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

[Maxperson]

That's some spin. You should be a politician

Who also use charisma!!

But seriously. Folks call dex the god stat, but it's not. Charisma is. While you are using your dex to win initiative, hit better, and be harder to hit in that fight, I've talked my fight out of fighting me, had it join my side, and sent it off to fight another one of my enemies.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Who also use charisma!!

no, obviously politicians really need constitution, so that they can endure long meetings in uncomfortable chairs and make their saves VS sleep.

 

[Uta-napishti]

2024 Backgrounds are the the "racial bonuses" or "racial level caps" of this edition. Almost an unplayable situation where the mechanics and lore split. Even official organized play is not going along with this disaster, and AL allows creating a custom background (Background Feats, Old Backgrounds, Human, and Custom Lineage).

 

[W'rkncacnter]

2024 Backgrounds are the the "racial bonuses" or "racial level caps" of this edition. Almost an unplayable situation where the mechanics and lore split. Even official organized play is not going along with this disaster, and AL allows creating a custom background (Background Feats, Old Backgrounds, Human, and Custom Lineage).

2024 backgrounds are such a mess even AL lets you avoid them

 

[ECMO3]

It also highlights the trap of tying yourself to a single weapon type from feats too early.

I agree with this. As far as being disfunctional, I am a big believer in you be you. I am not going to tell you how to play your character as long as you are not destructive or antisocial.

It is no skin off my back if he wants a new character.

 

[ECMO3]

2024 backgrounds are such a mess even AL lets you avoid them

Yeah this is pretty telling, when the official organized play for 2024 avoids their own WOTC backgrounds, while making the DMs contractually do everything RAW.

 

[ECMO3]

There are many reasons why class doesn't make sense to house ASIs from a roleplaying perspective.

Tying them to class makes a crapload more sense than a +1 Charisma on a Hermit.

But that is neither here nor there. It should be this: A background is how you grew up as a child. That is what develops you. You're the son of a pirate that's been sailing since you were 2 years old. You probably have good balance and some bowed legs.

I am the son of a Pirate, sailing since I was 2 years old, sharing a hammock, dealing with Scurvy, Seasickness, Legioners, Tuberculosis and living off of rat infested rations for months at a time. I get drunk in every port ...... yet somehow Constitution makes no sense as an ASI?

 

[ECMO3]

They've made some questionable decisions.

Ok so they can't figure out how to get the backgrounds right .... like I said in the title.

Thank you for proving my point. So even if I take your list as completely against sense, that's still only 10 out of 48 stats that don't make sense

Right but 9 out of 16 backgrounds that are screwed up.

And this is the key point - I can take an ASI that does not make sense in over half of the WOTC backgrounds already. If your position is only thematic options should be available, then the published backgrounds do not afford that.

Your whole argument rests on the idea that one should not be allowed to take an ASI that does not make sense for a background, and if the printed backgrounds already allow you to do this then what is the difference between that and having someone take a another ASI or just choosing an ASI.

1) Strength makes sense for sculpters and other similar artisans who would have trouble if they were weak. Stone carving requires strength.

For some miniscule examples. Certainly less than guards who would require Constitution. Yet Guards can't get Constitution.

2) Intelligence is a prime requisite for criminal masterminds, a major criminal archetype.

Strength is a prime requisite for many criminals, including numerous criminal archetypea. Charisma is also a prime requisite for most "criminal masterminds" especially con men and for a lot of thugs. Intelligence simply makes less sense than those two attributes

3) Wisdom is essential for a Wayfarer(urchin). It allows you to read people and notice dangers, which are major survival traits. Street smarts is wisdom, not intelligence.

A Wayfarer is a person who travels on foot or more colloquially a travelor. Constitution and Strength are their biggest two abilities this should be tied to, neither of which are available.

Tell me, why do Wayfarers have Charisma?

So 3 of your 10 aren't out of theme.

They all are. You can come up with these corner cases of where those abilities are appropriate, but there are more appropriate abilities in all those examples.

If you opened up every background to all 6 abilities you could come up with equally compelling one offs comparable to a "criminal mastermind" or a "sculptor".

WotC messed up on 7 out of 48 stats, leaving my statement that they got most of the stat bonuses correct to be the true statement, not your statement that they messed up most of the stat bonuses.

But this is about ASIs not matching the background thematically. If WOTC allows me to take an ASI that does not match the background then you agument holds no weight.

Guards rely more on their official status and the might of the government behind them for deterrence.

IN D&D parlance it is Charisma, and most of the time it is dress that distinguishes them, not some official status.

Officers who receive training to be officers would be trained in charisma, but not your rank and file guard.

I am not talking about officers or Law enforcement here, I am talking about guards. Intimidation (and persuasion) is Charisma in D&D and these are both part of the job.

I do agree that some backgrounds would have more than 3 to pick from, but I don't see any that would have all 6.

But they don't have more than 3 and if it is by Thematics some should have less than 3, but they don't - Ergo WOTC can't figure out how to do backgrounds.

It's not charisma. First, if there were no guard in a bank, I wouldn't rob it or get into a fight. Second, it's not the guard that would be deterring me. It would be 1) the law.

It is against the law whether a guard is there or not. IF the law was a deterrent the guard would be useless.

2) the gun he's wearing.

Intimidation!

I don't value death or major injury,

Intimidation!

and lastly 3) For some it's physical size(strength).

Size and Strength are not the same thing, especially in D&D where I can have a 30lb Halfling with a 20 Strength at 1st level (as long as I choose the right background) and swing a sword twice my size.

But when we are talking about big men. IRL I will agree being big does have some inherent advantages when it comes to being physically intimidating, but it still comes down to how you carry yourself. There are plenty of big teddy bears.

The ones that don't patrol for hours on end, stand at attention for hours on end. Very few guards get to sit around all day trying to inspire people with their charisma. Endurance is a major factor in being a guard or soldier.

Soldier is an entirely different background and an entirely different job and GUARDS DON'T GET TO TAKE CONSTITUTION.

You are sitting here telling me this is essential to the job, yet I can't take an ASI in it!

2 out of 3 still results in most stat bonuses making thematic sense, which is my claim.

No it doesn't, not if I choose intelligence as my bonus.

This is the point, the backgrounds as they are allow for non-thematic choices.

Thematically damaged. They are not broken, because with 2 out of 3 making sense, just pick +2, +1 from the two that do make sense and the background functions just fine.

If they allowed all 6 abilities you could still choose those two and it would function "just fine" and if they allow one that isn't, then you can "break the game" by picking it, which is no different than if they allowed all 6.

At the end of the day, if they allowed all 6 abilities you could make a more thematically appropriate character for at least 9 out of the 16 backgrounds by replacing the one that doesn't belong with something else.

:::sigh::: There is no hypocrisy anywhere in my position. You appear not to be able to understand what "most" means.

You appear not to understand that offering one non-thematic option means you can take a non-thematic ASI with that background.

That means that SOME do not make thematic sense. Pulling out these few that don't make sense as some sort of attempt at a gotcha to catch me at "hypocrisy" is not going to be effective.

Your claim: "To the extent that the bonuses exist at all, they should be tied thematically to the backgrounds. "

That is what you said and as a point of fact in the WOTC published backgrounds there are many examples of ASIs that are not tied thematically to the backgrounds they are part of.

They have flaws, but given that the other two stats make sense, just take +2, +1 in those and the background works perfectly in theme.

And you could do the same thing if they allowed all 6 abilities.

You don't see a contradiction here - it is fine to allow ASIs that don't make sense ..... you can't allow ASIs that don't make sense.

Acolyte provides three bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

Debatable. I would argue it should be cut to two.

Artisan provides three bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

Not the three that are most appropriate

Charlatan provides two bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen

Criminal provides two bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

It provides one that is actually thematically appropriate. You mounted a rather weak defense of intelligence above, what is your excuse for Constitution?

Strength is more appropriate that Constitution or Intelligence certainly.

Entertainer provides two bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen

Guard provides two bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen

Hermite provides two bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen

Merchant provides two bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen

Sage provides three bonuses bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

How is Constitution thematically appropriate for a Sage?

Sailor provides three bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

But it leaves off the most appropriate ability thematically - Constitution

Wayfarer provides three bonuses that are thematically appropriate.

Wayfarer leaves off the two most appropriate abilities and provides one that is marginal at best.

That's 100% of the backgrounds providing thematically appropriate bonuses.

And numerous examples, even by your own admission where ability increases exist that are not thematically, something you said should not happen.

 

[ECMO3]

You guys are super enamored with the meaningless percentages. If your PC does 1 point of damage and suddenly he does 2 points of damage, that's a 100%!!!!111!!!!1!!! increase! That's such a huge and meaningful contribution to combat now! It blows your paltry 27% increase out of the water.

The claim was it is a 5% difference. That claim is mathematically false.

It's still only 1 extra point of damage on a hit. Those are nearly meaningless to mechanical play.

Damage matters and when a character does 5.5 damage on a hit, doing 1 more damage, even if you don't hit more, is an 18% increase when you do hit. In combat damage is the metric, not how often you hit. Doing 25% more damage per attack is the same as decreasing every monster's hit points by 20%.

Using your very example - a 1st level character making an unarmed strike with an 11 strength doing 1hp of damage will kill a 7hp 12 AC Goblin in 7 hits or 13 rounds on average. The same character with a 12 strength doing 2hp damage per strike will kill the Goblin in 4 hits or 6 rounds on average. That is a huge difference!

Moving up to a larger weapon - level 1 PC stabbing the Goblin with a shortsword, +2 to damage vs +3 to damage is the difference between the Goblin with full hps dying 37% of the time when you hit vs the Goblin dying 53% of the time when you hit and that is before you even consider that you hit 5% more to boot, and its before the multipliers for things like Vex are included.

Math matters in these sorts of discussions.

It doesn't matter what the percentage increase is. It's still only 1 extra hit every 20 swings on average for a 1st level PC.

You are wrong on two of the three examples I provided.

Against AC 14 with a 15 vs a 16 strength it is

1 more hit out of every 20 swings (20 rounds) for the guy swinging the longsword (you are correct on this one)

2.2 more hits every 20 swings (20 rounds) for the character swinging the Greataxe

1.4 more hits every 20 swings (10 rounds) or 2.8 more hits every 20 rounds for two weapon fighter.

All of those hits also do more damage and both the Greataxe and the Two weapon fighter also have a higher crit rate on top of this.

 

[Maxperson]

Right but 9 out of 16 backgrounds that are screwed up.

And this is the key point - I can take an ASI that does not make sense in over half of the WOTC backgrounds already. If your position is only thematic options should be available, then the published backgrounds do not afford that.

This is fairly blatantly false statement. They do in fact afford that. In all of them you can pick at least two that do make sense thematically, and two is all you need.

Your whole argument rests on the idea that one should not be allowed to take an ASI that does not make sense for a background, and if the printed backgrounds already allow you to do this then what is the difference between that and having someone take a another ASI or just choosing an ASI.

I'm sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. That they have included a few stats that are not thematically correct doesn't mean that it should just all be tossed out of the window and every thematically incorrect stat should be on the table. Rather the answer is to correct the few thematically wrong stats.

Strength is a prime requisite for many criminals, including numerous criminal archetypea. Charisma is also a prime requisite for most "criminal masterminds" especially con men and for a lot of thugs. Intelligence simply makes less sense than those two attributes

So your position is that criminal geniuses shouldn't be smart? Strength is only used by thugs, a rather small portion of criminals and those thugs generally use charisma more than their strength as they intimidate businesses into paying the protection money or convince deadbeats to pay up on the loan.

A Wayfarer is a person who travels on foot or more colloquially a travelor. Constitution and Strength are their biggest two abilities this should be tied to, neither of which are available.

The wayfarer is the new name for the urchin. Read the background. It's not about a wanderer.

Tell me, why do Wayfarers have Charisma?

Because they are beggars who live off their ability to get people to give them money.

If you opened up every background to all 6 abilities you could come up with equally compelling one offs comparable to a "criminal mastermind" or a "sculptor".

ROFL Sculptors and criminal masterminds are not corner cases. A corner case is your dex guard.

But this is about ASIs not matching the background thematically. If WOTC allows me to take an ASI that does not match the background then you agument holds no weight.

Um, no. My argument is not dependent on WotC in any way, shape or form.

IN D&D parlance it is Charisma, and most of the time it is dress that distinguishes them, not some official status.

No it's not. That's not even close to being correct. Having government backup doesn't suddenly raise your charisma, or every PC would get a charisma bump whenever the local lord hires them to do something.

I am not talking about officers or Law enforcement here, I am talking about guards. Intimidation (and persuasion) is Charisma in D&D and these are both part of the job.

Guards are law enforcement in D&D. A bodyguard is something different.

It is against the law whether a guard is there or not. IF the law was a deterrent the guard would be useless.

Right. The guard is there to thump you with the strength he was trained to have, take hits with the con he was trained to have, and figure out your lies with the wisdom he was trained to have. He's the back-up to the law.

Intimidation!

Intimidation!

You got me! That gun totally has a 20 charisma and intimidated me. The guard, not so much. Having a weapon =/= charisma, no matter how much you would like it to.

But when we are talking about big men. IRL I will agree being big does have some inherent advantages when it comes to being physically intimidating, but it still comes down to how you carry yourself. There are plenty of big teddy bears.

And you don't know that until after you interact with them. A lot of people get intimidated by big guys who are very gentle.

Soldier is an entirely different background and an entirely different job and GUARDS DON'T GET TO TAKE CONSTITUTION.

You are sitting here telling me this is essential to the job, yet I can't take an ASI in it!

Then change it and stop complaining about it. If I ever run 5.5e, I will be changing all those wrong stats to ones that make sense, like con for guards.

The answer is to fix the ones that are wrong, not add tons of more wrong stats to take.

At the end of the day, if they allowed all 6 abilities you could make a more thematically appropriate character for at least 9 out of the 16 backgrounds by replacing the one that doesn't belong with something else.

At the end of the day, if you allowed all 6 abilities, every single background could be used to have two or three thematically incorrect stats in the PC with the background. As it stands you cannot do that. What you propose makes the problem worse, not better.

You don't see a contradiction here - it is fine to allow ASIs that don't make sense ..... you can't allow ASIs that don't make sense.

There is no contradiction in what I have been saying.

Debatable. I would argue it should be cut to two.



Not the three that are most appropriate



And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen



It provides one that is actually thematically appropriate. You mounted a rather weak defense of intelligence above, what is your excuse for Constitution?

Strength is more appropriate that Constitution or Intelligence certainly.




And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen




And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen



And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen



And provides an ASI that is not thematically tied to it, something that you said should not happen



How is Constitution thematically appropriate for a Sage?



But it leaves off the most appropriate ability thematically - Constitution



Wayfarer leaves off the two most appropriate abilities and provides one that is marginal at best.

What it boils down to is that you'd rather make the problem worse, than to make it better. I would rather make it better.

The argument, "Look over there! That one does it a little wrong, so we should be able to do everything wrong!" fails on its face. Nothing you have said is a good reason to open up all 6 stats to all backgrounds. Compounding the problem isn't making it better.