Because they were mostly irrelevant, and to the degree relevant, false? Character optimization is not inherently "how do I create the most powerful character", it's about "given I have a character I want to play, how do I best create that character?" Characters being homogeneous is because classes are a blunt tool with little room for variety, not because of character optimization.
It's not about creating the most powerful character? It is called min maxing for a reason. It is called power-gaming for a reason.
Characterization is an afterthought when a player insists on having this or that ability score be its highest to get optimal performance out of the character. And this almost always in the context of combat.
Regarding your point about classes: two Fighters can be very different from one another. Just as long as the people playing them aren't going to tip over the proverbial chess board if these characters don't have exceptionally high STR scores and more than above average CON. With just about everything else treated as a "dump stat."
You can't blame classes for what is really just your approach to character creation.
It's not about creating the most powerful character? It is called min maxing for a reason. It is called power-gaming for a reason.
Power gaming and character optimization are not the same thing. My experience is that a lot of power gamers aren't even min-maxers, because a real power-gamer doesn't use point buy, they roll stats and whine until allowed to reroll if the result is bad.
Optimization limits the imagination. Because it says an infinite number of possibilities for characters are "unusable." Because those who optimize can't bear to think their character can't do the most damage et cetera.
I feel like you have observed a correlation at some point and assumed causality.
A player's ability to optimize and their ability to roleplay are in no ways mutually exclusive. Optimization does not limit imagination. It does not limit story telling or roleplaying.
You are take a very specific and narrow view of the players who examine the optimal choices and applying it to all players. Not everyone who optimizes characters needs their wizard to have an 18 Intelligence out of the gate, but they probably don't want an 8 Intelligence. If you want to play an 8 Intelligence Wizard fancy.
What I want is for my choices to matter. If I play a Criminal Rogue that feels like a great combination, except that the Thieves Tools proficiency is redundant and maybe I should pick something else.
WotC never should have backtracked on Tasha's attribute allocation and they should have never backtracked on the replacing proficiencies from 2014.
I think this discussion has basically run its course.
My main issue with the 2024 background system as it is presented is that it tying together 2-3 of a choice of 3 possible ASI's to 2 skill proficiencies to a specific Origin feat makes it VERY inflexible, far more inflexible than 2014, which had "Customizing a background" right in the PHB, not hidden in the DMG as an optional rule, and as an optional rule, many GM's, especially newer ones, will not allow custom backgrounds.
You say "nowhere else can we take all the best things," which is not true and has never been true. That is the key flaw in your argument. Some characters do start out mechanically "optimized." There's a reason why certain race/class combinations became iconic/cliched (Half-Orc Barbarians, High Elf Wizards, Halfling Rogues, etc.).
For some players, the 2024 backgrounds will fit perfectly with the character they had in mind, they will be able to take exactly the feat they want, and fit in exactly the skills they want, and get the ASI boosts they want. For instance, Shenk the Orc, a Farmer who turned into a Fighter after goblins overran the kingdom. Those players will start out satisfied.For other players, though, being stuck using the default backgrounds, their characters will be stuck with skills or feats that they do not want and do not even fit their backstory. Those players will start out dissatisfied. For example, Dave, who was told that in this game of the imagination, unfortunately Bob the Wizard was not allowed to be a Merchant who owned a bookstore and read History books in his spare time enough to become proficient in it; that was completely impossible and out of the question. Instead Bob travels from place to place via donkey cart.
This creates an immediate disparity at the table for no good reason, mechanical or otherwise. None of the skills are gated off from classes because they are "too powerful" (and WotC certainly didn't think allowing players to customize the skills they wanted was too strong back in 2014). WoTC doesn't consider the Origin feats to be too imbalanced for a PC to take any of them; Humans even get two, which scratches the idea that it's too unbalanced to allow any PC to have one of their choice. From what people have reported of the DMG, it certainly doesn't include warnings about "don't allow players to take X or a combination of X and Y because they are too imbalanced," it just says "pick 3 ASI options, pick any two skills, pick any origin feat, pick any tool proficiency," and that's it. There's no good reason why that could not be in the PHB instead as an optional, ignorable rule.
It's true that these 16 backgrounds create disparity at the table but... we're going to get more of them. Yeah it'll suck for a while at tables that don't like customizing but hang in there.
There is a good reason: Some DMs do not want that in their game, but still want to play as close as possible to RAW. In my opinion, this is a good thing because the option is there, but it will require a conversation to be had between Player and DM. I do not really see why having the very thing you are asking for is so bad to have on the DM's side.
I didn't mention that because I feel as though "hey, talk to your DM about the character you want to play" was obvious, even if you're not customizing anything. But yes, sure, I think it would be fine to add explicit text "talk to your DM about customizing your PC" into a theoretical PHB 2024 "Creating a Custom Background" section.
And also, the kind of DM who is willing to make a custom background if a PC asks is fine. That's not the kind of DM I'm concerned about the lack of a PHB rule for custom backgrounds influencing.
The fact is any character of any given class you are going to make is going to have near identical ability scores. You are going to assign things for optimal performance. Because you care more about how effective the character is going to be in combat than you do real characterization. Nothing you said addresses this. At all.
Why would anyone play a wizard with an INT of 8? My point is that you might have a wizard that also has a high STR. Maybe even higher than its INT. Or a fighter with a good STR but not a good CON. It's secondary ability score is something else. Because that is the seed for an interesting character.
You are telling me (and everyone else who doesn't like the restrictive background system), that they must only care about combat optimizing and not care about characterization. You don't get to tell me what I am thinking. You don't get to put words in my mouth and argue against them, let alone declare that your strawman argument is true. You say I don't have an another argument?
Give me one stat line and one fixed set of proficiencies, and even the same species, and I can come up with a half-dozen or more characters who are different from a roleplaying perspective despite being mechanically identical. That's the point of roleplaying.
It's also bizarre that you're accusing me of caring only about combat optimization when the example I used was a Wizard who wanted to use the Merchant background, except have proficiency in History instead of Animal Handling - because it better matched their backstory! How is that supposed to be caring more about combat optimization than characterization? It's literally all about characterization. That's my pointabout why the overly restrictive, limited backgrounds with custom ones being hidden in the DMG is bad design.
***
You want to accuse me of only caring about combat optimization and not roleplaying? Dude, you don't even know me. Right now my current PC is a Rogue (Inquisitive) - such an OP combat class [sarcasm], whose only (DM-approved) tweaks to the default 2024 Criminal Background are Proficiency in a Forgery Kit (because you can't take the same tool proficiency twice) and Magic Initiate (Wizard) - not because the default Alert was bad, but because it fit well with the backstory of her mother being a Wizard. And that backstory was something I decided on before I knew we were going to be using 2024 rules instead of 2014. At level 4, she's going to take a level in Wizard - likely the only one - to pick up a bunch of ritual spells for general utility. None of those will be helpful in combat, and it will delay my progression in the Rogue skills I will actually use for combat.
It's true that these 16 backgrounds create disparity at the table but... we're going to get more of them. Yeah it'll suck for a while at tables that don't like customizing but hang in there.
I'm not playing at a table which doesn't like customization, and I doubt I would join one, a DM which refuses to allow custom backgrounds is a red flag of a DM which will likely restrict player choice in other significant ways as well.
There is a good reason: Some DMs do not want that in their game, but still want to play as close as possible to RAW. In my opinion, this is a good thing because the option is there, but it will require a conversation to be had between Player and DM. I do not really see why having the very thing you are asking for is so bad to have on the DM's side.
I didn't mention that because I feel as though "hey, talk to your DM about the character you want to play" was obvious, even if you're not customizing anything. But yes, sure, I think it would be fine to add explicit text "talk to your DM about customizing your PC" into a theoretical PHB 2024 "Creating a Custom Background" section.
And also, the kind of DM who is willing to make a custom background if a PC asks is fine. That's not the kind of DM I'm concerned about the lack of a PHB rule for custom backgrounds influencing.
What I mean is that the DMG (2024) very specifically gives the DM the tools to accommodate players with needs that go beyond what is available in the PHB (2024) Background section. It not only gives the DM the tools, but tells them why they might want them, which includes a player who wants something different. As a player and a DM, I see this as better to be placed in the DMG than the PHB, because it is ultimately up to the DM whether they want that in their game. It encourages communication and collaboration, which are hallmarks of good D&Ding.
There are going to be DMs who will take this as a license to not permit their players to deviate away from whatever is in the PHB only, and you expressed that such a limiting DM is not one you would want to play with. Isn't it a good thing to know that before you play, rather than 5 sessions in where their hands were tied on Backgrounds, but they leveraged their DM powers to limit you elsewhere?
The reality is that the current background choices reduce variance in characters, because a lot of them are just bad for a lot of classes -- typically half of them don't bump your primary attribute and are thus automatic pass, and among the rest there's usually some with questionable skills, secondary attributes, and feat choice. For example, if I'm going to make a barbarian, only seven backgrounds (Artisan, Entertainer, Farmer, Guard, Noble, Sailor, Soldier) have strength as an option, and even among those there are clearly better and worse choices, though with the exception of artisan (I'm sorry, Crafter feat is garbage) I think the others all have some redeeming features.
I'm not playing at a table which doesn't like customization, and I doubt I would join one, a DM which refuses to allow custom backgrounds is a red flag of a DM which will likely restrict player choice in other significant ways as well.
Okay.... So what's the problem? Your table customizes (and you wouldn't play at one that doesn't), and I articulated what to do at one that doesn't anyway (wait for more backgrounds.) The book is what it is at this point. So I'm not really sure what else to suggest or if you're just venting.
The reality is that the current background choices reduce variance in characters, because a lot of them are just bad for a lot of classes -- typically half of them don't bump your primary attribute and are thus automatic pass, and among the rest there's usually some with questionable skills, secondary attributes, and feat choice. For example, if I'm going to make a barbarian, only seven backgrounds (Artisan, Entertainer, Farmer, Guard, Noble, Sailor, Soldier) have strength as an option, and even among those there are clearly better and worse choices, though with the exception of artisan (I'm sorry, Crafter feat is garbage) I think the others all have some redeeming features.
My response is that of one who has not yet played the 2024 rules. Probably worth saying first.
There are more options in the 2024 PHB than the 2014 PHB, so I do not agree that the current background choices reduce variance in characters. Players who think they must choose the strongest character possible are boxing themselves in and reduce their own variance in characters. You can be powerful in other ways than just your damage-dealing stat. A barbarian can choose a background that lends to their unarmored defense and suddenly, all the options that offer a physical stat bonus are not quite automatic passes. The classes are all more powerful than the 2014 rules, so it isn't exactly like they are going to suffer a great deal for it, and eventually, all the stats get filled out as desired anyway. A barbarian who wants to focus on power has Guard and Soldier, Farmer also hits all the line items that barbarian players usually care about, and there are several other backgrounds that check off two of the three stat boosts that are important for barbarians to improve, and other classes can get great backgrounds to hit all three important stats. Since barbarians generally don't care about skill boosts and athletics is not overly important in 2024 based on the readings of many, there isn't much to worry about in terms of lining up both ability scores and skills.
Really, all the background changes have done is change the path a player takes to getting all the things they want. You still get them though and you don't need to start at 17 strength to be an effective barbarian at level 1, especially with the 2024 rules. I guess I am just not seeing why this is a problem. There are backgrounds for each class for those who need power and there are backgrounds for those who want other things. For players who are so frustrated by what is or is not in the PHB, there is the option to talk to the DM and work something out that is more suited to the player's needs.
There are more options in the 2024 PHB than the 2014 PHB, so I do not agree that the current background choices reduce variance in characters. Players who think they must choose the strongest character possible are boxing themselves in and reduce their own variance in characters.
There is a difference between "choosing strongest possible" and "choosing to not make a gratuitously bad character".
There are more options in the 2024 PHB than the 2014 PHB, so I do not agree that the current background choices reduce variance in characters. Players who think they must choose the strongest character possible are boxing themselves in and reduce their own variance in characters.
There is a difference between "choosing strongest possible" and "choosing to not make a gratuitously bad character".
There isn't really such a thing in terms of 2024 Backgrounds. You would have to put in a lot of work to make a gratuitously bad character based on my reading of the rules. What makes a good or bad PC is not one missing starting stat bonus or missing preferred skill proficiency.
There isn't really such a thing in terms of 2024 Backgrounds. You would have to put in a lot of work to make a gratuitously bad character based on my reading of the rules. What makes a good or bad PC is not one missing starting stat bonus or missing preferred skill proficiency.
Not being able to take a +2 in your primary attribute is in fact gratuitously bad. Almost everything else in the background is at worst going to be mediocre.
My response is that of one who has not yet played the 2024 rules. Probably worth saying first.
There are more options in the 2024 PHB than the 2014 PHB, so I do not agree that the current background choices reduce variance in characters. Players who think they must choose the strongest character possible are boxing themselves in and reduce their own variance in characters. You can be powerful in other ways than just your damage-dealing stat. A barbarian can choose a background that lends to their unarmored defense and suddenly, all the options that offer a physical stat bonus are not quite automatic passes. The classes are all more powerful than the 2014 rules, so it isn't exactly like they are going to suffer a great deal for it, and eventually, all the stats get filled out as desired anyway. A barbarian who wants to focus on power has Guard and Soldier, Farmer also hits all the line items that barbarian players usually care about, and there are several other backgrounds that check off two of the three stat boosts that are important for barbarians to improve, and other classes can get great backgrounds to hit all three important stats. Since barbarians generally don't care about skill boosts and athletics is not overly important in 2024 based on the readings of many, there isn't much to worry about in terms of lining up both ability scores and skills.
Really, all the background changes have done is change the path a player takes to getting all the things they want. You still get them though and you don't need to start at 17 strength to be an effective barbarian at level 1, especially with the 2024 rules. I guess I am just not seeing why this is a problem. There are backgrounds for each class for those who need power and there are backgrounds for those who want other things. For players who are so frustrated by what is or is not in the PHB, there is the option to talk to the DM and work something out that is more suited to the player's needs.
I just want to point out two issues with this part.
1. The 2014 PHB included custom backgrounds so had infinitely more options than the 2024 PHB.
2. The 2014 Backgrounds have far less impact on the character than the 2024 Backgrounds.
There isn't really such a thing in terms of 2024 Backgrounds. You would have to put in a lot of work to make a gratuitously bad character based on my reading of the rules. What makes a good or bad PC is not one missing starting stat bonus or missing preferred skill proficiency.
Not being able to take a +2 in your primary attribute is in fact gratuitously bad. Almost everything else in the background is at worst going to be mediocre.
Not really and if it is so important to you, why would you do that in the first place? There are options for people who cannot fathom a character that doesn't have maximum damage out of the gates and there are options for those who understand that you must eventually invest in other stats for a MAD class. Why is it so 'gratuitously bad' to do that at character creation? You can create a powerful PC without loading up on damage at character creation, especially if you are playing a MAD class.
My response is that of one who has not yet played the 2024 rules. Probably worth saying first.
There are more options in the 2024 PHB than the 2014 PHB, so I do not agree that the current background choices reduce variance in characters. Players who think they must choose the strongest character possible are boxing themselves in and reduce their own variance in characters. You can be powerful in other ways than just your damage-dealing stat. A barbarian can choose a background that lends to their unarmored defense and suddenly, all the options that offer a physical stat bonus are not quite automatic passes. The classes are all more powerful than the 2014 rules, so it isn't exactly like they are going to suffer a great deal for it, and eventually, all the stats get filled out as desired anyway. A barbarian who wants to focus on power has Guard and Soldier, Farmer also hits all the line items that barbarian players usually care about, and there are several other backgrounds that check off two of the three stat boosts that are important for barbarians to improve, and other classes can get great backgrounds to hit all three important stats. Since barbarians generally don't care about skill boosts and athletics is not overly important in 2024 based on the readings of many, there isn't much to worry about in terms of lining up both ability scores and skills.
Really, all the background changes have done is change the path a player takes to getting all the things they want. You still get them though and you don't need to start at 17 strength to be an effective barbarian at level 1, especially with the 2024 rules. I guess I am just not seeing why this is a problem. There are backgrounds for each class for those who need power and there are backgrounds for those who want other things. For players who are so frustrated by what is or is not in the PHB, there is the option to talk to the DM and work something out that is more suited to the player's needs.
I just want to point out two issues with this part.
1. The 2014 PHB included custom backgrounds so had infinitely more options than the 2024 PHB.
2. The 2014 Backgrounds have far less impact on the character than the 2024 Backgrounds.
I already acknowledged this. I also made sure to point out that this is still available to you, but put in the DMG. I believe that is where it belongs.
I don't dispute that. Species did the same thing before and people still played species that were considered suboptimal. Often.
1. The 2014 PHB included custom backgrounds so had infinitely more options than the 2024 PHB.
1. I already acknowledged this. I also made sure to point out that this is still available to you, but put in the DMG. I believe that is where it belongs.
For the record, using the 2014 custom background system is a PHB option in 2024. As is using any other 2014 background, all with "pick your +2/+1" and "pick your origin feat." That's RAW. It's basically the 2024 custom background, just slightly hidden and slightly more powerful (you also get a 2014 "feature" and, what, a language?).
Which really makes putting the 2024 custom system into the DMG a questionable decision. I get what they were going for, at least, and a DM can always just forbid legacy stuff.
1. The 2014 PHB included custom backgrounds so had infinitely more options than the 2024 PHB.
1. I already acknowledged this. I also made sure to point out that this is still available to you, but put in the DMG. I believe that is where it belongs.
For the record, using the 2014 custom background sytem is a PHB option in 2024. As is using any other 2014 background, all with "pick your +2/+1" and "pick your origin feat." That's RAW. It's basically the 2024 custom background, just slightly hidden and slightly more powerful (you also get a 2014 "feature" and, what, a language?).
Which really makes putting the 2024 custom system into the DMG a questionable decision. I get what they were going for, at least, and a DM can always just forbid legacy stuff.
This true, I often forget because we don't use the 2014 stuff anymore.
I already acknowledged this. I also made sure to point out that this is still available to you, but put in the DMG. I believe that is where it belongs.
Why does it belong in the DMG? There's nothing complex about the process that requires DM balancing, and "discuss your character concept with the DM" has always been a thing, there's nothing special about backgrounds.
For the record, using the 2014 custom background sytem is a PHB option in 2024. As is using any other 2014 background, all with "pick your +2/+1" and "pick your origin feat." That's RAW. It's basically the 2024 custom background, just slightly hidden and slightly more powerful (you also get a 2014 "feature" and, what, a language?).
Which really makes putting the 2024 custom system into the DMG a questionable decision. I get what they were going for, at least, and a DM can always just forbid legacy stuff.
Oh, I hadn't even considered that. Yes, agreed, and thank you for adding it here because it is true that you can bring in Legacy items per the rules.
I already acknowledged this. I also made sure to point out that this is still available to you, but put in the DMG. I believe that is where it belongs.
Why does it belong in the DMG? There's nothing complex about the process that requires DM balancing, and "discuss your character concept with the DM" has always been a thing, there's nothing special about backgrounds.
There's no good reason why that could not be in the PHB instead as an optional, ignorable rule.
There is a good reason: Some DMs do not want that in their game, but still want to play as close as possible to RAW. In my opinion, this is a good thing because the option is there, but it will require a conversation to be had between Player and DM. I do not really see why having the very thing you are asking for is so bad to have on the DM's side.
What I mean is that the DMG (2024) very specifically gives the DM the tools to accommodate players with needs that go beyond what is available in the PHB (2024) Background section. It not only gives the DM the tools, but tells them why they might want them, which includes a player who wants something different. As a player and a DM, I see this as better to be placed in the DMG than the PHB, because it is ultimately up to the DM whether they want that in their game. It encourages communication and collaboration, which are hallmarks of good D&Ding.
There are going to be DMs who will take this as a license to not permit their players to deviate away from whatever is in the PHB only, and you expressed that such a limiting DM is not one you would want to play with. Isn't it a good thing to know that before you play, rather than 5 sessions in where their hands were tied on Backgrounds, but they leveraged their DM powers to limit you elsewhere?
It's not about creating the most powerful character? It is called min maxing for a reason. It is called power-gaming for a reason.
Characterization is an afterthought when a player insists on having this or that ability score be its highest to get optimal performance out of the character. And this almost always in the context of combat.
Regarding your point about classes: two Fighters can be very different from one another. Just as long as the people playing them aren't going to tip over the proverbial chess board if these characters don't have exceptionally high STR scores and more than above average CON. With just about everything else treated as a "dump stat."
You can't blame classes for what is really just your approach to character creation.
Power gaming and character optimization are not the same thing. My experience is that a lot of power gamers aren't even min-maxers, because a real power-gamer doesn't use point buy, they roll stats and whine until allowed to reroll if the result is bad.
I feel like you have observed a correlation at some point and assumed causality.
A player's ability to optimize and their ability to roleplay are in no ways mutually exclusive. Optimization does not limit imagination. It does not limit story telling or roleplaying.
You are take a very specific and narrow view of the players who examine the optimal choices and applying it to all players. Not everyone who optimizes characters needs their wizard to have an 18 Intelligence out of the gate, but they probably don't want an 8 Intelligence. If you want to play an 8 Intelligence Wizard fancy.
What I want is for my choices to matter. If I play a Criminal Rogue that feels like a great combination, except that the Thieves Tools proficiency is redundant and maybe I should pick something else.
WotC never should have backtracked on Tasha's attribute allocation and they should have never backtracked on the replacing proficiencies from 2014.
How to add Tooltips.
It's true that these 16 backgrounds create disparity at the table but... we're going to get more of them. Yeah it'll suck for a while at tables that don't like customizing but hang in there.
I didn't mention that because I feel as though "hey, talk to your DM about the character you want to play" was obvious, even if you're not customizing anything. But yes, sure, I think it would be fine to add explicit text "talk to your DM about customizing your PC" into a theoretical PHB 2024 "Creating a Custom Background" section.
And also, the kind of DM who is willing to make a custom background if a PC asks is fine. That's not the kind of DM I'm concerned about the lack of a PHB rule for custom backgrounds influencing.
You are telling me (and everyone else who doesn't like the restrictive background system), that they must only care about combat optimizing and not care about characterization. You don't get to tell me what I am thinking. You don't get to put words in my mouth and argue against them, let alone declare that your strawman argument is true. You say I don't have an another argument?
Give me one stat line and one fixed set of proficiencies, and even the same species, and I can come up with a half-dozen or more characters who are different from a roleplaying perspective despite being mechanically identical. That's the point of roleplaying.
It's also bizarre that you're accusing me of caring only about combat optimization when the example I used was a Wizard who wanted to use the Merchant background, except have proficiency in History instead of Animal Handling - because it better matched their backstory! How is that supposed to be caring more about combat optimization than characterization? It's literally all about characterization. That's my point about why the overly restrictive, limited backgrounds with custom ones being hidden in the DMG is bad design.
***
You want to accuse me of only caring about combat optimization and not roleplaying? Dude, you don't even know me. Right now my current PC is a Rogue (Inquisitive) - such an OP combat class [sarcasm], whose only (DM-approved) tweaks to the default 2024 Criminal Background are Proficiency in a Forgery Kit (because you can't take the same tool proficiency twice) and Magic Initiate (Wizard) - not because the default Alert was bad, but because it fit well with the backstory of her mother being a Wizard. And that backstory was something I decided on before I knew we were going to be using 2024 rules instead of 2014. At level 4, she's going to take a level in Wizard - likely the only one - to pick up a bunch of ritual spells for general utility. None of those will be helpful in combat, and it will delay my progression in the Rogue skills I will actually use for combat.
I'm not playing at a table which doesn't like customization, and I doubt I would join one, a DM which refuses to allow custom backgrounds is a red flag of a DM which will likely restrict player choice in other significant ways as well.
What I mean is that the DMG (2024) very specifically gives the DM the tools to accommodate players with needs that go beyond what is available in the PHB (2024) Background section. It not only gives the DM the tools, but tells them why they might want them, which includes a player who wants something different. As a player and a DM, I see this as better to be placed in the DMG than the PHB, because it is ultimately up to the DM whether they want that in their game. It encourages communication and collaboration, which are hallmarks of good D&Ding.
There are going to be DMs who will take this as a license to not permit their players to deviate away from whatever is in the PHB only, and you expressed that such a limiting DM is not one you would want to play with. Isn't it a good thing to know that before you play, rather than 5 sessions in where their hands were tied on Backgrounds, but they leveraged their DM powers to limit you elsewhere?
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
The reality is that the current background choices reduce variance in characters, because a lot of them are just bad for a lot of classes -- typically half of them don't bump your primary attribute and are thus automatic pass, and among the rest there's usually some with questionable skills, secondary attributes, and feat choice. For example, if I'm going to make a barbarian, only seven backgrounds (Artisan, Entertainer, Farmer, Guard, Noble, Sailor, Soldier) have strength as an option, and even among those there are clearly better and worse choices, though with the exception of artisan (I'm sorry, Crafter feat is garbage) I think the others all have some redeeming features.
Okay.... So what's the problem? Your table customizes (and you wouldn't play at one that doesn't), and I articulated what to do at one that doesn't anyway (wait for more backgrounds.) The book is what it is at this point. So I'm not really sure what else to suggest or if you're just venting.
My response is that of one who has not yet played the 2024 rules. Probably worth saying first.
There are more options in the 2024 PHB than the 2014 PHB, so I do not agree that the current background choices reduce variance in characters. Players who think they must choose the strongest character possible are boxing themselves in and reduce their own variance in characters. You can be powerful in other ways than just your damage-dealing stat. A barbarian can choose a background that lends to their unarmored defense and suddenly, all the options that offer a physical stat bonus are not quite automatic passes. The classes are all more powerful than the 2014 rules, so it isn't exactly like they are going to suffer a great deal for it, and eventually, all the stats get filled out as desired anyway. A barbarian who wants to focus on power has Guard and Soldier, Farmer also hits all the line items that barbarian players usually care about, and there are several other backgrounds that check off two of the three stat boosts that are important for barbarians to improve, and other classes can get great backgrounds to hit all three important stats. Since barbarians generally don't care about skill boosts and athletics is not overly important in 2024 based on the readings of many, there isn't much to worry about in terms of lining up both ability scores and skills.
Really, all the background changes have done is change the path a player takes to getting all the things they want. You still get them though and you don't need to start at 17 strength to be an effective barbarian at level 1, especially with the 2024 rules. I guess I am just not seeing why this is a problem. There are backgrounds for each class for those who need power and there are backgrounds for those who want other things. For players who are so frustrated by what is or is not in the PHB, there is the option to talk to the DM and work something out that is more suited to the player's needs.
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
There is a difference between "choosing strongest possible" and "choosing to not make a gratuitously bad character".
There isn't really such a thing in terms of 2024 Backgrounds. You would have to put in a lot of work to make a gratuitously bad character based on my reading of the rules. What makes a good or bad PC is not one missing starting stat bonus or missing preferred skill proficiency.
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
Not being able to take a +2 in your primary attribute is in fact gratuitously bad. Almost everything else in the background is at worst going to be mediocre.
I just want to point out two issues with this part.
1. The 2014 PHB included custom backgrounds so had infinitely more options than the 2024 PHB.
2. The 2014 Backgrounds have far less impact on the character than the 2024 Backgrounds.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not really and if it is so important to you, why would you do that in the first place? There are options for people who cannot fathom a character that doesn't have maximum damage out of the gates and there are options for those who understand that you must eventually invest in other stats for a MAD class. Why is it so 'gratuitously bad' to do that at character creation? You can create a powerful PC without loading up on damage at character creation, especially if you are playing a MAD class.
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
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
For the record, using the 2014 custom background system is a PHB option in 2024. As is using any other 2014 background, all with "pick your +2/+1" and "pick your origin feat." That's RAW. It's basically the 2024 custom background, just slightly hidden and slightly more powerful (you also get a 2014 "feature" and, what, a language?).
Which really makes putting the 2024 custom system into the DMG a questionable decision. I get what they were going for, at least, and a DM can always just forbid legacy stuff.
This true, I often forget because we don't use the 2014 stuff anymore.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Why does it belong in the DMG? There's nothing complex about the process that requires DM balancing, and "discuss your character concept with the DM" has always been a thing, there's nothing special about backgrounds.
Oh, I hadn't even considered that. Yes, agreed, and thank you for adding it here because it is true that you can bring in Legacy items per the rules.
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 already said why.
Here:
And here:
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