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

[Scott Christian]

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.

It can be both. If you use the investigation skill to determine which criminal gangs are active, why wouldn't the person that comes from a noble background know this? In fact, their intel should be just as good as the urchin. Now, piece together they understand the big picture: supply and demand, economy of guilds, architectural layout of the city as a whole, its infrastructure, the history of these encampments - why couldn't that noble have a bit better understanding than a street urchin?

I see your point, and I think it's valid. But a narrative is simply that - a narrative. And most skills that apply intelligence have to do with being learned.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

And that's a fair take. Heck, I spent quite a bit of time arguing for species to have distinct ASIs, because for me and my gaming experience, it allows the world building to be a bit more consistent. But I get the other side. Building what you want and equality of characters promotes fun too.

 

[Minigiant]

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...

I didn't say that you are a failure if you don't hit these.
5e is is very easy and lenient.

But the original 5e designers assumed that your PCs had these benchmarks. That's why they were shocked that people played unoptimized race class combos before Tasha's.

 

[Minigiant]

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

No

16/14/12

Point buy is just super generous and let's everyone get 14 con.

 

[Azzy]

Not sure if this is applicable, but one rule from 2014 I did not like was the way you could pick a skill you knew you would get anyway, in order to turn that pick into "anything I want".

I found that to be a feature, not a bug.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

They are not saying poor people are stupid. In fact, as a street urchin you can be in the top 10% of the population regarding intelligence. That's quite extraordinary considering intelligence, according to the D&D definition, is mostly gained from your environment. What they are saying is, someone of noble birth has been exposed to greater learning than someone who grew up on the street. History, arcana, religion, nature, and investigation can be slightly better, literally by one point, if you grew up exposed to these things your who life, as opposed to the person that grew up: "...on the streets alone, orphaned, and poor. You had no one to watch over you or to provide for you, so you learned to provide for yourself. You fought fiercely over food and kept a constant watch out for other desperate souls who might try to steal from you." I find it incredible the urchin was even able to keep up with the learning of the noble. It must be because they are intelligent.

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.

Again, just to be clear, I was speaking to someone and explaining other players' opinions. I have read enough debate in this community to summarize their viewpoints.

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.

D&D's definition for intelligence is: Measures: mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill. All of these can come from a person's environment. Grow up an urchin and always worry about food, as is in the description, then you might not be practicing analytical skills. You might not be having deep conversations with your peers and the adults around you about math, science, and magic. Grow up worrying that the next person you meet is going to stab you, might make it so you don't ponder the latest history, religion, or arcana book you just read. Grow up alone without a support system, as is stated in the 2014 description, and you might not even know how to read.

We all like Name of the Wind, but I am not sure that character represents the D&D mechanics.

 

[Horwath]

No

16/14/12

Point buy is just super generous and let's everyone get 14 con.

in 10 years of 5E, I have seen maybe 10 characters that do not have 14 Con.

 

[Epic Meepo]

What they are saying is, someone of noble birth has been exposed to greater learning than someone who grew up on the street. History, arcana, religion, nature, and investigation can be slightly better, literally by one point, if you grew up exposed to these things your who life, as opposed to the person that grew up: "...on the streets alone, orphaned, and poor. You had no one to watch over you or to provide for you, so you learned to provide for yourself. You fought fiercely over food and kept a constant watch out for other desperate souls who might try to steal from you." I find it incredible the urchin was even able to keep up with the learning of the noble. It must be because they are intelligent.

Again, just to be clear, I was speaking to someone and explaining other players' opinions. I have read enough debate in this community to summarize their viewpoints.

D&D's definition for intelligence is: Measures: mental acuity, information recall, and analytical skill. All of these can come from a person's environment. Grow up an urchin and always worry about food, as is in the description, then you might not be practicing analytical skills. You might not be having deep conversations with your peers and the adults around you about math, science, and magic. Grow up worrying that the next person you meet is going to stab you, might make it so you don't ponder the latest history, religion, or arcana book you just read. Grow up alone without a support system, as is stated in the 2014 description, and you might not even know how to read.

We all like Name of the Wind, but I am not sure that character represents the D&D mechanics.

You claim someone of noble birth "has greater learning" than an urchin, then you quote a description of the urchin background which literally says "you learned to provide for yourself." That description of the urchin calls out learning as an important milestone in the life of an urchin. And the urchin has learned something the wealthy noble may not have learned at all.

I believe the disconnect we're having involves the definition of "learning." You cite math, science, and magic as examples of things urchins would have little chance to learn*. But math, science, and magic are all part of the Arcana skill, and the Arcana skill is not a placeholder for a character's Intelligence score. A character can have 20 Intelligence without ever acquiring proficiency in Arcana.

An urchin can learn things that have nothing to do with Arcana, and there's no reason (other than arbitrary game rules) they shouldn't have the potential to be just as capable in their non-scholarly field of knowledge as a mathematician is in theirs. I don't see any reason to believe book learning is the only kind of life experience that hones the ability to recall and analyze knowledge.

Now, I understand why people might disagree with me. It doesn't bother me that other people, in general, have a different interpretation of the urchin background. In the context of this thread's topic, what annoys me is WotC enforcing that one specific narrative by adding arbitrary restrictions that didn't exist in 2014. Note that a 2014 character with the urchin background could have the same Intelligence as a 2014 character of the same species with the noble background. The disparity in Intelligence between (renamed) urchins and nobles is a new, unnecessary restriction.

* As an aside, I've gamed with and had philosophical conversations with someone who earned a college degree in physics while living on the street, with no guaranteed place to sleep and no guaranteed source of food. As a result, there is nothing you can say to convince me a person living on the street, with no support network, cannot learn as much as a wealthy person with a private tutor. I have been shown incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

 

[CapnZapp]

I found that to be a feature, not a bug.

It wasn't presented as a feature.

It always felt like you circumvented what the rules intended.

If it was explicitly discussed as intentional I might have disliked it less.

But why first set up limitations and then providing a workaround?!?

It remains an inelegantly designed rule, no matter how much people enjoy the practical effect of not having to stick with the skills you're given.

 

[Minigiant]

in 10 years of 5E, I have seen maybe 10 characters that do not have 14 Con.

Like I said 5e is generous.

Getting a 14 was cheap.
Getting a 16 was expensive.