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

[MoonSong]

Yeah, with the assumption that if a player really wanted to swap out a stat upgrade or otherwise customize a background, I'd allow it as a DM. These are starting points to me, and if they fit as written, great, if not, ask and we'll change it.

As a DM, I'm open to allow players to go nuts with their characters, but as a player I hate Mother-may-I for character creation.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm nearly certain we'll throw out the old rules and use dndbeyond for character management. I don't play with min max types, just people that want to play DND.

But minmaxers aren't the only people who like to customize.

 

[Yaarel]

anything can be whatever you design it to be. That is not what WotC chose and I see no reason why this would be any better either

Sailor. The "Survival" skill is for navigating, weather, surviving in nature including Coastal/Seafaring, fishing, and tracking. Likewise, one can have a "Waterborne Vehicle" as a tool proficiency.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sailor. The "Survival" skill is for navigating, weather, surviving in nature including Coastal/Seafaring, fishing, and tracking. Likewise, one can have a "Waterborne Vehicle" as a tool proficiency.

As a GM something smells fishy & it feels like the stated reasons for wanting int on a sailor background are not being presented with complete openness. Since it's unlikely that those 3-4 bolded elements are going to feature prominently in the vast vast majority of campaigns I run I'd be inclined to say no to the request of shifting sailor to +int complete with all of its mechanical elements. I'd tell a player that the desire was not blessed by their gm on the incredibly simple grounds that I remember running 3.x & I suspect that the real goal is being hidden behind an impenetrable fog of stormwind inspired obfuscation.

 

[MoonSong]

Some nobles spend their time at sea, either as navy officers or yacht residents. These are sailors.

I'm reminded of Doctor Stone. When they needed an experimented sailor, they ended up picking a rich guy with an obsession for yachts. He was the best around.

 

[MoonSong]

The background is a player choice. If none of them suit your vision, well, that's what creativity and working with your GM is for.

And that's where 90% of DMs I've played with failed.

 

[WanderingMystic]

He does not have a feat and ability bonuses to match the backstory and class mechanics.

Yes but to be honest no one is going to play a sage who then turned into a barbarian, you have specifically picked a combination. That doesn't work thematically or mechanically on purpose just so you could try to say you are right.

 

[MoonSong]

As a GM something smells fishy & it feels like the stated reasons for wanting int on a sailor background are not being presented with complete openness. Since it's unlikely that those 3-4 bolded elements are going to feature prominently in the vast vast majority of campaigns I run I'd be inclined to say no to the request of shifting sailor to +int complete with all of its mechanical elements. I'd tell a player that the desire was not blessed by their gm on the incredibly simple grounds that I remember running 3.x & I suspect that the real goal is being hidden behind an impenetrable fog of stormwind inspired obfuscation.

There's nothing fishy. We have teo choices that used to be independent of each other and now we have to find ways around in order to contort one with the other just because of a pointless design decision that removed customization where it used to exist. And I come to this from the opposite side. I don't care if my character starts with a +3 in the main stat, but I resent having to start with a high score in a stat I don't want to start high in just because I want a given background for a given flavor. More so if I have to sacrifice another stat I care for because it doesn't fit the limited imagination of whoever wrote the given background.

 

[MoonSong]

Yes but to be honest no one is going to play a sage who then turned into a barbarian, you have specifically picked a combination. That doesn't work thematically or mechanically on purpose just so you could try to say you are right.

Hulk anyone?

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm reminded of Doctor Stone. When they needed an experimented sailor, they ended up picking a rich guy with an obsession for yachts. He was the best around.

Ryusui Nanami also had years of sailing experience, that held tiny bit more weight than the fact that he dressed the part out of "obsession".

In a way I'd say that he's the exact opposite of the tangent the thread is discussing since he accepted his overindulgent rich parents background & used that to be a sailor rather than being a sailor who does everything they can to be something that's not a sailor but still keeps all the other benefits of sailor.

There's nothing fishy. We have teo choices that used to be independent of each other and now we have to find ways around in order to contort one with the other just because of a pointless design decision that removed customization where it used to exist. And I come to this from the opposite side. I don't care if my character starts with a +3 in the main stat, but I resent having to start with a high score in a stat I don't want to start high in just because I want a given background for a given flavor. More so if I have to sacrifice another stat I care for because it doesn't fit the limited imagination of whoever wrote the given background.

Your post is at odds with itself. You described a bunch of mechanics and then shifted to calling it "flavor". I'm one of the people who has an earlier post talking about ways that other backgrounds with the +int can have their "flavor" shifted to that of a sailor while maintaining the mechanics of the other background chosen.

From there it comes down to a player saying "but I want the mechanics too". In post 158 you literally quoted the reason why I as a GM would tell a player that wanting is good for the soul & this is a want that I as a gm would not be blessing

And that's where 90% of DMs I've played with failed.

"working with your GM" is a two way street. It's not simply a matter of listing demands & expecting a rubber stamp.