The backgrounds are awful and not the ones from play-testing where they were suggestions. You cant be as basic as something likea dexterous swashbuckling noble like Zorro, Count of Monte Christo or the Scarlet Pimpernel. The Origin feats also vary wildly in power.
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
But "a bunch of people like this" does not mean a larger number of people would. Nor does it mean it's not bad game design. (But, of course, what's good or bad game design depends in part on the goal. There are design goals for which it's fine. But they're not the goals of modern D&D. (And it's questionable that it's been a good fit for the goals of any version of D&D.))
3d6 in order started with OD&D in 1974.
I have explained the shortcomings of the min-max approach. It homogenizes characters. Background choices or whatever backstories are provided characters doesn't change the fact the characters are practically identical in terms of their physical and mental prowess. Neither the fiction that inspired the game nor myth nor legend reduces all heroes to the point their physical and mental prowess is identical.
You're really overstating the levels of similarity.
What the system does is it allows PCs to be capable in their chosen field, while still allowing for significant variation in the side stats. There are tradeoffs for game balance, but game balance needs to be a consideration.
And that makes sense. Random stats might make sense for a game about random schlubs caught by surprise in a high-risk situation. But that doesn't describe any version of D&D. D&D characters of any edition are people with considerable amounts of training, who (typically) have chosen to undertake a highly dangerous lifestyle. Competence is to be expected.
What attributes are "unsuited" to a class? Can no wizard be strong? Is there no such thing in the literature? Can no player come up with something to explain this? A wizard in possession of immense physical strength is a wizard with a story to tell. A gentle giant for example. I once played a firbolg thief who was just that.
Mediocre at everything? Roll again. The AD&D DMG suggests rolling 3d6 in order 12 times and choosing the best set.
And here we get to the unwritten point. Once the system is not "3d6 in order", but "3d6 in order until you're satisfied", you eliminate the worst problems, but there are second-order effects that are usually considered undesirable.
And more formalized methods lead to jumping through hoops to try to control the problems with randomness. Rolling 216 dice to generate your stats is, frankly, absurd.
You have essentially proven my point: Talk of "unsuited" attributes. A character being outclassed by one belonging to another class. The powergaming mindset that drives min-max is just not as conducive to roleplaying as is randomization. It means an infinity of possible stories are discarded to again build a party that consists of characters not too dissimilar to almost every other party. Wizards could add a hundred new classes and it wouldn't solve that problem. It's not for a lack of options. It's players wanting to have the "best" fighter or the "best" wizard. Instead of playing a fighter or a wizard. This is why many have walked away from modern gaming. Why many even newcomers to the hobby who enjoyed 5th. Edition for years have walked away from it. Why they too now prefer the old-school approach: It is unpredictable.
D&D 5e is by far the most popular D&D to date. Lots of people leave because lots more try it, and nothing holds everyone's interest. A fraction of those who stop go on to other RPGs. A fraction of those go on to OSR games. The 5e approach seems far more in-tune with what people in general enjoy than yours.
The game that swept the ENNIEs this year uses 3d6 in order. (Players get to re-roll if they have not managed to roll at least one number that is equal to or greater than 14.)
Out of curiosity, I rolled 3d6 in order, and got, first try, 14 8 11 11 6 11. (Str Int Wis Dex Con Cha, of course)
That's literally an unplayable character. In AD&D, it would only even be permitted to be a fighter, and with that constitution, it's doomed. There is nothing to make it interesting to play. This is Bob II, the fighter, spitted by an orc because he had 4 hit points. Even if he'd rolled well on strength, as opposed to (IIRC) "still too low to get any bonuses", he's likely doomed. Even choosing your stats gives you very little to work with. These are the sorts of characters that it spits out far too often.
Does that mean it is an immensely popular method? Not particularly. But people shouldn't pretend "no one" does it and "no one" likes it.
I never claimed no one did. I claimed it's bad game design.
That game will never boast the sorts of numbers Wizards do. But its popularity cannot be overstated.
Its popularity is frequently overstated, with great vigor.
It's not a particularly large movement. I wouldn't be surprised if it's comparable to the number of people who still play 4e. (But there's no real way to tell)
But "a bunch of people like this" does not mean a larger number of people would. Nor does it mean it's not bad game design. (But, of course, what's good or bad game design depends in part on the goal. There are design goals for which it's fine. But they're not the goals of modern D&D. (And it's questionable that it's been a good fit for the goals of any version of D&D.))
3d6 in order started with OD&D in 1974.
I have explained the shortcomings of the min-max approach. It homogenizes characters. Background choices or whatever backstories are provided characters doesn't change the fact the characters are practically identical in terms of their physical and mental prowess. Neither the fiction that inspired the game nor myth nor legend reduces all heroes to the point their physical and mental prowess is identical.
You're really overstating the levels of similarity.
What the system does is it allows PCs to be capable in their chosen field, while still allowing for significant variation in the side stats. There are tradeoffs for game balance, but game balance needs to be a consideration.
And that makes sense. Random stats might make sense for a game about random schlubs caught by surprise in a high-risk situation. But that doesn't describe any version of D&D. D&D characters of any edition are people with considerable amounts of training, who (typically) have chosen to undertake a highly dangerous lifestyle. Competence is to be expected.
What attributes are "unsuited" to a class? Can no wizard be strong? Is there no such thing in the literature? Can no player come up with something to explain this? A wizard in possession of immense physical strength is a wizard with a story to tell. A gentle giant for example. I once played a firbolg thief who was just that.
Mediocre at everything? Roll again. The AD&D DMG suggests rolling 3d6 in order 12 times and choosing the best set.
And here we get to the unwritten point. Once the system is not "3d6 in order", but "3d6 in order until you're satisfied", you eliminate the worst problems, but there are second-order effects that are usually considered undesirable.
And more formalized methods lead to jumping through hoops to try to control the problems with randomness. Rolling 216 dice to generate your stats is, frankly, absurd.
You have essentially proven my point: Talk of "unsuited" attributes. A character being outclassed by one belonging to another class. The powergaming mindset that drives min-max is just not as conducive to roleplaying as is randomization. It means an infinity of possible stories are discarded to again build a party that consists of characters not too dissimilar to almost every other party. Wizards could add a hundred new classes and it wouldn't solve that problem. It's not for a lack of options. It's players wanting to have the "best" fighter or the "best" wizard. Instead of playing a fighter or a wizard. This is why many have walked away from modern gaming. Why many even newcomers to the hobby who enjoyed 5th. Edition for years have walked away from it. Why they too now prefer the old-school approach: It is unpredictable.
D&D 5e is by far the most popular D&D to date. Lots of people leave because lots more try it, and nothing holds everyone's interest. A fraction of those who stop go on to other RPGs. A fraction of those go on to OSR games. The 5e approach seems far more in-tune with what people in general enjoy than yours.
The game that swept the ENNIEs this year uses 3d6 in order. (Players get to re-roll if they have not managed to roll at least one number that is equal to or greater than 14.)
Out of curiosity, I rolled 3d6 in order, and got, first try, 14 8 11 11 6 11. (Str Int Wis Dex Con Cha, of course)
That's literally an unplayable character. In AD&D, it would only even be permitted to be a fighter, and with that constitution, it's doomed. There is nothing to make it interesting to play. This is Bob II, the fighter, spitted by an orc because he had 4 hit points. Even if he'd rolled well on strength, as opposed to (IIRC) "still too low to get any bonuses", he's likely doomed. Even choosing your stats gives you very little to work with. These are the sorts of characters that it spits out far too often.
Does that mean it is an immensely popular method? Not particularly. But people shouldn't pretend "no one" does it and "no one" likes it.
I never claimed no one did. I claimed it's bad game design.
That game will never boast the sorts of numbers Wizards do. But its popularity cannot be overstated.
Its popularity is frequently overstated, with great vigor.
I think you should legitimately give OSR games a try, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Not as a replacement for all of your games ever, but variety is the spice of life. It's how my games are run, anyway.
I also tend to use the word "build" for all of my characters, regardless of the generation method, though some grognords seem to take real umbrage at the term.
I think you should legitimately give OSR games a try, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Not as a replacement for all of your games ever, but variety is the spice of life. It's how my games are run, anyway.
Whatever the merits of the games themselves, their vocal proponents have done an excellent job of making sure I will never touch them.
If I wanted to run the sort of games I'm told they support, I could do it in 5e or, more likely, 4e.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
I think you should legitimately give OSR games a try, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Not as a replacement for all of your games ever, but variety is the spice of life. It's how my games are run, anyway.
Whatever the merits of the games themselves, their vocal proponents have done an excellent job of making sure I will never touch them.
If I wanted to run the sort of games I'm told they support, I could do it in 5e or, more likely, 4e.
That is in fact what I do, or PF2E with proficiency without levels variant rule
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
Its popularity is frequently overstated, with great vigor.
Nothing you have written goes anywhere towards adequately addressing my main criticisms and my main points made about characterization and all those missed opportunities to tell great stories. You have nothing to say about these things because you don't particularly care about how good a story is told in a campaign and care more about how powerful your character is?
What you are doing is prioritizing powergaming over roleplaying. At many tables—includingat many 5th. Edition tables—players who do that are considered problem players. Many are the DMs who won't even allow people who do that at their tables. The moment someone starts saying how they want a character who can do this and do that and they want this and want that and expect nothing less than this or that? That's a red flag. It's a player who cares more about their ego than they even do the game. And any DM who runs things differently at his or her table knows that player is going to cause problems because as soon as that DM says this or that doesn't exist in his or her world or something has been house ruled in or out and any o fthis impedes that player's choices that player will erupt.
14? 8? 11? 11? 6? 11? That's not particularly good. But it's not "unplayable." It would be a perfectly playable Level 0 or Level 1 character in an OSR game in which Level 0 and Level 1 characters don't start the game looking like they have already reached Level 10. You would find it unplayable. Because you prioritize powergaming over roleplaying. You expect to start the game with exceptionally high attributes instead of adventuring and advancing and having the character grow into something exceptional. You can play like that if you want. But stop acting as if you get to speak for everyone else in the hobby. Many are the players enjoying games like OSE and who are happily playing with characters with a set of numbers like that.
This is why D&D is no longer heroic fantasy. High fantasy? Sure. But there is nothing heroic about it. The hero's journey is gone. The characters don't grow. No tale of true heroism begins with a protagonist who does not face adversity and the threat of death. I played in a tweaked 5th. Edition campaign in which we each started with four 0-level characters. These characters were what you would call "unplayable." By the end of the first session every player at the table found the one character they would be using for the remainder of the campaign among the most endearing of characters they had ever played. I get the impression you don't even particularly care about the stories to be told at tables among players least of all in game. You make it sound as if you just want D&D to facilitate your personal power fantasies. What's funny is that this how many wrongly viewed those of us who as kids played in the school library. You are reinforcing one of many stigmas unfairly attached the game in its infancy.
EDIT: I suppose you believe DCC's popularity is "overstated" as well? Goodman Games will never be Hasbro. Neither would they wish to be. But their presence in the hobby ain't nothing. You have to be living in a bubble not to see how popular some of these games are and particularly have become more recently. Their popularity relative to the official version of the game is not at all the point. It's not a popularity contest. Even the most vapid of artists can fill stadiums and attract numbers many great bands could never attract. But no serious music lover cares. No small factor in D&D's popularity is the name. You could repackage exactly the same rules and many players wouldn't play it because it doesn't say D&D on the cover. Consumers are like that. It's like when an experiment tested whether people would prefer McDonald's fries in McDonald's containers or in plain containers. They were the exact same thing. But many participants in the study said those in McDonald's containers "tasted better." They did no such thing. That is just the power of branding.
You say you will "never touch" OSR games. You needn't. But having not tried them your opinions on them are about as useful as someone posting a review on Amazon for a book he or she has never read. In contrast I have played 5th. Edition. And a lot of it these past ten years. I have played in what were wonderful games using 5th. Edition. It is what it is and what it does it does well. It just doesn't accommodate my preferred style of play as much as other games do. And this is really what all this is about: a matter of preference. There is no need to get so deeply upset or even hostile just because some people don't like what you like. Play the game you want to play. Play it how you like. I really don't care if you don't like my preferred style of play. Just don't act as if it's not a perfectly valid way to play as if you get to make the rules and speak for everyone else in the hobby.
I have to say: having looked at them all in depth now... I'll also have to echo the sentiment of being quite dissatisfied/disappointed with the new backgrounds system. Before I even begin; YES, I'm aware that (hopefully) 'write your own" rules will be in the DMG; but we don't actually KNOW that yet. I'll break it down bullet-point form:
- PRO: The oruigin feats (in theory) - In theory: I like the idea of giving an "origin feat": some skill or other you gain based upon your character's story prior to adventuring... I say "in theory" because as implemented the feats here contribute to two major issues; railroading and the removal of background features.
- CON: Removal of background features - Remember when the Knight background literally gave you NPCs bound to your service? Or the Acolyte meant that those that shared your faith would be predisposed to be nice to you? Or the urchin gave you a bonus to traversing city terrain? Did these come up THAT often? usually no: but when the6y did it was a pretty fun experience: it made your character's skill-set feel unique and special in that particular situation. Now that's completely gone, I assume in favour of the origin feats.
- CON: Railroading - Each of the Nine (wow) backgrounds thus far seem to me to be incredibly railroading... as in: each one quite plainly has one or two classes that it's meant to "synergize" with... particularly those that start with "magic initiate" going so far as to specify WHICH version of magic initiate you get. Combind with the low number of them; this feels like taking away rather than adding choices.
- CON: Recommended traits are gone - Yes; it was always preferable to write your own, but these I found often helped those people who weren't particularly gifted in that regard. Even as someone who DOES enjoy writing my own backstories; I'd often look through these tables for inspiration and ideas. With these gone; these backgrounds don't really feel like "backgrounds" at all so much as the sort of starting traits you'd pick in say: a Fallout game or something.
- CON: Ability scores - Yes; I'm going to be one of those people that says I hate this change. Particularly as it's done here; we get the worst of both worlds. Yet another thing that contributes to these backgrounds feeling "railroaded" on the one hand, and on the other; we lost the frankly nice option of Tasha's Cauldron rules; which already solved the issue for those that felt "restricted" by your race/species having some inherent ability effects.
All and all; the new backgrounds fel incredibly lazy to me; again, like they're "perks" picked in a game menu instead of well: a "background" for an actual character. Rather than giving more choices and options; a bunch have instead been taken away. I'm fairly sure the archetypes in the Aliens RPG have more options to them.
Yeah I think I'm gonna stick with custom/homebrew background for now. Or just ask to go by the legacy rules. There are some things that the new backgrounds ae good for, but I thin that they should do a (blank's) (blank) to/of everything that introduces new custom background rules.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
I think the problem is 1/2 of them make the character mechanically better like alert, 1/2 of them are more character differentiation driven like crafter. I think the alerts should have been 1/2 feats and at level 4 and there should have been more character building ones for backgrounds.
I have to say: having looked at them all in depth now... I'll also have to echo the sentiment of being quite dissatisfied/disappointed with the new backgrounds system. Before I even begin; YES, I'm aware that (hopefully) 'write your own" rules will be in the DMG; but we don't actually KNOW that yet. I'll break it down bullet-point form:
- PRO: The oruigin feats (in theory) - In theory: I like the idea of giving an "origin feat": some skill or other you gain based upon your character's story prior to adventuring... I say "in theory" because as implemented the feats here contribute to two major issues; railroading and the removal of background features.
- CON: Removal of background features - Remember when the Knight background literally gave you NPCs bound to your service? Or the Acolyte meant that those that shared your faith would be predisposed to be nice to you? Or the urchin gave you a bonus to traversing city terrain? Did these come up THAT often? usually no: but when the6y did it was a pretty fun experience: it made your character's skill-set feel unique and special in that particular situation. Now that's completely gone, I assume in favour of the origin feats.
- CON: Railroading - Each of the Nine (wow) backgrounds thus far seem to me to be incredibly railroading... as in: each one quite plainly has one or two classes that it's meant to "synergize" with... particularly those that start with "magic initiate" going so far as to specify WHICH version of magic initiate you get. Combind with the low number of them; this feels like taking away rather than adding choices.
- CON: Recommended traits are gone - Yes; it was always preferable to write your own, but these I found often helped those people who weren't particularly gifted in that regard. Even as someone who DOES enjoy writing my own backstories; I'd often look through these tables for inspiration and ideas. With these gone; these backgrounds don't really feel like "backgrounds" at all so much as the sort of starting traits you'd pick in say: a Fallout game or something.
- CON: Ability scores - Yes; I'm going to be one of those people that says I hate this change. Particularly as it's done here; we get the worst of both worlds. Yet another thing that contributes to these backgrounds feeling "railroaded" on the one hand, and on the other; we lost the frankly nice option of Tasha's Cauldron rules; which already solved the issue for those that felt "restricted" by your race/species having some inherent ability effects.
All and all; the new backgrounds fel incredibly lazy to me; again, like they're "perks" picked in a game menu instead of well: a "background" for an actual character. Rather than giving more choices and options; a bunch have instead been taken away. I'm fairly sure the archetypes in the Aliens RPG have more options to them.
I wholly agree with you. I dunno if you went through and read the last six pages, but basically: By the rules, all of the old backgrounds are still available under the expanded rules, unless the options are directly replaced in the new manuscript. I would also let my players pick the original backgrounds from the 2024. If they choose a background without a feat, let them pick an origin feat, and the stat choices will be moved under "abilities" in the character creator.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
I think the problem is 1/2 of them make the character mechanically better like alert, 1/2 of them are more character differentiation driven like crafter. I think the alerts should have been 1/2 feats and at level 4 and there should have been more character building ones for backgrounds.
I don't think with the changes to alert, it's that powerful, or out of whack at first level, honestly. And at later levels, everyone can choose to take any feat they would like.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
Every time I see someone try to equate someone being against or for something refereed to as an optimizer or powergamer, I recognize that they are just trying to belittle someone else's playstyle by trying to infer that they are inferior or illegitimate. This happens all the time in politics. I hate it when I see it here. A lot of people get joy out of synergizing builds. It doesn't mean they throw out all background role-playing for the character. As a matter of fact some of the best backgrounds are forged to encompass synergistic choices. People need to stop trying to demonize others by affixing a stigma that they then try to equate as being something undesirable.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
I think the problem is 1/2 of them make the character mechanically better like alert, 1/2 of them are more character differentiation driven like crafter. I think the alerts should have been 1/2 feats and at level 4 and there should have been more character building ones for backgrounds.
I don't think with the changes to alert, it's that powerful, or out of whack at first level, honestly. And at later levels, everyone can choose to take any feat they would like.
Going first is huge in combat. Getting to choose who goes first is even better. And if a background feat is tempting you mechanically compared to the level 4 feats that is a issue imo.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
Every time I see someone try to equate someone being against or for something refereed to as an optimizer or powergamer, I recognize that they are just trying to belittle someone else's playstyle by trying to infer that they are inferior or illegitimate. This happens all the time in politics. I hate it when I see it here. A lot of people get joy out of synergizing builds. It doesn't mean they throw out all background role-playing for the character. As a matter of fact some of the best backgrounds are forged to encompass synergistic choices. People need to stop trying to demonize others by affixing a stigma that they then try to equate as being something undesirable.
I think you are missing the point, honestly. The reason some people are up in arms, is that the options are not powerful enough (in combat) to suit them vs the options that WotC made that otherwise best suit their concept or otherwise synergises with their class choice. There is nothing inherently wrong with that playstyle, but that is the accurate term to describe their goals. Otherwise, they would take whatever background suited their imagined background, and would not feel a need to complain.
In their defence, it is less than ideal the way all of these disparate elements are brought together. Which is why it is most excellent that all the expanded material is still valid, and, why as a GM you are able to allow them to take the 2014 PHB backgrounds. Per the rules, if they take a background without a feat, the get to put their ability points wherever they would like, and pick a origin feat of their choice. In my humble opinion, even better, it preserves the background features that were dropped.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
I think the problem is 1/2 of them make the character mechanically better like alert, 1/2 of them are more character differentiation driven like crafter. I think the alerts should have been 1/2 feats and at level 4 and there should have been more character building ones for backgrounds.
I don't think with the changes to alert, it's that powerful, or out of whack at first level, honestly. And at later levels, everyone can choose to take any feat they would like.
Going first is huge in combat. Getting to choose who goes first is even better. And if a background feat is tempting you mechanically compared to the level 4 feats that is a issue imo.
I don't think a 10% boost to your initiative order is that powerful compared to savage attacker, and, combat feats (at least the origin ones) are all that powerful overall. Alert is somewhat unique, in that it gets much better as you move up in tiers. So, perhaps it should just be a flat +2? But I agree with you it isn't, and maybe becomes an unfair outlier at later levels
The game that swept the ENNIEs this year uses 3d6 in order. (Players get to re-roll if they have not managed to roll at least one number that is equal to or greater than 14.)
Out of curiosity, I rolled 3d6 in order, and got, first try, 14 8 11 11 6 11. (Str Int Wis Dex Con Cha, of course)
That's literally an unplayable character. In AD&D, it would only even be permitted to be a fighter, and with that constitution, it's doomed. There is nothing to make it interesting to play. This is Bob II, the fighter, spitted by an orc because he had 4 hit points. Even if he'd rolled well on strength, as opposed to (IIRC) "still too low to get any bonuses", he's likely doomed. Even choosing your stats gives you very little to work with. These are the sorts of characters that it spits out far too often.
Honestly, that's not actually unplayable. I've rolled up far worse characters while playing B/X and AD&D and have gotten far with them. A 6 in CON isn't even that bad as it's only -1 modifier. This is an okay fighter tbh.
I don't think a 10% boost to your initiative order is that powerful compared to savage attacker, and, combat feats (at least the origin ones) are all that powerful overall. Alert is somewhat unique, in that it gets much better as you move up in tiers. So, perhaps it should just be a flat +2? But I agree with you it isn't, and maybe becomes an unfair outlier at later levels
Reducing it to just the Initiative bonus is selling it short by a lot. If your goal is to go first in combat, the fact that it lets you trade places means you have as many chances to upgrade your position as you have allies. It's as if each ally in your party gave you Advantage on the roll and for once it's allowed to stacked. And you still have the option to trade down if you feel someone else can do better in a particular situation.
Savage Attacker doesn't even let you see the roll before rerolling it anymore, so it doesn't scale at all. You just burn it blindly and come out like 2 damage better on average once per turn.
So is this thread about frustrations with background creation/customization or with wanting to optimize? Has this been resolved, because I thought the book clarified that you can still customize your background and bring in legacy species in Chapter 2.
If this has already been addressed in the five pages of topics, disregard.
I started the thread with the intent of providing a space for folks who were frustrated with the backgrounds' design to vent (AND GLORIOUS REVOLUTION! :) ).
It's inevitably tied up in a greater discussion about optimization, and a lot of folks feel strongly about that; i get it.
But I don't think anything's resolved. I don't like that my decision about my character's background is tied to other mechanics. It was the same (minor) negative experience I had while choosing species in the 2014 books. There's a wide range of experiences out there, but I've had some bad ones where I had less fun when my character wasn't optimized (when others at the table were). Since then, I get great ideas for my characters in the pursuit of optimization (often abandoning some/all of the optimization that inspired the concept).
Ultimately, I feel like a small change (custom backgrounds) could have accommodated both players like me as well as the newer players who benefit from having a preset package of background mechanics to select.
Everybody has their own reasons, I guess, but making custom backgrounds a part of the basic, core rules (instead of the anticipated optional rule in the upcoming DMG) annoys people who see optimization play out even more negatively in their experiences. I am enjoying the thread, though, despite the barbs and generalizations being thrown around.
I don't think a 10% boost to your initiative order is that powerful compared to savage attacker, and, combat feats (at least the origin ones) are all that powerful overall. Alert is somewhat unique, in that it gets much better as you move up in tiers. So, perhaps it should just be a flat +2? But I agree with you it isn't, and maybe becomes an unfair outlier at later levels
Reducing it to just the Initiative bonus is selling it short by a lot. If your goal is to go first in combat, the fact that it lets you trade places means you have as many chances to upgrade your position as you have allies. It's as if each ally in your party gave you Advantage on the roll and for once it's allowed to stacked. And you still have the option to trade down if you feel someone else can do better in a particular situation.
Savage Attacker doesn't even let you see the roll before rerolling it anymore, so it doesn't scale at all. You just burn it blindly and come out like 2 damage better on average once per turn.
Assuming the other players are willing to switch.....I agree with you. But I feel it's far more "opt-in" for the other players, giving the team more options, which might include you going first. As opposed to just automatically being personally more powerful or that out of balance. And you paid for the privilege with your Origin feat, and only works if the rest of your team specifically wants to take the "downgrade" (or upgrade).
So is this thread about frustrations with background creation/customization or with wanting to optimize? Has this been resolved, because I thought the book clarified that you can still customize your background and bring in legacy species in Chapter 2.
If this has already been addressed in the five pages of topics, disregard.
I started the thread with the intent of providing a space for folks who were frustrated with the backgrounds' design to vent (AND GLORIOUS REVOLUTION! :) ).
It's inevitably tied up in a greater discussion about optimization, and a lot of folks feel strongly about that; i get it.
But I don't think anything's resolved. I don't like that my decision about my character's background is tied to other mechanics. It was the same (minor) negative experience I had while choosing species in the 2014 books. There's a wide range of experiences out there, but I've had some bad ones where I had less fun when my character wasn't optimized (when others at the table were). Since then, I get great ideas for my characters in the pursuit of optimization (often abandoning some/all of the optimization that inspired the concept).
Ultimately, I feel like a small change (custom backgrounds) could have accommodated both players like me as well as the newer players who benefit from having a preset package of background mechanics to select.
Everybody has their own reasons, I guess, but making custom backgrounds a part of the basic, core rules (instead of the anticipated optional rule in the upcoming DMG) annoys people who see optimization play out even more negatively in their experiences. I am enjoying the thread, though, despite the barbs and generalizations being thrown around.
I don't think it's gotten too bad to be honest, and I have found the overall conversation to be pretty awesome.
If you don't mind, reiterate why you feel the "Use the expanded material you already own" and 2014 PHB options will not work for you? I believe it was you who said it had something to do with not everyone having more than the new book.......which is sorta fair, but honestly, new players won't know the difference, as that will be the "new rules". What is your personal stake in viva la revolution?
I don't think a 10% boost to your initiative order is that powerful compared to savage attacker,
In tier 1, savage attacker might well be better than alert, but it (along with crafter and healer) has absolutely atrocious level scaling; in tier 2 and above those origin feats just lose relevance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The backgrounds are awful and not the ones from play-testing where they were suggestions. You cant be as basic as something likea dexterous swashbuckling noble like Zorro, Count of Monte Christo or the Scarlet Pimpernel. The Origin feats also vary wildly in power.
You're really overstating the levels of similarity.
What the system does is it allows PCs to be capable in their chosen field, while still allowing for significant variation in the side stats. There are tradeoffs for game balance, but game balance needs to be a consideration.
And that makes sense. Random stats might make sense for a game about random schlubs caught by surprise in a high-risk situation. But that doesn't describe any version of D&D. D&D characters of any edition are people with considerable amounts of training, who (typically) have chosen to undertake a highly dangerous lifestyle. Competence is to be expected.
And here we get to the unwritten point. Once the system is not "3d6 in order", but "3d6 in order until you're satisfied", you eliminate the worst problems, but there are second-order effects that are usually considered undesirable.
And more formalized methods lead to jumping through hoops to try to control the problems with randomness. Rolling 216 dice to generate your stats is, frankly, absurd.
D&D 5e is by far the most popular D&D to date. Lots of people leave because lots more try it, and nothing holds everyone's interest. A fraction of those who stop go on to other RPGs. A fraction of those go on to OSR games. The 5e approach seems far more in-tune with what people in general enjoy than yours.
Out of curiosity, I rolled 3d6 in order, and got, first try, 14 8 11 11 6 11. (Str Int Wis Dex Con Cha, of course)
That's literally an unplayable character. In AD&D, it would only even be permitted to be a fighter, and with that constitution, it's doomed. There is nothing to make it interesting to play. This is Bob II, the fighter, spitted by an orc because he had 4 hit points. Even if he'd rolled well on strength, as opposed to (IIRC) "still too low to get any bonuses", he's likely doomed. Even choosing your stats gives you very little to work with. These are the sorts of characters that it spits out far too often.
I never claimed no one did. I claimed it's bad game design.
Its popularity is frequently overstated, with great vigor.
I think you should legitimately give OSR games a try, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Not as a replacement for all of your games ever, but variety is the spice of life. It's how my games are run, anyway.
I also tend to use the word "build" for all of my characters, regardless of the generation method, though some grognords seem to take real umbrage at the term.
Whatever the merits of the games themselves, their vocal proponents have done an excellent job of making sure I will never touch them.
If I wanted to run the sort of games I'm told they support, I could do it in 5e or, more likely, 4e.
Other than Savage Attacker being really underwhelming, they really don't. Especially not compared to how game-breaking Variant Human with Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master at level 1 was.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
That is in fact what I do, or PF2E with proficiency without levels variant rule
Yeah, I don't really see this either, they seem equally desirable, depending on what your particular character is about
It seems that if you look at them from a heavy-optimizer perspective, most of them are bad. (The person I've seen arguing this has a particular hate for Skilled.)
But really, they should be for character differentiation first and foremost. (And thus, not locked to background.)
(And there should be more of them.)
Nothing you have written goes anywhere towards adequately addressing my main criticisms and my main points made about characterization and all those missed opportunities to tell great stories. You have nothing to say about these things because you don't particularly care about how good a story is told in a campaign and care more about how powerful your character is?
What you are doing is prioritizing powergaming over roleplaying. At many tables—including at many 5th. Edition tables—players who do that are considered problem players. Many are the DMs who won't even allow people who do that at their tables. The moment someone starts saying how they want a character who can do this and do that and they want this and want that and expect nothing less than this or that? That's a red flag. It's a player who cares more about their ego than they even do the game. And any DM who runs things differently at his or her table knows that player is going to cause problems because as soon as that DM says this or that doesn't exist in his or her world or something has been house ruled in or out and any o fthis impedes that player's choices that player will erupt.
14? 8? 11? 11? 6? 11? That's not particularly good. But it's not "unplayable." It would be a perfectly playable Level 0 or Level 1 character in an OSR game in which Level 0 and Level 1 characters don't start the game looking like they have already reached Level 10. You would find it unplayable. Because you prioritize powergaming over roleplaying. You expect to start the game with exceptionally high attributes instead of adventuring and advancing and having the character grow into something exceptional. You can play like that if you want. But stop acting as if you get to speak for everyone else in the hobby. Many are the players enjoying games like OSE and who are happily playing with characters with a set of numbers like that.
This is why D&D is no longer heroic fantasy. High fantasy? Sure. But there is nothing heroic about it. The hero's journey is gone. The characters don't grow. No tale of true heroism begins with a protagonist who does not face adversity and the threat of death. I played in a tweaked 5th. Edition campaign in which we each started with four 0-level characters. These characters were what you would call "unplayable." By the end of the first session every player at the table found the one character they would be using for the remainder of the campaign among the most endearing of characters they had ever played. I get the impression you don't even particularly care about the stories to be told at tables among players least of all in game. You make it sound as if you just want D&D to facilitate your personal power fantasies. What's funny is that this how many wrongly viewed those of us who as kids played in the school library. You are reinforcing one of many stigmas unfairly attached the game in its infancy.
EDIT: I suppose you believe DCC's popularity is "overstated" as well? Goodman Games will never be Hasbro. Neither would they wish to be. But their presence in the hobby ain't nothing. You have to be living in a bubble not to see how popular some of these games are and particularly have become more recently. Their popularity relative to the official version of the game is not at all the point. It's not a popularity contest. Even the most vapid of artists can fill stadiums and attract numbers many great bands could never attract. But no serious music lover cares. No small factor in D&D's popularity is the name. You could repackage exactly the same rules and many players wouldn't play it because it doesn't say D&D on the cover. Consumers are like that. It's like when an experiment tested whether people would prefer McDonald's fries in McDonald's containers or in plain containers. They were the exact same thing. But many participants in the study said those in McDonald's containers "tasted better." They did no such thing. That is just the power of branding.
You say you will "never touch" OSR games. You needn't. But having not tried them your opinions on them are about as useful as someone posting a review on Amazon for a book he or she has never read. In contrast I have played 5th. Edition. And a lot of it these past ten years. I have played in what were wonderful games using 5th. Edition. It is what it is and what it does it does well. It just doesn't accommodate my preferred style of play as much as other games do. And this is really what all this is about: a matter of preference. There is no need to get so deeply upset or even hostile just because some people don't like what you like. Play the game you want to play. Play it how you like. I really don't care if you don't like my preferred style of play. Just don't act as if it's not a perfectly valid way to play as if you get to make the rules and speak for everyone else in the hobby.
I have to say: having looked at them all in depth now... I'll also have to echo the sentiment of being quite dissatisfied/disappointed with the new backgrounds system. Before I even begin; YES, I'm aware that (hopefully) 'write your own" rules will be in the DMG; but we don't actually KNOW that yet. I'll break it down bullet-point form:
- PRO: The oruigin feats (in theory) - In theory: I like the idea of giving an "origin feat": some skill or other you gain based upon your character's story prior to adventuring... I say "in theory" because as implemented the feats here contribute to two major issues; railroading and the removal of background features.
- CON: Removal of background features - Remember when the Knight background literally gave you NPCs bound to your service? Or the Acolyte meant that those that shared your faith would be predisposed to be nice to you? Or the urchin gave you a bonus to traversing city terrain? Did these come up THAT often? usually no: but when the6y did it was a pretty fun experience: it made your character's skill-set feel unique and special in that particular situation. Now that's completely gone, I assume in favour of the origin feats.
- CON: Railroading - Each of the Nine (wow) backgrounds thus far seem to me to be incredibly railroading... as in: each one quite plainly has one or two classes that it's meant to "synergize" with... particularly those that start with "magic initiate" going so far as to specify WHICH version of magic initiate you get. Combind with the low number of them; this feels like taking away rather than adding choices.
- CON: Recommended traits are gone - Yes; it was always preferable to write your own, but these I found often helped those people who weren't particularly gifted in that regard. Even as someone who DOES enjoy writing my own backstories; I'd often look through these tables for inspiration and ideas. With these gone; these backgrounds don't really feel like "backgrounds" at all so much as the sort of starting traits you'd pick in say: a Fallout game or something.
- CON: Ability scores - Yes; I'm going to be one of those people that says I hate this change. Particularly as it's done here; we get the worst of both worlds. Yet another thing that contributes to these backgrounds feeling "railroaded" on the one hand, and on the other; we lost the frankly nice option of Tasha's Cauldron rules; which already solved the issue for those that felt "restricted" by your race/species having some inherent ability effects.
All and all; the new backgrounds fel incredibly lazy to me; again, like they're "perks" picked in a game menu instead of well: a "background" for an actual character. Rather than giving more choices and options; a bunch have instead been taken away. I'm fairly sure the archetypes in the Aliens RPG have more options to them.
Yeah I think I'm gonna stick with custom/homebrew background for now. Or just ask to go by the legacy rules. There are some things that the new backgrounds ae good for, but I thin that they should do a (blank's) (blank) to/of everything that introduces new custom background rules.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
I think the problem is 1/2 of them make the character mechanically better like alert, 1/2 of them are more character differentiation driven like crafter. I think the alerts should have been 1/2 feats and at level 4 and there should have been more character building ones for backgrounds.
I wholly agree with you. I dunno if you went through and read the last six pages, but basically: By the rules, all of the old backgrounds are still available under the expanded rules, unless the options are directly replaced in the new manuscript. I would also let my players pick the original backgrounds from the 2024. If they choose a background without a feat, let them pick an origin feat, and the stat choices will be moved under "abilities" in the character creator.
I don't think with the changes to alert, it's that powerful, or out of whack at first level, honestly. And at later levels, everyone can choose to take any feat they would like.
Every time I see someone try to equate someone being against or for something refereed to as an optimizer or powergamer, I recognize that they are just trying to belittle someone else's playstyle by trying to infer that they are inferior or illegitimate. This happens all the time in politics. I hate it when I see it here. A lot of people get joy out of synergizing builds. It doesn't mean they throw out all background role-playing for the character. As a matter of fact some of the best backgrounds are forged to encompass synergistic choices. People need to stop trying to demonize others by affixing a stigma that they then try to equate as being something undesirable.
Going first is huge in combat. Getting to choose who goes first is even better. And if a background feat is tempting you mechanically compared to the level 4 feats that is a issue imo.
I think you are missing the point, honestly. The reason some people are up in arms, is that the options are not powerful enough (in combat) to suit them vs the options that WotC made that otherwise best suit their concept or otherwise synergises with their class choice. There is nothing inherently wrong with that playstyle, but that is the accurate term to describe their goals. Otherwise, they would take whatever background suited their imagined background, and would not feel a need to complain.
In their defence, it is less than ideal the way all of these disparate elements are brought together. Which is why it is most excellent that all the expanded material is still valid, and, why as a GM you are able to allow them to take the 2014 PHB backgrounds. Per the rules, if they take a background without a feat, the get to put their ability points wherever they would like, and pick a origin feat of their choice. In my humble opinion, even better, it preserves the background features that were dropped.
I don't think a 10% boost to your initiative order is that powerful compared to savage attacker, and, combat feats (at least the origin ones) are all that powerful overall. Alert is somewhat unique, in that it gets much better as you move up in tiers. So, perhaps it should just be a flat +2? But I agree with you it isn't, and maybe becomes an unfair outlier at later levels
Honestly, that's not actually unplayable. I've rolled up far worse characters while playing B/X and AD&D and have gotten far with them. A 6 in CON isn't even that bad as it's only -1 modifier. This is an okay fighter tbh.
Reducing it to just the Initiative bonus is selling it short by a lot. If your goal is to go first in combat, the fact that it lets you trade places means you have as many chances to upgrade your position as you have allies. It's as if each ally in your party gave you Advantage on the roll and for once it's allowed to stacked. And you still have the option to trade down if you feel someone else can do better in a particular situation.
Savage Attacker doesn't even let you see the roll before rerolling it anymore, so it doesn't scale at all. You just burn it blindly and come out like 2 damage better on average once per turn.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I started the thread with the intent of providing a space for folks who were frustrated with the backgrounds' design to vent (AND GLORIOUS REVOLUTION! :) ).
It's inevitably tied up in a greater discussion about optimization, and a lot of folks feel strongly about that; i get it.
But I don't think anything's resolved. I don't like that my decision about my character's background is tied to other mechanics. It was the same (minor) negative experience I had while choosing species in the 2014 books. There's a wide range of experiences out there, but I've had some bad ones where I had less fun when my character wasn't optimized (when others at the table were). Since then, I get great ideas for my characters in the pursuit of optimization (often abandoning some/all of the optimization that inspired the concept).
Ultimately, I feel like a small change (custom backgrounds) could have accommodated both players like me as well as the newer players who benefit from having a preset package of background mechanics to select.
Everybody has their own reasons, I guess, but making custom backgrounds a part of the basic, core rules (instead of the anticipated optional rule in the upcoming DMG) annoys people who see optimization play out even more negatively in their experiences. I am enjoying the thread, though, despite the barbs and generalizations being thrown around.
Assuming the other players are willing to switch.....I agree with you. But I feel it's far more "opt-in" for the other players, giving the team more options, which might include you going first. As opposed to just automatically being personally more powerful or that out of balance. And you paid for the privilege with your Origin feat, and only works if the rest of your team specifically wants to take the "downgrade" (or upgrade).
I don't think it's gotten too bad to be honest, and I have found the overall conversation to be pretty awesome.
If you don't mind, reiterate why you feel the "Use the expanded material you already own" and 2014 PHB options will not work for you? I believe it was you who said it had something to do with not everyone having more than the new book.......which is sorta fair, but honestly, new players won't know the difference, as that will be the "new rules". What is your personal stake in viva la revolution?
In tier 1, savage attacker might well be better than alert, but it (along with crafter and healer) has absolutely atrocious level scaling; in tier 2 and above those origin feats just lose relevance.