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

[Charlaquin]

And so does taking a standard background that suits your character, but rewriting the fluff text - which you're already explicitly allowed to do.

I don’t think it does. The benefits are fixed. Every Acolyte is smart, wise, and charismatic, none are tough, strong or nimble, and they all learn to use the same skills and tools, and speak the same language. Saying “we’ll, you can be an Acolyte but say you’re actually a farmer” doesn’t really fix the problem, any more than saying you can play an orc but call yourself an elf would have fixed the problems with fixed species ASIs.

 

[tglassy]

I respond, as I want to be absolutely crystal clear about this: I obviously do not think that classism is worse thing than racism, merely that the racism implied by different imaginary species having different capabilities is an analogy, whilst classism of different humans beings having different capabilities due their background is not; it does not rely on an interpretation, it is what it is.


So this whole problem with ASIs, were they tied to species or background, is that classes are too dependent on singe stat. So every wizard needs to have same Int, every rogue the same Dex etc. And that is just boring and bad design.

Apparently they have gone so with forcing these cookie cutter builds, that there are suggested standard array assignments for every class in the new PHB! That is just sad.

(Also, I'm sure that features of some species still favour some classes.)

But that's the way everyone played them. If you have Standard Array, every class put their 15 and 14 in the same stat, with the 13 going to Con, and the rest just deciding which stat you wanted a negative in. People who know how to make characters will ignore the new table, and those who are new can just pick one and move on. They aren't forcing you into a cookie cutter class. We did that ourselves.

I don’t think it does. The benefits are fixed. Every Acolyte is smart, wise, and charismatic, none are tough, strong or nimble, and they all learn to use the same skills and tools, and speak the same language. Saying “we’ll, you can be an Acolyte but say you’re actually a farmer” doesn’t really fix the problem, any more than saying you can play an orc but call yourself an elf would have fixed the problems with fixed species ASIs.

I mean, you can stubbornly refuse to do any work where the background is concerned and pretend there isn't any flexibility, but the only person you're hurting is yourself.

 

[DragonLancer]

Even if they are hard coded in it is super easy to create a homebrew background. Honestly, I kind of like that. The DM goes in and creates backgrounds like "9th Street runners" a kind of thieves guild, or "Served in the Great War" you can get guards based on the city they are from, solders based on the country, so on and so on

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, you can stubbornly refuse to do any work where the background is concerned and pretend there isn't any flexibility, but the only person you're hurting is yourself.

There literally is not any flexibility. The rules for customizing your background aren’t in the PHB. You cannot, by the rules we have, play an Acolyte with a boost to strength, or with the savage attacker feat, or thieves’ tools. The new backgrounds were sold to us as custom by default with a selection of premade examples if you don’t want to choose all the elements individually, with the freedom to change out whatever you want from an example. But what they actually gave us is fixed backgrounds (“oh but you can change the description if you want to! ) with no rules for customizing them even in the player’s handbook at all. I think it’s pretty reasonable to be annoyed that they delivered the literal opposite of what got over 70% approval in the playtest.

 

[Clint_L]

I have no issues with the new backgrounds on paper, because technically I can let players customize them.

The issue for me is how they will be implemented in DDB. Will everything be hard-coded in, or will you be able to customize them, swapping one origin feat for another (for instance)?

I'm interested to see a lot of how 2024 gets implemented in DDB. In this case, since DDB already allows you to toggle on custom backgrounds, I don't think it'll be a problem. But we'll have to wait a few more weeks to know for sure.

 

[MarkB]

I don’t think it does. The benefits are fixed. Every Acolyte is smart, wise, and charismatic, none are tough, strong or nimble, and they all learn to use the same skills and tools, and speak the same language. Saying “we’ll, you can be an Acolyte but say you’re actually a farmer” doesn’t really fix the problem, any more than saying you can play an orc but call yourself an elf would have fixed the problems with fixed species ASIs.

Sure, if none of the sixteen backgrounds provide the combination of benefits you want, you're out of luck. But if there's one that does, it doesn't matter what it's called or what its default description is - you can totally rewrite that stuff to suit your character.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, if none of the sixteen backgrounds provide the combination of benefits you want, you're out of luck. But if there's one that does, it doesn't matter what it's called or what its default description is - you can totally rewrite that stuff to suit your character.

Again, this is like saying you can choose to use the mechanics of an orc but call your character an elf. Ok, technically that’s possible, but it’s incredibly dissatisfying. Why is there a narrative explanation tied to these packages of features in the first place if it’s really supposed to be so unimportant as to be completely interchangeable with any other narrative explanation?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure, if none of the sixteen backgrounds provide the combination of benefits you want, you're out of luck. But if there's one that does, it doesn't matter what it's called or what its default description is - you can totally rewrite that stuff to suit your character.

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.

 

[Parmandur]

Again, this is like saying you can choose to use the mechanics of an orc but call your character an elf. Ok, technically that’s possible, but it’s incredibly dissatisfying. Why is there a narrative explanation tied to these packages of features in the first place if it’s really supposed to be so unimportant as to be completely interchangeable with any other narrative explanation?

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

 

[MarkB]

Again, this is like saying you can choose to use the mechanics of an orc but call your character an elf. Ok, technically that’s possible, but it’s incredibly dissatisfying. Why is there a narrative explanation tied to these packages of features in the first place if it’s really supposed to be so unimportant as to be completely interchangeable with any other narrative explanation?

User-friendliness.

There literally is not any flexibility. The rules for customizing your background aren’t in the PHB. You cannot, by the rules we have, play an Acolyte with a boost to strength, or with the savage attacker feat, or thieves’ tools. The new backgrounds were sold to us as custom by default with a selection of premade examples if you don’t want to choose all the elements individually, with the freedom to change out whatever you want from an example. But what they actually gave us is fixed backgrounds (“oh but you can change the description if you want to! ) with no rules for customizing them even in the player’s handbook at all. I think it’s pretty reasonable to be annoyed that they delivered the literal opposite of what got over 70% approval in the playtest.

I do agree with your wider point in general. Without the customisation options these rules are, at best, incomplete, which is a bad look for a player's handbook.

I had been planning to run a high-level campaign using exclusively 2024 rules as soon as I got my hands on the PHB, just to see how it all plays out, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that, in order to make a good go of it, I'm going to have to put it off until the DMG is released in November. Right now, there are just too many pieces missing.