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

[ECMO3]

Sure, but stat bonuses don't need to be changed to cater to a minority of people.

You are not answering me, why do they need to be there at all?

I also don't think it is a minority that want them open. This was the same exact thing we heard about racial bonuses and the majority certainly wanted to be free from those limits.

Theme. That's why. The bonuses mostly match the theme of background, where the stats that aren't given bonuses mostly fail to meet the theme of the background.

No they don't!

As I noted earlier there is nothing thematic about Constitution for a Sage or Strength for an Artisan and I will keep going ... no sense in Constitution for a Charleton, or Constitution for a Criminal, or Intelligence for a Criminal, or Strength for an Entertainer or Intelligence for a Guard or Charisma for a Hermit, or Constitution for a Merchant or Wisdom for a Wayfarer

Dexterity for a guard makes MORE thematic sense then these do. You actually have this backwards MOST backgrounds are not thematically connected to all the ASIs they offer. IF we were going to actually do thematics, those abilities mentioned above would be replaced with other abilities and that is over half the backgrounds in the PHB.

This is a rather blatant Strawman of what I have been saying. It's such a bizarre alteration of my argument, that it's more like a Strawarmy.

No it is not. You claim they are not significant, yet you also want to prevent people from taking them.

Why do you want to stop people from taking an ASI where they want to put an ASI, especially when it makes more sense thematically than the RAW version?

Min-maxers who want to use stats that don't make sense for the background are a very small minority of players.

But players who are NOT min maxers and want to use other statistics that DO make sense are not a minority.

Min Maxers already have RAW ways of getting any ASIs or Origin Feats they want. All they need to do is pick a 2014 background and they get any ASIs and any feat they want. The current rules dexplicitly allow for this. The DM has to houserule to not allow this.

The ONLY people this hurts is the people who care about story.

The overwhelming majority of people are casual players who aren't going to be trying to eek out small advances in power via bonuses that don't make sense for the background.

Exactly! So let them play the background they want with the ASIs they want.

Dex bonuses don't make sense for a guard background. Strength does. Constitution does. Wisdom does. Dexterity, charisma, and intelligence do not.

Well funny then that a Guard does not get to take a bonus to Constitution but does get to take an Intelligence bonus. Why is that when Intelligence does not make sense?

Thank you for making my point.

Any agile guard got that dexterity from something other than the guard background. Such as say you putting a 14 into dex.

When there is almost no mechanical difference shouldn't it be the player making these kind of story-focused decisions about their character?

 

[ECMO3]

There are millions of people playing this game. This forum by no means represents the majority. That's like me saying, "Most players I know like the 2024 rules more than the 2014. They agree the game is way better, especially character creation."

And your opinion does not represent most players either.

I said I don't think this works for most players. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. It does not work for most players I play with and does not seem to work for most on this thread. They don't represent millions, but then neither do you.

What I say, and the people I know, does not make it correct. Same can be said for this forum.

Exactly!. That is why I said I don't think it works for most players. That statement is 100% factually true - I don't think it works for most players.

You just came out and stated it like it was a fact that most players are fine with this, without offering any sort of evidence to support that claim. Your opinion can be different than mine, that is OK, but it is an opinion with no more evidence than my opinion.

Sorry, but I am not feeling guilty about calling someone out. You literally said this was their actions:

And then you conveniently ignored all the questions and replies I placed in as to why this sounds very much like a child-like behavior.

Ok to start with plenty of children play D&D and children do typically exhibit child-like behavior, so I hardly think that is a valid criticism unless you don't ever play with children in your games.

That said the two players mentioned were adults. Note these are not the only players or even only adults who I have played with who have abandoned players. Just the two that abandoned them over magic weapons. I have played 5E with well over 100 different people and probably over 200.

To answer your other specific questions:

1. Pillars: Both these two particular games had emphasis on all three phases, but both the players in question built their PC intending to excel at combat and they did not excel at combat.

Again, I ask you: Are they willing to dump all their character's lore-knowledge, background info, NPC bonding, and most importantly, the connections they built to other PCs in the party?

2. Yes they were. They were not just willing, they were happy to do this.

Are they willing to throw all of the above away because they didn't get a +1 weapon, yet another PC did?

3. That is oversimplifying it, but at the end of the day yes. Do you need a more detailed answer (I gave some limited details in my original post, but I will expand if you really need to know).

If the answer is yes, then that is very child-like behavior, so my question stands - Are they a young teenager?

4. Not these two players no.

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.

It is not a fact, again that is an opinion. Maybe it is silly and ridiculous to you, but you were not the one playing the character. And just because I wouldn't do this (and haven't) or you wouldn't do this does not mean others won't do this or that they are wrong when they do.

It also doesn't mean they are "playing wrong" if they want to abandon their character, and if that makes the game more enjoyable for them, then I would argue it is actually "right" regardless of how silly you think it is.

While we are talking about silly and ridiculous, maybe it is silly and ridiculous to some that they are offered Intelligence as an ASI instead of Dexterity when they take a Guard background?

 

[Scott Christian]

And your opinion does not represent most players either.

I said I don't think this works for most players. Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong. It does not work for most players I play with and does not seem to work for most on this thread. They don't represent millions, but then neither do you.

That's a fair point. We don't know. And I already conceded that my opinion may not match most players. The truth is, we don't know. Not you, nor I.

Ok to start with plenty of children play D&D and children do typically exhibit child-like behavior, so I hardly think that is a valid criticism unless you don't ever play with children in your games.

That said the two players mentioned were adults. Note these are not the only players or even only adults who I have played with who have abandoned players. Just the two that abandoned them over magic weapons. I have played 5E with well over 100 different people and probably over 200.

To answer your other specific questions:

1. Pillars: Both these two particular games had emphasis on all three phases, but both the players in question built their PC intending to excel at combat and they did not excel at combat.

Ok. So they're adults. And your game is focused on all three pillars of the game: roleplaying, exploration, and combat.

(As for playing with many different groups. Just so you are aware, I have too. I have played entire campaigns with groups in Florida, in California, in Illinois, in Virginia, in Alaska, and in Texas. All of these were in person. In some places there were more than one group. Then there are all the conventions, game stores, and even paid DMed pieces I have played in. Those rank in the dozens. I have run D&D clubs at each high school I have taught at, which exposed me to watching many, many teenagers play. Hence, why I asked if they were 14. I present this not to brag, but so you know that my experience is similar to yours, with the exception of all of mine have been played in person. I am unsure if yours have, and maybe that is a difference.)

2. Yes they were. They were not just willing, they were happy to do this.

So they were willing to throw away all of their character's lore-knowledge, NPC interactions (friendships, hatreds, etc.), background information (stuff they have revealed and developed over time for the group to see), and PC bonds (all the interactions they have had with the other PCs at the table, the encounters they shared, and the trusts/mis-trusts they gained) just for a 5% increase. I know you say this:

3. That is oversimplifying it, but at the end of the day yes. Do you need a more detailed answer (I gave some limited details in my original post, but I will expand if you really need to know).

But it isn't oversimplifying it. The game focuses on all three pillars, so one pillar of the game, they are 5% less effective in as the player next to them, and they are willing to toss it away because someone got a magic item.

I mean, it seems arbitrary to me. And, I will even try to slide into their shoes, and feel that that 5% matters. But if one is a fighter and the other is a barbarian, by sixth level the fighter already has an extra "ability score improvement" over the barbarian. So even if the fighter doesn't have a fabled +1 weapon, they still surpass every class in the game with ability scores.

Do they not see overall arc of class benefits? And by that, I mean, are they new players?

It is not a fact, again that is an opinion. Maybe it is silly and ridiculous to you, but you were not the one playing the character. And just because I wouldn't do this (and haven't) or you wouldn't do this does not mean others won't do this or that they are wrong when they do.

It also doesn't mean they are "playing wrong" if they want to abandon their character, and if that makes the game more enjoyable for them, then I would argue it is actually "right" regardless of how silly you think it is.

Ok, silly might be the wrong word. But it is ridiculous. If I had them roleplay a session without being able to see their character sheets, and just rolled for them, they would never know the difference. And I never said they were playing "wrong." I said, it seemed like you were using D&D for a combat simulator. But you clarified that all three pillars are in play, and they indeed, are willing to ditch everything they've built because of a 5% difference.

There comes a point in time in a debate, where a person can safely assume certain expectations due to common sense. And it can be safely assumed most players would not leave all those things because someone got a +1 magic weapon, and they didn't.

 

[Scott Christian]

While we are talking about silly and ridiculous, maybe it is silly and ridiculous to some that they are offered Intelligence as an ASI instead of Dexterity when they take a Guard background?

For the record, that is not my claim. That is not my argument. I have been very clear about my claim.

• Players who want this simply want a +1. They need to state that, and stop masquerading it behind other reasons. It was the same for ASIs attached to species.
• And two, an extra +1 over the course of the game is extremely insignificant. There are far too many variables, some different for each and every table, to assume that a +1 has any real consequence over the course of a campaign.

Those are my two claims.

 

[Maxperson]

You are not answering me, why do they need to be there at all?

To the extent that the bonuses exist at all, they should be tied thematically to the backgrounds. If you want them untied, they should be gotten rid of completely. Better to have no bonuses at all, then to have nonsensical combinations.

No they don't!

I've already shown that they do. 10 of the first 12 bonuses make sense. That's most. A response of "No they don't!" isn't a counter argument. If you have a real counter argument to make, make it.

As I noted earlier there is nothing thematic about Constitution for a Sage or Strength for an Artisan and I will keep going ... no sense in Constitution for a Charleton, or Constitution for a Criminal, or Intelligence for a Criminal, or Strength for an Entertainer or Intelligence for a Guard or Charisma for a Hermit, or Constitution for a Merchant or Wisdom for a Wayfarer

Yes. Con was the ONE stat that didn't make sense in the first FOUR backgrounds that I looked at, and it appeared 2 times. The other 10 stat bonuses made sense. Are you seriously arguing that 2 out of 12 = most?

Dexterity for a guard makes MORE thematic sense then these do. You actually have this backwards MOST backgrounds are not thematically connected to all the ASIs they offer. IF we were going to actually do thematics, those abilities mentioned above would be replaced with other abilities and that is over half the backgrounds in the PHB.

Dex is nonsense for a guard. You don't train a guard to dance or dodge out of the way of things. You don't train a guard to be a mathlete, which is intelligence. And you don't train a guard to be persuasive, charisma.

You train him to be strong, which is strength. You train him to be able to stay up for long hours and still focus on his task, to patrol on foot for many hours in a row, etc., which is constitution. And you train them to be able to know when bad guys are lying to him about crimes(wisdom).

Let's see. Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom. 2 out of 3 make sense. We're still with "Most of the stat bonuses make sense." 2 out of 3 = most. 1 out of 3 =/= most, so your argument fails with a 5th consecutive background that I've looked at.

No it is not. You claim they are not significant, yet you also want to prevent people from taking them.

Yes it is. My argument is that if they exist at all, they should be tied thematically to backgrounds so that nonsensical combinations are not present. My argument has nothing to do with me sitting behind the computer screen, laughing maniacally as I sit and watch you be unable to take a nonsensical stat combination to eek out a bit better PC, trying my hardest to keep it away from you.

In fact, I said you should 1) ask your DM to see if you can get it, and 2) that I would give it to you myself if you could show how it could make sense.

Stop your misportrayal of my position.

Why do you want to stop people from taking an ASI where they want to put an ASI, especially when it makes more sense thematically than the RAW version?

Why do you want corn flakes taken off of shelves everywhere?

But players who are NOT min maxers and want to use other statistics that DO make sense are not a minority.

Min Maxers already have RAW ways of getting any ASIs or Origin Feats they want. All they need to do is pick a 2014 background and they get any ASIs and any feat they want. The current rules dexplicitly allow for this. The DM has to houserule to not allow this.

The ONLY people this hurts is the people who care about story.

Just make up a custom background for 5.5e! RAW allows you to do that with DM approval. You want dex on a guard, create a special forces crossbow sniper background and make it a special guard unit that your PC is a member of. Or something else that makes sense, because guards are not trained to be agile. high dex on a guard is a happy accident, not something they get just for walking around all day beating people over the head with clubs.

Well funny then that a Guard does not get to take a bonus to Constitution but does get to take an Intelligence bonus. Why is that when Intelligence does not make sense?

That 1 out of 3 stats doesn't make sense. That's why...................and stick with me here................I've argued that most of the stat bonuses in backgrounds make sense, and not that all of them make sense.

Thank you for making my point.

Since when was your point that most stat bonuses in backgrounds make sense?

When there is almost no mechanical difference shouldn't it be the player making these kind of story-focused decisions about their character?

Absolutely right! Wizards should be allowed to take druid and cleric spells when they level up. Clerics should be able to just pray for bard, sorcerer and wizard spells. Paladins should be able to just take sneak attack instead of divine smite. And on and on, because why shouldn't it be the player that decides these kinds of story-focused decisions about their character? Why should classes force these thematic mechanics upon us! Lead the revolt man! You got this!

 

[Maxperson]

But it isn't oversimplifying it. The game focuses on all three pillars, so one pillar of the game, they are 5% less effective in as the player next to them, and they are willing to toss it away because someone got a magic item.

This is an incorrect statement. That +1 to strength or dex or whatever, isn't 5% of the pillar's effectiveness. The effectiveness of the PC in a pillar is modified by a lot more than 1 of the PC's stats, plus class and racial abilities, plus player decision making, plus...

If that +1 to dex @ECMO3 is arguing so hard for is even 1% of the PC's effectiveness at the pillar, I'd be surprised. That's why I think that most DM's would just give it to him if he made a decent case for it.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is an incorrect statement. That +1 to strength or dex or whatever, isn't 5% of the pillar's effectiveness. The effectiveness of the PC in a pillar is modified by a lot more than 1 of the PC's stats, plus class and racial abilities, plus player decision making, plus...

If that +1 to dex @ECMO3 is arguing so hard for is even 1% of the PC's effectiveness at the pillar, I'd be surprised. That's why I think that most DM's would just give it to him if he made a decent case for it.

Oh, I agree, it is probably about 1%. But I am giving the 5% just because the game uses a 20-sided die. It's an oversimplification, and leans heavily into things being static, which you and I both know, they are not.

I just would hate to see what these players complain about if they had to, oh I don't know, play a session where most of the encounters had resistance to slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage, yet had no resistance to fire, cold, force, etc. I mean, the melee PCs might as well not play because their damage would be half of the casters in the group! Maybe even less at lower levels!

Actually though, in all honesty and joking aside, it really is a case of wanting fewer trade-offs during character creation. Some players just don't want any trade-offs, while others are happy to explore a game where trade-offs create uniqueness, or at a minimum, a path less chosen.

 

[ECMO3]

To the extent that the bonuses exist at all, they should be tied thematically to the backgrounds. If you want them untied, they should be gotten rid of completely.

Ok fine, then you admit WOTC doesn't know how to do backgrounds because many of the ASIs are not tied thematically to the backgrounds.

I've already shown that they do. 10 of the first 12 bonuses make sense. That's most. A response of "No they don't!" isn't a counter argument. If you have a real counter argument to make, make it.

No they don't. The abilities I mentioned don't make as much sense as other abilities. You even used the Guard as an example and YOU even said one of the ASIs they have don't make sense.

Please tell me how these make sense thematically:
Constitution on a Sage
Strength on an Artisan instead of Wisdom
Constitution on a Charleton instead of Wisdom or Intelligence
Intelligence on a Criminal instead of Wisdom or Strength
Strength for an Entertainer
Intelligence for a Guard instead of Constitution (your example)
Charisma for a Hermit .... really Charisma for a Hermit!
Constitution for a Merchant
Wisdom for a Wayfarer
Wisdom for a Sailor instead of Constitution

Your argument about thematics would be a lot better if the ASIs matched thematically, but they don't, and those examples up there are 10 out of 16 backgrounds, which is over half of the backgrounds in the PHB.

Yes. Con was the ONE stat that didn't make sense in the first FOUR backgrounds that I looked at, and it appeared 2 times. The other 10 stat bonuses made sense. Are you seriously arguing that 2 out of 12 = most?

I am arguing the ones above either don't make sense at all or make sense less than another ASI which could have been used instead.

If you think I am wrong tell me why those above make more thematic sense.

Moreover, something like Guard should actually have more than 3 ASIs. While I agree with you that Intelligence does not make sense, both Charisma (for deterrence) and Dexterity do. So that background should have 4 ASIs.

Dex is nonsense for a guard. You don't train a guard to dance or dodge out of the way of things.

It makes a lot more sense than intelligence, especially when armed with guns.

And you don't train a guard to be persuasive, charisma.

Yes you do. Many if not most of the people employed as guards are primarily there for deterrence (i.e. Intimidation) reasons. When you walk into a Jewlery store or a Bank or a movie theater or when someone has a bodyguard they are there not to get in a fight but to deter it from even happening. In D&D parlance that is Charisma.

I will agree intelligence isn't ... yet it is in the background.

You train him to be able to stay up for long hours and still focus on his task, to patrol on foot for many hours in a row, etc., which is constitution.

The vast majority of guards do not patrol on foot for hours. I will grant that Constitution is important for some guards, but less so than Charisma or Dexterity generally ... and moreover you make my point here. Constitution is not one of the ASIs for a guard.

Let's see. Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom. 2 out of 3 make sense. We're still with "Most of the stat bonuses make sense."

Most of the backgrounds have stat bonuses that do not make thematic sense. 2 of three stat bonuses that make sense on a background and one that does not means that Background has a stat bonus that does not make sense.

Most backgrounds have stat bonuses that do not all make sense thematically. Most of them are broken thematically, yet this is the reason you think WOTC is doing a good job with them?

Yes it is. My argument is that if they exist at all, they should be tied thematically to backgrounds so that nonsensical combinations are not present.

And yet over and over again they are not. Many of the ASIs are arbitrary and if we are going to have 1 or more arbitrary non-thematic ASI tied to backgrounds over and over and over, then why can't we have others?

My argument has nothing to do with me sitting behind the computer screen, laughing maniacally as I sit and watch you be unable to take a nonsensical stat combination to eek out a bit better PC, trying my hardest to keep it away from you.

No you don't want other players to use stat bonuses that do make sense for their character. You don't want players to be able to take a Constitution bonus on a Guard even though you say it makes thematic sense.

In fact, I said you should 1) ask your DM to see if you can get it, and 2) that I would give it to you myself if you could show how it could make sense.

My DM has nothing at all to do with this thread. My DM can do whatever he wants, that doesn't change the fact that WOTC doesn't know how to do backgrounds, as per the title of the thread.

Stop your misportrayal of my position.

It is not a misportrayal, you want the rules to limit people from doing things for story reasons even when it has almost no mechanical difference.

Just make up a custom background for 5.5e! RAW allows you to do that with DM approval.

Exactly. This does nothing to the min-maxers. WOTC's background design only affects people who want to use a certain background for story reasons, and why shouldn't I be able to use the WOTC Guard backgroud for my sniper since you agree that is a "Guard" and that "makes sense"

Or something else that makes sense, because guards are not trained to be agile.

They are not trained to be Intelligent yet Intelligence is not a "happy accident"

Hermit are not particularly social yet they can get Charisma as not a "happy accident"

Don't you see the hypocrisy in your position here? I can't take dexterity on my Guard, but I can take Intelligence? I can't take Intelligence on my Hermit, but I can take Charisma?

You want dex on a guard, create a special forces crossbow sniper background and make it a special guard unit that your PC is a member of.

But I can't use the Guard background for that and this is the point.

Guards are not trained in Intelligence, yet I can get an Intelligence boost with that Background

That 1 out of 3 stats doesn't make sense. That's why...................and stick with me here................I've argued that most of the stat bonuses in backgrounds make sense, and not that all of them make sense.

Ok, but most of the Backgrounds have stat bonuses that don't make thematic sense. I can take Intelligence on that 2024 Guard background, something you said makes no thematic sense.

If most of the backgrounds have one or more stat bonuses that make no sense, then most of the Backgrounds are not well designed thematically

Since when was your point that most stat bonuses in backgrounds make sense?

Your claim is Backgrounds provide ASI bonuses that are thematically appropriate. That is not true. Most Backgrounds have one or more ASI increases that are either not appropriate at all or less appropriate than one or more other abilities.

Absolutely right! Wizards should be allowed to take druid and cleric spells when they level up. Clerics should be able to just pray for bard, sorcerer and wizard spells. Paladins should be able to just take sneak attack instead of divine smite.

This is more appropriate in a discussion about class design than one about Background design, but a lot of people would agree with this.

 

[Azzy]

That's fair. It should probably be called character optimization, not min/maxing. And nothing breaks if players can customize backgrounds.

Then why limit customized backgrounds? There is no good reason.

But the opposite of that is true as well - nothing breaks if players have to choose pre-made backgrounds from the PHB.

That's gotta be a logical fallacy right there.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

So you admit it does mean something then.

"Not much" is still something and that is enough said IMO.



To be brutally honest yes, I have players claim they felt worthless in play because of the magic weapons other members of the party found.

Maybe teach them some math?

Most often it is due to the Feats they take, most notably PAM and/or GWM. But I have had both a Fighter and a Barbarian ask to build a new character because they did not get a +1 Glaive or Halberd, while the other players got +1 weapons.

...