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

[Belen]

If your doing that, why stop half way?

Remove stats and just have a class chart for attack, DC, and saves.

But I still like that the backgound matters more than it did before.

Whereas I think they made it matter less. It used to provide flavor and help with RP and now it will be in demand for stats, skills, and feats and RP will be an afterthought.

 

[bedir than]

I mean, that's trivially false so why even argue it?

Because math exists and there's no evidence that a +1 on a skill check or attack roll results in 5% increase.

The range of results in 5e is closer to 0-40 than it is just twenty points.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yep. And even if it didn't increase damage, any +1 to hit is going to increase damage by more than 5% unless the chance to hit is completely saturated at 95%.

Even going from 90% chance to hit to 95% chance to hit, with no increase to damage, is a 0.95/0.9 = 5.6% increase.

Because math exists and there's no evidence that a +1 on a skill check or attack roll results in 5% increase.

The range of results in 5e is closer to 0-40 than it is just twenty points.

LOL.

 

[Cadence]

I think my biggest problem with "backgrounds" is that a lot of them don't really make sense to me. I guess in my head I usually picture the characters starting out as young adults.

So what does it mean to have "knight" or "soldier" as your background? Who should be better at fighting, a background of soldier who has started adventuring as a wizard or a background of sage who has started adventuring as a fighter? Should 't someone with background of soldier or knight and class of fighter be noticeably better than either of those at fightery things? If not, does that mean the sage background person was some sort of prodigy? Why can't the soldiery person also be a prodigy?

How are soldier, hero of the people, and urchin vaguely classifiable using the same system?

Or I guess I could just stop worrying about it.

 

[TwoSix]

Because math exists and there's no evidence that a +1 on a skill check or attack roll results in 5% increase.

The range of results in 5e is closer to 0-40 than it is just twenty points.

I mean, except for my post #209 where I demonstrated the math for attack rolls.

And for skill checks, "5% increase" would be a meaningless measure because there's no magnitude of results to measure an increase from. At best, you could argue for a magnitude increase in the percent chance of success given a fixed DC, but even that will also be over 5% outside of the "can't succeed/can't fail" boundary conditions.

 

[bedir than]

I mean, except for my post #209 where I demonstrated the math for attack rolls.

Your demonstration asserts that a plus 1 increases the chance to hit from 90 to 95%. That's a specific situation that doesn't match the reality of the game.

An AC that you hit 55-60% of the time getting a plus 1 doesn't lead to hitting 5% more often. The +1 to damage depends on levels.

 

[TwoSix]

Your demonstration asserts that a plus 1 increases the chance to hit from 90 to 95%. That's a specific situation that doesn't match the reality of the game.

An AC that you hit 55-60% of the time getting a plus 1 doesn't lead to hitting 5% more often. The +1 to damage depends on levels.

If that's what you got out of reading my post, I don't think throwing more math at you is going to turn the tide.

But, just for the edification of the broader reading audience.

Assume two level 1 fighters, both using a longsword with dueling style, against an enemy with AC 13.

Fighter A has Str 15 (+2), Fighter B has Str 16 (+3).

Fighter A longsword: +4 to hit, 1d8+4 damage (8.5 average, 8.73 average with crits)

Fighter B longsword: +5 to hit, 1d8+5 damage (9.5 average, 9.73 average with crits)

Against AC 13, Fighter A has a 60% hit chance (9 or higher on a d20).

Against AC 13, Fighter B has a 65% hit chance (8 or higher on a d20).

Fighter A average damage = 0.6 * 8.5 = 5.100

Fighter B average damage = 0.65 * 9.5 = 6.175

Ratio of Fighter B damage to Fighter A damage: 6.175/5.100 = 1.211, or a 21.1% damage increase from the +1 bonus to the Strength modifier.

 

[Argyle King]

Not a fan of ability scores being tied to background.

I wish 5.5 still had abilities associated with species, but add some flexibility by going the late-4E route: one static bonus and one choice of bonus. Example: +2 STR and +1 to either WIS or CON.

Edit: I can see the reasoning behind a background giving a boost to something. It's just a little weird to have all ability boosts come from backgrounds.

 

[mellored]

Ratio of Fighter B damage to Fighter A damage: 6.175/5.100 = 1.211, or a 21.1% damage increase from the +1 bonus to the Strength modifier.

For weapon attacks, that add the stat to damage, yes. It's bigger than 5%.

 

[bedir than]

Ratio of Fighter B damage to Fighter A damage: 6.175/5.100 = 1.211, or a 21.1% damage increase from the +1 bonus to the Strength modifier.

Valid math, and a quality answer to the question "What is the percentage increase to damage from a +1 bonus under these circumstances?"
It's also not 5% -- the quite lazy way of thinking of bonuses to controlling attributes because the d20 has 20 faces.

I would suggest that since there are other ways to get bonuses that only controlling for the single method of that +1 overemphasizes that decision's impact. The scope of variables tends to be ignored in the optimization discussion.