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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Oh, I get it. I guess I wish "safety" (which seems like the wrong word in this context; I don't think safety is the issue), wasn't such an overriding concern.

 

[Scribe]

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

It could be, but who needs the hassle from people taking and making comments in bad faith.

This one's been done to death. I could snap off the core 3-5 points and save us all the time.

 

[Minigiant]

Really

As long as you get a 16 in your primary and a 14 in your secondary and a 12 in your tertiary, the game does not care.


If the array and point buy went to 16, this thread is only 10 pages.

 

[Remathilis]

I want to see the final list of backgrounds and ASI before I make a final verdict, but at the moment I am of two minds about this.

On one hand, it will be nice to use them to shake people out of ability score ruts, like casters who prioritize caster stat then Dex and Con. (I'm very guilty of this). On the other hand, certain nontraditional combos (like noble clerics or rogues) will become bad mixes if you want to keep your primary stat above 15. Effectively we might see more dwarf bards, but less noble clerics.

I kinda wish they had opted for background giving a +1 and the other r+2 comes from float, but it is what it is. I imagine very quickly people will have 200 homebrew or 3pp variants of backgrounds that it won't be an issue for long (such as temple paragon or royal spy master)

 

[Remathilis]

Really

As long as you get a 16 in your primary and a 14 in your secondary and a 12 in your tertiary, the game does not care.


If the array and point buy went to 16, this thread is only 10 pages.

Fingers crossed that changed the point system. Not a high hope, but we'll see

 

[CapnZapp]

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

When I use "evaluate" I mean in a power balancing way, not in a "should we keep it or ditch it" way.

I'm talking about evaluating a feat or feature for the character that is built to use it, rather than just some random average character. Failing to do this has resulted in a great many ttrpgs being wonky and unbalanced and horribly minmaxable.

 

[CapnZapp]

As long as you get a 16 in your primary and a 14 in your secondary and a 12 in your tertiary, the game does not care.

The game does not assume you must always be able to reach these or your character is a failure.

You are not an incompetent failure with a 15 in your primary. You are definitely not with a 13 in your secondary. Your tertiary matters so little it could be a 6* and you'd still be playable.
*) I realize the tertiary would then be lower than your "quaternary" but you get the point...

 

[Horwath]

Really

As long as you get a 16 in your primary and a 14 in your secondary and a 12 in your tertiary, the game does not care.


If the array and point buy went to 16, this thread is only 10 pages.

you mean 16(17) primary, 14 secondary and 14 constitution.

 

[Bagpuss]

Or remove stat bonuses altogether.

Yeah everyone should be equal, all stats are 10 from everyone.

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

But being a fixed stat modifier it technically is innate (even if they pretend it isn't from birth, it is from the circumstances of their birth in some instances Noble for example), they are saying poor people are stupid.

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.

It's not a racist idea. A child (halfling) is clearly weaker than a 6' 8" man (Goliath), there is nothing racist about that, it's just an obvious biological advantage. Similarly there is no reason average intelligence can't be different between species, clearly some animals are smarter than others.

What is concerning is saying a child born to a poor background will be thicker than one born to high society. If they had a stat called Education rather than Intelligence, they might get away with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah everyone should be equal, all stats are 10 from everyone.


But being a fixed stat modifier it technically is innate (even if they pretend it isn't from birth, it is from the circumstances of their birth in some instances Noble for example), they are saying poor people are stupid.



It's not a racist idea. A child (halfling) is clearly weaker than a 6' 8" man (Goliath), there is nothing racist about that, it's just an obvious biological advantage. Similarly there is no reason average intelligence can't be different between species, clearly some animals are smarter than others.

What is concerning is saying a child born to a poor background will be thicker than one born to high society. If they had a stat called Education rather than Intelligence, they might get away with it.

I was talking about ASIs not bonuses of any kind. The rest I agree with.