a character that felt like a different species, whereas now the biggest differences in the text are mechanical, and thanks to level 1 feats you can achieve a lot of the feel of difference species with feats (make a small human with the lucky feat and you're a good chunk of the way to being a mechanical halfling, for example).
Thanks for covering this part of the new book! I play with new groups frequently as our local TTRPG club runs one-shots every month, and I see a bright future of considerably easier (and maybe faster) character creations.
ALSO YOU HAIR LOOKS WONDERFUL IDK
You should come up with that list of questions and offer it as a supplement for 5.5. You could also take all of the little ideas, and put them in a book so we could buy them and we could use them in our games!
My DM in one of my campaign said that much like the Pirates of the Carribean, he treats the rules more like guidelines.
I think that was literally was Gary Gygax said :)
Page 4 of the 2014 DMG says "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM and you are in charge of the game."
This is exactly how I want to DM my first game lol this that a good idea or no?
@@PatientSqueaky Not only is it a good idea, it's traditional
I just want to say that I really love that your eyebrows match your hair. So pretty!
Thanks ginny! For the player with no group to play with I live vicariously through these videos 🙂↕️
You're so welcome!
Hope you find a group soon 😊
Hey, ZennieoYT!
Sounds like you need to find a ZOOM party to play with. I’ve been thinking about putting one together. Have you ever played 3.5e?
I am here for Sailor Ginny.
This was an excellent guide & it’s chock full of good advice.
The complexity grade & multi-classing notes are handy.
The pruning of Backgrounds is frustrating - the personality, bond, flaw tables helped cultivate roleplay hooks. I guess the character builder questions are an attempt to provide that.
Cthonic Tiefling looks it’s going to be my new jam.
what i liked from the 5e phb background tables was selecting one based on the vibe i had for the character and slightly modifying the text to make it specific to that chr
Ginny, I can't imagine a time you and your channel are "less necessary". You are totally killing it (with or without that sword).
May we please have the Warlock video which already has 750 words prewritten? 🥺
Try and stop me! 😂
@@GinnyDi Be sure to share your Blasphemy character design from BG3!
Please I wanna see this full build 🤣🤣
@@GinnyDi that's why you have a sword, to stop people stopping you making more warlock content?
Thank you for showing us all an approach to making a character. I appreciate how your Warlock build was cool and refreshing. I liked the spellcasting angle with the huge number of spells and cantrips. In short you made this old timer smile again. Keep on rocking and rolling!
“Yeah, I’m a warlock and I made a pact for my powers, but idk who I made a pact with yet. :/“
Very strange choice
I have SO much to say about this, but it was taking over this already-long video!! We'll have to address it separately!
Consider that the stated intent is that most campaigns with somewhat experienced players will start at L3, and it's not so odd. Levels 1 and 2 are basically training-wheel levels for new players to not have too much thrown on them at once. And you can always "play" your intended pact at levels 1 and 2, it's just that you aren't on your patron's radar enough to get the really close attention yet. By level three, they take notice and start giving you the good stuff.
A) if you know what you want to choose, you can still fully roleplay that. Maybe you only get the basic powers until you prove yourself worthy or being publically claimed. B) maybe a mysterious voice called to you in your dreams and part of your adventure is learning where your powers are coming from. C) just start at level 3 like the book refcommends if you’re an experienced player
@@hqueso The absolute best explanation for this matter! Thank you that exactly what I needed to hear!
That's my warlock! She was a noble who didn't like her parents, and would make bad choices cuz they're fun.
As for complexity, my youngest daughter started playing a 5e druid in first grade. When we created her character I warned her that druids were one of the hardest classes to play but she really wanted to be a "nature wizard", so I let her do it. At that point she still needed a fair bit of help with basic TTRPG mechanics (she still frequently had to be reminded which one was the d20). Even though it took some patience and a bit more coaching than her older siblings required (who were playing a Barbarian and Ranger) it was the character she wanted to play. And she loved it so much that in our next campaign she chose to play another druid.
All of which is to say, provided it fits with campaign and makes sense with the party, I'm all for letting your players play the characters they want to play.
My philosophy with alignment is this: it shouldn't dictate what your character does - but it probably should impact how they feel about their actions afterwards.
Otherwise, it seems like they're trying to use alignment as a way to make personality more background agnostic - maybe it felt like some of the 2014 PIBF's played into stereotypes about their backgrounds? If so, I can see why they would want to change that - but I'm also going to miss those tables. Like, I love that my Twilight Cleric is agoraphobic as a result of a background flaw (Archeologist, ToA).
And I also agree that they need more role play and character development advice/tools overall, and if this book has less then that's a shame. Role playing often seems to be the biggest hurdle for new players - and I agree that "you can do anything" isn't always helpful advice. Give me a list of options please.
I actually really like reframing alignment around feelings rather than actions! That solves a lot of my issues with how people use alignment in roleplay, honestly.
@@GinnyDi Indeed!
One of the ways I do alignment (in a way that makes CE playable) is that Lawful is needs of the many, chaotic is needs of the few. Good is the needs of others, evil is the needs of you. Neutral remains a character that examines on a case by case basis what they should. LG is some who’s going to likely make choices that prioritize helping as many people as possible, while a chaotic evil is someone that’s going to prioritize their own wants and desires above all else.
Alignment has always been troublesome (sticky?) In early versions it allowed a way for the spell detect good/evil to provide an easy answer to the kill/ no kill question. It also worked well for the protection from good/evil spell. Personally, I have always liked alignment as a guide to how a character, NPC, or race is generally perceived rather than their actual motivation. (shadowy cloaked individual in the tavern, not trusted by locals, watching your party intently... who turns out to be a noble outsider intent on protecting your characters? )
I’ve found ideals, flaws, and bonds more practically applicable as a player and as a DM making scenarios for them. I would take that over alignment, even for monster interests, like in Monster Overhaul.
Ginny, I have been watching your videos for years now, ever since I started playing dnd. I can't even express how much I've learned as a gm by absorbing the information you put out. All the tips, tricks, 5e supplements from third party creators, I genuinely feel like it's thanks to your channel, as well as several other dnd creators, that I was able to get to the point in my life where I can start professionally running dnd 5e games. Even as I now start learning new systems to run alongside dnd, there are so many of your tips that can apply to other tabletop games as well. I also know that there's a lot of awful horror stories about some guys in the dnd community who only gatekeep and are extremely exist, so it's nice to know that the ladies who are interested in the game have a familiar face to look to in this community. You're an inspiring creator who doesn't take any shit but still always seems to welcome people with a smile. I know UA-cam as a platform has changed a lot lately and it's causing a lot of discourse. But I hope I'm still learning new things from yours and other dnd creator videos 20 years from now. Thanks for everything so far!
The removal of ideals, bonds and flaws seems disappointing. I didnt adhere to them strictly but they were super helpful for inspiration and helping me keep my different characters distinguished. I often flip through those and mix and match them when forming a custom background.
Edit:
Your Tiefling Warlock naming herself Blasphemy is *chefs kiss*. I love the "trope" of characters giving themselves names.
When I started my BG3 Durge run I made my PC a Teifling named Malice. Going in blind, only knowing Durge as a possibly evil route, the name turned out to fit really well. Since Durge has memory loss and introduces themselves as "Malice.. I think" so.. it's either her past name or a name that "feels right" based on "The Dark urge" she has. As Durge Ive been resisting/being good, so theres also room for her to pick a new name for herself, based on who she becomes by the end of the run. The poetry!
Needless to say Im very enthusiastic about your new character.. and would be interested in seeing more after your BG3 design shenanigans. 👀
I rarely stuck to them strictly but they were interesting to make me think of potential flaws and character traits which I could build upon!
I had a Tiefling NPC who named himself "Indifferent". When the PCs introduced themselves (We're so-and-so and we are so glad to meet you"), he looked at them glumly and said, "And I am Indifferent." They later met his blasé brother. "And who are you?" "Me? I'm Bored."
Losing bonds and flaws is a tragedy for DMs. They weren't just PC fluff. Flaws were temptations DMs could blindside PCs with to trigger moments of character development, and bonds were carrots and sticks the DM could beat the party with whenever they lost track of the main questline or just plain forgot what they were supposed to be doing.
"Don't worry, guys. I know you didn't find any of the 50 of 60 clues I placed in the last dungeon. It's fine. There's a knock on the door. The black market contact one of you got from the criminal background has the info you need. Also, a raven is sitting on the window sill, holding a letter from the scholar another one of you apprenticed under. If we don't get anywhere with those two leads, then I'll roll on this random table or family members and we'll start next session with you guys finding a ransom note and a map to the Big Bad's lair."
As a DM, ideals, bonds, and flaws are great tools for my NPCs, to remind me how they should react to PCs and situations.
A. I love how your hair is styled.
2. Thank you for such an informative deep dive.
III. As always I love your humor and charming presentation style.
Wait, they got rid of half elves?!
But, like 95% of my characters are half elves! I love being a half elf!
Gonna go cry in a corner for a bit.
They specify that basically you can be anything - Half elf, 1/4elf 3/4 orc, whatever, but you only pick one mechanically. I also checked and man... half elves are basically... just elves with one ability removed.
You can use any species that isn't in the printed book. The book also has guidelines for how to implement to make sure they fully work using the new rules.
Essentially, their reason for not including the "half" variants was because they were decently happy with them as-is, and they could use that space to include different species that needed the touch-up more than half-elves did.
You can be mix of anything now
same here. but being half- anything is still possible according to the book, but you have to decide if you take the elven or human stats. so i personally became a half-elf with human stats, which is still pretty good. You get inspiration after a long rest and a bonus origin feat.
But yea, you can even be half orc half tiefling now, you can decide which parts of chose looks you adept, you just need to select one of the two stats
@Wopple Prior to floating ability scores, Half Elves had more total ability bonuses than any race except non-variant Human (which was six +1s, so not great). They and tieflings were also the only races with a bonus to Charisma.
0:26 I need those dice
“Sometimes the dice are paid actors.” Awesome!!
I'm glad they're getting paid. Not always guaranteed with actors.
Ginny, as a guy who got into D&D back when the red box came out I'm glad to see a young generation as passionate as us OG nerds were way back then. Carry on!
What I found with new players, and the goals, traits, etc. was that much like alignment is to some people, they became straight-jackets rather than starting points. Oh, my character has the "I will do anything to protect the temple where I served." bond, right, how does this adventure we're doing help with that, it doesn't? Right, why am I doing it then. Kind of behaviour. They certainly have more flavour, but without some guidance and support, they become either forgotten or too rigid for some people. I'm not sure the new approach is better or worse, I'll have to see how it plays out - but I think it speaks to a general point that for alignment, goals, backgrounds, etc. the players and DM should really work to be creative and not be constrained by the words in the book. Maybe they hoped by providing just one or two words it would be harder to be constrained by them, and easier to be inspired by them, which won't work for everyone. I dunno, we'll see how it plays out I guess.
That's a really interesting perspective! I suppose there is no perfect way to create a character - we're all going to get inspired in different ways.
5:42 It's funny how long it took WOTC to make the level of the feature part of the class feature's title. That's been bugging me for over a decade. XD
The one trouble with stripping the ability scores becomes figuring out how to still improve your modifiers in stages without adding a similarly-arbitrary 'this counts for half of an ability score increase' function to various feats and features. The up-front mathiness of it is weird for sure, but it's one of those things that I think works itself out in balance, where ASIs can feel important to a player without inherently being instant power every time you get them. It lets sources of single AS points still feel like fun rewards to the player, while also allowing them to be given _more_ of them without rapidly power-scaling things. Crunching things down to just the mods would probably be a good choice from an approachability standpoint, but it'd require a lot more tinkering under the hood of the foundations of the system than I think they were broadly willing to do.
The only person who thinks ability scores are not useful are those who have never had them change because of misfortune or blessings.
I will also say, I feel as if there are more instances of the score being directly references.
Well, yes, it would require... you know... game design 😅 like any major change to the mechanics would. I'm not saying it could be done in 15 minutes, I'm just saying I think if the designers could come up with a graceful solution to the scaling question, eliminating references to the full ability scores in spells, class features, etc. wouldn't be too big of an undertaking since they are referenced so infrequently compared to modifiers.
But I guess I shouldn't have even mentioned it, because everyone is acting like I'm saying "cut ability scores, change nothing else, the game will still work perfectly," which is obviously nonsense and not true (and not what I said!)
@@GinnyDi Oh man, I hope I didn't come across that way! I think it's a perfectly valid criticism to pose! I suppose I was more pondering the difficulty of it all aloud, partially BECAUSE I know there will be folks making comments minimizing what you said and the effort involved in changing it. It's a problem they absolutely could have solved. Keeping it in suggests they didn't want to, but that doesn't have to keep us from wishing they did.
@@GinnyDi My off the cuff late night tweak might be to turn ability scores into ability descriptors. Incapable to Average to Olympic Athlete, sort of thing. Each would correspond to the existing bands and modifiers. This might be a little too.... role-play-y for an otherwise crunchy system, though, while allowing for a bit of the granularity of things and in some sense, encourage a bit more of the role-playing aspect upfront by getting (new) players to think less about if 15 is a good score and more about their character ("Yeah, I guess my wizard is Fairly Strong" "Why's that?" " Hm... maybe 'cause they use to be in the town militia until a magical creature passed though and they got really into magic. Especially the somatic and gesturing side of things cause it felt like bodybuilding.") Small increases would then be phrased merely as small increases that don't substantially change things eg. being able to lift 100 points versus 95 pounds is progress but isn't going radically change the strength of your punches.
You're adorably informative, keep living your best life and sharing it with us!
Aw, thanks! I appreciate that! 😊
Backgrounds arguable should be first, would help to first establish roughly who you are before you pick your class. Thanks for the video Ginny!
My thoughts on Warlocks picking the subclass at level 3 are actually pretty simple: you already know which subclass you are picking. You and your DM have discussed it at character creation, so that they can account for your patron as a character in the story.
Easiest handwave ever: "You have a contract with your patron, but you have to show that you're worthy (getting to level 3) for them to bestow a fraction of their power unto you."
Same thing can be done with any class really.
Tiefling virtue names are fantastic. Had a trickery cleric tiefling that ran around trying to destablise governments called Liberty, one of my favourite designs. such a unique and cool part of tieflings.
I LOVE this!
And honestly, the more on-the-nose the name is, the better 🙌
I particularly like this for my very-southern-belle tiefling bard who gave herself a name that indicated her wandering tendency to head for new horizons when things got boring. Adieu. Adieu d'Claire. (she was on good terms with her family, so kept the surname)
Did they have siblings named Égalité and Fraternité?
@@jamesbarton3017 No, but she has a brother named Ryot, a sister named Rebel, and another sister named Annachi. Last name is Wilson.
I had one called Opulence who was a mother and grew up facing racism and wanted to build a better future for her children
I appreciate this video. A solid breakdown and ownership of likes and dislikes along with the reasons for each. Thank you!
I really hope we get more character creation advice in the Dungeon Master's Guide, framed around the idea of a DM helping their players come up with a character for the campaign. This might be where we get tools to expand on goals and backgrounds, explaining to the DM how to best prompt and dive deeper on these things depending on what type of campaign settings and tone they're going for. For example, I could see a section going over how to write a mystery campaign including character questions, prompts, and tables specifically catered to a setting like that for the DM to ask their players. And this could be where we get a lot more options of description and flavor. At least, that's my hope! I really like the flavorful ideas packed into the 2014 PHB, but since not all campaign settings abide by those rules (maybe you want your world to have Virtue Names be a Dwarf thing, or you want Warlocks to be highly regarded members of society) I think it's a good idea to leave them out of the PHB and keep it light on flavor specifics. Leave those kinds of things for campaign settings and the Dungeon Master to provide, so they can be catered to each setting individually.
I hope so too! But also, wouldn't like them keeping all this flavor information on the DM's side. We already do SO much work as a DM - I'd love to have more tools to encourage my players to take agency and get creative with their characters
@@GinnyDi As a fellow DM I totally get it. I don't want to have to be relied on EVERY time to be the push to get my players creative juices flowing. It's part of why I'm so disappointed that questionnaire is so short and the backgrounds are so limited. That's the kind of thing that wouldn't limit worldbuilding at all but still light so many sparks of imagination in the player's minds. I see where they were coming from of not wanting to limit certain species' or backgrounds' stories too much, but giving us options for how they might play out would have been appreciated. Giving the tools for creativity like you suggested are the perfect middle ground between beautiful but set in stone flavor, and flavorless, directionless stats.
This is lovely, Ginny! I teach yoga full time and also rum pro DnD games at my local game shop but loved your charisma, explanations, and real talk. 🎉🎉🎉
Please please please do a deep dive into warlocks! And then wizards. And then druids. And then all those other guys.
And then artif - oh.
sad_kuzco.gif
I think what WotC could have done for species flavor would be to talk about how this group has been seen in 2-3 different play settings. Like, teiflings in the forgotten realms have not been trusted and this has lead to their virtue names. But maybe in this other setting they tend to be protectors of the realms from the nine hells, spurring the devil's they share a bloodline with. Gnomes in forgotten realms tend to have very long names, but in a spell jammer setting they tend to have nicknames related to the odd jobs they perform. That way it fleshes out a setting as having cultures and histories but also shows these aren't mandatory.
Really names should be based on country. Now-a-days you see names jump around a lot but I would say that most kingdoms or even areas in the kingdoms would have certain types of names. In some campaigns if you can name your character whatever you want, everyone chooses a flavor and one person choses the WHATEVER THEY WANT, then it could be bad. Merry, Pippin, Frodo, Samwise, and Purple Strawberry really kinda leaves one of those as... Standing out and maybe breaking things every time Purple Strawberry or Dunglerglerer the elf is up in initiative.
Whoa there that's way too sensible and was even the case for some races previously. Best to remove species and classes entirely from the game instead of offering up suggestions for them. If someone hears that tieflings might be distrusted in a completely separate fantasy setting than the one they're playing in, they might be offended or have their creativity stymied.
Tieflings are the new favourite race. They can't be discriminated against in the book now, even if it is just in one setting.
Loved the video and the “am I a spellcaster” through line 😂
People are still suspiciously silent on the topic! 😂 Am I in the club or not? TELL ME!
@@GinnyDi If you never say Eldritch Blast… how will they know?! 👀
@@GinnyDiAs a fellow pact of the tome warlock with a sage background, I say that we are ABSOLUTELY in the club, and I’ll eldritch blast anyone who says otherwise. 😂
I agree on the traits and flaws table. The first tim I was creating a character I never used it because it's pretty specific. The character basically didn't have a personality or purpose. With other characters it's really helped shaped their backstories and gave me ideas to build off from. I tend to struggle coming up with ideas for backstory so I need all the help I can get!
The best “that’s why I carry a sword” joke ever 😂 12:23
Only 7 videos in the making 😂
Random thing to notice, but your handwriting is really nice. As someone who scratches more than writes, I find that enviable.
The single best new addition to the rules that 5e brought to the game was traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws.
Traits and ideals are infinitely better roleplaying tools than alignment ever was.
Bonds and flaws are the perfect system of carrots and sticks that DMs need to prod players towards the main quest when they veer off track.
Whichever chapter in the new DMG that is designed to teach players how to DM needs to have a page dedicated to "What to do when the players just don't get it." That page needs to tell the DM to write down all the Bonds and Flaws the PCs have and pin that list to the panel of the DM screen the DM doesn't need.
The fact that traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws aren't in the new PHB ruins the core book reprints.
When making up characters and backstories, I tell the players, "I don't need a novel. I don't need your alignment. The novel length story will come in play, and I never use alignment when I can use the Magic the Gathering color pie. What I need is your character's most tempting vice and guilty pleasure, and I need a list of 5 npcs. I need 5 people in the game world who your character will either go out of their way to defend or out of their way to destroy."
This is why most of the "ribbon" abilities from the 5e backgrounds were so good. The 3 or 4 that just covered room and board were fine, but the best backgrounds gave the DM an NPC, a faction, or a destination they could tell the players to track down for any info they needed to progress the plot. Criminal wasn't just great because it gave proficiency in thieve's tools. It was great because it gave one PC a black market contact that the DM could always send to meet the party and tell them what they needed to do to get the ball rolling when they dropped or lost it. All the academic backgrounds gave the players a library or scholar they could track down and get crucial info from.
This is ranger all over again. They stripped out all the flavor and thematic cores of the class/backgrounds and replaced them with slight mechanical advantages that will stop being useful or unique after level 5.
I gave players feats at character creation all the time. Every time they asked me if they could pick a powerhouse feat, I smiled and said, "Sure. You can take either crossbow expert or great weapon master. Before you do that, though, I'm gonna need a few more bonds. I'm gonna need the name and description of the weapon master that taught you that feat, and I'm gonna need at least 5 living family members or childhood friends turned rivals. Being orphaned and raised by wolves didn't teach you to add 10 points of damage to your heavy two-handed weapon swings."
Although I don’t play D&D anymore, I found this quite interesting and thought-provoking. The last time I GM’d a campaign* was with D20 Star Wars, and looking back, I think this newest D&D edition has a nice process for any RPG system. However, were I ever to GM again, I think before doing any character creation, I would have a discussion with my players about the world they were playing in, what their goals might be as players, what they would imagine their lives to be like etc. and use that to serve as a guide in creating their characters along the lines of what you discussed. Very nice run-through; thank you.
*Unfortunately, my gaming group dissolved when they decided to join the Army and Marines … but I don’t take that personally…no, really, I don’t...??? (Of course, it could have been after I ran them through a few Paranoia RPG sessions... 🤔)
The full ability score is still used for Long Jump. "You cover a number of feet up to your Strength score if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump." The jump rules haven't changed between versions so it's still there.
Yes, as I clearly say in this video, there ARE still places the full score is used - I just said there aren’t many. I promise y’all don’t need to explain the rules to me 🫠
@@GinnyDiMy apologies! I didn't mean to come off as explaining it to you. I was trying to state where the score still exists for those that may not know.
First note: man, your hair is so cute in this video!
Second note: I love alignment as a starting place. Not the be all, end all, this is how the character acts in every situation, but rather a general vibe. The Law to Chaos scale asks the question "Do you follow laws and rules?" and the Good to Evil scale asks "Are you selfless or selfish?" It's a nice reminder of the general direction of action, and certainly not ironclad for every interaction. Some of the best moments may come when a player acts "out of alignment." I also think alignment should be fluid, and that if a player acts more one way than what they stated, instead of correcting them to what they wrote down, change the words on their sheet!
Minor gripe about a character's age being removed: why? I'm playing a triton cleric right now in his eighties, with greying scales. From what I've read, tritons have an average lifespan of 200, so he's about middle-age for his race/species/lineage, but looks older due to the grey. This has inspired the DM to make a few (well-intended) ageist remarks at his expense, and the other PCs and I are having a great time RPing it.
Probably the dumb “too many rules thar new players will feel like they need to adhere to and be restricted by” excuse
Could also be, while they “took away” half-elf and half-orc you can now be any species combination you want, right?
Maybe they wanted to avoid answering questions about what the age of a half elf/half dragonborn or half gnome/half tiefling would be etc.
I tend to think up a character concept first, including race, if it clicks with some flavor. Then I figure out which class fits it best. All my bonds/flaws/etc. usually comes as I develop their personality, which is often just me popping them into a scenario in my head and seeing how they react. Then I go digging for class details like spells or feats to fit the newly established vibes. So the new book no delving into flavor isn't as big an issue for me.
For example, my most recent character idea is Gunther "Gunny" Jebediah 3rd Jr., who's basically a comedic play on a Southern Hick. The idea popped up while I was driving with my brother-in-law while talking about dnd (though I'll probably update him with the new PHB).
Party member: We found a veterinarian to heal the ranger's beast.
Gunny: Thank you for your service.
Party member: No, they're a doctor.
Gunny: Hey! That's stolen valor, sir. My Grandpappy was in the war. We don't take to kindly to that where I'm from.
The idea of this country bumpkin casting spells without realizing he's doing magic was hilarious to us, along with the general "low IQ" comedy that came with it. And after some class digging, I finally settled on a Genie Warlock. He found a jug of moonshine that only had weird smoke in it. Now his shotgun can fire endlessly without loading bullets (Eldritch Blast), and he can go to his "Happy Place" that he assumes is just a mental retreat, and not him getting sucked into his jug. But don't bother trying to tell him otherwise. He's not one of them fancy magic-y users.
In 2014 Races had specific Ability Score bonuses that guided players to choose specific classes. Then they removed specific Ability Score Bonus and allowed player to place +2 to any stat and +1 to another other stat (Or +1 to any three). YAY Freedom. Now they tie Specific Ability Score Bonuses to Backgrounds. A WARLOCK scribe got his hands on a book of forgotten book and found he has to play catchup to Warlocks who had a background that aided Charisma. If all character gets the +2/+1 (Or +1/+1/+1) Why not just make it a step as part of determining Ability Scores? And what if I want to be an entertainer who just recite poems or paints. Why would I have Musician feat if I never touch an instrument? Sorry but I Feel backgrounds could have been done differently. That is my 2 Copper.
Never played D&D and I have no idea what you are talking about but I'm very entertained.
I propose we start calling it "D&D 24"
I'm starting to think my Fast & Furious style naming petition isn't going to catch on 😕
D&D 5.24
@@liptojaj
D&D 5 part deux
Call it 5r, short and snappy. Just like saying 5e, and its distinct enough to not confuse the two.
@@MrSeals1000 D&D fiverr?
Love it! Though I agree the simplification does take away alot of the character spice. My newbies will have fun with the new book. Look forward to how it goes
11:52 Species was actually a term invented during the Middle Ages, so it kinda work.
Species is a Latin word meaning "appearance." It was used long before the Middle Ages, but not in the same sense we use it today. The medieval scholastics typically used the term species to denote a particular member of a genus (family, lineage, class). For example, Socrates was a species of the genus Man.
@@magister343 Come to think of it, I think it might’ve been the usage starting in the Middle Ages that I was remembering, not the invention of the word
Feels kinda like the Tiffany problem to me. There are plenty of words that have long histories but still feel modern. "Species" feels science-y, regardless of its linguistic roots.
@@GinnyDi I don't know about species but you can get around the "Tiffany" problem by using the older spelling Theophanu.
@@WickedNPC Formarum ;)
not sure if this was the goal, but i love the sailor neptune vibes that bow is giving me
i personaly prefer hit points and the likes to be in the class section since that is the order i fill my sheet in
Great video! This felt way more comprehensive and fair than the people who try to fearmonger about any changes in new D&D versions, and I think that the character creation is way more friendly to new players. I'm probably going to stick with 5e myself, but I'll take a leaf out of the 2024 book next time I'm playing with beginners! I am sad that they removed the traits/ideals/bonds/flaws mechanic, as I felt like it was such a great yet simple outline to help guide roleplay and first impressions of the character (I like it so much that I use it as a template for my non-D&D original characters!) and sad that half-elves and half-orcs don't exist mechanically anymore, but all in all it's not as bad as some have made it out to be.
25:29 I agree with you on this point 1000%. The most unpleasant TTRPG experience i ever had was when an old group of mine had Superhero System/Champions dropped on us out of nowhere. Our GM was selling it as being so amazing because "there is literally no character concept i have nor been able to create using this system," well, that turned me off immediately, because no matter how many times I have tried, no matter how many videos Seth Skorkowsky makes demoing skill-based character creation, I simply cannot wrap my head around it. I have sat for over two hours looking at a Shadow Run character sheet & the core rulebook, & been unable to do anything. I just get analysis paralysis. Too much freedom is not inspiring to me, its intimidating & I just clam up.
I’m glad I found your channel because your videos are very entertaining and informative about dungeons and dragons. It helps when you explain the rules and still be imaginative, which is everything about DnD. Awesome job 👍
Finally a fellow 5e 2014 Traits and Flaws enjoyer 🤝
My favorite thing to do with that is to look at the two backgrounds that best apply to my character (there's always at least two that could work just as good as the other) and pick or modify traits/flaws and bonds that best fit them. Makes for a lot more variety and roleplaying hooks. Might as well combine these with the alignment traits in 2024; can't have too many tools in the box
Probably my favorite take on variant 'alignment' systems is PF2E's Moral Intentions variant rule:
"In this variant, every character, NPC, and monster selects one or more closely held beliefs, intentions, or loyalties. Simple statements about a character’s intentions, like the examples listed in the sidebar, flesh out characters and enliven roleplaying scenes. This system requires some back-and-forth between the GM and the other players, and more thought on the part of everyone at the table.
Typically, specifying three intentions or loyalties works well to define a character. These personal intentions cover broad spectra of behavior and in large part define the subjective definition of good for that individual. Intentions could be as abstract as acting with honor or as concrete as devotion to the character’s mother. A person following their core beliefs or intentions feels like they are acting in a good manner, and they are likely to view actions against or restrictions to these beliefs as evil. For example, a character who believes strongly in the law would see allowing a crime to go unpunished as evil.
A specific individual will likely have different levels of commitment for each of their intentions. Determine a relative order of commitment by considering what the character would do if these intentions came into conflict."
For the sword joke I would've gone with. Half orcs are still possible when you carry a sword like this!
...this almost made me spit out my coffee 😂
I love character creation videos like this and love you Roleplaying as your character.
As a Mixed person, I typically play Half races and it feels really like a slap in the face that Mixed people can't exist in the World's Most Famous TTRPG
THIS I’m also mixed and the separation between races feels so awkward when I want to make a character.
I hear you! I want to clarify that the 2024 rulebook does NOT say that Mixed people don't exist - their mechanical take on it is that you can be Mixed, but you have to pick which stats to use. (I think this is a pretty bullshit, lazy response.) But I also think it was really problematic that elves and orcs were the only races that had half-races (particularly orcs, in which half-orcs being the only playable version of the race was rooted in a really gross attitude towards orcs as a race overall, and led to some fucked up implications and lore of how those half-orcs came to be.) I would've liked to see that corrected in a more thoughtful way, instead of just removing problematic content and not replacing it with anything meaninful.
@@GinnyDi Oh I understand things weren't perfect, typically I play in homebrew settings were baseline assumptions don't typically apply. Or Eberron which has a much more favorable depiction of Orcs (not that Eberron is free of it's own issues with Xen'drik). I guess my issue is that from my experience my existence is made political all the time, it sucks to have that position validated in my escapist fantasy game. And I guess having to choose one side or the other like a LotR Elf is fine, but I preferred what we had to that. At least I could change the Lore on my own.
Not angry at you, I know you didn't have any control of WotC's decision. I'm more just expressing my disappointment with the game I've loved for years.
I hope that didn't come off like I was disagreeing with you! I think your voice as a Mixed player is really valuable and I appreciate you weighing in. I did want to make sure I hadn't misrepresented the content by implying that half-races didn't exist IN-WORLD - just that they no longer exist mechanically.
@@GinnyDi Not at all, I'm sorry if it came across that way to you either! Just saying I liked the old way better than the limp representation they've given in the new book. My problem is squarely directed at WotC, not you at all. I'm sorry I came across the wrong way, that's probably my fault with phrasing and such.
I've always appreciated your videos, but this one made me realize I love your handwriting, too!
As to the inclusivity comment- I just wish they hadn't thrown the baby of archetype out with the bathwater of stereotype. Providing some default details for species archetypes while stating clearly that individuals can and will vary allows playing against or to type without devolving into determinism. D&D is, in a significant part, a storytelling game, and that makes the stories literary in a sense. Sometimes in a story, archetype is a necessary shorthand, provided it is used thoughtfully. I much prefer a species description that includes two or three archetypal stat leanings and a few sample names to the current trend of making species mechanically little mare than humans in cosplay. (Nothing against humans in cosplay, Ginny. Love the cosplay!)
I also am wary of the way stat bonuses seem to be tied to backgrounds via a selection of three stats you can boost. In some of the ones I've seen previewed, there is no choice for a defensive stat (Dex or Con) and many classes that will not have a primary stat boost available for many of the backgrounds. This means that for tactical players- and there's nothing wrong with that playstyle- some backgrounds will be altogether useless, and some others will be useless for certain classes. I know in my group of multi-decade players, the go-to background will likely be "custom". (I'm lucky to have players I can trust to that without oversight).
Very excited to get my hands on the book on release! I know I complained about two things in this post, but there's a lot I see positive in the new rules. I even like the subclass-at-level-three change, provided you take into account that the stated intent is for experienced players to start at level 3, making levels 1 and 2 levels for new groups to get their feet wet before making such a character-defining decision.
It'll get worse and worse until D&D becomes some completely inoffensive, amorphous grey goo.
The background thing is most odious to me. My group likes making tactically sound decisions, but also we spend hours upon hours roleplaying at each other with our fun, unique characters. With backgrounds as they are, you're making the origin of your character a solvable choice, it becomes objectively correct for all fighters to be the strength ones, or all wizards to pick con and int backgrounds.
@@pizza9798 I understand there is supposed to be a methods for customizing backgrounds in the DMG. I hope it is flexible and just included there so the DM has control over it (to prevent people coming up with bizarre and unwieldy backgrounds without DM approval and saying "but it's in the PH!!")
@@hqueso That's a lot of work to throw at the DM on top of everything else though. While I'm sure that most DMs have their own preferences anyway and would be taking some work on to their shoulders the Player's handbook should be there to let the players take as much off of the DM's plate as possible since they're prepping so much of the experience already. Players should have the most input on their part of the game as possible, and should only have to ask for the DM's opinion on matters of worldliness, in my opinion.
Wow, I love the artwork behind you!!
Same! I really want to find the artist
The artist is @caemielilium! It's Critical Role fanart.
The dice goblin in me immediately clocked the very cute dice in the beginning. Would you share where you got them? ◡̈
They're the 'Fleeting Feelings' dice from Dispel Dice!
I think you nailed it your summary, I think the new edition of the PHB is primarily intended as a 'reference' tool, which, admittedly, after characters are created, is what it will mostly be used for. As for the lack of flavour text, it is a loss BUT, it is my hope that this will be addressed in the DMG, part of world and setting creation advice, and even example setting that's been mentioned. By stripping so much of that out of the PHB, it creates a blank(er) canvas for the DM's own or chosen setting to take precedent. To me, the PHB is a rules reference document now, not a background, flavour or fluff book... and I'm okay with that.
Re: Backgrounds - I am ALWAYS saying this. When I build my characters, I think about their class/background/race as three phases of growing up. For the race, I think of like, "what has my character sort of always been good at, what childhood memories do they have?" For the background, I think, "What kind of person were they/what were they doing prior to the event that set them on their path to their class?" And then for class, I always think, "What was the result of that event, how did they get to the point of training for the class?"
I love the honest insights on the new process and the structure of the book. Thank you so much! 🥰
Instead of removing player options, Pathfinder 2e has a intuitive method to create characters of any mixed ancestry.
PF2e also removed Ability Scores and only has the modifiers. Maybe you should try PF2e. You'd probably like it.
I don't think alignment is useful for you the player but I think alignment means a lot to other players. It's a great shorthand for potential party conflict, especially if players are leaning hard Lawful or even Neutral (ie rather than Good) without me having to read your 15 page backstory and read between the lines.
The Warlock candle hinting at what choice you were going to make *chefs kiss
As always, I love your videos! You have amazing thoughts on character and backstory creation, which is something I struggle with sometimes in my writing. I completely agree that while alignments are kind of interesting, they are also overly simplistic and it is much more interesting to develop a backstory and a goal for a character and have their actions driven by those things.
Love the name and the description of your Warlock!
I enjoyed this video, but I don't enjoy the book's organization in a few areas and I find the cut of the world building with nothing to take its place. I think once everything is out we'll see the impact of so many changes.
The "imagine your past" stuff is also in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. There's a section called "This is Your Life" that also asks these questions. I use them all the time :D
It's a bit weird that the Warlock doesn't have a patron at first level but it can be great to have the pact being made in a play session like our Paladin had a ceremony in a game session when we reach 3rd level in which his character made her sacred oath to her deity.
I could definitely see it being useful in roleplay if you're going down the accidental/unwilling pact route as well (like with this acolyte Tiefling - if they didn't know they were signing up to be a warlock but grow reliant on their "god" and its power)
I do like the idea that a Warlock is syphoning off energy from a powerful entity, through the use of religious texts/shrines, but only get that patron's attention/consideration once they have worked on their behalf for a while. Or a 'new' patron could be stealing them away from the path that they were going on before that point.
Thank you for clarity, fun, and honesty.
WotC's official position on the 2024 5th Edition is that it's not exactly a new edition, but it's a lot more than just a new addition. For example, Druids can now be a Magician, while half-species have been decommissioned, and are now a purposeful omission (a change not without its opposition). It's clear that WotC's ambition with backward compatibility was to give players permission to transition according to their own volition, but power creep means any tactician or statistician would view this proposition with suspicion. On the condition that character composition exceeds four hours, consult a physician. Thank you for attending my disquisition.
👏👏👏
I think most people start with class.
I also think "origin" is a good way to describe what species and background are supposed describe.
I have my personal preferences on some of the new rules, but 2024 seems rather new player friendly, and probably a nice starter for us old gamers with kids.
If you made a half-centaur, would they have 3 legs?
I could finally play myself
This is your livelihood now, I guess here we go. (huge credit to you for the self-awareness and bringing your non-sponsored opinion to the table, its a huge part of why I still watch)