D&D (2024) Is anyone going to use the new 2024 backgrounds?

[Epic Meepo]

Why can't you tell them about that same if it's GM-facing? Why does it matter in your own game where the rule is, PH, DMG, or your own notes?

If the 2024 PHB doesn't explain things to new players at my table to my satisfaction, I'm not going to use the 2024 PHB. I'm going to use a starter set of my own design. I play in person only, so I'm not restricted to using official rules that interface with DDB.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes but to be honest no one is going to play a sage who then turned into a barbarian, you have specifically picked a combination. That doesn't work thematically or mechanically on purpose just so you could try to say you are right.

I am, in my current game, playing a sage barbarian who later multiclassed into wizard. Maybe I'm an outlier but that combo does happen.

 

[Mistwell]

I never said it was a sole marketing plan. It's one of many things they have falsely boosted up as being some kind of big, important, creative feature.

1) They didn't boost it. They are going through each section of the PHB, and did that section. They didn't even do it early, though it comes early in the book, indicating it was sort of left over in terms of topics to cover that they finally got around to;
2) They didn't cover it as big, important, or highly creative. I know that's your interpretation but I don't see any verbiage in their coverage that supports that claim. What specifically did they say that made you think it was being presented as such?

A package attempt to make it seem like 5.5 is a necessity to buy, along with all the other various 5.5 products that will follow.

That's their job, right, to sell the content they produce. Why are you objecting to them selling what they make?

My product review is that it mostly sucks and people shouldn't throw their money at it. This is one of the features that sucks and I've detailed why.

But you've given that review 6 times now, on the same message board. Why are you re-selling that message over and over again here, when it doesn't even seem to apply very well to this topic, and is surely a point you've already made to this audience?

Whoever is interested in it. The concept of "the new character creation is going to make characters much deeper and more meaningful and improve your gaming experience" is most definitely something that could make a person want to buy a product.

Do you think your peers here, who are likely the most informed D&D players around, are stupid and cannot judge for themselves based on the same data you have whether this is useful content for their games or not?

 

[ECMO3]

I am not sure I follow, that is exactly the point I was making. You bought a stupid set of stats and chose a stupid background, thereby getting a worse result than when not doing so

The background is not stupid if it is what matched my backstory and the stat buy is the best I could do mechanically on that character with a Wisdom bonus. There is not a smarter distribution for a Barbarian and if you think there is then show me.

The exact point I am making is that providing a bonus to Wisdom on a character that is prioritizing Strength and Constitution does not make the character have a better Wisdom than they would have with a bonus to Strength or Constitution. Their Wisdom is equal or actually worse than it would be with that bonus in Strength and the same scores elsewhere. This is a mathematical truism based on the difference in cost for raising a stat to 14 or higher. If your highest scores are going to be in Strength and Constitution and you are not dumping Dexterity then your highest Wisdom you can have on point buy is going to come from getting your bonuses in those stats.

The claim is that getting a bonus in Wisdom makes the Barbarian better at perception and Wisdom saves and that claim is false. The character is the same or worse at perception and Wisdom saves than a character with a +2 in Strength would be.

Again, if you think you can provide a better Barbarian distribution on point buy with a +2 in Wisdom please do it and show us all.

 

[Epic Meepo]

... But you want them to pick options off of different drop-down menus?

1. Choose which ability scores you want to add three +1 bonuses (you can add up to two of them to one score if you wish)
2. Choose 2 skills from the skill list in Ch. X that makes sense for your background (Is this where you provide an example of what those skills might mean to the ad hoc background?)
3. Choose 1 origin feat from the feat list in Ch. Y. that makes sense for your background.
4. You have 50gp to spend on equipment (including armor and weapons) from Ch. Z.

Now I do want these options to exist somewhere in the game, but you don't want to game with players who create interesting backstories that fit into existing template options?

There's difference between picking a pre-made background and picking options to create a custom background: the pre-made background is packaged with a default backstory, whereas the options selected when making a custom background aren't restricted to any particular story.

I don't care if players pick mechanics off a drop-down menu. But I find it less exciting for me as the DM if my players are also picking pre-made story details off drop-down menus. I would rather have a back-and-forth where players propose wild, open-ended backstories and we find a way to work everyone's ideas into the campaign setting. The game mechanics that get attached after the fact are largely irrelevant.

 

[WanderingMystic]

Wisdom +2 and Con +1: S15, D14, C16 (15+1), W12 (10+2), I8, CH 8

Strength +2 and Con +1: S15 (13+2), D14, C16 (15+1), W13, I9, CH8

With Strength, Dexterity and Constitution the same your Wisdom score is LOWER on a point buy Barbarian if you put the +2 in Wisdom instead of Strength .... your intelligence is lower in this example too if you put the bonus on Wisdom (although that is a choice between Intelligence and Charisma)

How you would do it is Con +2 and Wis +1: S15, D14, C16(14+2), W12(10+2), I10, CH8

If I were making that type of character I would lower my CON to focus more on my mental abilities.
S15, D14, C14, W14, I10, C8

 

[mamba]

The background is not stupid if it is what matched my backstory

we can discuss how important that background is to your backstory. Given your 'everything can be a sailor' approach it does not seem to be all that relevant. To me it actually shows that it is not, you could have twisted a different background just as much with a better outcome

 

[WanderingMystic]

What detail of your backgroud of being a sage should give you a bonus to strength, I cant really think of one that would make sense that I as a DM or the other DM's I play with would accept as reasonable. You spent your formative time as a book worm and came to the barbarian life later than most so it makes sense that you wouldn't be as strong. That is part of the appeal of the character concept. The more we talk about it the more I like the idea of this student studying who gets so frustrated with all of it and just loses it on the dean at his university. Now expelled he is forced to become a barbarian and takes pleasure in bashing spell casters and know it alls in the face.

 

[MoonSong]

Ryusui Nanami also had years of sailing experience, that held tiny bit more weight than the fact that he dressed the part out of "obsession".

In a way I'd say that he's the exact opposite of the tangent the thread is discussing since he accepted his overindulgent rich parents background & used that to be a sailor rather than being a sailor who does everything they can to be something that's not a sailor but still keeps all the other benefits of sailor.

That was just a tangent to that tangent. I've just finally gotten up to date with Dr. Stone and was quickly reminded of him. Still he had his follower from the background feature n_n.

Your post is at odds with itself. You described a bunch of mechanics and then shifted to calling it "flavor". I'm one of the people who has an earlier post talking about ways that other backgrounds with the +int can have their "flavor" shifted to that of a sailor while maintaining the mechanics of the other background chosen.

From there it comes down to a player saying "but I want the mechanics too". In post 158 you literally quoted the reason why I as a GM would tell a player that wanting is good for the soul & this is a want that I as a gm would not be blessing

Let me bring this in order. To me backgrounds in 5e are mostly if not entirely about roleplay and getting a stake in the fictional space. Yes, it has skills and tools/languages attached, but these can be swapped if not outright chosen by raw, so totally a non-factor for mechanics. To me background choice has always been entirely about the themes I want for my character. At most, the background feature is the only mechanical concern. I mostly care about the BIFT and having a justification for in-game importance or lack of it. And many times I felt free to mix or modify that. The only need for DM approval has been to homebrew features.

Now we have mechanical pressure on what used to be a choice entirely free from mechanical concerns. And these are rigid packages. I can no longer just go pick without a care in the world, nor do something like mashing together stuff into things like "mafia princess" (noble+criminal) Because all of that now requires explicit DM approval.

"working with your GM" is a two way street. It's not simply a matter of listing demands & expecting a rubber stamp.

I've been to busy fighting to use the stuff in my character sheet as written or to resist the DMs wanting to dictate weapon choice and forcing me to max up certain scores to "demand" stuff. When I DM I let players do almost anything they want, accept homebrew, third party and optional stuff from obscure blogs, but as a player, the most I can hope is to be respected on RAW, and that is the best outcome. (BTW I lost both fights with DMs)

 

[MoonSong]

What detail of your backgroud of being a sage should give you a bonus to strength, I cant really think of one that would make sense that I as a DM or the other DM's I play with would accept as reasonable. You spent your formative time as a book worm and came to the barbarian life later than most so it makes sense that you wouldn't be as strong. That is part of the appeal of the character concept. The more we talk about it the more I like the idea of this student studying who gets so frustrated with all of it and just loses it on the dean at his university. Now expelled he is forced to become a barbarian and takes pleasure in bashing spell casters and know it alls in the face.

It didn't use to be a factor! So far it was perfectly possible to have a sage barbarian with 16 strength and not having to justify it. Why is it suddenly something only a powergamer minmaxer would do?