D&D (2024) Why aren't you using 5e 2024?

[Parmandur]

Fun fact, there is no alignment in BG3, and it has the sort of nuanced complex characters that the alignment discourages.

Also, classism of the backgrounds obviously is an issue, and something I pointed out the moment I learned of how they worked. And unlike with the species, where different abilities due wildly different biology make quite a bit sense and offence requires reading the species as allegory to human ethnicities, here no such allegorical interpretation is needed; it is just plain "classism is true and justified in D&D" embedded in the rules. Aristocrats truly are smarter and more charming than the dumb and ugly peasants!

But the ASIs are significantly less essentialist now: not all Nobles are more intelligent or charming, their life experiences just give them the opportunity to hone those skills. A given Novle can have an Intelligence or Charisma as low as 3, depending on the duce and their assignment. No 2014 Wood Elf or Mountain Dwarf varies I'm what they are better at, their ability adjustments are hardwired by biology. Very, very different.

 

[abirdcall]

But the ASIs are significantly less essentialist now: not all Nobles are more intelligent or charming, their life experiences just give them the opportunity to hone those skills. A given Novle can have an Intelligence or Charisma as low as 3, depending on the duce and their assignment. No 2014 Wood Elf or Mountain Dwarf varies I'm what they are better at, their ability adjustments are hardwired by biology. Very, very different.

Yeah, this is a world where people gain ability points as they get experience.

Nobles don't have higher cha or int because they were born that way. It is because they spent their entire lives learning things that Nobles can do because they have money for teachers and the time to do it. It even explains it.

The other backgrounds all get similar bonuses.

Criminals get intelligence and Charlatans get charisma so they aren't unique to upper classes.

Such a silly argument.

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah, this is a world where people gain ability points as they get experience.

Nobles don't have higher cha or int because they were born that way. It is because they spent their entire lives learning things that Nobles can do because they have money for teachers and the time to do it. It even explains it.

The other backgrounds all get similar bonuses.

Criminals get intelligence and Charlatans get charisma so they aren't unique to upper classes.

Such a silly argument.

It males a lot more sense than Racial ASIs in relation to ongoing ASIs as you Level up, too: essentially, the Background grants two early life ASIs (one full ASI and one Feat +1 to an ability). Life experience is what determines Skills developed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But the ASIs are significantly less essentialist now: not all Nobles are more intelligent or charming, their life experiences just give them the opportunity to hone those skills. A given Novle can have an Intelligence or Charisma as low as 3, depending on the duce and their assignment. No 2014 Wood Elf or Mountain Dwarf varies I'm what they are better at, their ability adjustments are hardwired by biology. Very, very different.

No one cares about the minimums, never did. The species ASIs would not have been fixed for people who had an issue with them if they had been three favoured abilities you could choose to put your ASIs in like you now do with the backgrounds. The end result is that certain classes get tied to certain backgrounds. There will be no wizards with a farmer background, but there will be plenty of who are nobles. And unlike with species, where no one of us is an elf or an orc in the real life, people actually come from different social classes and have to face prejudices based on that. So it is offensive for the game to say that in this fictional world such prejudices are actually correct and justified.

 

[Scribe]

So it is offensive for the game to say that in this fictional world such prejudices are actually correct and justified.

They are tropes, so lets break this down.

Acolyte - Int, Wisdom, Charisma - Makes perfect sense.
Artisan - Str, Dex, Int - Str is pretty weak here, but Dex/Int are fine.
Charlatan - Dex, Con, Cha - Sure.
Criminal - Dex, Con, Int - Sure.
Entertainer - Str, Dex, Cha - Sure.
Farmer - Str, Con, Wis - Absolutely.
Guard - Str, Int, Wis - ? Int and Wisdom seem weird but I guess to split off from Soldier.
Guide - Dex, Con, Wis - Sure.
Hermit - Con, Wis, Cha - Fine.
Merchant - Con, Int, Cha - Fine.
Noble - Str (?), Int, Cha - Int and Cha make sense. Str seems arbitrary but if we wanted to really think about it, Nobles have the time, and capacity to work at anything, while others have to you know, work to survive.
Sage - Con, Int, Wis - Sure.
Sailor - Str, Dex, Wis - Sure.
Scribe - Dex, Int, Wis - Sure.
Soldier - Str, Dex, Con - Yep.
Wayfarer - Dex, Wis, Cha - Yep.

This is not 'classism' at all. This is your pre-adventurer Occupation. You improve, based on what you do.

I have worked manual labour, and guess what? My muscles grew stronger. As anyone in a labour position if they have worked with a man who was a lifer, and ask them about their 'old man strength'. This is a thing.

Frankly, Noble should be overpowered and have granted every option, because its Nobles who can 'train for fun' in whatever they want.

This isnt classism, this is your character having improved in some aspects of their development related to the basic tropes of their prior occupation, which is exactly how the real world works.

 

[Parmandur]

No one cares about the minimums, never did. The species ASIs would not have been fixed for people who had an issue with them if they had been three favoured abilities you could choose to put your ASIs in like you now do with the backgrounds. The end result is that certain classes get tied to certain backgrounds. There will be no wizards with a farmer background, but there will be plenty of who are nobles. And unlike with species, where no one of us is an elf or an orc in the real life, people actually come from different social classes and have to face prejudices based on that. So it is offensive for the game to say that in this fictional world such prejudices are actually correct and justified.

People in general don't power game that much, so I'm sure there will be plenty of Farmer Wizards in actual play, same as there were for any Race/Class combo in 2014.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This is not 'classism' at all. This is your pre-adventurer Occupation. You improve, based on what you do.

And here's the crux of the matter: Are these things inherent to the people who end up in these backgrounds or are they the result of change over time?

WotC only has one sentence on the matter:

Your character’s background is a collection of characteristics that represent the place and occupation that were most formative before your character embarked on a life of adventure.

"Formative" suggests that, yeah, that a noble developed the unfortunately named "intelligence" by traditional learning that, say, a hermit wouldn't have.

I think a lot of people will miss this sentence, though, and I expect to hear this argument periodically until the 2034 books come out.

That said, this whole issue could have been sidestepped by just keeping the Tasha's rules in the 2024 PHB and let people pick their own scores. The 2024 backgrounds still have plenty of heft to them without that.

 

[Parmandur]

No one cares about the minimums, never did. The species ASIs would not have been fixed for people who had an issue with them if they had been three favoured abilities you could choose to put your ASIs in like you now do with the backgrounds. The end result is that certain classes get tied to certain backgrounds. There will be no wizards with a farmer background, but there will be plenty of who are nobles. And unlike with species, where no one of us is an elf or an orc in the real life, people actually come from different social classes and have to face prejudices based on that. So it is offensive for the game to say that in this fictional world such prejudices are actually correct and justified.

Even taking power gaming into consideration, there about 8 Backgrounds in the PHB that work for Wizard, and Boble is fairly behind the pack, compared to Artisan, Criminal, Guard, Sage, Scribe, Merchant, or Acolyte...yeah, actually, I'd put Noble dead last in the Intelligence granting Backgrounds as appropriate for a Wizard. Amd it is really easy to say "my Farmer spent all his time reading and talking to Eliminster next door, can I have an Intelligence bonus?" since Backgrounds are inherently fungible and customizable per the DMG.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Amd it is really easy to say "my Farmer spent all his time reading and talking to Eliminster next door, can I have an Intelligence bonus?" since Backgrounds are inherently fungible and customizable per the DMG.

Then why tie them to the ability scores in the first place!

 

[LordEntrails]

It's not complicated, but that was the closest choice you gave.
The real question is "Why should we use the 2024 rules?" The books have not all been released yet. Why use a set of rules that are only half published?

Even when they are released, why use them? Why? Just because they are new and shiny? Or you have FOMO? And then for those of us that are in the middle of a campaign, why switch rules part way through?

It's simple, I'm not using the 2024 rules because their is no good reason to.