Unearthed Arcana WOTC still can't get the backgrounds right in the new FR book.

[Necropolitan]

That said, why have the background tied to mechanics at all then? If I can play an Acolyte with +1 Wisdom, +2 Dexterity and the Tavern Brawler feat then why even have a sailor with those printed feats and ASIs?

To fill up more pages and thus make more money.

 

[Weiley31]

Since I have a crap ton of backgrounds due to the prior books+Kobold Press+Adventures in Middle-Earth 5E, the only issue I have with Backgrounds now is that I gotta homebrew their starting feat associated with each one.

 

[Minigiant]

Said it once
Say it again

My hypothesis is that In-house WOTC D&D games are heavily tilted to "funsies" tables with stereotypical PCs and monsters. It's not that they aren't optimized but their tables have walking stereotypical builds who do suboptimal tactics and weaker options for fun or quirkiness.

Good old strength based greataxe dwarf fighters doing occasional unarmed strikes or a Wisdom based dragon roar for fun.

 

[Azzy]

Personally, I'm not a fan of ASIs being tied to backgrounds. They should have been left floating.
That said, there are rules for creating (and, by extension, customizing) new backgrounds in the 5.24 DMG. Yes, I believe that they should have been in the PHB, but they do exist.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That said, there are rules for creating (and, by extension, customizing) new backgrounds in the 5.24 DMG. Yes, I believe that they should have been in the PHB, but they do exist.

Does where its found really matter though? If it's in the Player's Handbook the players are going to think they get to make the choice to use it with or without the DM's say... and if its in the DMG then the DM thinks they get to decide whether or not it can get used at all. But in both cases the answer is actually the same-- players and DMs should be working together to decide on what they are going to agree upon for how the game gets run and played. Regardless of which books the rules show up in.

 

[Azzy]

Does where its found really matter though? If it's in the Player's Handbook the players are going to think they get to make the choice to use it with or without the DM's say... and if its in the DMG then the DM thinks they get to decide whether or not it can get used at all. But in both cases the answer is actually the same-- players and DMs should be working together to decide on what they are going to agree upon for how the game gets run and played. Regardless of which books the rules show up in.

Personally? I think it should be a player-facing feature like it was in the 5.14 PHB.

 

[GarrettKP]

Said it once
Say it again

My hypothesis is that In-house WOTC D&D games are heavily tilted to "funsies" tables with stereotypical PCs and monsters. It's not that they aren't optimized but their tables have walking stereotypical builds who do suboptimal tactics and weaker options for fun or quirkiness.

Good old strength based greataxe dwarf fighters doing occasional unarmed strikes or a Wisdom based dragon roar for fun.

Every table should be tilted to… checks notes… having fun. That’s the point of the game.

If your table thinks “fun” is number crunching and finding optimized builds, you have options to do that. If your table thinks “fun” is dumping charisma on a party face and seeing what chaos happens when you get into social encounters, that’s also supported.

Not every option printed in a book is going to fit everyone’s definition of fun. But at the end of the day, as long as you and your friends enjoy your time at the table, then the designers did a good enough job, didn’t they?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally? I think it should be a player-facing feature like it was in the 5.14 PHB.

Why? So that you can tell your DM you are using it no ifs-ands-or-buts and they have no choice in the matter?

Why does it matter which book the rule is in? Aren't you all going to be working together to decide which variant rules you're going to use anyway?

 

[Azzy]

Why? So that you can tell your DM you are using it no ifs-ands-or-buts and they have no choice in the matter?

Considering that I'm typically the DM? Probably not. I think that character customization and choices should be player-facing.

Why does it matter which book the rule is in? Aren't you all going to be working together to decide which variant rules you're going to use anyway?

Because I think that character customization should be in the book that has the rules for creating characters.

 

[Minigiant]

Every table should be tilted to… checks notes… having fun. That’s the point of the game

I didn't say fun.
I said funsies

Funsies is when you start not taking the game seriously at all and tailor the game expectations to those of people who don't care about the rules.

It's like how in the one of the official videos, the designers were flabbergasted that someone would want to play a race class combo that don't match up. A tiefling fighter? Never. But nonmagical fighter unarmed strikes? Gotta support it and still make it bad.

It's the "I'm gonna give you a Wisdom feature without a Wisdom ability bump because reasons" point of the thread. Beer and pretzels heavy on the beer.

There's building for optimizers. Then there's building for people who don't care about rules or being good at all.