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

[Tessarael]

The game should be designed such that thematically appropriate choices are not mechanically poor choices. This is an entirely reasonable criticism of the system.

Tying ability score increases to backgrounds in D&D 2024 means that you need to be somewhat careful selecting a background to match your intended build. It's the equivalent problem of needing to select a race based on ability score modifiers in 5E. There are quite a few backgrounds with different ability score increase options, so this is not overly restrictive.

However, having your background also determine your origin feat is a major problem in the design of D&D 2024, because there's often zero choice if you want that origin feat. It would have been easy to fix this mechanically, if they had made this "suggested origin feat" rather than the only origin feat that a given background gets. I presume that this issue is sufficiently obvious that it was caught in play testing for D&D 2024. I assume that the designers either felt that it was unimportant, or that flexible and experienced DMs would allow alternative origin feats to be selected for characters that found their desired background wasn't a good match in that regard. (As mentioned earlier in this thread, it is already covered by how backgrounds from older source books are handled per the bottom left sidebar on page 38 of the D&D 2024 Player's Handbook.)

The main argument for limiting origin feat by background is to simplify building a character for new players, or for those who don't want to delve into the mechanical trade-offs of alternative selections. That's fine, and makes sense, I am just surprised that they didn't at least make it an option in a sidebar to select different origin feats.

Origin feat being tied to background is a real issue for me with D&D 2024. When making a character, I would select background based on a match of desired ability scores to add the bonus in + origin feat, and as origin feat is highly restrictive of background, that's going to greatly limit what backgrounds I consider for a character build. As an example, let's say you want to have the Tough origin feat for +2 HP/level, well that means you have to be a Farmer, though you might thematically prefer say Soldier (e.g., for a Fighter) or Acolyte (e.g., for a war Cleric). Now if I don't want to be Farmer but still have the Tough origin feat, I either need to ask the DM for permission, or if the DM permits older backgrounds, I just take a non-D&D 2024 background so that I can select whatever origin feat I want ... That seems really bad game design from a marketing perspective, as now you've got players looking at older materials, instead of buying the latest and greatest D&D 2024 book with awesome new backgrounds.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Origin feat being tied to background is a real issue for me with D&D 2024. When making a character, I would select background based on a match of desired ability scores to add the bonus in + origin feat, and as origin feat is highly restrictive of background, that's going to greatly limit what backgrounds I consider for a character build. As an example, let's say you want to have the Tough origin feat for +2 HP/level, well that means you have to be a Farmer, though you might thematically prefer say Soldier (e.g., for a Fighter) or Acolyte (e.g., for a war Cleric). Now if I don't want to be Farmer but still have the Tough origin feat, I either need to ask the DM for permission, or if the DM permits older backgrounds, I just take a non-D&D 2024 background so that I can select whatever origin feat I want ... That seems really bad game design from a marketing perspective, as now you've got players looking at older materials, instead of buying the latest and greatest D&D 2024 book with awesome new backgrounds.

Just to let you know that in the new books we have 2 new backgrounds that grant Tough, one is a mercenary guard type background the other is a Barbarian nomadic tribal like background

 

[Maxperson]

The game should be designed such that thematically appropriate choices are not mechanically poor choices. This is an entirely reasonable criticism of the system.

Tying ability score increases to backgrounds in D&D 2024 means that you need to be somewhat careful selecting a background to match your intended build.

Except the +1 is pretty meaningless. Let's say it's put into strength. You will hit on average 1 extra time every 20 swings. Before you get your extra attack, and the average combat length being 3 rounds, that extra hit will come once every 6-7 fights. And given that many/most fights have multiple enemies with large bags of hit points, you'll never even notice that extra hit. Nor will you notice the +1 extra damage per hit doing much of anything. Even with extra attack it's still going to be once every 3-4 fights, which still won't be noticeable.

People are falling into the trap of thinking 5e is like prior editions which had bonus treadmills, so each +1 was actually important. In 5e they just aren't.

The stat bonus is pretty much just thematic as well.

 

[Scott Christian]

The game should be designed such that thematically appropriate choices are not mechanically poor choices. This is an entirely reasonable criticism of the system.

Tying ability score increases to backgrounds in D&D 2024 means that you need to be somewhat careful selecting a background to match your intended build. It's the equivalent problem of needing to select a race based on ability score modifiers in 5E. There are quite a few backgrounds with different ability score increase options, so this is not overly restrictive.

Again, incorrect. You don't need to be careful because an extra +1 doesn't mean that much. This is especially true at higher levels. And on top of that, it completely ignores the other benefits one gets from having a bonus in a tertiary ability. The same was true when ASIs were tied to species. The entire argument ignores the benefits the species brought.

The entire argument is about having a +3 instead of a +2. That's it. A mere +1 difference.

Tell me, when you have two fighters in a group, and one of them gets a +1 sword, does the second fighter instantly feel worthless? Are they not a good build anymore? The answer, of course, is no. They're still both fighters, and over the course of a session, no one notices that mere +1 difference.

 

[ECMO3]

People are falling into the trap of thinking 5e is like prior editions which had bonus treadmills, so each +1 was actually important. In 5e they just aren't.

You are falling into the trap of thinking that just because a +1 does not cross your arbitrary threshold for statistical relevance, that it does not mean something to the player.

Even if the +1 never, ever matters in an entire campaign, it still matters to player when they are creating the character and that is all that should count in this discussion.

The stat bonus is pretty much just thematic as well.

Well this certainly supports my position!

If the stat bonus is thematic and you are restricting it, then by definition you are not allowing people to build to the thematic that the player wants to build to!

 

[ECMO3]

Again, incorrect. You don't need to be careful because an extra +1 doesn't mean that much.

So you admit it does mean something then.

"Not much" is still something and that is enough said IMO.

Tell me, when you have two fighters in a group, and one of them gets a +1 sword, does the second fighter instantly feel worthless? Are they not a good build anymore?

To be brutally honest yes, I have players claim they felt worthless in play because of the magic weapons other members of the party found.

Most often it is due to the Feats they take, most notably PAM and/or GWM. But I have had both a Fighter and a Barbarian ask to build a new character because they did not get a +1 Glaive or Halberd, while the other players got +1 weapons.

 

[Scott Christian]

So you admit it does mean something then.

"Not much" is still something and that is enough said IMO.

I absolutely admit it means something. It does. However, it doesn't mean enough to call the new system "screwed up." It doesn't mean enough to want to change a system that works for millions of players.

To be brutally honest yes, I have players claim they felt worthless in play because of the magic weapons other members of the party found.

Most often it is due to the Feats they take, most notably PAM and/or GWM. But I have had both a Fighter and a Barbarian ask to build a new character because they did not get a +1 Glaive or Halberd, while the other players got +1 weapons.

Are they 14 years-old? Do you play using all three pillars? Does the DM do a good job highlighting individuals?

I mean, you can forget all those questions. The simple fact that you had a player wanting to ditch their character, something I suppose they developed over time, due to a 5% difference is silly and ridiculous. So all their backstory, their role-playing sessions and connections to NPCs, their explorations and knowledge of the campaign world, their finding of other equipment or magic items, and most importantly, their interplay with the other PCs and the experiences they bonded over - none of it matters to them? They will throw it all away over a +1. Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?

It sounds to me you're not playing a role-playing game, but a combat simulator.

 

[Maxperson]

You are falling into the trap of thinking that just because a +1 does not cross your arbitrary threshold for statistical relevance, that it does not mean something to the player.

No I'm not. If it means something to you, it means something to you. It just means next to nothing in game play. To most people, though, it means something because they've fallen into that habit from prior editions or because they don't understand how meaningless to game play it actually is.

Well this certainly supports my position!

If the stat bonus is thematic and you are restricting it, then by definition you are not allowing people to build to the thematic that the player wants to build to!

If by support you mean is completely contrary to it, then you would be correct. The bonuses are part of the background theme, which makes them thematically relevant and should stay that way. Removing the thematic portion doesn't keep it in theme.

 

[Horwath]

The entire argument is about having a +3 instead of a +2. That's it. A mere +1 difference.

I will agree, that +1 is not game breaking, but it also in not trivial.

depending on weapon use and what riders(if any) are on attacks it can be 15% more damage for +1 extra, maybe even 20%

and if you have your modifier lower by 2, that would make "optimal" user do 30-50% more damage on average.

20 vs 16 strength/dexterity is really huge
20 vs 18 is noticeable, but usually not a big problem

 

[Maxperson]

I will agree, that +1 is not game breaking, but it also in not trivial.

depending on weapon use and what riders(if any) are on attacks it can be 15% more damage for +1 extra, maybe even 20%

And that's still trivial. It's like when they say your chances of a heart attack go up 50%!!!! It's still .0003 or whatever.

That +1 is one extra hit every 6 or 7 combats and +1 damage per hit against bunches of large bags of hit points. It's trivial what it gives you.