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

[Maxperson]

nah the law of consequences will fix that either with Barbarian learning they suck and keep screwing the party or they piss off some important NPC and die. This is only a problem if the DM refuses to DM properly.

It's actually only a problem if the group isn't into realistic social interactions. Look at the real world. People who don't speak well almost never sit back and let the one charismatic person in the group talk to someone. They like to chime in as well, because people want to be heard and communicate.

Critical Roll is an excellent example of realistic social interactions. They all talk and interact, from the PC with the high charisma and proficiency, to the PC with no proficiency and a charisma penalty.

My PCs are going to interact socially no matter what my PCs charisma. The rest of the group doesn't get to shut down my enjoyment.

 

[Maxperson]

But I can still play a cool strory without having ASIs tied to backgrounds, moreover I can play a cool story and also at the same time Min Max if ASIs aren't tied to backgrounds.

This is hardly a compelling reason to have ASI increases tied to backgrounds.

And your min maxing is an even less compelling reason to change it from the way it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Another huge variable is how well you rolled. If your max ability is a 13 after you roll forcing you to take an increase in something other than your main stat is quite debilitating, meanwhile the guy next to you that rolled a natural a18 and choses a background aligned to their class can start with a 20.

If by debilitating you mean barely an inconvenience, you are correct. Stat bonuses in 5e mean very little.

 

[Maxperson]

i don't know if it's worse or now when they're then allowed to succeed on those checks because 'the GM thought they RP'd the conversation well'

It really depends.

What I do is to funnel the RP through the charisma of the PC, so a player who stumbles and isn't eloquent, but has a PC with a 20 charisma, will sound really well spoken to NPCs. The reverse is also true, the eloquent voice actor types who have low charisma PCs will sound to NPCs like a braying donkey.

That said, sometimes the braying donkey makes an amazing point that an NPC wouldn't ignore, and the eloquent PC says something so horrible that the NPC wouldn't react well. Auto successes and failures are sometimes warranted regardless of the PCs high or low charisma.

 

[ECMO3]

If by debilitating you mean barely an inconvenience, you are correct. Stat bonuses in 5e mean very little.

There is a HUGE statistical difference between a player with a 13 in their main ability score at level 1 and another player with a 20 in their main ability score and there is less of a difference if that is a 14 or 15.

 

[ECMO3]

And your min maxing is an even less compelling reason to change it from the way it is.

If just one D&D player out of the millions that exist want to put it on another ability that is a pretty compelling reason IMO when there is no reason at all not to have it that way.

Me being able to put my Soldier's +1 on dexterity in no way stops you from putting your Soldier's ASI on Strength if that makes more sense for the story you are telling with your character.

 

[Maxperson]

No, even at lower levels it's not a big deal. It's called having a variety of encounters and role playing a story. If one person dominates all combat encounters, then it is quite obvious that the encounters are not balanced nor varietal. Everyone always insists the +1 makes a HUGE difference - it doesn't.

The +1 is so inconsequential that it will almost never have a visible or meaningful effect in game play.

 

[Maxperson]

If just one D&D player out of the millions that exist want to put it on another ability that is a pretty compelling reason IMO when there is no reason at all not to have it that way.

Hardly. That is counterbalanced by "If just one D&D player likes the bonuses attached to backgrounds, that's a pretty compelling reason to have it that way."

If you want it to be unattached, get your DM to detach the bonuses. As it currently stands, the bonuses mostly make sense for the backgrounds in question and it doesn't make sense to get rid of that just so min-maxers can go to town. Min-maxers are a small minority of players. The overwhelming majority of players are casual gamers. The game should be designed for them, not you.

Me being able to put my Soldier's +1 on dexterity in no way stops you from putting your Soldier's ASI on Strength if that makes more sense for the story you are telling with your character.

Then talk your DM into changing it for you. If I were the DM and you were making an archer or you could come up with some other dex based soldier, I'd go for it. The vast majority of soldiers, though, are put through strength and endurance training as their primary.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

ASIs should be freely-assigned and Background abilities should be tied to the main ability score of the character using them unless there's an obvious reason they shouldn't be.

ASI should have been removed entirely. "Here's a few extra points...because."

You have stat buy points. Just raise them if you think its not high enough. The way it is done now is silly.

 

[ECMO3]

nah the law of consequences will fix that either with Barbarian learning they suck and keep screwing the party or they piss off some important NPC and die. This is only a problem if the DM refuses to DM properly.

2 years and not fixed yet, in the slowest running game I am playing.