Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
You did miss the point. Twice, now.
Stat buffs being tied to backgrounds is, I agree, the right way to go. Moving away from +1/+2 or +1/+1+1 to a three stat bonus is totally pointless if a player can make whatever background they want and tie in whatever three stats they want. All WotC had to do was move the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to background.
I did not and your continual assertions will not make it true. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same grounds. Further, I actually addressed this argument in full already, so it is impossible to have missed this point.
As I stated previously, which you ignored entirely, the game needs to have a basic framework of how to play and that the backgrounds serve to provide narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. That is not dumb because while other backgrounds or customization are available at the discretion of the DM, they are not required, the standard, nor are they permitted at all tables. The rules state 'your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options.' Might. The 16 backgrounds given are the standard. However, as I stated before, some people want to color outside the lines and the game is making room for those people. This is necessary to offer both because official and restrictive play is actually quite popular. Please see Adventures League for a better understanding. Even outside of that however, some DMs feel the need to rely on a more limited set of options and the game makes room for them too. Can is conditional and unless you are new to D&D, you should know that not all tables are alike.
I suppose the question is now: how do you keep missing this point?
How is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 equal to "having it all?" First of all, if the background gave a different +2/+1 stock, then it would still be the same total stat improvement, just distributed differently, such as instead of +2 Int/+1 Wis from reading all those books and thinking about their deeper meanings, reading all those books and working out a little.
The stock background assumes that former profession was full time, too, but what if it was only part time? Could that not lead to a +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 situation?
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
The stock background assumes that former profession was full time, too, but what if it was only part time? Could that not lead to a +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 situation?
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
Best guess? It's a mechanical bit of crunch with narrative set dressing. It's just a step in getting the character a needed stat mod and some other features that can be flavored or handwaved however the player and the DM want. It could easily be labeled as "Nameless Option 3", +1 to Wis, +2 to Int, choose some skills, add this feat, etc., and then move on to the rest of character creation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The mongoose blew out its candle and was asleep in bed before the room went dark." —Llanowar fable
The stock background assumes that former profession was full time, too, but what if it was only part time? Could that not lead to a +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 situation?
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
Best guess? It's a mechanical bit of crunch with narrative set dressing. It's just a step in getting the character a needed stat mod and some other features that can be flavored or handwaved however the player and the DM want. It could easily be labeled as "Nameless Option 3", +1 to Wis, +2 to Int, choose some skills, add this feat, etc., and then move on to the rest of character creation.
What they really should have done is gone with general introduction to concept, then base mechanics (Stat bonuses, skill, feat, etc) then a section about reconciling the two.
'Nameless' is unnecessarily provocative. How are backgrounds not personal stories? There are commonalities, but individual experiences are individual.
The stock background assumes that former profession was full time, too, but what if it was only part time? Could that not lead to a +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 situation?
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
Best guess? It's a mechanical bit of crunch with narrative set dressing. It's just a step in getting the character a needed stat mod and some other features that can be flavored or handwaved however the player and the DM want. It could easily be labeled as "Nameless Option 3", +1 to Wis, +2 to Int, choose some skills, add this feat, etc., and then move on to the rest of character creation.
What they really should have done is gone with general introduction to concept, then base mechanics (Stat bonuses, skill, feat, etc) then a section about reconciling the two.
'Nameless' is unnecessarily provocative. How are backgrounds not personal stories? There are commonalities, but individual experiences are individual.
Which is why backgrounds are generalized starting points, not the end-all be-all of backstory and characterization.
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
I don't think it must be that way, and I don't even think that was a concern for the designers.
Let's do some math: There are 10 origin feats, 12 if you split Magic Initiate into three like the backgrounds do. There are 20 possible combination of "3 attributes" (skating over some details, but the math is generally "6 pick 3"). There are 153 variations of "18 pick 2" skill proficiencies. There are 25 tool choices (I'm simplifying and treating "gaming set" and "musical instrument" as one each). So ignoring narrative descriptions, there are 918,000 possible mechanical combinations in this background "system." Yet, the book only lists 16 of them; about 0.0017%. (Also, I haven't, like, triple-checked that math, but I'm mostly confident it's the right order of magnitude.)
I'm pretty sure they listed out 16 just to make a static "pick one of these" list to make character creation much easier for new players, and the likely custom system in the upcoming DMG will allow any of the 918 thousand options, with DM approval. However, it's worth noting:
I don't think any of the 918,000 options would be "broken." If anyone thinks differently, please feel free to list out specific examples you think would be too powerful (CHA, CON, DEX, Lucky, Perception, Persuasion, Musical Instrument?).
I'm quite confident most anyone could come up with a compelling narrative idea for any of the 918,000 options. In fact, I bet most people could match any of them with just about any particular vocation or profession --- it's not like your job is the sum total of your experiences, anyway. It's not like you can't have smart soldiers, charismatic farmers, or strong merchants...but hey, your DM can overrule you and tell you your cool idea doesn't fit with the "worldbuilding" or whatever.
There will definitively be some combinations of background/species/class/subclass that are more optimal, or have more synergy, than others. That's always been true of every form of D&D and every form of RPG.
I think the perceived problem is thus: if all of character creation were randomized (roll for stats, roll a d-something for species, d16(?) for background, d12 for class, d4 for subclass...) then some results would be more powerful than others, and the game would feel less "fair."
However, no version of the game has been that random, and randomized character generation was never meant to be "fair" in the "fair outcome" sense.
D&D would probably be better in general if it had fewer edge and corner cases where optimization "wrecked" things, but it turns out almost all of that is within multiclassing, general feats, and spell selection, which are mostly outside the scope of backgrounds.
So, basically, I think people get spooked by complexity.
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
You did miss the point. Twice, now.
Stat buffs being tied to backgrounds is, I agree, the right way to go. Moving away from +1/+2 or +1/+1+1 to a three stat bonus is totally pointless if a player can make whatever background they want and tie in whatever three stats they want. All WotC had to do was move the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to background.
I did not and your continual assertions will not make it true. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same grounds. Further, I actually addressed this argument in full already, so it is impossible to have missed this point.
As I stated previously, which you ignored entirely, the game needs to have a basic framework of how to play and that the backgrounds serve to provide narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. That is not dumb because while other backgrounds or customization are available at the discretion of the DM, they are not required, the standard, nor are they permitted at all tables. The rules state 'your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options.' Might. The 16 backgrounds given are the standard. However, as I stated before, some people want to color outside the lines and the game is making room for those people. This is necessary to offer both because official and restrictive play is actually quite popular. Please see Adventures League for a better understanding. Even outside of that however, some DMs feel the need to rely on a more limited set of options and the game makes room for them too. Can is conditional and unless you are new to D&D, you should know that not all tables are alike.
I suppose the question is now: how do you keep missing this point?
How is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 equal to "having it all?" First of all, if the background gave a different +2/+1 stock, then it would still be the same total stat improvement, just distributed differently, such as instead of +2 Int/+1 Wis from reading all those books and thinking about their deeper meanings, reading all those books and working out a little.
The stock background assumes that former profession was full time, too, but what if it was only part time? Could that not lead to a +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 situation?
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
You are attacking a glib, self-deprecating comment as though it were the crux of an argument. Frankly, I should simply ignore it but I will do my best to respond to it anyway, at least once.
You are confusing the conversation. 'Having it all' was in response to an insincere question about a hypothetical person who worked out every day and also studied every day. This sarcastic critique was met with my own silly and cavalier response. You are not tracking the conversation very well. This is the second time in just as many days where you failed to comprehend the discussion before climbing into the ring with me, only to punch up a strawman. Do you have some kind of personal issue with me?
Yes, it is true that a game is incapable of capturing the nuances of real life. In real life, not everyone has the same physical, intellectual, and emotional potential or the same barriers or benefits to success. Then again, this game never set out to accomplish this monumental task. Rather, it set out to provide shallow and vague narrative justification for a couple points of mechanical benefit, literally stating in print that the details are up to you. These background rules are simply meant to provide some mechanical benefit to a narrative aspect of the character and that narrative is entirely within the player's scope to add the details. This is the third time I have said this, which is captured in this very posting chain. Did you only get as far as my first paragraph of the post where I used the phrase 'have it all', then read no further?
A great question for hourserules or homebrew: a part time worker turned adventurer. I don't know what that would look like, but I trust you to create something that is interesting and also meeting your expectations. Perhaps that Farmer background was only a part time worker and spent the rest of their days painting. A blessed life of meaningful work and passionate expression. We should all be so lucky.
You know, I am pretty sure I never said or implied that anyone of any given background had worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things. We all, however, have the same number of hours in the day, unless you ascribe to the hustler mentality where you can somehow produce 48 hour workdays purely by measuring your productivity output to income ratio. Jokes aside, I think your question can be answered by referring you back to the text that tells you to fill in the details. Maybe someone gained a +2/+1 because their work was extra hard, but only required they work two days a week and they spent the rest of their days in leisure. It is your PC. If your DM is fine with it, why not?
Stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense. A person who spent their life smashing rocks with a hammer is going to be a lot stronger than the person who spent their life in books.
What if the person who spent their life in books also worked out every day? Seriously, though, I agree stat increases from backgrounds make perfect sense, but you missed his point. His point was that if a player can make any background they want with whatever stat increases they want the move away from the +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 is pointless and not needed. Just move it to the background. He's right.
You are talking about me and no, there are not enough hours in a day to have it all. 2 hours daily in the gym and 6-8 hours in the books is going to create a remarkable specimen, to be sure... *looks at self in desk mirror* but I can't physically match the guy doing 3 hours in the gym TWICE a day, who also says 'libary'.
I didn't miss the point, as what you are referencing is not the point, but the supporting evidence for the point. The point is that 'Stat buffs being tied to Backgrounds is dumb', which is not right, and the evidence used is not adequate evidence to reach the conclusion that stats buffs tied to backgrounds is dumb. The counterpoint I offer is that the book needs to have a framework of how to play the game, and backgrounds serve as vague narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. The rules also empower the DM with the liberty to allow more than the 16 limited background options available in the core rules. This is the opposite of dumb; it is a thoughtful way of addressing the needs of both RAW hardliners and those who want to color outside the lines a bit.
You did miss the point. Twice, now.
Stat buffs being tied to backgrounds is, I agree, the right way to go. Moving away from +1/+2 or +1/+1+1 to a three stat bonus is totally pointless if a player can make whatever background they want and tie in whatever three stats they want. All WotC had to do was move the +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 to background.
I did not and your continual assertions will not make it true. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed on the same grounds. Further, I actually addressed this argument in full already, so it is impossible to have missed this point.
As I stated previously, which you ignored entirely, the game needs to have a basic framework of how to play and that the backgrounds serve to provide narrative justification for mechanical benefits before a PC became an adventurer. That is not dumb because while other backgrounds or customization are available at the discretion of the DM, they are not required, the standard, nor are they permitted at all tables. The rules state 'your DM might offer additional backgrounds as options.' Might. The 16 backgrounds given are the standard. However, as I stated before, some people want to color outside the lines and the game is making room for those people. This is necessary to offer both because official and restrictive play is actually quite popular. Please see Adventures League for a better understanding. Even outside of that however, some DMs feel the need to rely on a more limited set of options and the game makes room for them too. Can is conditional and unless you are new to D&D, you should know that not all tables are alike.
I suppose the question is now: how do you keep missing this point?
I don' think it must be that way, and I don't even think that was a concern for the designers.
Let's do some math: There are 10 origin feats, 12 if you split Magic Initiate into three like the backgrounds do. There are 20 possible combination of "3 attributes" (skating over some details, but the math is generally "6 pick 3"). There are 153 variations of "18 pick 2" skill proficiencies. There are 25 tool choices (I'm simplifying and treating "gaming set" and "musical instrument" as one each). So ignoring narrative descriptions, there are 918,000 possible mechanical combinations in this background "system." Yet, the book only lists 16 of them; about 0.0017%. (Also, I haven't, like, triple-checked that math, but I'm mostly confident it's the right order of magnitude.)
I'm pretty sure they listed out 16 just to make a static "pick one of these" list to make character creation much easier for new players, and the likely custom system in the upcoming DMG will allow any of the 918 thousand options, with DM approval. However, it's worth noting:
I don't think any of the 918,000 options would be "broken." If anyone thinks differently, please feel free to list out specific examples you think would be too powerful (CHA, CON, DEX, Lucky, Perception, Persuasion, Musical Instrument?).
I'm quite confident most anyone could come up with a compelling narrative idea for any of the 918,000 options. In fact, I bet most people could match any of them with just about any particular vocation or profession --- it's not like your job is the sum total of your experiences, anyway. It's not like you can't have smart soldiers, charismatic farmers, or strong merchants...but hey, your DM can overrule you and tell you your cool idea doesn't fit with the "worldbuilding" or whatever.
There will definitively be some combinations of background/species/class/subclass that are more optimal, or have more synergy, than others. That's always been true of every form of D&D and every form of RPG.
I think the perceived problem is thus: if all of character creation were randomized (roll for stats, roll a d-something for species, d16(?) for background, d12 for class, d4 for subclass...) then some results would be more powerful than others, and the game would feel less "fair."
However, no version of the game has been that random, and randomized character generation was never meant to be "fair" in the "fair outcome" sense.
D&D would probably be better in general if it had fewer edge and corner cases where optimization "wrecked" things, but it turns out almost all of that is within multiclassing, general feats, and spell selection, which are mostly outside the scope of backgrounds.
So, basically, I think people get spooked by complexity.
I agree with this so much. The idea that there are only 16 backgrounds is fine, but only if they are examples that you can pick from but you also provide a custom background as well. They have said such a thing exists in the DMG so luckily we only have to wait till the 29th to have access to it.
I don' think it must be that way, and I don't even think that was a concern for the designers.
Let's do some math: There are 10 origin feats, 12 if you split Magic Initiate into three like the backgrounds do. There are 20 possible combination of "3 attributes" (skating over some details, but the math is generally "6 pick 3"). There are 153 variations of "18 pick 2" skill proficiencies. There are 25 tool choices (I'm simplifying and treating "gaming set" and "musical instrument" as one each). So ignoring narrative descriptions, there are 918,000 possible mechanical combinations in this background "system." Yet, the book only lists 16 of them; about 0.0017%. (Also, I haven't, like, triple-checked that math, but I'm mostly confident it's the right order of magnitude.)
I'm pretty sure they listed out 16 just to make a static "pick one of these" list to make character creation much easier for new players, and the likely custom system in the upcoming DMG will allow any of the 918 thousand options, with DM approval. However, it's worth noting:
I don't think any of the 918,000 options would be "broken." If anyone thinks differently, please feel free to list out specific examples you think would be too powerful (CHA, CON, DEX, Lucky, Perception, Persuasion, Musical Instrument?).
I'm quite confident most anyone could come up with a compelling narrative idea for any of the 918,000 options. In fact, I bet most people could match any of them with just about any particular vocation or profession --- it's not like your job is the sum total of your experiences, anyway. It's not like you can't have smart soldiers, charismatic farmers, or strong merchants...but hey, your DM can overrule you and tell you your cool idea doesn't fit with the "worldbuilding" or whatever.
There will definitively be some combinations of background/species/class/subclass that are more optimal, or have more synergy, than others. That's always been true of every form of D&D and every form of RPG.
I think the perceived problem is thus: if all of character creation were randomized (roll for stats, roll a d-something for species, d16(?) for background, d12 for class, d4 for subclass...) then some results would be more powerful than others, and the game would feel less "fair."
However, no version of the game has been that random, and randomized character generation was never meant to be "fair" in the "fair outcome" sense.
D&D would probably be better in general if it had fewer edge and corner cases where optimization "wrecked" things, but it turns out almost all of that is within multiclassing, general feats, and spell selection, which are mostly outside the scope of backgrounds.
So, basically, I think people get spooked by complexity.
I agree with this so much. The idea that there are only 16 backgrounds is fine, but only if they are examples that you can pick from but you also provide a custom background as well. They have said such a thing exists in the DMG so luckily we only have to wait till the 29th to have access to it.
It is one of the major things I was looking forward to in the new DMG, personally. The 16 are fine, but it is strange; even though there are 16 to the 13 in the 2014 PHB, it feels like there are not enough.
So, basically, I think people get spooked by complexity.
I don't think it has anything to do with complexity. It has to do with how people view backgrounds. In prior editions (and most other RPGs) your character backstory has no mechanical weight; at most, there's an expectation that your backstory make some narrative sense. In 2014, it made a bit of difference, but it was fairly minor, and easily customized via rules in the PHB, so it wasn't really a problem. D&D 2024 has made it a problem.
So, basically, I think people get spooked by complexity.
I don't think it has anything to do with complexity. It has to do with how people view backgrounds. In prior editions (and most other RPGs) your character backstory has no mechanical weight; at most, there's an expectation that your backstory make some narrative sense. In 2014, it made a bit of difference, but it was fairly minor, and easily customized via rules in the PHB, so it wasn't really a problem. D&D 2024 has made it a problem.
I don't disagree with you, exactly. I do think the DMG will have an option to "fix" the problem.
However, I was referring to the general idea of why people are opposed to custom backgrounds and the supposedly game-breaking "optimization" that custom backgrounds could bring about. (You could probably extend that anxiety to any point-build-like system.)
I will never understand people's need to wait for officially published material for something to be "possible" as if Wizards of the Coast are somehow doing gods work. You don't need to wait for the 29th for the DMG to come to access a customizable background. Whether it is official in there or not, makes absolutely no difference in anyway, WotC's rules are just another players house rules and if you really need something in published form, go to GM guild, there are dozens of supplements available, they have a category dedicated just to this subject for it HERE,
I will never understand people's need to wait for officially published material for something to be "possible" as if Wizards of the Coast are somehow doing gods work.
The issue isn't that workarounds don't exist. The issue is that workarounds shouldn't be needed. Honestly, the correct fix to backgrounds is to have a section on "define your background" with some examples (but probably a lot fewer, and a lot smaller page count spent on them; use the extra pages for something more useful, like a list of background questions that are useful to answer to come up with a fleshed out character).
In prior editions (and most other RPGs) your character backstory has no mechanical weight; at most, there's an expectation that your backstory make some narrative sense.
I mean, there are RPGs where "backstory" and "character creation" are essentially synonymous, like Traveller. The new background system in the 24PHB is just dipping the teeny tiniest pinky toe in that pool
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I will never understand people's need to wait for officially published material for something to be "possible" as if Wizards of the Coast are somehow doing gods work.
The issue isn't that workarounds don't exist. The issue is that workarounds shouldn't be needed. Honestly, the correct fix to backgrounds is to have a section on "define your background" with some examples (but probably a lot fewer, and a lot smaller page count spent on them; use the extra pages for something more useful, like a list of background questions that are useful to answer to come up with a fleshed out character).
Yes, the new PHB is painfully underequipped on content for fleshing out a character as opposed to laying out an array of stats and features.
I mean, there are RPGs where "backstory" and "character creation" are essentially synonymous, like Traveller. The new background system in the 24PHB is just dipping the teeny tiniest pinky toe in that pool
I wouldn't mind seeing a lifepath system for D&D, but it needs to be its own thing.
Is that anything like the old ES games where you would answer a set of questions and the skills you would be good at and equipment you started with were based on the selected answers?
You are attacking a glib, self-deprecating comment as though it were the crux of an argument. Frankly, I should simply ignore it but I will do my best to respond to it anyway, at least once.
You are confusing the conversation. 'Having it all' was in response to an insincere question about a hypothetical person who worked out every day and also studied every day. This sarcastic critique was met with my own silly and cavalier response. You are not tracking the conversation very well. This is the second time in just as many days where you failed to comprehend the discussion before climbing into the ring with me, only to punch up a strawman. Do you have some kind of personal issue with me?
Yes, it is true that a game is incapable of capturing the nuances of real life. In real life, not everyone has the same physical, intellectual, and emotional potential or the same barriers or benefits to success. Then again, this game never set out to accomplish this monumental task. Rather, it set out to provide shallow and vague narrative justification for a couple points of mechanical benefit, literally stating in print that the details are up to you. These background rules are simply meant to provide some mechanical benefit to a narrative aspect of the character and that narrative is entirely within the player's scope to add the details. This is the third time I have said this, which is captured in this very posting chain. Did you only get as far as my first paragraph of the post where I used the phrase 'have it all', then read no further?
A great question for hourserules or homebrew: a part time worker turned adventurer. I don't know what that would look like, but I trust you to create something that is interesting and also meeting your expectations. Perhaps that Farmer background was only a part time worker and spent the rest of their days painting. A blessed life of meaningful work and passionate expression. We should all be so lucky.
You know, I am pretty sure I never said or implied that anyone of any given background had worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things. We all, however, have the same number of hours in the day, unless you ascribe to the hustler mentality where you can somehow produce 48 hour workdays purely by measuring your productivity output to income ratio. Jokes aside, I think your question can be answered by referring you back to the text that tells you to fill in the details. Maybe someone gained a +2/+1 because their work was extra hard, but only required they work two days a week and they spent the rest of their days in leisure. It is your PC. If your DM is fine with it, why not?
It is not meant to capture all the nuances of real life, this is very true. However, it is a setting by its nature traditionally less constrained by such nuances rather than more constrained.
More flexibility is less constrained by the nuances of real life, not more constrained by them.
Other than that, I am not sure what you are responding to here? Perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to be making the argument that someone who is spending the entire day studying (justifying +2 int) would have no time left for working out (+1 str). However, again, that implies that the background should only give the +2 int total, which is not the case. In fact, RAW, someone with a Guard background can have +2 int, +1 str for background stat mods.
So not really sure where you are coming from here?
Is that anything like the old ES games where you would answer a set of questions and the skills you would be good at and equipment you started with were based on the selected answers?
Usually it's "roll on a series of tables to define your backstory, and backstory events give specific benefits". This could wind up doing far more than the background -- it could replace rolling for attributes completely.
Ah, that sounds a bit more like (as someone in another thread touching on backgrounds mentioned) "character generation" vs "character creation". Dipping my toe into this conversation here, I would simply point out that there are benefits that I see to making choices that have mechanical effects (like tying ASIs to backgrounds).
Whether those benefits outweigh the ability to actualize a character concept through free-form creation is more of a philosophical one and based on the post earlier about 918,000 permutations possible, I can see why they chose the more restrictive one for the PHB.
That said, it does seem like there are some classes for which an obvious "best choice" exists, and other classes where it doesn't. That kind of sucks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How is +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 equal to "having it all?" First of all, if the background gave a different +2/+1 stock, then it would still be the same total stat improvement, just distributed differently, such as instead of +2 Int/+1 Wis from reading all those books and thinking about their deeper meanings, reading all those books and working out a little.
The stock background assumes that former profession was full time, too, but what if it was only part time? Could that not lead to a +1/+2 or +1/+1/+1 situation?
Why must everyone of any given background have worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things? Does not the cap on total points already cover the 'only so many hours in the day' concern?
Best guess? It's a mechanical bit of crunch with narrative set dressing. It's just a step in getting the character a needed stat mod and some other features that can be flavored or handwaved however the player and the DM want. It could easily be labeled as "Nameless Option 3", +1 to Wis, +2 to Int, choose some skills, add this feat, etc., and then move on to the rest of character creation.
What they really should have done is gone with general introduction to concept, then base mechanics (Stat bonuses, skill, feat, etc) then a section about reconciling the two.
'Nameless' is unnecessarily provocative. How are backgrounds not personal stories? There are commonalities, but individual experiences are individual.
Which is why backgrounds are generalized starting points, not the end-all be-all of backstory and characterization.
I don't think it must be that way, and I don't even think that was a concern for the designers.
Let's do some math:
There are 10 origin feats, 12 if you split Magic Initiate into three like the backgrounds do.
There are 20 possible combination of "3 attributes" (skating over some details, but the math is generally "6 pick 3").
There are 153 variations of "18 pick 2" skill proficiencies.
There are 25 tool choices (I'm simplifying and treating "gaming set" and "musical instrument" as one each).
So ignoring narrative descriptions, there are 918,000 possible mechanical combinations in this background "system." Yet, the book only lists 16 of them; about 0.0017%. (Also, I haven't, like, triple-checked that math, but I'm mostly confident it's the right order of magnitude.)
I'm pretty sure they listed out 16 just to make a static "pick one of these" list to make character creation much easier for new players, and the likely custom system in the upcoming DMG will allow any of the 918 thousand options, with DM approval. However, it's worth noting:
So, basically, I think people get spooked by complexity.
You are attacking a glib, self-deprecating comment as though it were the crux of an argument. Frankly, I should simply ignore it but I will do my best to respond to it anyway, at least once.
You are confusing the conversation. 'Having it all' was in response to an insincere question about a hypothetical person who worked out every day and also studied every day. This sarcastic critique was met with my own silly and cavalier response. You are not tracking the conversation very well. This is the second time in just as many days where you failed to comprehend the discussion before climbing into the ring with me, only to punch up a strawman. Do you have some kind of personal issue with me?
Yes, it is true that a game is incapable of capturing the nuances of real life. In real life, not everyone has the same physical, intellectual, and emotional potential or the same barriers or benefits to success. Then again, this game never set out to accomplish this monumental task. Rather, it set out to provide shallow and vague narrative justification for a couple points of mechanical benefit, literally stating in print that the details are up to you. These background rules are simply meant to provide some mechanical benefit to a narrative aspect of the character and that narrative is entirely within the player's scope to add the details. This is the third time I have said this, which is captured in this very posting chain. Did you only get as far as my first paragraph of the post where I used the phrase 'have it all', then read no further?
A great question for hourserules or homebrew: a part time worker turned adventurer. I don't know what that would look like, but I trust you to create something that is interesting and also meeting your expectations. Perhaps that Farmer background was only a part time worker and spent the rest of their days painting. A blessed life of meaningful work and passionate expression. We should all be so lucky.
You know, I am pretty sure I never said or implied that anyone of any given background had worked exactly the same hours and learned exactly the same things. We all, however, have the same number of hours in the day, unless you ascribe to the hustler mentality where you can somehow produce 48 hour workdays purely by measuring your productivity output to income ratio. Jokes aside, I think your question can be answered by referring you back to the text that tells you to fill in the details. Maybe someone gained a +2/+1 because their work was extra hard, but only required they work two days a week and they spent the rest of their days in leisure. It is your PC. If your DM is fine with it, why not?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
At some point you'll get it. Or you won't.
I agree with this so much. The idea that there are only 16 backgrounds is fine, but only if they are examples that you can pick from but you also provide a custom background as well. They have said such a thing exists in the DMG so luckily we only have to wait till the 29th to have access to it.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
It is one of the major things I was looking forward to in the new DMG, personally. The 16 are fine, but it is strange; even though there are 16 to the 13 in the 2014 PHB, it feels like there are not enough.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
I don't think it has anything to do with complexity. It has to do with how people view backgrounds. In prior editions (and most other RPGs) your character backstory has no mechanical weight; at most, there's an expectation that your backstory make some narrative sense. In 2014, it made a bit of difference, but it was fairly minor, and easily customized via rules in the PHB, so it wasn't really a problem. D&D 2024 has made it a problem.
I don't disagree with you, exactly. I do think the DMG will have an option to "fix" the problem.
However, I was referring to the general idea of why people are opposed to custom backgrounds and the supposedly game-breaking "optimization" that custom backgrounds could bring about. (You could probably extend that anxiety to any point-build-like system.)
I will never understand people's need to wait for officially published material for something to be "possible" as if Wizards of the Coast are somehow doing gods work. You don't need to wait for the 29th for the DMG to come to access a customizable background. Whether it is official in there or not, makes absolutely no difference in anyway, WotC's rules are just another players house rules and if you really need something in published form, go to GM guild, there are dozens of supplements available, they have a category dedicated just to this subject for it HERE,
The issue isn't that workarounds don't exist. The issue is that workarounds shouldn't be needed. Honestly, the correct fix to backgrounds is to have a section on "define your background" with some examples (but probably a lot fewer, and a lot smaller page count spent on them; use the extra pages for something more useful, like a list of background questions that are useful to answer to come up with a fleshed out character).
I mean, there are RPGs where "backstory" and "character creation" are essentially synonymous, like Traveller. The new background system in the 24PHB is just dipping the teeny tiniest pinky toe in that pool
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, the new PHB is painfully underequipped on content for fleshing out a character as opposed to laying out an array of stats and features.
I wouldn't mind seeing a lifepath system for D&D, but it needs to be its own thing.
Is that anything like the old ES games where you would answer a set of questions and the skills you would be good at and equipment you started with were based on the selected answers?
It is not meant to capture all the nuances of real life, this is very true. However, it is a setting by its nature traditionally less constrained by such nuances rather than more constrained.
More flexibility is less constrained by the nuances of real life, not more constrained by them.
Other than that, I am not sure what you are responding to here? Perhaps I misunderstood, but you seemed to be making the argument that someone who is spending the entire day studying (justifying +2 int) would have no time left for working out (+1 str). However, again, that implies that the background should only give the +2 int total, which is not the case. In fact, RAW, someone with a Guard background can have +2 int, +1 str for background stat mods.
So not really sure where you are coming from here?
Usually it's "roll on a series of tables to define your backstory, and backstory events give specific benefits". This could wind up doing far more than the background -- it could replace rolling for attributes completely.
Ah, that sounds a bit more like (as someone in another thread touching on backgrounds mentioned) "character generation" vs "character creation". Dipping my toe into this conversation here, I would simply point out that there are benefits that I see to making choices that have mechanical effects (like tying ASIs to backgrounds).
Whether those benefits outweigh the ability to actualize a character concept through free-form creation is more of a philosophical one and based on the post earlier about 918,000 permutations possible, I can see why they chose the more restrictive one for the PHB.
That said, it does seem like there are some classes for which an obvious "best choice" exists, and other classes where it doesn't. That kind of sucks.