D&D (2024) Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!

[bedir than]

In the UA's relating to background, it was pretty clear that the offered backgrounds are examples of a background and that one is free to create one's own background with a +2/+1 and a feat. I really do not expect this to change.

I fully expect that 20+ pages of art and rules will overwhelm the paragraph or two that explain the default is "custom"

 

[Parmandur]

Bringing this back up because it was unaddressed.

There was an untested change that assigns sample backgrounds all ASIs and has those same backgrounds with a single proscribed feat.

I hate that change, but the photos from the 24PHB (not yet final) make it pretty clear

Changes coming to 5e backgrounds further reduce story

There’s no reason to tie all of the Ability Score Improvements at character creation to Backgrounds. That reduces the stories we can tell via the game we love.

fullmoonstorytelling.com

Check the first UA again: these are word for word identical to the provided examples, except for a bit about the Languages, of all things. As @UngainlyTitan says, this isn't a change, they are examples.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In the UA's relating to background, it was pretty clear that the offered backgrounds are examples of a background and that one is free to create one's own background with a +2/+1 and a feat. I really do not expect this to change.

Mayve they should still back out of this, since people do tend to not understand that. Many take these examples for rules. 2014 also had custom background as a core rule...

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I fully expect that 20+ pages of art and rules will overwhelm the paragraph or two that explain the default is "custom"

You can lead a horse to water, etc., etc. it is not the fault of WoTCs designers if people and particularly DMs fail to read what is there in plain language. It is really up to DMs to push back against this. Anyone complaining about their dwarf lacking the +2 in strength, point out that they are free to put it back in their.
Personally, I believe that I left a remark, in the UA feedback that the floating chargen A.S.I.s should be a separate element from race or background but I think this is not a big deal.
Tasha's supports free floating chargen A.S.I.'s and if the new rules do also then we should push this.

 

[bedir than]

You can lead a horse to water, etc., etc. it is not the fault of WoTCs designers if people and particularly DMs fail to read what is there in plain language. It is really up to DMs to push back against this. Anyone complaining about their dwarf lacking the +2 in strength, point out that they are free to put it back in their.
Personally, I believe that I left a remark, in the UA feedback that the floating chargen A.S.I.s should be a separate element from race or background but I think this is not a big deal.
Tasha's supports free floating chargen A.S.I.'s and if the new rules do also then we should push this.

Actually bad design is the fault of designers.
Important things should be demonstrated as more important by being given narrative, artistic and layout weight.
An option rule that gets 20 pieces of art will, inevitably be seen as more important and the default over something that gets no art

 

[tetrasodium]

You can lead a horse to water, etc., etc. it is not the fault of WoTCs designers if people and particularly DMs fail to read what is there in plain language. It is really up to DMs to push back against this. Anyone complaining about their dwarf lacking the +2 in strength, point out that they are free to put it back in their.
Personally, I believe that I left a remark, in the UA feedback that the floating chargen A.S.I.s should be a separate element from race or background but I think this is not a big deal.
Tasha's supports free floating chargen A.S.I.'s and if the new rules do also then we should push this.

It is not the fault of a dm if their players have rock solid unshakable belief that an optional/variant/example as always acceptable in any settings or campaign thanks to layout giving it twenty pages of art in the core book.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Actually bad design is the fault of designers.
Important things should be demonstrated as more important by being given narrative, artistic and layout weight.
An option rule that gets 20 pieces of art will, inevitably be seen as more important and the default over something that gets no art

That is graphics design not game design. Or perhaps it is editorialising, it also sells books. There is also the tension that the one can pad out a few pages in and adventure or setting with a couple of pages of backgrounds. So, I do not expect much change. But the actual rules are clear, a custom background and free floating starting A.S.I. are acceptable within the rules. Unless the DM rules otherwise.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Many take these examples for rules. 2014 also had custom background as a core rule...

...which I used for pretty much every character I made. I mean, didn't you?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I hate that change, but the photos from the 24PHB (not yet final) make it pretty clear

"not yet final": I notice that the background with Magic Initiate still refer to arcane/divine/primal spell lists -- this is not a current image.

 

[Parmandur]

"not yet final": I notice that the background with Magic Initiate still refer to arcane/divine/primal spell lists -- this is not a current image.

The Feat may still convey particular Spell lists not tied to a given Class.

But, yes, these are early word for word what was in the first UA 16 months ago, so hardly surprising.