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

[ECMO3]

No I'm not. If it means something to you, it means something to you. It just means next to nothing in game play.

It might mean "next to nothing" statistically, but that does not mean it means "next to nothing" in play.

There are all kinds of things that mean nothing at all statistically (actually nothing), but still mean a lot to players in play.

My Rogue/Warlock I am playing right now has purple skin. Their skin color means nothing at all statistically, but it would mean quite a bit to me in play if my DM (or worse the rules) did not allow it.

To most people, though, it means something because they've fallen into that habit from prior editions or because they don't understand how meaningless to game play it actually is.

So as you note it means something to them and you still have provided no reason we should not to accommodate them, whether it matters to you or not!

 

[ECMO3]

I absolutely admit it means something. It does. However, it doesn't mean enough to call the new system "screwed up." It doesn't mean enough to want to change a system that works for millions of players.

I don't think it does "work" for most players. Certainly most of the people on this thread seem to be against it, as are virtually everyone I play with both as a DM and a player.

Are they 14 years-old? Do you play using all three pillars? Does the DM do a good job highlighting individuals?

I mean, you can forget all those questions. The simple fact that you had a player wanting to ditch their character, something I suppose they developed over time, due to a 5% difference is silly and ridiculous. So all their backstory, their role-playing sessions and connections to NPCs, their explorations and knowledge of the campaign world, their finding of other equipment or magic items, and most importantly, their interplay with the other PCs and the experiences they bonded over - none of it matters to them? They will throw it all away over a +1. Do you hear how ridiculous that sounds?

So two players who I DMed for who disagree with your position on this must be 14-year olds?

You asked a specific question, I answered your specific question, with details. Now you don't like that answer, and worse feel the need to denigrate the very people you asked about!

Do players feel useless because someone in the party gets a +1 weapon? Answer- yes some do. No need to start insulting them .... or me.

 

[Horwath]

And that's still trivial. It's like when they say your chances of a heart attack go up 50%!!!! It's still .0003 or whatever.

That +1 is one extra hit every 6 or 7 combats and +1 damage per hit against bunches of large bags of hit points. It's trivial what it gives you.

our fights last a bit longer, maybe 6-10 rounds on average, and IE our 2WF shifter that does 3 attacks per round on lvl4 in one campaign, that is 18-30 attacks per combat.
at 1d6+4 per attack. let's say at 60% hit rate.
if we make the STR 16, that would go to 1d6+3 at 55% hit rate.
str 18 vs str 16 does about 26% more DPR.

again, I am not saying that str 16 is unplayable, it's certainly is still a good character, the +1 to some int or cha checks over 18 str will be sometimes useful, but 26% more damage is noticeable,

 

[Tessarael]

100%. It is perfectly fine if some folks care about what they see as a significant mechanical impact, and if others don't. For me, the mechanical impact does matter.

The intent here has been to provide a constructive critique of D&D 2024 and to point out a simple fix for a game mech issue. Namely, permitting different origin feats to be selected with backgrounds, either as an official optional rule, or as a common house rule to fix the problem.

 

[Azzy]

How?

I think what you meant to say was: "It's almost as if these fixed background-ASI-feat combos don't allow me to min/max my character the way I want."

Why do you (falsely) equate character customization to min-maxing? What actually breaks if players can customize their backgrounds?

 

[Maxperson]

It might mean "next to nothing" statistically, but that does not mean it means "next to nothing" in play.

There are all kinds of things that mean nothing at all statistically (actually nothing), but still mean a lot to players in play.

I'm defining in play as mechanical play.

So as you note it means something to them and you still have provided no reason we should not to accommodate them, whether it matters to you or not!

The reason is that the majority loses their accommodation. There is no reason to allow nonsensical stat/background combinations just so min maxers don't have to ask their DM. You don't design the game around a small minority of players. You design it around the majority, who are casual players.

 

[Maxperson]

our fights last a bit longer, maybe 6-10 rounds on average, and IE our 2WF shifter that does 3 attacks per round on lvl4 in one campaign, that is 18-30 attacks per combat.
at 1d6+4 per attack. let's say at 60% hit rate.
if we make the STR 16, that would go to 1d6+3 at 55% hit rate.
str 18 vs str 16 does about 26% more DPR.

It's one extra hit every 20 swings on average. So at 18-30 attacks, that's 0-1.5 extra hits. Against large bags of hit points. That doesn't mean much at all. Again, 26% sounds like a lot until you look at what you are actually doing, which isn't much at all.

again, I am not saying that str 16 is unplayable, it's certainly is still a good character, the +1 to some int or cha checks over 18 str will be sometimes useful, but 26% more damage is noticeable,

Not when you realize that 26% is only a few points of damage against big bags of hit points.