D&D (2024) How to import "race" flavor into D&D 2024 inclusively

[Scott Christian]

As the above example of the Great Rift Miner background demonstrates, it is easy to import "Hill Dwarf" flavor − and even its +2 Constitution score and +1 Wisdom score improvements − into 2024.

I like where your head is at Yarel. I know you always put forth good intentions in these posts. It is admirable. But, I would like to push back just a little bit.

By tying ability scores to backgrounds, especially backgrounds specific like your example, you do two things:

1. Narrow the player options for their own background in a field as large as species. A species, such as the dwarves described in D&D, could inherit the ability score bonuses from a multitude of reasons, all created by the player or DM. Backgrounds limit this process.
2. Force players down paths they don't want. Wasn't the primary argument for the pushback against racial bonuses is that a new player must have a 16 at level one to be effective, and therefore, they were forced to play a race (species) they didn't want. As far as I can tell, backgrounds do the same.

From what I can tell, Tasha's changed all this.

I like where @Yaarel's head is at with this idea. Because there have been players who have stated quite clearly that they need Elves to have a +2 to Dexterity in order for their Elf to feel like an Elf...

This seems like a very false representation of the other side's argument.

Everyone that has argued has always said the same: Ability score bonuses provide one of the most effective means of differentiating races. That is different than saying "... they need Elves to have a +2 dexterity in order for their elf to feel like an elf."

One of the arguments is about nuance. The other sounds entitled.

 

[Yaarel]

I like where your head is at Yarel. I know you always put forth good intentions in these posts. It is admirable. But, I would like to push back just a little bit.

By tying ability scores to backgrounds, especially backgrounds specific like your example, you do two things:

1. Narrow the player options for their own background in a field as large as species. A species, such as the dwarves described in D&D, could inherit the ability score bonuses from a multitude of reasons, all created by the player or DM. Backgrounds limit this process.
2. Force players down paths they don't want. Wasn't the primary argument for the pushback against racial bonuses is that a new player must have a 16 at level one to be effective, and therefore, they were forced to play a race (species) they didn't want. As far as I can tell, backgrounds do the same.

From what I can tell, Tasha's changed all this.

Players can create their own background.

The background grants: ability scores +2 and +1, two skills, one toolset, and a language. Plus a feat. These can be whatever the player wants.


That means, when the 2024 Players Handbook lists an official background, the player can change anything about it.

Example. A player picks the Great Rift Miner, but decides to have Intelligence and Dexterity instead, and proficiencies with Nature and Slight of Hand, plus Alchemist toolset. He is a miner − someone needs to make the dynamite. It is legal.

The official description is a suggestion. But the player can make it ones own.


The narrative aspect of a background needs the player and the DM to agree: which mining family, who are the persons, what position one has, what are the relationships. Perhaps the character is the son of wealthy parents − which has resource implications and the DM needs to think about. Whatever seems fun and seems doable in the setting − go for it.


It is legal for a player to create a new background from scratch. The abilities, proficiencies, and feat are whatever the player wants. And the narrative details for how the background concept fits into the setting need to resolve with the DM anyway.


The benefit of adding culturally-specific background to the Players Handbook is, they communicate a deep amount of setting flavor in a useful way. And. A player should feel free to modify it to taste.

In the list of five backgrounds for the High culture of the Elf species, the ability score improvements relate to the background experience. However, if a player wants to substitute +2 Dexterity score and +1 Intelligence score for any of them, that is legal too.

 

[tetrasodium]

Honestly, I would like to see ASI's dropped completely from character creation and after.
what you have at level 1 is what you get. Outside high level magic items.

Just have modified array/point buy:

array:
18,16,14,14,12,10.
This is what you will have for 20 levels
instead of ASIs, you just get feats.

point buy

6: -1 pt
8: 0 pts
10: 1 pt
12: 2 pts
14: 3 pts
16: 5 pts
18: 8 pts

point pool: 22pts


after that, your choice of feat(s), skills, tools and languages can describe your background good enough.

Add a -2 point for a 3

I remember, and it was a bad idea at the time too. The whole point of having character classes with levels, hell the whole point of having persistent characters rather than just randomly picking playing pieces at the start of every session, is so that you can learn and work and grow over time.

If the game cannot represent that outside of the acquisition of material possessions, it has failed in its objectIve.

They were not as static as you make it out back in first and second edition. attributes were not so important with+1/-1 starting around 15 &6. the PCs weren't dripfed points to dump into The obvious attribute there was more room for magic items that improved the PC like weapons & armor or attribute bumping stuff. There were not really "skills" but most classes had various percentile things for sneaking/trap handling/spell learning/etc... those too could be improved with equipment.

3.x made attributes super important granted limited attribute bumping points and shifted how attribute bumping worked (attrib=n to attrib+n) while making the math require improvements from gear to keep up, 5e took the worst of both and doubled down on the mess by reverting the math

 

[Scott Christian]

Players can create their own background.

The background grants: ability scores +2 and +1, two skills, one toolset, and a language. Plus a feat. These can be whatever the player wants.


That means, when the 2024 Players Handbook lists an official background, the player can change anything about it.

Example. A player picks the Great Rift Miner, but decides to have Intelligence and Dexterity instead, and proficiencies with Nature and Slight of Hand, plus Alchemist toolset. He is a miner − someone needs to make the dynamite. It is legal.

The official description is a suggestion. But the player can make it ones own.


The narrative aspect of a background needs the player and the DM to agree: which mining family, who are the persons, what position one has, what are the relationships. Perhaps the character is the son of wealthy parents − which has resource implications and the DM needs to think about. Whatever seems fun and seems doable in the setting − go for it.


It is legal for a player to create a new background from scratch. The abilities, proficiencies, and feat are whatever the player wants. And the narrative details for how the background concept fits into the setting need to resolve with the DM anyway.


The benefit of adding culturally-specific background to the Players Handbook is, they communicate a deep amount of setting flavor in a useful way. And. A player should feel free to modify it to taste.

In the list of five backgrounds for the High culture of the Elf species, the ability score improvements relate to the background experience. However, if a player wants to substitute +2 Dexterity score and +1 Intelligence score for any of them, that is legal too.

It is all an official suggestion. You can do the same with species, a la, "These particular elves have thick tendons and tight sinewy muscles. Therefore, they get a +2 in strength." That is the Tasha way. I fail to see how a background makes the arbitrary +1/+2 modifier any more meaningful than how an arbitrary +1/+2 modifier for species.

To talk about setting and flavor is an extremely weak argument, since fantasy has always relied much more heavily on species and class for flavored lore.

 

[Vikingkingq]

Add a -2 point for a 3


They were not as static as you make it out back in first and second edition. attributes were not so important with+1/-1 starting around 15 &6. the PCs weren't dripfed points to dump into The obvious attribute there was more room for magic items that improved the PC like weapons & armor or attribute bumping stuff. There were not really "skills" but most classes had various percentile things for sneaking/trap handling/spell learning/etc... those too could be improved with equipment.

3.x made attributes super important granted limited attribute bumping points and shifted how attribute bumping worked (attrib=n to attrib+n) while making the math require improvements from gear to keep up, 5e took the worst of both and doubled down on the mess by reverting the math

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that. I like magical items as much as the next guy, but them being the only way to improve attributes is an immersion and fantasy problem for me. Yes, the Girdle of Hippolyta and Megingjörð are classic tropes, but so is the fantasy of someone "training against the roaring sea" to hone their abilities to superhuman levels.

 

[Yaarel]

I fail to see how a background makes the arbitrary +1/+2 modifier any more meaningful than how an arbitrary +1/+2 modifier for species.

To make an individual develop abilities based on personal experience is learning and advancement.

To make an entire "race" inferior or superior is fantasy racism, but still literally racism.

That said. It is still possible to continue storytelling archetypes and tropes in the context of personal development, instead of racist stereotypes.

If a player wants to play a dumb brute, that can be fun, and this brute can be an Orc or an Elf or a Human. There is no racism. Being dumb is equal opportunity.

(Apparently an elven dumb brute is called an "oaf".)

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, I wasn't a fan of that. I like magical items as much as the next guy, but them being the only way to improve attributes is an immersion and fantasy problem for me. Yes, the Girdle of Hippolyta and Megingjörð are classic tropes, but so is the fantasy of someone "training against the roaring sea" to hone their abilities to superhuman levels.

The important part is that both editions handled attributes and methods of improving them in ways that were each part of a cohesive whole. The 5e collection clashes in ways that amplify the downsides of everything it pulled for attributes and ways of improving them.

 

[Vikingkingq]

To make an individual develop abilities based on personal experience is learning and advancement.

To make an entire "race" inferior or superior is fantasy racism, but still literally racism.

That said. It is still possible to continue storytelling archetypes and tropes in the context of personal development, instead of racist stereotypes.

If a player wants to play a dumb brute, that can be fun, and this brute can be an Orc or an Elf or a Human. There is no racism. Being dumb is equal opportunity.

(Apparently an elven dumb brute is called an "oaf".)

This is why I'd rather have species feats - especially if they're implemented in 2024 with 4th level+ prerequisites - to reflect cultural specialties as opposed to the emphasis on biological superiority or inferiority. I find it much easier to narrativize something like Elven Accuracy as "this person trained under Wood Elf master archers," or Orcish Fury as "this person was initiated into a secret society of Orkish berserkers."

 

[Vikingkingq]

The important part is that both editions handled attributes and methods of improving them in ways that were each part of a cohesive whole. The 5e collection clashes in ways that amplify the downsides of everything it pulled for attributes and ways of improving them.

Yeah, I really don't agree. I like the way 5e does it, because you're choosing to spend your downtime training in different ways.

 

[Yaarel]

Also an other advantage of switching abilities to backgrounds is, the narrative flavor increases both breadth and depth.

By contrast, the racist stereotype ability scores improvement is too much of a narrative straight jacket.

Example, if "every" Elf is high Dexterity, what is the point? How many things would an elven society do with only Dexterity anyway? Not much. And all of it contradicts the narrative flavors of Elves. Elves are skillfully and inherently magical? Wrong, that is the spellcasting ability, not Dex. Elves are magically enchanting and artistically esthetic (as well as physically beautiful)? Wrong, that is Charisma, not Dex. Elves are gymnastic and quick and leaping. Wrong, that is Strength, not Dex. Elves are known for longswords. Wrong, that Strength, not Dex. Elves are eternally youthful with hardy lifespans. Wrong, that is Constitution, not Dex. Elves are personifications of fate who foresee the future. Wrong, that is Wisdom or spellcasting ability, not Dex.

To try force Dex onto Elves is almost always plainly wrong.

Forcing Elves into a Dexterity stereotype gets in the way of any actual flavor.



Oppositely, when I was thinking about the five salient tropes that relate to a "High culture" of the Elf species, the flexible assignment of ability scores based on cultural context inspires. For example, the Fey Page background. The High culture maintains contact with the Elves of the Feywild. High locales are often at or nearby Fey Crossings. The governments of the High communities are part of the Seelie Fey Court alliances. A town of the High culture is its own Fey Court. The members of these Courts are powerful mages ... who are trying to look good while manipulating each other. Charisma is super important. And of course, these politicians need to be smart and calculating in order to succeed, whether to actually achieve something good or to benefit oneself only. Intelligence, but Wisdom too. And, Oh yeah! In a High society, only a 100 year olds are legally considered "adults". That implies that anyone younger isnt allowed to vote in the parliamentary system. Now there is a source of dramatic tension. No wonder the High culture often seems so conservative. Do the youngsters tend to be rebelious? Is that why so many adventure off to "go find themselves"? And the Fey Page is an apprentice, a young adult working in the think of local, national, and multiplanar politics. So many adventure hooks! And this kid has got to be a talented kid. The courtier probably sends this attache on assignments, including ones where this less famous kid is farther away from public attention. The Page is now a participant of intrigue. Fey intrigue can be all kinds of crazy things. So many more adventure hooks.

This is just one background. Entire worlds of storytelling are opening up in front of my eyes − all because I am allowed to show Dexterity my middle finger.

To have cultural backgrounds make the ability score improvements personal and occupational, is superior for the D&D game in every way.


None of this world building interferes with the players, because they can have whatever background they want, and their creativity for how their own character fits in further expands and deepens, and enriches our shared worlds.