D&D (2024) Is anyone going to use the new 2024 backgrounds?

[Zuranthium]

The backgrounds don't mean crap. It's ridiculous to think all "farmers" or "merchants" are the same. These tags have almost no value in helping anyone to roleplay better, nor will GM's be riding on someone to act a certain way because of these templates. It's a superficial useless change that's packaged as some meaningful thing, in order to sell books.

Just pick the feat / proficiencies / stat bonuses that you want. Literally faster to do that anyway than to read through all of the pre-made background descriptions.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes.... If I run 2024. I'm not too keen on the redteam service provider adversary vibes being ascribed to the role of GM by wotc recently. Also finding myself skeptical that the dmg/mm is a reasonable or even valid place to retroactively patch in a correction if that's something wotc is even willing to attempt after Crawford's recent 2014 paladin admission.

 

[Tonguez]

The more I see these I less I want to play 5e, the backgrounds are uninspiring but not as bad as species

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I like restrictions forcing tough choices on the players, and there's an interesting design space if you were to actually restrict people to only the core backgrounds (and the game had been designed for that in the first place, and there was more of them than just the 16, and perhaps the equipment package wasn't just your starting inventory but rather some permanent part of the character that remained useful).

But, what I saw in the UA was just examples that, if taken as the limits of what you can do, would lead to restrictive options (no Cleric would ever have been an Acolyte, because that'd just give them Magic Initiate, for spells they get anyway), and sometimes pure nonsense combinations being the norm (like sailors giving +Dex +Wis and Tavern Brawler, why are all monks sailors).

Plus, it's just so much faster to tell people '+2/+1 to stats, pick two skills, pick a starting feat'.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I’ll probably just use custom backgrounds. Pick +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1, two skills, a language, a tool, an origin feat, and 50 gp. Easy. The default backgrounds are examples, and if one of them happens to suit what you want, go ahead and take it as-is. But honestly I feel like reading through them all would take longer than just making a custom one.

Some of us have long-time, expert players who will likely customize their backgrounds. I know at least 2 of my players like to customize at deep levels.

But I suspect some people want to focus on the story, not the speed of the build, and others like the idea of kicking the tires on the rules and testing them RAW. I am one of the RAW folk that wants a legit true experience that I can praise and criticize.

 

[pukunui]

Most of my players use DDB to build and run their PCs so it will entirely depend on how everything is implemented there.

 

[mamba]

With this being the case I don't see why anyone would use the more restrictive 2024 backgrounds.

oh hell yes I will use the new backgrounds, 200 pages of arguing about when a background feature applies and when it doesn’t is enough, no interest in that continuing

 

[Corinnguard]

Since my group currently has no interest in switching over to 2024 D&D anytime soon, I probably wouldn't use the 2024 backgrounds. I am okay with the 2014 backgrounds. However, I am more of a fan of Level Up's backgrounds.

 

[Nijay]

I think the restrictions of the backgrounds will be houseruled out and choosing your ability scores and origin feat will be the norm. It doesn't make sense to go backwards from Tasha's. I'm thinking about ignoring the origin tag for feats, too, because I am used to playing where we start with a free feat at level 1. Restricting selections seems to be less interesting.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The more I see these I less I want to play 5e, the backgrounds are uninspiring but not at bad as species

There are other games to play out there.