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

[Micah Sweet]

Because the perception, sad as it is, is that combat numbers simply matter more.

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.

 

[Xamnam]

But to say a person in innately less intelligent due to their up bringing and opportunities, seems more inflammatory. Someone can never better themselves because they started as an urchin, they will always be thicker than someone who had a different start in life. That to me seems more inflammatory.

As someone who had no particular fondness for species mandated ASIs, but also likes attaching them to backgrounds (would have also probably been fine with cultures) more than them being pure free floating, a huge part of the reason why is that backgrounds aren't innate, at all, at least not how I most commonly hear and use the term in this context. Innate, to me, is even if you change most of the circumstances of your life, this part still expresses largely the same.

Likewise, I don't see any connection between having a different starting point in life and the idea that a person could "never better themselves." Nothing about a background stops a character from working to improve any part of themselves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can see anyone with a PC aura beating someone who doesn't have it!

My only quibble would be if someone creating a character with that PC aura had no meaningful way to really go all in with that background beyond someone else with the PC aura who chose something unrelated to their class. (Note use of quibble and not horrified objection to ).

What's a PC aura? Please let the answer not be what I think it is.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

It is more inflammatory in my opinion.

I would expect say a dolphin to have a different baseline intelligence to a human, being a different species (like orcs and gnomes) their physiological brain structure will be completely different so why would they be on a level playing field?

But to say a person in innately less intelligent due to their up bringing and opportunities, seems more inflammatory. Someone can never better themselves because they started as an urchin, they will always be thicker than someone who had a different start in life. That to me seems more inflammatory.

Your genetic makeup is innate. Your upbringing is not. That's the difference.

Both are matters of chance - no one can choose their parents or the circumstances of their birth - but species is only decided once, at the very start. Outside of reincarnation or potent transmutation magic, that isn't something that changes.

By contrast, background is a years-long process that arguably never stops changing, influenced by innumerable factors, and that can be redirected through effort and opportunity, at least in theory.

An orc is always going to grow up to be an orc (again barring reincarnation/transmutation magic).
An urchin might stay an urchin, or they could grow up to be a scholar, or a soldier, or a merchant, or even a noble.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shouldn't be difficult to figure out how to make your own backgrounds even without the DMG.

That wouldn't jive with the "drop-down menus" crowd WotC is courting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And what was the harm on recognizing that human/elf is just somehow common and give it as an example just with a new name if that was their hill to die on? (And keeping lore while at it?)

"No one" likes using scarcity as an organizing principle. Seems silly to me not to when it's relevant, but there you go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I suspect it's the latter. I'm now wondering what other 2014 PHB customizations might be moving into the DMG (or gone entirely) in 2024. (Matching skills with different ability scores occurred as a possibility in another thread, based on the new character sheets.)

Sometimes I have a difficult time not concluding that WotC simply doesn't have much respect for the ability of their player base to comprehend any complexity.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is everyone's own fault.

If one refuses to look at all the rules, one has no right to complain about a "missing" rule, which is actually there.

And yet, both those things used to be in the PH.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wouldn't something like this be very desirable to the few classes that get no armor proficiences?

Much like how Mountain Dwarf Wizard was a thing back in 2014?

More generally, you can't evaluate an option based on its popularity or average value.

WotC does exactly that though. Why shouldn't we?

 

[Scott Christian]

It is more inflammatory in my opinion.

I would expect say a dolphin to have a different baseline intelligence to a human, being a different species (like orcs and gnomes) their physiological brain structure will be completely different so why would they be on a level playing field?

But to say a person in innately less intelligent due to their up bringing and opportunities, seems more inflammatory. Someone can never better themselves because they started as an urchin, they will always be thicker than someone who had a different start in life. That to me seems more inflammatory.

I distinctly said it wasn't innate, but exposure.

I appreciate your take on this. I understand it. But can I ask you to look at intelligence a little differently?

If you view it as greater exposure, which often leads to the ability to apply that learned knowledge. You are viewing it as purely innate, and when it is viewed in that lens, I agree with you. But if you view it like strength, meaning someone can be raised to train daily, be it with a smithy hammer or mining pick, and add muscle. This, as opposed to the someone who worked in the library. By eighteen, those two might have different bodies. And the smithy might be able to apply that accrued muscle mass and hammer knowledge to fighting, whereas the librarian, maybe not so much. They can apply other things - war tactics, reading maps, etc.

Intelligence can be viewed the same way. It is not innate they are discussing with backgrounds, but exposure. In the PHB it states, "Intelligence measures mental sharpness, ability to recall information, and skill at applying logic." If you look at these skills, they are all skills that can be practiced and honed. The ability to recall information is practiced everyday, often hundreds of times, by that librarian. The greater the exposure to logic, thinking in terms of math, using the scientific method, and being involved in deep discussions regarding how to solve complex problems, gets better with practice. Sharpness too, can wane when repeating mundane tasks day in and day out.

Anyway, I hope this helps you see my side of the picture.

So there was nothing innate about backgrounds; therefore, choosing ASI for backgrounds is less inflammatory. Remember, the multiple threads, debates, arguments, and all-out attacks in the past revolved around the racist idea that one race was stronger, smarter, etc. than the other. Players argued that their half-orc should be just as smart at first level than the gnome. They argued on the grounds of racism - because that is one of the most inflammatory accusations you can make.
Saying a kid, who grew up with two parents that were both scholars and an entire household that was loaded with books, has a greater ability to know arcana, history, religion, nature, or even investigation is not as inflammatory as saying something is racist.

Also, your term, "always be thicker" is incorrect. By level twelve, they are all the same, with the exception that the urchin has the possibility to be more dexterous or some other ability that the "starting 16" player has.