Certain cultures, by default, are associated with certain jobs in D&D. I don't think you'd see a modern ruleset try to codify a similar argument.
This is quite similar to the real world. Executioner isn't a job in many places of the world. I'd guess Butcher isn't a job in vegan cultures and if some of the D&D races are physiologically carnivore, one would expect grocers to be bankrupt quickly. The background in the playtest are explicitely marked as samples. If anything, they should provide
less, not
more, to emphasize that they are mere illustrations and not an attempt to cover any possible backstory (them deriving from backstory is pretty explicitely said p.11 in the Build your Background (not "Choose your Background", I feel it's important) section.
There is no expectation whatsoever that certain cultures are associeted with jobs in the playtest.
If you haven't read the One D&D Character Origins UA yet (and it seems that plenty of YouTubers haven't, for instance, although that doesn't stop them from making 45 minute videos expressing their opinions about it), every one of the new backgrounds includes a bonus language.
Indeed. It's on page 11: a background is a collection of +2/+1 or 3 +1s ASIs, two skill proficiencies, a tool proficiency, and one language (that can include Druidic, as per the table referenced at the end of the document, a feat and 50 gp. It makes every hero quite literate, espeically if they'll also gain a racial language and maybe some from class. On the other hand, the goal was to make every background buildable among the 97 920 possibilities with equal power.
The new PHB is going to say these are just examples and players should be making custom backgrounds. But let's be honest, that's an option already, and most players just go with the example ones. So what WotC puts in the examples matters, both as a model and because probably most players will use them and never make a custom background of their own.
Too bad. Maybe WotC should provide less background, or name them Bob's Fighter background to emphasize they are pecular to a player background and derived from their background (ie, the backstory of the player). At least it would force... hum "help" players who can't bother to write 5 lines when asked by including a rule "if you can't include those elements in your backstory, you can't claim the benefit").
Some of the languages seem like reasonable expectations for most worlds. Entertainers all know Elvish, which suggests that the elves have created great works of music and drama that other peoples will either perform verbatim or learn so they can adapt them to their native cultures. Urchins know Common sign language (a new default language added to the list, which is a nice change that I approve of, especially as it carries with it the real world reality that not every deaf person uses the same sign language),
I'd have liked this idea expanded to the extranous idea that every country in a world often earth-sized and with thousands of years of isolations could no longer speak the same language. But nodding to the existence of non-English speaking societies is probably too much to ask for, unless you're racially different for some reason, then you can have a different language. Sometimes WotC amaze me with their design decisions.
which I guess they're using to communicate on the street -- which is takes sign language to a little bit of a weird place, but OK. Acolytes know Celestial, which feels a bit limited (do the Lawful Neutral gods really write their holy books in the language of the upper planes?), but I can see what they're going for.
That's where I'd like them to specify the sample background "Acolyte of Tyr" would have Celestial, while "Acolyte of Aurile" would get Infernal, for example. Having them side by side would emphasize the need to customize.
And notably, they're not giving out the other class language, Druidic, as part of a background.
They don't provide any druidic background either. Like Acolyte of Nature would be.
Why does every guide speak Giant? Every pilgrim speaks Halfling? Every sailor can speak Primordial? These feel like big setting decisions and some of them turn ordinary zero level characters (remember, the background is what happens to them before they start adventuring) into something mythic. A sailor being able to speak to magical sea creatures in their own language belongs on Odysseus' ship, not on some random fishing trawler.
The characters are already heroes, even at 0th level. Their racial features are explicitely linked to being PCs, NPCs can have other racial traits, or none (p. 2 of the playtest document). They might make that clearer by calling Guide "Guide as envisionned by John when creating his character" or being more specific in description like "Guide at the Holy Gigantess Museum of Eltabar".
And then it starts to get a bit icky. Every charlatan knows Infernal, which suggests unpleasant things about my gnome illusionist. Every gladiator speaks Orcish, which -- despite them walking back previously problematic descriptions of orcs in the Character Races section, makes a strong contrary statement here.
Orcs are said to be gifted with capabilities that would make them excellent entertainment fighters: might, endurance, determination. Since they don't have a drop of evil in them (and their god Gruumsh sounds nicer than Corellon who's said to be very questionable in his race-wide punishment of the rebels) it's believable they'd turn to the show business industry and enter the WBA. And if many orcs work in a branch, every gladiator will pick up a few words by chatting with them in the locker room. In a world where slavery isn't a thing, most negative association to gladiator disappeared logically.
What's more, this feels unnecessary. If groups aren't using languages "enough" for WotC, that's those groups' call.
Yes, but I feel they strived for equality here, not to make a background having "more" than any other. And a language isn't something that is worth foregoing a feat, a prociency or an ASI.
The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.
But let's step back one level: If you were to design backgrounds for the 2024 PHB, would you include a free language by default for each and every one of them?
No, but I would operate on a very different outlook than WotC for a 2024 PHB, for example I don't have problem with a race or class being objectively better than another. I would have no problem having someone with a backstory of being a member of the royal family have more than 50 gp of starting equipment, while another player has 3 sp because he's a labourer-turned-hero when his village was burned to cinders.
I'd rather see non-mother-tongue languages somewhat divorced from capital-B Background and instead based on either small-b background (i.e. what makes sense for the region in the setting where the PC either a) grew up or b) is meeting the party) or on random roll (i.e. what did you happen to learn during your previous studies, travels, etc.).
Races are "everything innate". Classes are "everything learnt as part of the main job" and Background are "everything learnt culturally". I can't see languages fitting elsewhere than background, unless one would want to make them a separate category.
Even less likely, but I'd also like to see something where a character's Intelligence score has input to how many languages said character can or does know,
If you're taught two or three languages from the youngest age, you don't need to be supremely intelligent to pick them up. A child can be fluent in 3 languages at the seventh grade, I wouldn't link that to intelligence.
There was a comment somewhere that language like “Orcish” are really what the problem is. Which I think is a valid point. I’m not sure what I think about that entirety, yet.
Common (which is in fact "Human" since they don't have a racial language) is also problematic. Racial languages should be removed and replaced by regional languages, unless there is a strong in-setting reason to explain them (ie, every member of this race dreams in the language of his gods, which teach him new words here and there).
Yes. Everyone did fine with backgrounds not giving languages by default for eight years.
It's a move toward equality. Why wouldn't everyone start with three languages?
Imagine a D&D Modern game where the Chef background automatically came with Spanish. You could make an argument for it, sure (a whole lot of Latin American folks in the kitchen of nearly every restaurant in the US), but you can also see why it's problematic by default, I imagine.
I'd have said that the language most commonly associated with chef is French. Does this association feel better to you? If not, why? If it is true that working the cooking industry involves dealing with Spanish-speaking people a lot (I'll trust you on that), then what's the problem with picking it up as part of the trade?
