D&D 5E I think I prefer backgrounds in 2014

[SkidAce]

I've long since started treating backgrounds as quasi-skill proficiencies. Got the noble background? Well you can probably add your proficiency bonus to your roll to see if you can dance at the formal ball without embarrassing yourself, even if you don't have Performance. Soldier background? You can roll with proficiency when trying to analyse a tactical situation, or evaluate the likely combat capability of the militia in the new city you just entered. Sailor background? You probably know a bit of lore about famous pirates etc even if you don't have History proficiency.

I'm still playing 2014 rules, but the background features are something I'm going to miss.

Quoted for truth!

 

[Minigiant]

On Background Features/Origin Features

It would be great if the Origin feats had a Ribbon feature.
Something nice at low level but no onus on the DM to make them worth.

On ASI:
It would be great if Each Background, Species, and Class gave an +1 among their prime scores


Background Acolyte: +1 Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma
Species Dwarf: +1 Strength, Constitution, or Wisdom
Class Paladin: +1 Strength or Charisma

Then your DM can give you the option to make one or more of them float OR take a -1 ASD to get an extra +1 ASI.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

And, yeah, the ASIs. What a mess! I was fine with them being tied to the species, though there could have been more flexibility. (Perhaps one fixed, one floating, but not necessarily to any stat. E.g. halflings might be unable to put their floating to strength.) But ultimately it seems silly to me that gnomes and halflings are just as strong than humans or orcs. I know a lot of people just treat ability scores as numbers that do not really represent anything, but if they're that then I think we might just as well get rid of them. To me the purpose of RPG rules is to represent the fiction, and if they cannot do that they serve no purpose.

Are you saying that some tables - say where there is a gnome barbarian with STR 18 and a human wizard with STR 10 - are doing it wrong? I don't think you are, really. But, point being, there is always going to be some variation in stats regardless of what species or background someone chooses. Getting a 5% boost to one category or another does not mean the entirety of a species is smarter/stronger/etc than another. It does mean that the specific PC is perhaps a little more exceptional in the fictional world... which I think we're aiming for in this game.

At the end of the day, the character with that 18 in an ability is just 20% better than the 10 "average" score. I think what it represents in our heads has taken over what it truly represents mechanically. While I do think it feels special and optimized to max out a stat, the actual mechanical difference at the table between the 20 STR halfling barbarian and the 19 STR orc fighter is so trivial as to not have any significant effect on gameplay.

But linking things to backgrounds is much worse. Some people felt species ASIs were racist, but that required interpretation, to see the species as allegories to human ethnicities. (which is valid, but it is just one interpretation.) But what we have in 5.5 is direct, no allegory or interpretation needed, classism. Nobles in D&D land now objectively are smarter and more charming than stupid and ugly peasants! And as people optimise their characters, these class stereotypes become part of the games. No magical geniuses from humble backgrounds etc. And of course "the biological essentialism" still exists in the species, and it does as long as they have any mechnical differnces.

The movement of ASI to background certainly could be perceived as classist to some extent. I do think that has been missed in the discussion - thanks for highlighting it. Of course, farmers, guards, and sailors are wiser than nobles so... where does that land?

Now completely floating ASIs are silly and inelegant. First we buy ability scores, then we choose a few points more using a different method. So if the ASIs not tied to any other choice (which seems to be what most people want) then they should just be removed and the point buy budget and caps to be increased.

You had me thinking I was for floating ASIs for a bit, but what you say here makes sense, too.
However, if ASIs are "baked" into point-buy, what about tables that choose to roll? And what about levels where the player can choose to boost a stat by 2 (or two stats by 1) or take a feat that boosts a stat by 1? Would we have to get rid of those additions as well and so PCs would be stuck with their starting ability scores?

 

[Necropolitan]

I made a homebrew rule that you could use your background to gain advantage on one roll relating to the background and/or how it relates to the character's backstory per short or long rest (depending on various factors).

So a Charlatan could get advantage on a Deception check to sell a lie, an Entertainer to a Perform check to entertain a crowd, a Criminal to History checks relating to criminal groups, etc.

It also meant a member of the party could be useful in a skill check even if they didn't have the highest bonus. The Wizard might have a higher bonus to History checks but the Rogue with the Archaeologist background doubles their History check's chance of letting them know details about ancient ruins.

 

[jayoungr]

I think there are good arguments both for and against floating ASI

Which is why the Tasha's compromise seemed perfect to me. You get suggested bonuses (in the PHB) reflecting that most goliaths are stronger than most halflings, but the floating bonus option gives official permission to the player whose concept is of a halfling that's as strong as a goliath.

 

[abirdcall]

I am never going to understand the complaints against biological essentialism. These creatures are not humans, they are their own species. Even within our own species, our extinct cousins the neanderthals were much stronger than us.

Here’s a comparison of the height and weight of a median Goliath versus a halfling:

Goliath
Median Height: 7 feet 6 inches (7'6") = 2.29 meters

Median Weight: 340 pounds = 154 kg

Halfling
Median Height: 3 feet (3'0") = 0.91 meters

Median Weight: 40 pounds = 18 kg

Comparison:
A Goliath is about 2.5 times taller and 8.5 times heavier than a halfling.

It just make sense that Goliaths would be stronger than Halflings

I can understand the argument that it's not fun in a game sense, and not necessary. And that people would rather be free to choose the combinations of Species and Classes they want without being penalized for it.

The same can be said of backgrounds to a lesser degree. It makes sense that a blacksmith is on average stronger than a scholar. And that a scholar is on average more intelligent, as in better educated, than a blacksmith. But it is not necessarily fun either. And can hamper or spark creativity.

I think there are good arguments both for and against floating ASI

They're metaphors.

You even touched on it in your post. If someone were to say someone was like a Neanderthal or ape because of how they look they're probably not going to take it well. There is even a history of groups of people being called that.

 

[abirdcall]

I made a homebrew rule that you could use your background to gain advantage on one roll relating to the background and/or how it relates to the character's backstory per short or long rest (depending on various factors).

So a Charlatan could get advantage on a Deception check to sell a lie, an Entertainer to a Perform check to entertain a crowd, a Criminal to History checks relating to criminal groups, etc.

It also meant a member of the party could be useful in a skill check even if they didn't have the highest bonus. The Wizard might have a higher bonus to History checks but the Rogue with the Archaeologist background doubles their History check's chance of letting them know details about ancient ruins.

Wait, you only allow the character with the highest bonus to participate?

5e is designed so that characters can try to do things regardless of their stats. There is no reason why a character with a -1 persuasion can't attempt to persuade an NPC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Tying ASIs to Species is completely pointless, because it doesn't actually accomplish what people think it does. It merely gives some people the impression of what it is they think they want.

A +2 to an ability score does not make any creature appreciably more of that thing percentage-wise because of one simple thing-- that stat gets added to a d20 roll. Every test of a person's Dexterity (for example) is not just the ability score modifier... it also include upwards of 20 additional points of d20 roll modifier on top of it.

A person with a 14 Dexterity (+2 mod) has an effective Dexterity for all uses of that ability between 3-22. That's a character's actual Dexterity to do things-- 3-22. And a person with a 12 Dexterity (+1 mod) has an effective Dexterity for all uses of that ability of 2-21. And when we compare those two... we notice all the massive amount of different ways where the "less dexterous" character will easily defeat the supposedly "more dexterous" character in all manner of Dexterity checks. And that will happen all the time.

Which means that the supposed "necessity" of giving elves a +2 ASI to Dexterity (for example) in order to represent an elf's great grace and agility... only provides a 5% boost. That's it. An elf is 5% more graceful and agile than a human (or any other Species). On any check, it's virtually a coin flip as to who's more agile, the elf or someone else. And people think that's actually meaningful? Nope. Not even close. If people are imagining that all elves are lithe Legolas-like creatures-- doing things like flipping upwards onto galloping horses and surfing down staircases... things that no other creatures in the world could possibly do... according to D&D math the dwarf Gimli has merely just a 5% less chance of doing the exact same thing. ASIs and D&D math do not produce the narrative our imaginations think all these Species are meant to have.

One would say that the goliath needs to have a +2 to their Strength score in the Species write-up in order to differentiate it from a tiny halfling? Well... even with that, there's still a pretty easy chance during point-buy character creation that you're going to get a starting halfling in a particular campaign with a +3 STR mod with all their STR-checks rolling between 4-23... while your supposedly "massive" goliath having a +0 STR mod and rolling all their STR-checks between 1-20. Which means that +2 ASI one supposedly needed to have in the Species write-up to really show off the size disparity between goliaths and those tiny halflings has not done jack. All those times where the halfling is rolling 15s, 16s, 18s etc. and the goliath rolls 1s, 2s and 3s... getting absolutely blown out of the water on Strength checks. That ASI bonus due to Species did absolutely nothing to match the math to our narrative expectations and imaginations.

At the end of the day... in order for this game to work as a game it will never create the math situation required to match our expectations in terms of narrative. It can't. Because otherwise the game falls apart. So no one actually needs Species to include ASIs because they just don't accomplish what they think they do.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Tying ASIs to Species is completely pointless, because it doesn't actually accomplish what people think it does. It merely gives some people the impression of what it is they think they want.

A +2 to an ability score does not make any creature appreciably more of that thing percentage-wise because of one simple thing-- that stat gets added to a d20 roll. Every test of a person's Dexterity (for example) is not just the ability score modifier... it also include upwards of 20 additional points of d20 roll modifier on top of it.

A person with a 14 Dexterity (+2 mod) has an effective Dexterity for all uses of that ability between 3-22. That's a character's actual Dexterity to do things-- 3-22. And a person with a 12 Dexterity (+1 mod) has an effective Dexterity for all uses of that ability of 2-21. And when we compare those two... we notice all the massive amount of different ways where the "less dexterous" character will easily defeat the supposedly "more dexterous" character in all manner of Dexterity checks. And that will happen all the time.

Which means that the supposed "necessity" of giving elves a +2 ASI to Dexterity (for example) in order to represent an elf's great grace and agility... only provides a 5% boost. That's it. An elf is 5% more graceful and agile than a human (or any other Species). On any check, it's virtually a coin flip as to who's more agile, the elf or someone else. And people think that's actually meaningful? Nope. Not even close. If people are imagining that all elves are lithe Legolas-like creatures-- doing things like flipping upwards onto galloping horses and surfing down staircases... things that no other creatures in the world could possibly do... according to D&D math the dwarf Gimli has merely just a 5% less chance of doing the exact same thing. ASIs and D&D math do not produce the narrative our imaginations think all these Species are meant to have.

One would say that the goliath needs to have a +2 to their Strength score in the Species write-up in order to differentiate it from a tiny halfling? Well... even with that, there's still a pretty easy chance during point-buy character creation that you're going to get a starting halfling in a particular campaign with a +3 STR mod with all their STR-checks rolling between 4-23... while your supposedly "massive" goliath having a +0 STR mod and rolling all their STR-checks between 1-20. Which means that +2 ASI one supposedly needed to have in the Species write-up to really show off the size disparity between goliaths and those tiny halflings has not done jack. All those times where the halfling is rolling 15s, 16s, 18s etc. and the goliath rolls 1s, 2s and 3s... getting absolutely blown out of the water on Strength checks. That ASI bonus due to Species did absolutely nothing to match the math to our narrative expectations and imaginations.

At the end of the day... in order for this game to work as a game it will never create the math situation required to match our expectations in terms of narrative. It can't. Because otherwise the game falls apart. So no one actually needs Species to include ASIs because they just don't accomplish what they want.

Thank you. You've stated this much, much better than I've been able to.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Giving up a first level feat is a huge opportunity cost. In my examples - Tavern Brawler and Savage Attacker offer literally nothing to the paired classes, in addition to not offering a key ability score boost.

We are still mostly in the +/- 5% range. 10 at most.
And if your game is not optimization heavy, then you are better in other ways.
Even savage attacker is not totally terrible as it significantly raises the floor of an attack.