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

[Voadam]

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.

I think it is more about balance of options versus deliberately making certain specific concepts work well or poorly for specific archetypes.

Should there be specific ones that synergize well mechanically (3e half orc barbarian with bonus strength) and ones that are mechanically detrimented (3e half orc sorcerer with a charisma penalty)?

I am more in favor of the game being designed for all PCs to be designed to be balanced.

24 background ASIs are designed to synergize mechanically with a bunch of classes but not others. So if you like the roleplay/story concept of a background and choose it, it may or may not add a mechanical power bonus to your class based attacks. So some combos have trade offs and some have none.

I dislike having some PC roleplay story choices making some characters better than others by design.

If it had to be tied to something I would prefer it to be tied to your class rather than your background, for both mechanical and story reasons. Mechanically it means it would always be put to synergize with the class instead f sometimes doing so and sometimes not, which will mean more mechanical balance. Story wise it would mean that mechanically powerful sorcerers come from any background and not just things like performer type backgrounds that are associated with charisma.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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,

Yes. And this isnthe most you get out of that extra +1 str. Many attacks with small base dice and feat support.

In that case, 25% extra damage is noticable. Swap that weapon against a great axe, and now the differential is way lower. I am not totally sure about a cleave weapon, as the +1 also goes to miss damage. I have to calculate that.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

I am not against customization of backgrounds. Talk with your DM. I know, that if I were DMing, I would allow it.

That's gotta be a logical fallacy right there.

That is not a logical fallacy. The game does not break if you allow the customized background, and the player gets their extra +1. The game does not break if you do not allow a customized background, and the player does not get their extra +1. There is no fallacy in that statement. Both are true.

 

[FrogReaver]

24 background ASIs are designed to synergize mechanically with a bunch of classes but not others. So if you like the roleplay/story concept of a background and choose it, it may or may not add a mechanical power bonus to your class based attacks. So some combos have trade offs and some have none.

Right, I much preferred 2014's backgrounds being of limited mechanical benefit for that exact reason.

I dislike having some PC roleplay story choices making some characters better than others by design.

Classes are the same and there are clearly some classes that are better than others, even though they are fairly close overall.

IMO class is the ultimate roleplay story choice.

If it had to be tied to something I would prefer it to be tied to your class rather than your background, for both mechanical and story reasons. Mechanically it means it would always be put to synergize with the class instead f sometimes doing so and sometimes not, which will mean more mechanical balance. Story wise it would mean that mechanically powerful sorcerers come from any background and not just things like performer type backgrounds that are associated with charisma.

IMO. There's value in being able to package things together so that not all features chosen are particularly beneficial to any given class. It's essentially the same reason classes work so well.

There is always a balance vs customization tradeoff.

Class/Background/Race packages help with balance but reduce customization.

 

[ECMO3]

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:

Yes and they felt creating a new character would be more fun for them at the table, and I believe it was.

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.

It is oversimplifying it because it had to do with their entire character design and their intended role in the party, not only the magic +1 weapon.

Also it is more than a 5% difference. A drop in attack rolls and damage is going to average quite a bit more than a 5% reduction in number of hits and damage. In tier 2 losing that +1 will cut your damage by about 10-20% typically, more than that VS very high AC when an enemy is difficult to hit.

For example, both of these characters I talked about had the 2014 GWM: doing 21 damage per hit with a 35% hit rate is 7.35 DPA, doing 20 damage with a 30% hit rate is 6 DPA. So that is an 18% reduction in damage due to that loss in +1, not a 5% reduction. Add on to that we were at a level where many monsters were resistant to non-magic weapons, which would make it effectively a 59% reduction in damage. I don't know those numbers are accurate for those characters, but they are pretty close.

A basic 1st level Fighter using a longsword and dueling going from a 15 strength to a 16 strength vs 14AC goes from 4.96 DPR with 15 Strength to 5.93 DPR with 16. That is a 20% increase in damage. Using a Greataxe with Cleave it will take you from 7.15 to 8.56, likewise a 20% increase, dual wielding a shortsword and scimitar with Vex-Nick-TWF it goes from 7.24DPR to 9.18DPR a 27% increase in damage. Not enough to make me scrap my character, but certainly enough to be noticeable.

 

[Azzy]

I am not against customization of backgrounds. Talk with your DM. I know, that if I were DMing, I would allow it.

But, that's the thing. If customizing backgrounds were in the PHB as a default option (like it was in the 5.14 PHB), you wouldn't need to rely on the whims of a DM when creating a character. Why does the DM need to micromanage what skills, origin feat, and proficiencies a character gets? It's an unnecessary element.

That is not a logical fallacy. The game does not break if you allow the customized background, and the player gets their extra +1. The game does not break if you do not allow a customized background, and the player does not get their extra +1. There is no fallacy in that statement. Both are true.

No, the game doesn't break, but does unnecessarily limit character creation when there is absolutely no need. So asking that is
not remotely close to the point. It's a non-sequiter.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes and they felt creating a new character would be more fun for them at the table, and I believe it was.

IMO that's completely dysfunctional player.

It also highlights the trap of tying yourself to a single weapon type from feats too early.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think it is more about balance of options versus deliberately making certain specific concepts work well or poorly for specific archetypes.

Should there be specific ones that synergize well mechanically (3e half orc barbarian with bonus strength) and ones that are mechanically detrimented (3e half orc sorcerer with a charisma penalty)?

I am more in favor of the game being designed for all PCs to be designed to be balanced.

And that is the crux of the argument right there. What you consider balanced is an absolute myth. An extra +1 at character creation does not throw off the balance of the game. It barely registers. There are dozens of other factors that determine balance far more than an extra +1 at character creation.

24 background ASIs are designed to synergize mechanically with a bunch of classes but not others. So if you like the roleplay/story concept of a background and choose it, it may or may not add a mechanical power bonus to your class based attacks. So some combos have trade offs and some have none.

You cannot discount the bonuses those things you consider non-synergistic create. The entire character creation process is about trade-offs. From choosing a class, to choosing a species, to choosing a background, to choosing equipment. It is all a trade-off. The only difference here is you consider that extra +1 as a balance issue.

I dislike having some PC roleplay story choices making some characters better than others by design.

I dislike having a PC's roleplaying choices not to have an impact on their character. It should. So we should get rid of every species trait? Every class trait? Just throw it all on the table as a pile of cards and say, choose whatever you want? That is what you are proposing if you do not want roleplaying choices to have a design effect of characters.

And please note, I am not opposed to that idea. But that is not D&D. It is a different game.

If it had to be tied to something I would prefer it to be tied to your class rather than your background, for both mechanical and story reasons. Mechanically it means it would always be put to synergize with the class instead f sometimes doing so and sometimes not, which will mean more mechanical balance. Story wise it would mean that mechanically powerful sorcerers come from any background and not just things like performer type backgrounds that are associated with charisma.

And this goes back to the heart of my claim. It's not about whether something makes sense. It is really just about getting that extra +1 where you want it.

There are many reasons why class doesn't make sense to house ASIs from a roleplaying perspective. For starters, they are just starting to be that class during game play. A fighter just learning to swing a sword, one that can barely beat a simple CR 1/2 creature at first level in a solo fight. Why should they get extra strength? They just started their training.

But that is neither here nor there. It should be this: A background is how you grew up as a child. That is what develops you. You're the son of a pirate that's been sailing since you were 2 years old. You probably have good balance and some bowed legs.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are many reasons why class doesn't make sense to house ASIs from a roleplaying perspective. For starters, they are just starting to be that class during game play. A fighter just learning to swing a sword, one that can barely beat a simple CR 1/2 creature at first level in a solo fight. Why should they get extra strength? They just started their training.

One can easily view that part as they chose to be a fighter because they had +1 str, instead of they got extra strength for choosing to be a fighter.

 

[FrogReaver]

You cannot discount the bonuses those things you consider non-synergistic create. The entire character creation process is about trade-offs. From choosing a class, to choosing a species, to choosing a background, to choosing equipment. It is all a trade-off. The only difference here is you consider that extra +1 as a balance issue.

You cannot simply weight a +1 in str for a fighter the same as +1 cha for a Fighter either just because they both give bonuses to a few different things.