D&D (2024) Bonus languages in One D&D backgrounds goes contrary to their other goals

[UngainlyTitan]

Though I agree with the sentiment that the examples are just that, and things can be easily replaced, the examples as they are presented are problematic in some cases. This article goes into more detail on that (and some other issues with the UA races):

OneD&D and Designing Better Fantasy Calipers

The first playtest document from WOTC’s Marvel-like unveiling of new, “edition-less” D&D – currently titled OneD&D – is out, and is it ever bad. First, just a …

labyrinthlesbian.wordpress.com

Then leave feed back on the topic.

In my opinion, they need to emphasise that backgrounds are personal to the character. Races should have a selection of optional characteristics and pick a selection. Mixed race pick from one, other or both.

 

[Cadence]

But it doesn’t say all gladiators know Orcish. It provides a gladiator who knows orcish as one example of a background your character might have. You could instead be a gladiator who knows Elvish. Or a laborer who knows Orcish. Or a laborer who knows Druidic. All PC backgrounds are unique, the examples are just examples, and you can take an example as-is, if you don’t want to make all the decisions involved in creating your own, or modify an example if you want most of it but want a different language or different tool or whatever.

If there is a sizeable number of folks who need/want the pre-built ones so they don't have to spend mental overhead on the choices, then there will be a sizeable number of gladiators that get Orcish because that's what the book gives. And a sizeable number of players who will associate Orcish with violent things like being a gladiator.

If there isn't a sizeable number of folks who need/want pre-built examples, then we don't need to give them at all.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Again, the benefits need to be standardized for the custom default to work.

That doesn't mean it has to be this standard.

 

[Charlaquin]

Tangent:

I get the idea of wanting to cut down choices for new players or players who want streamlining. But this still feels like a lot smaller choice than assigning the ability scores. (Saying where the high one goes, giving a choice for where the second goes, and nothing on the next three... ) I wonder if for the classes they'll give a suggested full assignment for what folks might want it. And I wonder what the complaints would be if they did.

I don’t disagree. I also know players who would absolutely be in favor of classes suggesting how to prioritize all six scores. In fact, I’ll do one better: use the standard array. So, the “quick build” section for cleric might say “your Strength is 12, your Dexterity is 8, your Constitution is 13, your Intelligence is 10, your Wisdom is 15, and your Charisma is 14” or something like that.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

It's officially as good as a tool proficiency.

I'd like to say -- but it would only be true in an ideal world -- that language is very campaign-dependant. If all your campaign will happen in a single place, where there is an official, dominant language, one will never need other language except for intra-party chatter. If you're plane-hopping, it can be paramount. While tools are theoretically more broadly useful, but in the "real D&D" it seems that many GM forget tools, so I guess you're right.

 

[Thommy H-H]

But worlds are big places, right? And presumably the halfling farmers need soldiers sometimes, and the hobgoblin generals need to eat. Unless there is some kind of planar backstory to halflings have a knack for agriculture, halfling societies ought to not be monocultural

I mean, no one said they were? It's like...French cuisine has been historically regarded as superior. Any elite chef trained before the 21st Century might have picked up a little French just from working in the finest restaurants. That doesn't mean that all French people are amazing cooks and can't do anything else. It just means that, rightly or wrongly, the best cooks were believed by others to found amongst French speakers.

Not all halflings are farmers, but farming is one of the things that - in some D&D worlds - some of their cultures have a reputation for doing well. You might also learn Halfling if you're a ranger with a pet dinosaur wandering the edges of the Talenta Plains in Eberron because, in that world, the halflings of that region are nomadic, dinosaur-riding warriors.

 

[Charlaquin]

If there is a sizeable number of folks who need/want the pre-built ones so they don't have to spend mental overhead on the choices, then there will be a sizeable number of gladiators that get Orcish because that's what the book gives.

That’s true.

And a sizeable number of players who will associate Orcish with violent things like being a gladiator.

That seems like a huge stretch to me. Just because many players have characters who are gladiators that know orcish doesn’t mean those players will assume all orcs are violent. And, even if that was the case, what’s the alternative? Some feature has to grant languages. Whatever feature that might be, some of the examples of it will have to grant orcish.

If there isn't a sizeable number of folks who need/want pre-built examples, then we don't need to give them at all.

I do definitely think there is a sizable number of folks who want pre-built examples.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

One thing I'm glad about is that Thieves can't seems divorced from rogues (they might still get it, which will mean that scouts that rogues who have nothing to do with criminal organisations will still be a little weird), I always felt that it should be something granted by the criminal background at least.

OK, that argument makes a lot of sense for me. Totally divorce Thieves Cant from the rogue class and this works for me.

I DM a swashbuckler and an arcane trickster in the games I run in person (and many, many more in the online games) and neither of them have any contact with a guild. The swashbuckler has used his knowledge of written cant (again, see the above PDF, which is swell) before, but it doesn't make a ton of sense that he knows it, except it was a freebie given to him.

 

[Cadence]

That seems like a huge stretch to me. Just because many players have characters who are gladiators that know orcish doesn’t mean those players will assume all orcs are violent. And, even if the case, what’s the alternative? Some feature has to grant languages. Whatever feature that might be, some of the examples will have to grant orcish.

I'd pick ones that go against type, and provide a parenthetical about why that was the language picked up. (Scholar - Orcish - learned from fellow students; Soldier - Gnomish - learned from assigned tentmate in training; etc...)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I’m not convinced that having languages as a mechanic is worth the trouble.

That is wild to me. I know languages get effectively taken out of the game once characters have enough spell slots to cast Tongues without worrying they'll be left defensive, but languages come up in my games all the time. You are playing very different games than I am.