D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal: Feats/Backgrounds/Species

[Scott Christian]

Just because you must play with schmucks doesn't mean the rest of us do.

To be fair, I think @Horwath is worried about the same thing that others used to complain about - to get to the coveted 16 at first level, you must play this (fill the blank) race. There were many, and I mean many, complaints about that. Personally, it never bothered me because not having a 16 never bothered me. But for many, it bothered them a lot!

 

[Demetrios1453]

And I'm right.

If that is categorically true, why are you pretty much the only one in this thread arguing on that side? Surely, if you're that indisputably correct, you'd have a lot more people agreeing with you.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is a delicate balance between flexible, adaptable, flavorful mechanics versus cookie-cutter straightjacket.

2024 seems to strike the right balance.

You literally cannot say that.

We've seen two backgrounds AFAIK. One of them was pretty good. The other was a disaster. Claiming this "strikes the right balance" in ignorance of the rest is just a weird kind of lying. You can say you "hope it will" and it's fine to guess that it "probably will", but you cannot say it "seems to".

If that is categorically true, why are you pretty much the only one in this thread arguing on that side? Surely, if you're that indisputably correct, you'd have a lot more people agreeing with you.

Historically, no. I've been on the wrong side of countless D&D arguments numbers-wise, only to turn out to be Cassandra about something. Some things where I've very much been in the majority, we were all wrong, too. Numbers agreeing is not a good predictor.

And as to "why?" - Cassandra is you answer. People never want to hear the truth nor what is likely. Just look at the state of the world. This is obviously unimportant and silly, but that doesn't change how it works.

 

[mellored]

No, it isn't. Because background isn't just stats - it's also Skills and a Feat, and we can be very sure that there will be a small number of backgrounds that are optimal for a very large number of classes - and I'd bet money, like real money, that those backgrounds are not the most thematically common backgrounds in D&D at all.

Then you will need to go up to your DM, admit that you don't care about the backstory and have anxiety about having your AC be 1 point lower than optimal.

And no, they can't remove the bonuses. That would change the underlying math of previous adventures. They can just move the bonuses.

 

[Yaarel]

Aren't there 20 combinations? It's the binomial coefficient of 6 and 3.

There are 16 backgrounds. It would be interesting if there is at least one for each of the 20 possible combinations.

 

[Scott Christian]

They won't - instead we'll just see the very small number of more optimal backgrounds used over and over and over.

For some players. Others (my guess is 20%-30%) will be happy to play sub-optimal designs if it matches their character's story origin, motives, or player's vision.

 

[mellored]

Again, you're resorting to weird corner-case situations and demanding players do bizarre-as-hell things, and all this does is prove my point.

I don't think hexblade with resilent Con is a weird corner case.
Nor would a moon druid, who gets to keep Int/Wis/Cha in wild shape, be a corner case.

People are going to be extremely mad about this as soon as they actually start playing it. And the complaints and arguments won't stop until the next edition comes out.

Mad about what? That there is an option they don't like?

If it's that problematic for you, ban it from your game. Easy enough.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For some players. Others (my guess is 20%-30%) will be happy to play sub-optimal designs if it matches their character's story origin, motives, or player's vision.

Yes I would guess about 20% is right.

However I think the issue is going to be that a vastly higher % of players are either:

A) Forced into sub-optimal designs.

or

B) Forced into picking the literally 1 background that optimizes for their class/spec.

B being more likely.

Then you will need to go up to your DM, admit that you don't care about the backstory and have anxiety about having your AC be 1 point lower than optimal.

And no, they can't remove the bonuses. That would change the underlying math of previous adventures. They can just move the bonuses.

Did you quote the wrong post? I literally can't see how any of that relates to the post you're quoting. I've said nothing about "removing the bonuses". What?

 

[mellored]

Aren't there 20 combinations? It's the binomial coefficient of 6 and 3.

yup.
Miss counted by 1.

 

[Yaarel]

You literally cannot say that.

We've seen two backgrounds AFAIK. One of them was pretty good. The other was a disaster. Claiming this "strikes the right balance" in ignorance of the rest is just a weird kind of lying. You can say you "hope it will" and it's fine to guess that it "probably will", but you cannot say it "seems to".

Well, literally can say that.

From the examples of backgrounds we see from previews, and the many we see from the UA, we have a clear idea about what to expect.

Where the background offers three abilities, likely at least one of them will be worth investing the +2 score.


I strongly prefer to customize a background for my characters − depending on concept − but this requires buy in from the DM to fit the background somewhere suitable in the setting. I see the sense of it being in the DMs Guide, but do worry about it falling out of use away from the player view.


Probably locking in the feat to a specific background skill-tool set will be more frustrating, than locking the abilities to it.