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

[Scribe]

Man, it's worth a chuckle, but litigating this all again?

I don't think I have it in me.

 

[Nikosandros]

The power gaming is why the iffy parts mattered.

No, I disagree about that.

 

[Minigiant]

No, I disagree about that.

We''ll have to agree to disagree because of circumstances.

But overall this is why I prefer a higher level 1 bonus assumptions.

If you assume +4 or +5 total, getting that extra +1 matters more that if your assumption is +7 or +8 as total.

Proficiency modifier should have started at +3 or +4 and ended at +8 or + 9.

 

[Scott Christian]

It is a fantasy setting where species also had cultural background. Orcs were largely tribal while elves live a really long time, come from a fey background, and grow up with magic as part of their culture.

All they are really doing with the new backgrounds are reducing dynamic choice and shoving it all into background. It will make it easier to build a character because you have fewer choices to make.

Species is now just a bag of traits and goodies and background is forced to carry all the important choices in character creation. I liked the previous method that made species one of the pillars of character creation. I think they have really just made it far less important.

I understand. A large part of me agrees with you. I was simply pointing out why backgrounds are less inflammatory than race. That's all. I was just presenting a side so Micah Sweet understood why I thought background ASIs were safer for WotC than racial ASIs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It depends. I think less in most cases. You cannot say someone is diabetic anymore. You have to say person with diabetes. It often means adding a lot of extra text to get to the point. You also have to know when to break the rules. For instance, the deaf community prefer the deaf label as it is part of their culture and many get offended if you say "person with a hearing disability."

You need someone with specialized knowledge to navigate many of these issues.

I suspected as much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Just to be clear, in the post you quoted, I said I don't if it's true that sensitivity readers had anything to do with renaming the backgrounds. I was using an earlier post which made that hypothesis as a segue, because I wanted to talk about background names.

My main point was that I find the disassociated name of the wayfarer background nonsensical. (Also, that name choice can cause confusion, as noted by someone upthread who speaks English as a second language and doesn't understand why wayfarer is called wayfarer.)

The reason for the name change doesn't really matter for me. The fact that the new name of the background has nothing to do with living on the streets, learning how to use thieves' tools, and getting by on luck (three of the core concepts of background) is what I find irritating.

Unfortunately, in this environment most names that actually denote those things with any clarity are going to ping social radar.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They can have robust mechanics, but for modern D&D, they need to be non-synergistic with class abilities.

If class is strongly influencing race choice, or vice versa, we're moving out of modern D&D "neotrad" space and into OSR space.

I don't see a problem with this.

 

[Epic Meepo]

PC One grew up around scholars, laboratories, books, wizards, and had private tutors. PC Two grew up around beggars, thieves, and inside a brothel. Therefore, PC One knows more arcana than the latter at the start of the game.

This example provides a reasonable argument for assigning skills to backgrounds, but it doesn't convince me we should be assigning ability scores to backgrounds.

Remember, whenever an ability check is required to recall any type of knowledge, it's an Intelligence check. "Which criminal gangs are active in this neighborhood?" That's an Intelligence check. If a PC raised by thieves and a PC raised by wizards have both maxed out their Intelligence, the PC raised by thieves shouldn't be less likely to know about criminal gangs than the PC raised by wizards. That just doesn't make narrative sense.

And then there's my example of an acolyte in a temple dedicated to the God of Strength. That's just one example of the many character origin narratives that simply aren't supported by backgrounds with baked-in ability scores.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Man, it's worth a chuckle, but litigating this all again?

I don't think I have it in me.

I just find it interesting to talk about. Everyone knows I'm not buying these books.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't see a problem with this.

I know YOU don't.