D&D (2024) Learning to Love the Background System

[Ashrym]

I feel that if the fluff doesn't matter, then why even have the fluff? Why fix the things into combined packages in the first place? If we have splats, be they species, classes or backgrounds, their fiction should matter. If we don't want that, then do not have splats. Have freeform character building system instead, where people can buy whatever combination of stats and features and give it whatever fiction they want.

It's not that the fluff doesn't matter. The fluff is yours to do with what you want because it's not part of the mechanics. If I want to make an eldritch knight (for example) and take the entertainer background and history that can easily be a variation on the type of bard I want.

It's forcing mechanics for the fluff or vice-versa where we create our own problems. Keeping those independent of each other gives us that room to do what we want with our fluff.

If that makes sense. ;-)

 

[Minigiant]

It's not ‘restrictions breed creativity’

The issue is

1) D&D attracts new RPG players who need their hands held.

2) D&D is not allowed to fix its imbalances as quickly as they are noticed.

So Backgrounds are built more restrictive than experts and veterans desire.

 

[occam]

The pithy quip of ‘restrictions breed creativity’ is a lie, at least when it comes to backgrounds and their mechanics, RBC is only true when you actually have room to be creative in, to improvise and explore possibilities, but the design of backgrounds and classes are set in stone in ways that deny creative problem solving because there are no alternative solutions, your wizard NEEDS INT to improve their spellcasting, and that means a background with STR, WIS, CHA, is entirely useless to them.

I'll make a point of telling that to my (pre-Tasha's) dwarf artificer (no bonus to Int), dwarf warlock (no bonus to Cha), and half-orc bard (also no bonus to Cha). I greatly enjoyed playing those characters, but apparently I've been playing D&D wrong all this time, having fun while continuing to make entirely useless selections. I'll figure this out eventually.

 

[tglassy]

I'm done with this community. Every self proclaimed "expert and veteran" is just a crybaby who wants everything to appeal to their own min maxing garbage. If you're so dissatisfied, go make your own game and make it the way YOU think it should be. See how well you do.

And no, you don't get to criticize a product you had absolutely nothing to do with creating. You don't like it, don't buy it. You don't like how something is implemented, just change it. But no, you'd rather come online and complain thinking anyone is actually listening to you complain.

Either way I'm done with this site altogether, and likely most other dnd sites. It all just winds up getting my blood pressure up.

 

[Horwath]

WotC take on 2024PHB backgrounds are:

1. New players are idiots and cannot figure anything by themselves.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'll make a point of telling that to my (pre-Tasha's) dwarf artificer (no bonus to Int), dwarf warlock (no bonus to Cha), and half-orc bard (also no bonus to Cha). I greatly enjoyed playing those characters, but apparently I've been playing D&D wrong all this time, having fun while continuing to make entirely useless selections. I'll figure this out eventually.

you're ranting against a point i didn't make, but your commitment to making numerically un-optimised build choices is not 'more creative' because you had to fight against what the system makes most effective to make them.

Restrictions Breed Creativity applies when your party puts all their outside-the-box-thinking braincells together to macguyver a way to instakill the 15th level big bad on 6 gold, two 3rd level spell slots and a favour from the local post office with 4 hours before the world ends, it does not apply when you decide to put together two character creation options with poor synergy.

 

[Charlaquin]

New player onboarding. Same reason the customization rules, which are easy to see, are in the DMG.

User-friendliness.

That’s why the UA version had example premade backgrounds. They were almost the same exact backgrounds we got in the PHB!

 

[Parmandur]

That’s why the UA version had example premade backgrounds. They were almost the same exact backgrounds we got in the PHB!

I'm sure we'll see those same UA customization rules in the DMG...and I wonder bow if the Backgrounds they dripped were saved for the DMG as examples (particularly the Setting specific seeming Gladiator and the Dwarf specific Laborer).

 

[WanderingMystic]

Lately I've been thinking about this. My initial idea was to let players create their desired background (within reason) but I'm also pondering whether to make more campaign setting specific backgrounds as an option.

I am a big fan of setting specific stuff. I know our Eberron will have soldier for each of the kingdoms, at least 2 merchants, one for each dragon marked house, a couple of entertainers to showcase differences, 4 guides, and I know of at least 3 different acolytes.

 

[Morrus]

I'm done with this community. Every self proclaimed "expert and veteran" is just a crybaby who wants everything to appeal to their own min maxing garbage. If you're so dissatisfied, go make your own game and make it the way YOU think it should be. See how well you do.

And no, you don't get to criticize a product you had absolutely nothing to do with creating. You don't like it, don't buy it. You don't like how something is implemented, just change it. But no, you'd rather come online and complain thinking anyone is actually listening to you complain.

Either way I'm done with this site altogether, and likely most other dnd sites. It all just winds up getting my blood pressure up.

Okey dokey!