Unearthed Arcana WOTC still can't get the backgrounds right in the new FR book.

[Maxperson]

Then again I ask, why have them as part of the background? If you don't even notice a +1 then why is it necessary to be a certain thing for a specific background.

This is especially true when Background is a much smaller part of PC design than Class and chosen after you choose the class.

I think background does influence stats, but not to the extent 5.5e does it. They should have +2 for race and +1 for background. So a soldier probably has +1 to str, and an elf would have +2 dex. So an elven soldier would be +2 dex, +1 str.

 

[Azzy]

I think background does influence stats, but not to the extent 5.5e does it. They should have +2 for race and +1 for background. So a soldier probably has +1 to str, and an elf would have +2 dex. So an elven soldier would be +2 dex, +1 str.

Personally, were I to pin ASIs to things, I'd give the +2 to class, but I agree with a +1 from backgrounds. But I much rather ASIs be floating.

 

[Horwath]

I think background does influence stats, but not to the extent 5.5e does it. They should have +2 for race and +1 for background. So a soldier probably has +1 to str, and an elf would have +2 dex. So an elven soldier would be +2 dex, +1 str.

+1 for a race/species from 3 options
+1 for background from 3 options
+2(or +1/+1) from class from 3 options
max of +2 to a single stat

IE:
wood elf: +1 to str, dex, or wis
outlander: : +1 to str, con or wis
druid: +2(or +1/+1) to dex, con or wis

 

[Maxperson]

+1 for a race/species from 3 options
+1 for background from 3 options
+2(or +1/+1) from class from 3 options
max of +2 to a single stat

IE:
wood elf: +1 to str, dex, or wis
outlander: : +1 to str, con or wis
druid: +2(or +1/+1) to dex, con or wis

I could do 3 +1s like that, but I think I'd rather pick from two options each, rather than three.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nah, having a single attribute point in a place you didn't want it doesn't create a situation where you miss out on 2-3 adds the bonus. You miss out on a single plus one.

I've played at tables with over 100 characters. I've seen one be optimized.
I've watched thousands of hours of Actual Play -- I don't think I've seen an optimized character ever.
All the discussions on Twitter/Threads/Mastodon/Facebook (not counting groups designated for optimization) don't talk about D&D as an optimization game unless it's players who played 3/3.5.

I've seen no evidence that optimization of mechanics is the leading style of play in 5e and the evidence from the shifts in design to 2024 are indications that there's no evidence WotC has seen of it either.

They talk about optimization on reddit.

You might not see it on those platforms because if you're not engaging with it you wont see it.

Its not a major thing but wasnt in 3E era either.

 

[Voadam]

Even that thinking is a trap. The difference between +2 and +3 is just +1. That means that on average you will succeed one single additional time out of every 20 rolls using that bonus. Given the number of rolls and random chance, you will never notice that success. It generally won't have much effect at all on things. Especially if it's in combat where you are usually facing multiple large bags of hit points. One extra hit every 20 swings and 1 extra damage per swing does almost nothing to multiple large bags of hit points.

It is also things like how often you can use class class features like bardic inspiration, giving out two versus three inspirations per long rest is more noticeable. For monk wholeness of body it is both adding to the individual healing and number of times you can heal between long rests. For Ranger the Tireless feature it adds to both the temp hp gained but also how many times you can gain the temp hps per long rest. Sorcerer careful spell it protects charisma modifier creatures from your spells.

For Con it will be 1 hp more per level, sometimes that is lasting an extra round of combat before going to 0.

It will also be things like AC and init from dex. So for dex characters this will come up twice as often as it is for both attacks going out and coming in. Con and Wis can be AC too for an unarmored barbarian or a monk.

For paladins the aura charisma modifier save bonus is for everybody around them so decent number of rolls getting you to that 1 in 20.

 

[Maxperson]

It is also things like how often you can use class class features like bardic inspiration, giving out two versus three inspirations per long rest is more noticeable. For monk wholeness of body it is both adding to the individual healing and number of times you can heal between long rests. For Ranger the Tireless feature it adds to both the temp hp gained but also how many times you can gain the temp hps per long rest. Sorcerer careful spell it protects charisma modifier creatures from your spells.

For Con it will be 1 hp more per level, sometimes that is lasting an extra round of combat before going to 0.

It will also be things like AC and init from dex. So for dex characters this will come up twice as often as it is for both attacks going out and coming in. Con and Wis can be AC too for an unarmored barbarian or a monk.

For paladins the aura charisma modifier save bonus is for everybody around them so decent number of rolls getting you to that 1 in 20.

Virtually all of that is negligible as well. The bonus to saves means 1 extra save out of 20 will succeed. 1 more hit point per level will very occasionally be useful. Most of the time it just means that the 23 points of damage takes you from 12 to 0 instead of 11 to 0. AC will mean being missed one additional time out of 20.

A feat will generally be useful a LOT. And you'll see it in action, unlike that other stuff outside of the extra class feature use. Seeing it in use typically means that you will enjoy it more.

Mind you, I'm not saying it makes no difference. Only that the difference is small and generally not even noticeable. I will go with a feat every time.

 

[ECMO3]

I think background does influence stats, but not to the extent 5.5e does it. They should have +2 for race and +1 for background. So a soldier probably has +1 to str, and an elf would have +2 dex. So an elven soldier would be +2 dex, +1 str.

That makes no sense when a soldier can play a Rogue and dump strength.

If there are strength bonuses for background then logically there should be strength minimums for background.

 

[Maxperson]

That makes no sense when a soldier can play a Rogue and dump strength.

If there are strength bonuses for background then logically there should be strength minimums for background.

It makes perfect sense. I'm just not assuming bad faith on the part of the players. Minimums should not be a part of the game. If someone wants a bonus in the same stat he puts a low stat, that's on him.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I must say, I notice when my character fails an attack roll by 1. You just roll attacks very often, and of course I'll usually miss by more than just 1. But it is something noticeable.

Personally, were I to pin ASIs to things, I'd give the +2 to class, but I agree with a +1 from backgrounds. But I much rather ASIs be floating.

I tend to agree, the big stat bonus should match your class, because that's what you are likely going to do anyway (and then you don't need to worry so much how your Desert Cloister Monk became a Sailor).

Though I might also do the reserve - if you want to have a particular class, you need to have the minimum stat.
Since you don't really want to play a Fighter that has neither a decent Strenght or Dexterity anyway, kinda as a little guide to not screw your character. Of course, that's kinda superflous because these days, class descriptions usually mention what the important stats are and people shouldn't accidentaly make low INT Wizards or something like that.