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

[Ruin Explorer]

it only seems they are separating it this way to help new players make smooth decisions.

I mean, it's too soon for us to say that. We need more information.

How it's presented in the DMG and PHB could make an insane difference here. Like, let me give best/worst case:

Best case - The PHB mentions that Custom backgrounds exist, and tells you to suggest ideas to the DM and they will help you come up with a Custom background. The DMG does not present Custom backgrounds as an "optional" rule, but as a default rule, and offers guidance on how to make them work, and doesn't say "You don't have to use this"(obviously rule 0 exists, but there's a huge difference between default rule and optional rule - one you rule out, the other you rule in). The DMG also presents a bunch of examples, including modifying existing backgrounds in very simple ways like changing the stats.

Worst case - The PHB makes absolutely no mention whatsoever that there are any other background options, and acts like this is all there is, and maybe hints that you could find more in other paid books. The DMG presents Custom backgrounds as a strictly optional rule, that you don't have to and probably shouldn't use, and presents either no examples, or only some bizarre example like a creepy evil background that sounds NPC-ish.

Now, I'll be honest, in a scale between the two extremes, I genuinely expect 2024 to be closer to Best than Worst, but... I didn't expect them to do something as dumb as get rid of the Tasha's approach to stats in the first place, so I have actually been too positive in my beliefs about how 2024 would handle backgrounds so far!

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

That's not a palatable justification for anything. It's promoting a narrative that the economically disadvantaged are incapable of learning from their life experiences. That's literally one step removed from saying, "Orcs are nomads with no formal schooling, so orcs can't be as smart as sedentary people." Which, of course, is total BS.

That is not, at all, what I am saying.

Just because your character grew up economically disadvantaged doesn't mean they're stuck with the urchin background. I could make an reasonable argument for someone who grew up poor to take just about any background, up to and including noble ("This young, impoverished street rat is the true king's long lost heir! We must needs take them to our lord's manor immediately so that they may become the leader we need to overthrow the usurper!").

If you want your economically disadvantaged wizard to start with a 16 INT, perhaps a background other than urchin would be more appropriate. And frankly, an urchin wizard coming to the table with a 15 INT is still a very solid sign of them being able to learn from life experience in the absence of adequate schooling.

It's a much different scenario than "orcs are dumb" being hard coded into their species stats.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

From a mechanical point-of-view, the end result (somewhat encouraging certain combinations of ancestry/background and class) is fairly similar, but there is a very big narrative difference between an orc wizard having a lower intelligence than a high elf wizard due to ancestry and an urchin wizard having a lower intelligence than a scholar wizard by due to background.

No, not really. You're just replacing biological essentialism with class essentialism, which is frankly, nearly as bad (and crosses over extremely heavily with biological essentialism, historically), just less offensive to Americans specifically.

As I pointed out above, it's particularly bad when Nobles +INT (which is hilarious to anyone who has met actual nobility, I sure have - I went to public school - i.e. super-elite private school), and Wayfarers (i.e. Urchins) cannot have +INT, and I bet you a whole bunch of "working class" ones don't have +INT as an option. That's gross. It may be a different flavour of gross, and less obvious to Americans, but it's gross.

Further, as I said, it flies in the face of fantasy tradition and characters, where the "super-smart character from a rough background" is extremely common.

EDIT - I see you responded to the other post but your answer seems to be "Ignore the background's details, just pick a different background which does have +INT and say they grew up on the streets!", and sorry, but that's not compatible with the whole concept of backgrounds making things easier for new players or generally making the system more accessible or functional.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, it's too soon for us to say that. We need more information.

How it's presented in the DMG and PHB could make an insane difference here. Like, let me give best/worst case:

Best case - The PHB mentions that Custom backgrounds exist, and tells you to suggest ideas to the DM and they will help you come up with a Custom background. The DMG does not present Custom backgrounds as an "optional" rule, but as a default rule, and offers guidance on how to make them work, and doesn't say "You don't have to use this"(obviously rule 0 exists, but there's a huge difference between default rule and optional rule - one you rule out, the other you rule in). The DMG also presents a bunch of examples, including modifying existing backgrounds in very simple ways like changing the stats.

Worst case - The PHB makes absolutely no mention whatsoever that there are any other background options, and acts like this is all there is, and maybe hints that you could find more in other paid books. The DMG presents Custom backgrounds as a strictly optional rule, that you don't have to and probably shouldn't use, and presents either no examples, or only some bizarre example like a creepy evil background that sounds NPC-ish.

Now, I'll be honest, in a scale between the two extremes, I genuinely expect 2024 to be closer to Best than Worst, but... I didn't expect them to do something as dumb as get rid of the Tasha's approach to stats in the first place, so I have actually been too positive in my beliefs about how 2024 would handle backgrounds so far!

Fair points. I do expect much closer to best case here, honestly.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

No, not really. You're just replacing biological essentialism with class essentialism, which is frankly, nearly as bad (and crosses over extremely heavily with biological essentialism, historically), just less offensive to Americans specifically.

As I pointed out above, it's particularly bad when Nobles +INT (which is hilarious to anyone who has met actual nobility, I sure have - I went to public school - i.e. super-elite private school), and Wayfarers (i.e. Urchins) cannot have +INT, and I bet you a whole bunch of "working class" ones don't have +INT as an option. That's gross. It may be a different flavour of gross, and less obvious to Americans, but it's gross.

Further, as I said, it flies in the face of fantasy tradition and characters, where the "super-smart character from a rough background" is extremely common.

Obviously we don't have the full details yet, but I suspect there's going to be quite a decent spread. And let's not pretend that the 16 backgrounds that will be in the PHB are intended to cover the entire spectrum of possible character origin stories. They're a selection of common archetypes, not the sum total of human experience.

We will certainly be getting more backgrounds in books down the road, we will have guidelines for using background options from older books, and at the end of the day, both reflavoring existing backgrounds and creating custom ones are rather easy - all you need is your DM's permission.

And nobles have the option to increase INT, presumably to represent access to superior educational resources - it is not mandatory that they take advantage of those resources.

EDIT - I see you responded to the other post but your answer seems to be "Ignore the background's details, just pick a different background which does have +INT and say they grew up on the streets!", and sorry, but that's not compatible with the whole concept of backgrounds making things easier for new players or generally making the system more accessible or functional.

People can have more complex backstories than one singular defining thing. Traditionally, Cinderella is both a fallen noble (later restored) and what is essentially a live-in maid.

A child who grew up poor could choose to join the military, or apprentice under a merchant or craftsman, or join the clergy, or earn a scholarship to a prestigious academy, or any of a dozen other things, all of which could suggest the use of a different background without negating the fact that they were economically disadvantaged for a significant and formative portion of their life.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Just because your character grew up economically disadvantaged doesn't mean they're stuck with the urchin background.

On this point, we agree. I've had several friends and coworkers who've been unhoused for portions of their lives, and I suspect they wouldn't define themselves by that experience.

However, if we're going to attach a game mechanic to the street urchin trope from literature so we can play it up for dramatic purposes, I would hope the game mechanic at least acknowledged that people who thrive despite being raised on the streets are often incredibly intelligent, having acquired a large amount of situational knowledge most of us would never think to acquire.

All of which just goes to highlight the problems which will arise now that Backgrounds are tied to arbitrary Ability Scores. Some of us will agree with the Ability Scores chosen for a given Background, but plenty of us will disagree. And this has a non-zero chance of leading to a drawn-out debate over the validity of the designer's choices.

 

[TwoSix]

All of which just goes to highlight the problems which will arise now that Backgrounds are tied to arbitrary Ability Scores. Some of us will agree with the Ability Scores chosen for a given Background, but plenty of us will disagree. And this has a non-zero chance of leading to a drawn-out debate over the validity of the designer's choices.

What gets me about it is that it's completely an unforced error. No one was clamoring for stat boosts to be attached to the backgrounds.

Just leave the Tasha's status quo, have the stat boosts as a purely game mechanical step unattached to any narrative, and no one would be complaining about anything.

 

[mellored]

And this has a non-zero chance of leading to a drawn-out debate over the validity of the designer's choices.

There is a non-zero chance of leading to drawn-out debate over the validity of any choice.

I've seen ones about which side of the bed to get up from.

 

[mellored]

What gets me about it is that it's completely an unforced error. No one was clamoring for stat boosts to be attached to the backgrounds.

There was interest in making backgounds more meaningful.

Just leave the Tasha's status quo, have the stat boosts as a purely game mechanical step unattached to any narrative, and no one would be complaining about anything.

If stats are unattached, why have them at all?

Martials have +5 to hit, casters have +3.
Everyone has a DC of 15 and adds +2 to their hit dice each level.

Much quicker to just look up a chart.

 

[TwoSix]

If stats are unattached, why have them at all?

Martials have +5 to hit, casters have +3.
Everyone has a DC of 15 and adds +2 to their hit dice each level.

Much quicker to just look up a chart.

I meant the stat boosts (the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1), not stats in general.

I'm not against a no-stat version of D&D, but legacy and all.