Bonus languages in One D&D backgrounds goes contrary to their other goals

[UngeheuerLich]

You need some flavour or you get very boring rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's where we run into the limits of biology being the only justification for racial traits. Firearm use has been a major part of the Giff story since their inception. Ask any D&D player who has heard of Giff prior to 5e and they will say they are "hippo people with guns". Remove the latter and they just are "hippo people" and they can be tossed on the furry pile with cat people, bird people, elephant people, etc.

The alternative, of course, is that races NEVER grant proficiency in anything and only ever influence size, movement, senses, and natural attacks/defenses. But I think that design space isn't going to support a lot of options.

The alternative is to have a culture metric in your character creation system, where stuff like that can go.

 

[Cadence]

The alternative is to have a culture metric in your character creation system, where stuff like that can go.

I was wondering earlier about something called just "Early Life" or "Formative Years", that combined the culture and background things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was wondering earlier about something called just "Early Life" or "Formative Years", that combined the culture and background things.

I just use Level Up.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was wondering earlier about something called just "Early Life" or "Formative Years", that combined the culture and background things.

Isn’t that… what background is?

 

[Cadence]

I just use Level Up.

It separates culture and background.

Isn’t that… what background is?

Maybe I'm spoiled by culture and background in A5e or thinking of race and background in 5e.

I wonder if changing the name would make people think about all of those things. So the Giff that went off somewhere fairly young with a caravan might still have firearms skill because of being trained really young in it. The Halfling who was hired as a cook for the Giff might have it for a very different reason.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It separates culture and background.


Maybe I'm spoiled by culture and background in A5e or thinking of race and background in 5e.

I wonder if changing the name would make people think about all of those things. So the Giff that went off somewhere fairly young with a caravan might still have firearms skill because of being trained really young in it. The Halfling who was hired as a cook for the Giff might have it for a very different reason.

I love the giff (one of my favorite parts of Spelljammer) so I built a Level Up heritage for them, and giff culture. Works great for me.

 

[Remathilis]

So make a “gun-loving people” background/culture and associate the Giff with it in the lore.

There’s also room for unique race features like the new version of Stonecunning, inherent spellcasting, the halflings’ lucky, the Tabaxi’s cool dash move, orcs’ adrenaline rush, humans’ new inspiration feature, etc, etc, etc.

Well since backgrounds aren't really anything more than a bunch of free choices, I guess you could take the Gunner feat from Tasha, strip out the ASI, and make it a level one feat (that's basically what the Giff firearm proficiency is anyway.) That leaves powerful build and astral spark as the giffs racial traits. Seems weak IMHO.


What I'm not understanding is why Gods granting magical kewl abilities is ok, but granting mundane proficiency isn't. Why are ALL halflings lucky? The lore says they're blessed by the Gods of luck. Apparently, the Gods of luck can bless an entire race with good fortune, but hit Gods of crafting can't bless them with natural talent with crafts. Maybe the God of crafting should just give dwarves free rerolls when using artisan tools.

 

[Galandris]

What I'm not understanding is why Gods granting magical kewl abilities is ok, but granting mundane proficiency isn't. Why are ALL halflings lucky? The lore says they're blessed by the Gods of luck. Apparently, the Gods of luck can bless an entire race with good fortune, but hit Gods of crafting can't bless them with natural talent with crafts. Maybe the God of crafting should just give dwarves free rerolls when using artisan tools.

Luck is impersonal (even if the players can use it so that other people fails when around their halflings). They are blessed and it affects the world around them. The ability to cast a spell is an ability that the character decides on using. On the other hand, inspiring the mind of their creatures toward studying stonecutting and masonry is not different to inspire hatred toward the god's enemy: WotC has clearly departed from that past and gods now respect free-will, and if gods can't inspire a basic emotion, they can't inspire a craving for studying masonry, that even a dwarf raised on the plane of Air, without any access to a mason or a boulder or a rock, because he lives on a floating cloud, would feel and self-teach somehow. It would certainly mesh better if the dwarf's creator god had commanded the stones to comply to the orders of his children, so they are considered proficient with mason's tools without any need to learn them (or even without the need to have them).

 

[Remathilis]

Luck is impersonal (even if the players can use it so that other people fails when around their halflings). They are blessed and it affects the world around them. The ability to cast a spell is an ability that the character decides on using. On the other hand, inspiring the mind of their creatures toward studying stonecutting and masonry is not different to inspire hatred toward the god's enemy: WotC has clearly departed from that, and if gods can't inspire a basic emotion, they can't inspire a craving for studying masonry, that even a dwarf raised on the plane of Earth, without any access to a mason or a boulder or a rock, because he lives on a floating cloud, would feel. It would certainly mesh better if the dwarf's creator god had commanded the stones to comply to the orders of his children, so they are proficient with mason's tools without any need to learn them (or even without the need to have them).

It's not that they're inspired to study, it's that they have instinctual racial memories that are part of their heritage. A dwarf, regardless of where they were born and raised, finds that if they pick up an artisan tool, they know how to use it. They have muscle memory and knowledge of the tool despite never having used one before granted by their creator. Likewise, a dragonborn might never have learned or spoken with someone in draconic, but when he finds another creature speaking it, he automatically understands what is being said and can respond*. If that's not as magical as supernatural luck or spell knowledge, I don't know what is.



* there are some recorded examples of people knowing a language despite never having studied it or heard it spoken before. My roommate in college could understand what his grandmother said when they were speaking Gaelic as a child despite him never learning the language, his own mother couldn't understand it. You can chalk this up to all sorts of phenomena, from past lives to osmosis, but in a world where 7 ft lizard people can literally spew fire from their mouths, I don't consider racial memories of their creator's tongue to be unreasonable.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well since backgrounds aren't really anything more than a bunch of free choices, I guess you could take the Gunner feat from Tasha, strip out the ASI, and make it a level one feat (that's basically what the Giff firearm proficiency is anyway.) That leaves powerful build and astral spark as the giffs racial traits. Seems weak IMHO.


What I'm not understanding is why Gods granting magical kewl abilities is ok, but granting mundane proficiency isn't.

Nature vs. nurture. If it’s a learned trait, having it be inborn has unfortunate implications. Attributing those implications to divine will rather than genetics is worse if anything.

Why are ALL halflings lucky? The lore says they're blessed by the Gods of luck. Apparently, the Gods of luck can bless an entire race with good fortune, but hit Gods of crafting can't bless them with natural talent with crafts. Maybe the God of crafting should just give dwarves free rerolls when using artisan tools.

Not a bad idea TBH.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think it only feels this way because you’re filtering this though how backgrounds work in the 2014 PHB instead of taking this as written.

Nope.

But some background is going to need to grant Orcish if Orcish is going to exist as a language. And whatever background does that is going to have unfortunate implications about orcs. This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the real problem here is that languages are racialized in D&D. They took the languages out of race without taking the race out of languages.

Not if languages are divorced from backgrounds, or if backgrounds aren't the only way to acquire languages. I would imagine an orc character would be able to start with orcish pretty easily, regardless of background. And besides . . . can't characters customize their backgrounds . . .

 

[Remathilis]

Nature vs. nurture. If it’s a learned trait, having it be inborn has unfortunate implications. Attributing those implications to divine will rather than genetics is worse if anything.

So explain where a human's bonus skill comes from then.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that, whatever the final form of these Backgrounds in 2024 is, there needs to be proper guidance on how to create your own - as in, how to create the backstory elements - alongside the samples. This UA is just the rules, presented to experienced players, used to coming up with character concepts. One of the strengths of the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws framework is that it gives you a way to generate a character by rolling on a few tables. I'd like to see these Backgrounds combined with similar tables:

E.g.
Gladiator - Language (d6)
1: Your comrades in the arena included outsiders from the ungoverned lands to the north, many of whom boasted orc ancestry. (Orcish)
2: You were trained by an elven weaponmaster, rumoured to be an exiled noble from a distant land. (Elvish)
3. Your main rival was a dwarf berserker, with whom you traded many insults before bouts to whip up the crowd's fervour. (Dwarvish)
4. You trained in esoteric, mystic fighting styles with a master of unarmed combat whose people revered angelic overlords. (Celestial)
5. A young kobold was your friend and protégé in the fighters' barracks, but you couldn't protect him in the end. (Draconic)
6. The patron of the arena where you fought was a notorious beholder crime lord, and for a time you became one of its inner circle. (Deep Speech)

This is golden! Also, I hope they don't remove ideals, bonds and flaws from background!

 

[Dire Bare]

So you're cool sea elves being able to innately talk with creatures with a swim speed or forest gnome innately talking with animals, but a dragonborn innately speaking with dragons is a bridge too far?

Depends on how it's characterized.

Is a sea elf's ability to talk with sea creatures something innate, even little baby sea elves can do it? Or is it learned? As sea elves grow up, they are taught how to communicate with the creatures of the sea. Tons of magical and seemingly innate racial characteristics could be done this way.

But overall your point is valid, trying to disentangle learned from innate traits in D&D races isn't going to be easy across the board, and will require a bit more work on WotC's part.

Creating a "culture" category I think is the right way to go . . . it could easily replace "sub-race", and this is where languages should go. WotC could even provide more culturally specific backgrounds, like a dwarven crafter or elven forester . . . .

 

[Remathilis]

Depends on how it's characterized.

Is a sea elf's ability to talk with sea creatures something innate, even little baby sea elves can do it? Or is it learned? As sea elves grow up, they are taught how to communicate with the creatures of the sea. Tons of magical and seemingly innate racial characteristics could be done this way.

But overall your point is valid, trying to disentangle learned from innate traits in D&D races isn't going to be easy across the board, and will require a bit more work on WotC's part.

Creating a "culture" category I think is the right way to go . . . it could easily replace "sub-race", and this is where languages should go. WotC could even provide more culturally specific backgrounds, like a dwarven crafter or elven forester . . . .

My problem with "cultural" traits is, it adds another level of complexity to character generation. I know Level Up does it, but my concern rather than simplify generation, you add another step. Further, cultures are complex, highly dependent on the world they originate from, and still run the risk of being problematic (a quick example: what cultural traits and abilities do you assign to the Vistani culture in Ravenloft?) And that doesn't even begin to address potential mechanical imbalances (if you strip out the cultural elements of a PHB dwarf, they lose more than half their racial traits. If you strip out the cultural elements of a tiefling, they lose... a language).

I just think that if we're going to say, "Dwarves having a divinely-given knowledge of crafting" or "dragonborn instinctively remember draconic" is problematic but give a free pass to "all elves are perceptive" or "all tabaxi are stealthy" or even "all humans start with an extra skill" and "all elves can trance to learn two proficiencies". Either racial proficiencies are all bad, or we admit you can justify them via magical or biological means.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My problem with "cultural" traits is, it adds another level of complexity to character generation. I know Level Up does it, but my concern rather than simplify generation, you add another step. Further, cultures are complex, highly dependent on the world they originate from, and still run the risk of being problematic (a quick example: what cultural traits and abilities do you assign to the Vistani culture in Ravenloft?) And that doesn't even begin to address potential mechanical imbalances (if you strip out the cultural elements of a PHB dwarf, they lose more than half their racial traits. If you strip out the cultural elements of a tiefling, they lose... a language).

I just think that if we're going to say, "Dwarves having a divinely-given knowledge of crafting" or "dragonborn instinctively remember draconic" is problematic but give a free pass to "all elves are perceptive" or "all tabaxi are stealthy" or even "all humans start with an extra skill" and "all elves can trance to learn two proficiencies". Either racial proficiencies are all bad, or we admit you can justify them via magical or biological means.

Adding another step is only an issue if your goal is to simplify things. WotC appears to want that, but others (obviously including myself) don't.

 

[Charlaquin]

So explain where a human's bonus skill comes from then.

Humans learn fast

 

[kigmatzomat]

I think the background language is unnecessarily confusing. It should have been listed as "the dominant non-Common language used by that group". Yes, I know that is effectively what is is but it isn't explicit and, in the case of the charlatan, quite confusing. At least the Guard references a specific dwarven smith to indicate why those guards learned dwarven, but being a genric "guard" makes it problematic. If it was "Guard of Redspire Pass" it would be clear it is a very specific group of guards. "Hellspawn's Charlatan" , which references a tiefling fence or mastermind would help clarify "this specific group".

 

[Dire Bare]

My problem with "cultural" traits is, it adds another level of complexity to character generation. I know Level Up does it, but my concern rather than simplify generation, you add another step. Further, cultures are complex, highly dependent on the world they originate from, and still run the risk of being problematic (a quick example: what cultural traits and abilities do you assign to the Vistani culture in Ravenloft?) And that doesn't even begin to address potential mechanical imbalances (if you strip out the cultural elements of a PHB dwarf, they lose more than half their racial traits. If you strip out the cultural elements of a tiefling, they lose... a language).

I just think that if we're going to say, "Dwarves having a divinely-given knowledge of crafting" or "dragonborn instinctively remember draconic" is problematic but give a free pass to "all elves are perceptive" or "all tabaxi are stealthy" or even "all humans start with an extra skill" and "all elves can trance to learn two proficiencies". Either racial proficiencies are all bad, or we admit you can justify them via magical or biological means.

Real culture is complex, so perhaps counter-intuitively, a game "culture" (as a character option) would have to be very simple.

Under the elf race entry, players are asked to choose from 3 elven cultures, wood, high, and dark. The only game benefits would be the language tied to each culture. Maybe a list of suggested backgrounds. All of which are customizable. Perhaps other traits, that are described as learned rather than being innate. Each elf culture gets one magical environmental adaptation, such as sea elves learning to magically speak to sea creatures.

This would take up the same space that subrace currently does, so it wouldn't really add to the existing complexity of the game.

There are some good OGL and DMs Guild fan supplements that tackle this basic idea . . . most of them DO add complexity to character creation, however (at least the ones I've seen).