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

[saviirkad]

I did want the ASIs removed from species, but felt like them being moved to Backgrounds just punted the problem rather than fixing it entirely, which in my opinion Tasha's already did. Plus I think the 2014 Background features were too big of a loss.

Which is fine, like it isn't the direction I would have preferred but that's an easy house-rule to do. 2014 Backgrounds + Tasha's ASI + 2024 Origin Feat.

 

[Voadam]

I wonder if there's an ironic overlap of the people who complained about the removal of ASI from species because it eliminated their "biological uniqueness" and the people who complain about ASI's from backgrounds because players should be free to choose where to put their ASIs.

I can only say I preferred the removal of ASI from species in Tashas and I complain about background-tied ASIs in 24.

 

[ECMO3]

I wonder if there's an ironic overlap of the people who complained about the removal of ASI from species because it eliminated their "biological uniqueness" and the people who complain about ASI's from backgrounds because players should be free to choose where to put their ASIs.

I am against both. I would think most people against species ASIs are also against background ASIs.

 

[ECMO3]

I'm defining in play as mechanical play.

Well mechanics are not all that matter. Some things besides mechanics matter to some people.

Also why even have a restriction if there is no mechanical significance? If something is gamebreaking mechanically, that is a good reason to consider rules to curtail it, but this has very little effect so why are you against it? Your argument essentially is: ASIs have almost no effect on play and because of that we must restrict them. It is really a bizarre position.

The reason is that the majority loses their accommodation.

What accomodation? Are you really suggesting they are accommodating a supposed majority by not allowing others to customize their characters the way they want to?

I mean if I want a Guard with Tough and a Dexterity bonus, what "majority" is being accomodated by not letting me do that?

There is no reason to allow nonsensical stat/background combinations just so min maxers don't have to ask their DM.

There is no reason to disallow it for anyone and I am not just talking about the min/maxers here.

Also how is it nonsensical? A tough dexterous Guard is not nonsensical, as a matter of fact it makes a lot more sense than a tough Farmer, a strong Artisan or most laughably a Sage with a high Constitution.

 

[Maxperson]

Well mechanics are not all that matter. Some things besides mechanics matter to some people.

Sure, but stat bonuses don't need to be changed to cater to a minority of people.

Also why even have a restriction if there is no mechanical significance?

Theme. That's why. The bonuses mostly match the theme of background, where the stats that aren't given bonuses mostly fail to meet the theme of the background.

Your argument essentially is: ASIs have almost no effect on play and because of that we must restrict them. It is really a bizarre position.

This is a rather blatant Strawman of what I have been saying. It's such a bizarre alteration of my argument, that it's more like a Strawarmy.

Are you really suggesting they are accommodating a supposed majority by not allowing others to customize their characters the way they want to?

Min-maxers who want to use stats that don't make sense for the background are a very small minority of players. The overwhelming majority of people are casual players who aren't going to be trying to eek out small advances in power via bonuses that don't make sense for the background.

I mean if I want a Guard with Tough and a Dexterity bonus, what "majority" is being accomodated by not letting me do that?

Dex bonuses don't make sense for a guard background. Strength does. Constitution does. Wisdom does. Dexterity, charisma, and intelligence do not.

There is no reason to disallow it for anyone and I am not just talking about the min/maxers here.

Also how is it nonsensical? A tough dexterous Guard is not nonsensical, as a matter of fact it makes a lot more sense than a tough Farmer, a strong Artisan or most laughably a Sage with a high Constitution.

A dexterous guard isn't nonsensical. Guards getting a dex bonus based on being a guard is, though. The profession trains people to be strong, stay at attention or on patrol for long periods of time, and be good at detecting falsehoods in stories people give them. They aren't trained to be agile. Any agile guard got that dexterity from something other than the guard background. Such as say you putting a 14 into dex.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why do you (falsely) equate character customization to min-maxing? What actually breaks if players can customize their backgrounds?

That's fair. It should probably be called character optimization, not min/maxing. And nothing breaks if players can customize backgrounds. But the opposite of that is true as well - nothing breaks if players have to choose pre-made backgrounds from the PHB.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wonder if there's an ironic overlap of the people who complained about the removal of ASI from species because it eliminated their "biological uniqueness" and the people who complain about ASI's from backgrounds because players should be free to choose where to put their ASIs.

I know for me, I argued against removing the ASI for the same reason I argue now. It boils down to people just wanting a +1. That's it. Starting with a 15 instead of a 16 does not alter the game, nor does it alter your play/output by any significant difference. Therefore, I am happy to let people have that extra +1 if they admit they're arguing for a +1. It's not because background ASIs don't make sense. It's not because WotC didn't think them through. It's not because it truly hurts their PC. It is because they want a +1.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

Those stats are so broken, I have no idea where you got them.

The difference here, in this thread, is between starting a character with an extra +1. That's it.

A +1 difference is nominal at best. A fighter swinging with an extra +1 scores an extra hit 5% more often. So provided they hit 60% of the time, over the course of TWENTY attacks, they do a whopping 12 + 1d10+1 damage more. TWENTY rounds. Oh my goodness, buff fighter #1 dropped an extra orc in twenty rounds of combat compared to that other slightly buff fighter #2. Crazy. I guess fighter #2 is worthless.

And that of course implies everything is static in a fight, which it isn't.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't think it does "work" for most players. Certainly most of the people on this thread seem to be against it, as are virtually everyone I play with both as a DM and a player.

There are millions of people playing this game. This forum by no means represents the majority. That's like me saying, "Most players I know like the 2024 rules more than the 2014. They agree the game is way better, especially character creation." What I say, and the people I know, does not make it correct. Same can be said for this forum.

So two players who I DMed for who disagree with your position on this must be 14-year olds?

You asked a specific question, I answered your specific question, with details. Now you don't like that answer, and worse feel the need to denigrate the very people you asked about!

Do players feel useless because someone in the party gets a +1 weapon? Answer- yes some do. No need to start insulting them .... or me.

Sorry, but I am not feeling guilty about calling someone out. You literally said this was their actions:

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.

And then you conveniently ignored all the questions and replies I placed in as to why this sounds very much like a child-like behavior.

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.

Again, I ask you: Are they willing to dump all their character's lore-knowledge, background info, NPC bonding, and most importantly, the connections they built to other PCs in the party? Are they willing to throw all of the above away because they didn't get a +1 weapon, yet another PC did? If the answer is yes, then that is very child-like behavior, so my question stands - Are they a young teenager?

 

[Marc17]

A dexterous guard isn't nonsensical. Guards getting a dex bonus based on being a guard is, though. The profession trains people to be strong, stay at attention or on patrol for long periods of time, and be good at detecting falsehoods in stories people give them. They aren't trained to be agile. Any agile guard got that dexterity from something other than the guard background. Such as say you putting a 14 into dex.

Eh, if you are a patrolling guard, then it makes sense to get Dex. Need to be quick to run and get the guy you see, or run back and raise the alarm.

Still, there's only 13 backgrounds? Not enough to be nearly comprehensive. Works fine for new players or experienced players for the first character or two. I think it was always meant for people who care to just make their own backgrounds for their characters. Sure, it's in the DMG, rather than the PHB, and that may be the wrong place for it. While playing 5.24 for the first time with my group, the most often raised complaint was the poor proofreading and arrangement of content. They were allowed to pick out a magic item at one point and one was going on about one that was obviously copy and pasted from 5.14 as it made reference to rules that were no longer in the game.