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

[W'rkncacnter]

so because i'm a psychopath i decided to go through official WOTC adventures (namely eberron forgotten relics and dragonlance shadow of the dragon queen) and count up the number of combat encounters the party is likely to run into, assume each encounter lasts 3 rounds each, and see how many times an attack roll would succeed due to a +1.

by the start of level 10 (at this point i plan to shift to eve of ruin to get to level 20 but it's almost 2 am so i'll finish it another day), the party has gone through about 85 combat encounters (5-10 are random encounters that could technically never happen but they likely will) and about 22 attack rolls would statistically have succeeded due to the +1. my guess is both those numbers will about double by the time i get to level 20. "But that would make an utterly incomprehensible story!" yeah well i couldn't find a good way to get to level 10 for eve of ruin so too bad. "But Curse of Strahd!" hell no, i refuse to try and figure out what level a party might be at any given point in that thing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

it seems the part of the thread where we just throw long posts of number and calculations at each other has begun, so that's my cue to check out of the conversation for a while until that blows over.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

it seems the part of the thread where we just throw long posts of number and calculations at each other has begun, so that's my cue to check out of the conversation for a while until that blows over.

hey, i'm trying to go so overboard it kills that part early.

probably won't work but...well, i'm already halfway through, i might as well finish it.

 

[Tessarael]

There are only 2 backgrounds that have Strength and Constitution ... you pick one of them!

This is a good point. I was curious and took a look on https://5e.tools/backgrounds.html to see which pairs of ability scores lacked much choice in Background. On that link, you can filter by ability score bonus to see what is available.

The key pairings of most interest are Constitution + another ability score, or Dexterity + another ability score, i.e., boosting a primary ability score and an ability score that boosts HP or AC. Strength + Constitution indeed has the least options, with only Farmer or Soldier in the 2024 PHB.

However with Heroes of Faerun, all ability score pairings now have at least 5 Backgrounds from what I can see. It looks like they intentionally addressed this issue in Heroes of Faerun by adding more options. With Heroes of Faerun, the options for both Strength + Constitution boosts expands to Dead Magic Dweller, Farmer, Flaming Fist Mercenary, Ice Fisher, Rashemi Wandered, and Soldier. It is still a list where you may be limited to 2 to 3 choices depending on where the campaign is set.

The least supported pairing of ability score bonuses is Strength + Intelligence with only five options when Heroes of Faerun is included: Artisan, Guard, Knight of the Gauntlet, Lords' Alliance Vassal, and Noble - 3 of which are in the 2024 Player's Handbook, the other 2 are very campaign dependent.

This is the same problem as occurred with tying ability score bonuses to races in D&D 2014. For example in the 2014 Player's Handbook, the only races that gave both a Wisdom bonus and a Dexterity bonus were Half-Elf, Human, and Wood Elf. This was addressed with subsequent publications providing many more races with different options that had a variety of ability score bonuses.

So ultimately for D&D 2024, once more settings are published, there will be more background options that cater to more choices for what you want in a character build. Providing those backgrounds are not tightly tied to a specific setting, it should be okay.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, but both of them would show little change in party effectiveness if I tested them in a group of PCs who were unchanged.

In terms of measurables, they would actually be pretty close if tested as you propose, which illustrates why this is not a good test method.

Got it. The correct test shows ‘pretty close’ so we must use an incorrect test to get the results you want.

I do agree that looking at the fully paralyzed case can give some context as an upper bound. If paralyzed is 25% reduction in party effectiveness then showing a 20% reduction in party effectiveness is really bad as it’s close to paralyzed.

But you’ll find maybe a 5% decrease in party effectiveness. So still really far away from paralyzed.

I don't have a simulator. I coded what I put above into Matlab and solved it numerically. It took about 150 lines of code.

I’m genuinely curious, what precisely did you numerically ‘solve’ and to what error range?

For example, are you just throwing average dpr at the opponents in different initiative orders? When are you defining it as stopping?

 

[Voadam]

This is the same problem as occurred with tying ability score bonuses to races in D&D 2014. For example in the 2014 Player's Handbook, the only races that gave both a Wisdom bonus and a Dexterity bonus were Half-Elf, Human, and Wood Elf. This was addressed with subsequent publications providing many more races with different options that had a variety of ability score bonuses.

So ultimately for D&D 2024, once more settings are published, there will be more background options that cater to more choices for what you want in a character build. Providing those backgrounds are not tightly tied to a specific setting, it should be okay.

It helps but I'd say it was addressed better with Tasha's.

A number of games are PH only for options, and it will not help those who play in such games. Adding in stuff in specific settings adds stuff for those using those settings or for those DMs willing to allow use of stuff from there.

 

[Maxperson]

We are looking at the best backgrounds vs the worst aren't we? The best background for this provides Strength and Constitution (and feats which I am not even using).

No. That was never a thing. This has always been about a single +1. For like 12 pages or something.

You know what though it matters little as it is only 2hps.

Yes. I do know that a +1 matters little. It still isn't a single +1 like we've been talking about.

2. Four 2nd level fighters with 16 Strength and 15 Constitution with the same weapons and same conditions:

Chance of TPK: less than 1% (0.4%)
Chance of 3 downed fighters: 2%
Chance of 2 downed fighters: 9%
Chance of 1 downed fighters: 38%
Chance of no downed fighters: 50%

Expected Outcome: no fighters downed

The expected outcome involves no tactics apparently. Are the ogres all just hitting different fighters each round, instead of hitting one until he's down and moving on to the next one? Even with second wind, a fighter can't take two hits without being dropped unless he is lucky, and if he's unlucky a single hit can drop him.

Now, I would like you to admit that the 3 points of ASIs you get from backgrounds can result in a significant mechanical difference based on what background you take and where are allowed to put those ASIs.

Why would I admit a falsehood about the +1.

 

[Maxperson]

I really miss the 5.14 rule of auto success on DCs of stat-5 or proficiency.

Because in that case raising a stat from 8 to 10 or from 14 to 15 really matters.

Cha8 and you can actually fail very easy DC5 checks once in a while like farting in front of the king. While a 10cha guy always knows not to do that.

Yeah. I will point out, though, that the Cha 8 guy farting in front of the king can still shift the course of nations. Just maybe not in the direction the PCs want them to go.

 

[Maxperson]

That applies equally to species, classes, feats, the existing pre-made backgrounds, and what not, though, so there's no need to gate custom backgrounds in the DMG that players usually don't have access to when other character options aren't also cordoned off. Also, the PHB already tells the player to work with the DM (in the Talk With Your DM, on page 33) when creating a character as one of the first things in the character creation section, so the DM already has veto power. Cordoning off customizing and creating backgrounds to the DMG is unnecessary.

The 5e PHB also told players to check with the DM for changes and the rules gave the DM veto power, but there were still tons of players who felt that if it was in the PHB, they could just pick it. If the DM said no, he was big bad wrong funning them.

Putting it in the DMG makes it crystal clear that the backgrounds, which have a greater potential to fail to meet the DM's setting than feats, races, etc., are DM granted, rather than DM vetoed. It's better if the DM has to say yes for something to happen, rather than saying no to keep it from happening. There are fewer hard feelings that way.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. That was never a thing. This has always been about a single +1. For like 12 pages or something.

Yes. I do know that a +1 matters little. It still isn't a single +1 like we've been talking about.

The expected outcome involves no tactics apparently. Are the ogres all just hitting different fighters each round, instead of hitting one until he's down and moving on to the next one? Even with second wind, a fighter can't take two hits without being dropped unless he is lucky, and if he's unlucky a single hit can drop him.

Why would I admit a falsehood about the +1.

I have a sneaking suspicion that since he’s not simulating (his words) that he’s doing something closer to allocating average DPR per turn based on initiative. If so that methodology will tend to produce very skewed results, often amplifying small differences based on discrete breakpoints.