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

[Maxperson]

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

The claim was you will hit 5% more often. The actual claim, and not your Strawman, is mathematically correct.

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%.

+1 is 6.5 damage. The 18% is utterly irrelevant. It's a Red Herring designed to try and trick people away from what matters. What matters is that it's a single, solitary, extra point of damage on that hit. That hit that just struck a huge bag of hit points, standing next to three other huge bags of hit points.

That single point of extra damage is bupkis in the scheme of things. You're galaxies better off with something like War Caster or Sentinel than a point extra damage from raising your stat by 2. Hell, any feat is better than that +1.

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!

Why? He's dead in 3-4 rounds because the goblin does a lot more damage. In any case, white room mumbo jumbo doesn't show it like it will be in actual game play, where that extra point is pretty meaningless.

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.

Sure. You can cherry pick a monster to make it seem like it matters, but when you're facing goblins, you are facing a LOT of goblins, which is why their hit points are so low. Ultimately, it's not really going to matter a whole heck of a lot. And you aren't going to be 1st level forever, or even for more than a small handful of sessions(often one session). Then hit points rise dramatically in monsters.

So your corner case of a single goblin at 1st level is just that. A corner case, and I never said it would never make a difference. I just said it would make almost no different. You found a corner case scenario where that "almost" is in effect.

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.

So since combats average 3 rounds, the greataxe will hit one extra time every 3-4 combats. Wow! Time for me to really get myself that +1 instead of taking Sentinel or some other feat. The two weapon fighter will need even more combats to see the extra hit.

Oh, wait. That greatsword bonus is IF there's a second creature close enough, which often isn't the case. I bet you factored in a close enough creature for every swing in order to hit that 2.2 more hits number.

 

[ECMO3]

This is fairly blatantly false statement. They do in fact afford that.

It is not blatantly false. The WOTC backgrounds afford non-thematic options, something you say should not happen.

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.

Why not? If all the abilities were on the table you could still put your ASIs in the two that are appropriate.

Rather the answer is to correct the few thematically wrong stats.

IF you don't think the backgrounds are flawed why do they need to be

So your position is that criminal geniuses shouldn't be smart?

No my position is criminal geniuses are less of a criminal archetype than dexteritous Guards are.

"Criminal genius" is a fringe example that you are using solely to justify Intelleligence being there.

And I am still waiting on your answer to why Constitution makes sense for a Criminal.

Strength belongs there, you know it and you are dodging.

Strength is only used by thugs, a rather small portion of criminals

A far, far larger portion of criminals than "criminal geniuses". I have never met a criminal genius IRL, I have met plenty of thugs, then add in rapists, car jackers, murders.

Strength makes far more sense than Intelligence (or Constitution) for a "criminal"

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.

Many do yes. Charisma also makes more sense than Constitution or Intelligence.

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

I have seen plenty of guards that are dexteritous and very proficient with firearms (Dexterity). I have never met a "criminal mastermind" or a sculptor and I am not convinced a sculptor needs to be strong anyway.

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

If you are arguing that WOTC does good backgrounds, which is what this thread is about (read the title) then it absolutely does have to do with WOTC.

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.

What are you talking about "government backup". Guards are not typically part of the government.

Guards are law enforcement in D&D.

They can be, as Soldiers can be. But that is not all inclusive of what a guard is and it is not what most guards are.

A bodyguard is something different.

A bodyguard is a Guard.

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.

EXCEPT HE DOESN'T HAVE CONSTITUTION!

You got me! That gun totally has a 20 charisma and intimidated me.

No it didn't. If you live in most states in the U.S. people are carrying guns around you all the time and you don't even know it most of the time. What intimidated you was his presentation of the Firearm, how he dressed.

The guard, not so much. Having a weapon =/= charisma, no matter how much you would like it to.

Intimidating you with it absolutely is Charisma.

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.

And a lot of people don't,

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.

Ok so you will be changing the Backgrounds that WOTC does a good job at building. Why do you need to change them if WOTC already built them right?

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.

Most of them already allow "thematically incorrect" abilities. Nothing changes.

If your argument is characters should not have "thematically incorrect" ability bonuses then what does it matter if it is 1, 2 or 3? How is the game fundamentally different?

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.

I would rather players decide how to build their characters.

 

[ECMO3]

The claim was you will hit 5% more often.

No it wasn't. Stop lying. The claim was it is "5% less effective"

5% less effective is different tha hitting 5% less often.

The actual claim, and not your Strawman, is mathematically correct.

No it is not.

+1 is 6.5 damage. The 18% is utterly irrelevant.

As noted. That extra point of damage is the difference between a Goblin probably dying and probably not dying. That is not irrelevant.

Why? He's dead in 3-4 rounds because the goblin does a lot more damage. In any case, white room mumbo jumbo doesn't show it like it will be in actual game play, where that extra point is pretty meaningless.

YOU are the one who said doing 1 damage was not different than doing 2 damage. You were wrong and this showed you were wrong.

Sure. You can cherry pick a monster to make it seem like it matters, but when you're facing goblins, you are facing a LOT of goblins, which is why their hit points are so low.

We are talking about 1st level characters, Goblins are a pretty appropriate enemy and the math scales regardless of what level you are and what type of opponent.

Ultimately, it's not really going to matter a whole heck of a lot.

It will matter quite a bit.

And you aren't going to be 1st level forever, or even for more than a small handful of sessions(often one session). Then hit points rise dramatically in monsters.

But you are typically 1st level when you choose your background and where your ASIs go. So it is pretty darn appropriate since that is the PC you are actually building.

So your corner case of a single goblin at 1st level is just that. A corner case, and I never said it would never make a difference. I just said it would make almost no different. You found a corner case scenario where that "almost" is in effect.

Ok pick a different monster and a different level I will still take you to school with the math.

So since combats average 3 rounds, the greataxe will hit one extra time every 3-4 combats. Wow!

YOU said 1 hit in 20 not me. YOU are the one who decided we were looking over "20 swings" not me and YOU were wrong when you said it would only change 1 in 20.

Time for me to really get myself that +1 instead of taking Sentinel or some other feat.

Sentinel already comes with a +1

Oh, wait. That greatsword bonus is IF there's a second creature close enough, which often isn't the case.

No you can't do that with a Greatsword, come back when you understand the 2024 rules.

 

[Maxperson]

It is not blatantly false. The WOTC backgrounds afford non-thematic options, something you say should not happen.

Okay dude. Factually does afford = doesn't afford. got it.

Why not? If all the abilities were on the table you could still put your ASIs in the two that are appropriate.

You just answered your own question.

IF you don't think the backgrounds are flawed why do they need to be

They don't need to be flawed. Nor do they need to be flawed to a much greater degree by allowing all 6 stats. You fix flaws, not make them worse.

No my position is criminal geniuses are less of a criminal archetype than dexteritous Guards are.

And you are wrong. I've seen many, MANY movies and TV shows about evil/criminal geniuses. I've seen none where guards were trained to be agile instead of strong and tough.

And I am still waiting on your answer to why Constitution makes sense for a Criminal.

You'll be waiting forever. I'm not going to argue something that I'm not saying. YOU say why it makes sense.

I have seen plenty of guards that are dexteritous and very proficient with firearms (Dexterity). I have never met a "criminal mastermind" or a sculptor and I am not convinced a sculptor needs to be strong anyway.

Guards can also have a high dex placed into a stat. That coincidence doesn't make it inherent to being a guard. And I'm sorry, but proficient with firearms = proficiency, not dexterity. A dex bonus does not indicate proficiency at all. It indicates natural talent.

If you are arguing that WOTC does good backgrounds, which is what this thread is about (read the title) then it absolutely does have to do with WOTC.

I'm saying that some have one easily avoidable flaw. An easily avoidable flaw doesn't mean that the background is a bad one.

What are you talking about "government backup". Guards are not typically part of the government.

In D&D they usually are.

No it didn't. If you live in most states in the U.S. people are carrying guns around you all the time and you don't even know it most of the time. What intimidated you was his presentation of the Firearm, how he dressed.

Yes. The gun was all it was. His charisma didn't go up because he put a gun on his hip. If it did, my fighter gets like +15 charisma. +1 for the sword on his hip. +1 for the dagger on the other hip. +1 for the bow slung over his back. And +12 for the 12 arrows showing in his quiver.

Intimidating you with it absolutely is Charisma.

He didn't.

Ok so you will be changing the Backgrounds that WOTC does a good job at building. Why do you need to change them if WOTC already built them right?

If your argument is characters should not have "thematically incorrect" ability bonuses then what does it matter if it is 1, 2 or 3? How is the game fundamentally different?

Since someone shouldn't punch you in the face once, what does it matter if he keeps punching you five more times. It's all the same, right?

I would rather players decide how to build their characters.

They already do.

 

[Maxperson]

No it wasn't. Stop lying. The claim was it is "5% less effective"

5% less effective is different tha hitting 5% less often.

First, you don't get to tell me what I have been claiming. I get to tell you. Second, I've refrained from calling you a liar for your constant and blatant misrepresentations of my arguments, even after being corrected several times. Don't do it to me, especially for your error over my claims.

As noted. That extra point of damage is the difference between a Goblin probably dying and probably not dying. That is not irrelevant.

Yes, yes. You found a corner case.

YOU are the one who said doing 1 damage was not different than doing 2 damage. You were wrong and this showed you were wrong.

ROFL Never said that dude. I said the 100% increase sounds big, but is virtually meaningless because it's still only 1 more point of damage.

Shall I call you a liar now?

But you are typically 1st level when you choose your background and where your ASIs go.

I don't know about that. Many games start at 3rd level, since levels 1 and 2 are training wheels levels that most people just don't need after the first time they play the game.

Ok pick a different monster and a different level I will still take you to school with the math.

4 level 2 adventurers against 2 ogres. That's a deadly encounter.

YOU said 1 hit in 20 not me. YOU are the one who decided we were looking over "20 swings" not me and YOU were wrong when you said it would only change 1 in 20.

I don't play 5.5e. So...

Sentinel already comes with a +1

5e Sentinel.

No you can't do that with a Greatsword, come back when you understand the 2024 rules.

Why? How about instead you just ignore the very obvious typo and understand(like everyone who reads that in context) that it was talking about a greataxe?

 

[Scott Christian]

It is oversimplifying it because it had to do with their entire character design and their intended role in the party, not only the magic +1 weapon.

Also it is more than a 5% difference. A drop in attack rolls and damage is going to average quite a bit more than a 5% reduction in number of hits and damage. In tier 2 losing that +1 will cut your damage by about 10-20% typically, more than that VS very high AC when an enemy is difficult to hit.

For example, both of these characters I talked about had the 2014 GWM: doing 21 damage per hit with a 35% hit rate is 7.35 DPA, doing 20 damage with a 30% hit rate is 6 DPA. So that is an 18% reduction in damage due to that loss in +1, not a 5% reduction. Add on to that we were at a level where many monsters were resistant to non-magic weapons, which would make it effectively a 59% reduction in damage. I don't know those numbers are accurate for those characters, but they are pretty close.

A basic 1st level Fighter using a longsword and dueling going from a 15 strength to a 16 strength vs 14AC goes from 4.96 DPR with 15 Strength to 5.93 DPR with 16. That is a 20% increase in damage. Using a Greataxe with Cleave it will take you from 7.15 to 8.56, likewise a 20% increase, dual wielding a shortsword and scimitar with Vex-Nick-TWF it goes from 7.24DPR to 9.18DPR a 27% increase in damage. Not enough to make me scrap my character, but certainly enough to be noticeable.

You do not understand the math behind a +1. You do not understand the math behind the game. And how could you? You still believe its static. There are a million what ifs in each and every encounter:

• What if the bard gave one fighter a bardic inspiration?
• What if one fighter had more movement and got into flanking two more times than the other fighter?
• What if that cultist fanatic casts hold person on one of the fighters?
• What if one of the fighters was tanking a baddie that had resistant to melee, yet the other fighter was fighting a creature that didn't?
• What if the opponent had a really high AC, yet a weakness to wisdom saves?
• What if the creature was flying, and the ranger stepped up and did 90% of the damage?
• What if the opponents targeted the first fighter and dropped him because he was in front when the encounter happened?
• What if the fighter tripped the trap and was poisoned?
• What if most of the attackers started at 120' away, which means the barbarian gets there first and gets an extra attack?
• What if Jon is rolling hot, and Jon #2 isn't?
• What if fighter #1 gets Tenser's Transformation or Haste cast on them, but fighter #2 doesn't?
• What if, what if, what if?

Do your other party members actually make sure to help each of these players equally, so as one doesn't want to quit their character and build a new one? Does your DM make sure they are always fighting the exact same creature during a session? (Meaning, they have no free will to make a choice of where they go in combat.)

It's bonkers that people actually believe the math that you put out. If you understand the variables, you will understand your math is wrong, and 20% increases are ludicrous to think.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can see you are not interested in simply saying "I want an extra +1 at character creation." You want to try and mask it behind this facade of broken numbers, and of course, also not mention how fighters get an extra ability score increase at 6th level, which I guess makes everyone want to play a fighter, right? Because, you know, they are able to have an extra +1 over every other class?

 

[Scott Christian]

You cannot simply weight a +1 in str for a fighter the same as +1 cha for a Fighter either just because they both give bonuses to a few different things.

I don't think they carry the same weight. I never said that. What I said was, you can't discount the non-synergistic bonuses. And, as always, to repeat and rinse, the +1 is minimal, synergistically and non-synergistically.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don't agree. It is really campaign and DM dependent. A flexible DM will adjust things a little to make it work for all the players. For example, either switching what magic items are found so that yes, a polearm is found now and then, or providing a magic market where such items can be procured.

So a DM that has players roll on the magic item table is not a valid approach for this DM. They would be considered unfair by letting the dice decide.

 

[FrogReaver]

You do not understand the math behind a +1. You do not understand the math behind the game. And how could you? You still believe its static. There are a million what ifs in each and every encounter:

• What if the bard gave one fighter a bardic inspiration?
• What if one fighter had more movement and got into flanking two more times than the other fighter?
• What if that cultist fanatic casts hold person on one of the fighters?
• What if one of the fighters was tanking a baddie that had resistant to melee, yet the other fighter was fighting a creature that didn't?
• What if the opponent had a really high AC, yet a weakness to wisdom saves?
• What if the creature was flying, and the ranger stepped up and did 90% of the damage?
• What if the opponents targeted the first fighter and dropped him because he was in front when the encounter happened?
• What if the fighter tripped the trap and was poisoned?
• What if most of the attackers started at 120' away, which means the barbarian gets there first and gets an extra attack?
• What if Jon is rolling hot, and Jon #2 isn't?
• What if fighter #1 gets Tenser's Transformation or Haste cast on them, but fighter #2 doesn't?
• What if, what if, what if?

Do your other party members actually make sure to help each of these players equally, so as one doesn't want to quit their character and build a new one? Does your DM make sure they are always fighting the exact same creature during a session? (Meaning, they have no free will to make a choice of where they go in combat.)

It's bonkers that people actually believe the math that you put out. If you understand the variables, you will understand your math is wrong, and 20% increases are ludicrous to think.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I can see you are not interested in simply saying "I want an extra +1 at character creation." You want to try and mask it behind this facade of broken numbers, and of course, also not mention how fighters get an extra ability score increase at 6th level, which I guess makes everyone want to play a fighter, right? Because, you know, they are able to have an extra +1 over every other class?

+1 mod is usually about a +20% increase after damage and accuracy are factored in.

But I still agree that it’s mostly inconsequential. It’s only maybe 5% of party output. And combats aren’t calibrated that closely and so 5% more output is basically never going to be the difference in winning or losing a combat.

You are right to note that a failed wisdom save might be though.

 

[ECMO3]

First, you don't get to tell me what I have been claiming.

You were not the one I replied to. You did not make that claim. Go read the text I replied to! I quoted it exactly above. The claim I replied to and then you replied to me was specifically:

"5% less effective"

I get to tell you.

You do not get to tell me what other posters claimed, I can read it.

I am sorry I accused you of lying when you were merely mistaken. You are still wrong though about what was claimed.

Yes, yes. You found a corner case.

Not a corner case. Like I said you can choose the level and choose the monster.

funny that I can give an example of a "corner case" that clearly illustrates my point and you can't provide a single example to counter it.

ROFL Never said that dude. I said the 100% increase sounds big, but is virtually meaningless because it's still only 1 more point of damage.

And it is not meaningless when you are only doing 1 point of damage. It is huge. Here are your exact words:

" If your PC does 1 point of damage and suddenly he does 2 points of damage, that's a 100%!!!!111!!!!1!!! increase!"

I provided an example for a PC doing 1 point of difference (your example) and provided the math regarding what the extra point of damage meant in combat.

Shall I call you a liar now?

If I lie about something sure.

I don't know about that. Many games start at 3rd level, since levels 1 and 2 are training wheels levels that most people just don't need after the first time they play the game.

Many do, most don't.

4 level 2 adventurers against 2 ogres. That's a deadly encounter.

Ok 4 fighters with an 18 strength and 16 Constitution (Soldiers) vs 4 fighters with a 17 Strength and 15 Constitution (Acolyte). Is that ok?

This is an example, we can do anything reasonable you want, I just don't want to go through the process of figuring this out and then be told it is a "corner case".

hy? How about instead you just ignore the very obvious typo and understand(like everyone who reads that in context) that it was talking about a greataxe?

This is fair and I appologize for that. I should have said up to 2.2 more hits per 20 attacks, it is still more than 1 more less than 2.2.