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

[GMforPowergamers]

Do you think everyone with the scout Background occasionally travelled with two friendly druids?

not every

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah...I'm realising that a lot of people haven't...

I mean, I’ll be honest, I haven’t. Because I understood immediately that the example backgrounds were examples of individual characters’ backstories, not broad archetypes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Spelling out those choices has been a conscious part of WotC style for a long time now, since when you don't specify things, you end up having to relitigate it all in Sage Advice (and countless online forums) anyway.

So you’re saying you’re in favor of adding that reminder after every option in every background?

 

[Thommy H-H]

I'm not confused. I think it's a stupid and implausible choice, which I've explained over several posts.

If you are secretly the person who wrote the Noble background, lighten up and accept the feedback.

The idea that Draconic is used as a language outside of communication between dragons or dragonborn is in the PHB. It's often used for writing about arcana, so makes perfect sense as something the scion of a noble family would have to be versed in.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The idea that Draconic is used as a language outside of communication between dragons or dragonborn is in the PHB. It's often used for writing about arcana, so makes perfect sense as something the scion of a noble family would have to be versed in.

Because nobles all learn about arcana?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not confused. I think it's a stupid and implausible choice, which I've explained over several posts.

If you are secretly the person who wrote the Noble background, lighten up and accept the feedback.

I mean, I think it’s a perfectly plausible explanation of how a single individual noble might have learned Draconic. And that’s exactly what it’s meant to be. They’re literally examples of individual character backgrounds.

 

[Cadence]

Okay, seriously, it is worth actually reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds given, because every one of them explains exactly why the character with that Background learned that particular language.

Wait, what, read?

And so...
Celestial must just obviously go with religion
Gnomes are the cause of may artisan terms
Infernal is the language of deception
Thieve's can't seems to obviously go with thieves
Abbysal seems to obviously go with the otherworldly cults
Elvish poetry appealed to at least one performer
Halflings write famous farming almanacs
Orc for gladiators because random over the draconic and dwarvish it could also have been
At least one guard worked for Dwarven smiths
etc...

And now I'm wondering if I would like it better if they made the background examples' names more specific. "Acolyte of Pelor", "Guard for Dwarvish Smiths", etc...

 

[Charlaquin]

Because nobles all learn about arcana?

No, but the noble character the example describes did.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So you’re saying you’re in favor of adding that reminder after every option in every background?

I think it would be consistent with their existing style which spells out, for instance "either a Short Rest or a Long Rest" every time, instead of just saying "after a rest."

 

[Charlaquin]

And now I'm wondering if I would like it better if they made the background examples names more specific. "Acolyte of Pelor", "Guard for Dwarvish Smiths", etc...

I think that would be a good idea because it would make it clearer that they’re examples of individual character backgrounds rather than background archetypes.