I disagree. Entertainer Bard is the baridiest bard in that they get more music instruments than other bards, the Acolyte Cleric is the clericiest cleric as they get more cleric cantrips and spells, the Sage Wizard is the wizardiest wizard as they get more wizard cantrips and spells.
Entertainer bard is fine; musician actually gives a useful bonus. The other two would be far better off with Skilled (honestly, just saying "You can replace any background feat with Skilled" would help a fair amount)
May I ask why you think crafter is horrible? With the magic items creation rules having tool prof and a 20% to crafting them doest seem so bad.
The crafter feat has no effect on magic item creation; the 20% discount is for non-magical items.
I’m not going to say crafter is great, but when it comes time to buy the fighter their plate mail, guess who I want making the purchase? And, of course there’s lots of spell components that get really pricey. Of course, most campaigns have PCs end up with more money than they can really use. But crafter is going to be pretty handy at low levels.
I agree that optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive at all. But I also agree with Enrif (and disagree with the OP) in saying that there's nothing wrong with the Farmer background either.
Farmer's fine. The main ones I have issues with are ones that are horrible choices for the class that has the most thematic reason to take them, usually because they provide minor benefits associated with that class that are mostly redundant if you actually are that class. The biggest offenders there are acolyte (cleric) and sage (wizard). There are also some absolutely horrible origin feats, such as crafter.
1) Picking Sage on a wizard isn't "horrible." Yeah, you'd get more out of a different Magic Initiate, but at the end of the day an extra preparation/daily cast and two extra cantrips, especially at low levels, are still worth an origin feat even if it's not getting you access to any spells you couldn't get through your class. It's not like Wizard is short on good spells to choose from.
2) Acolyte on a Cleric isn't bad either. Since they start with Medium Armor, you don't need any stat to be above 14 except Wis, making them effectively SAD. Just dump the other mental stat to 9-11 for a total of 10-12 and put the points elsewhere.
May I ask why you think crafter is horrible? With the magic items creation rules having tool prof and a 20% to crafting them doest seem so bad.
The crafter feat has no effect on magic item creation; the 20% discount is for non-magical items.
You mean the non-magical items you need to make as part of magic item crafting anyway? With the new creation rules, even Crafter has its uses. It even gives you extra tool proficiencies, which are another thing you need for magic item crafting.
And i disagree here vehemently. A Bard that has a Entertainer background doubles down on the music part, like we see many musicians that can play multiple instruments. If you want to be a jack-of-all-trades bard, you wouldn't be a entertainer, but more like a wayfarer perhaps, or scholar, or hermit, backgrounds that reflect a wide array of different interests. But if your bard was a entertainer, then were should the other skills be coming from? Why would a entertainer have thieves' tools or alchemists supplies?
Why? Why must they double down on the music part?
An Entertainer can be many things besides an musician, they could be a storyteller, a juggler, an acrobat, a stand-up comedian/jester - there is explicitly a Bard subclass for the College of Dance in the 2024 rules. This is the reason why the PHB backgrounds should not tie a limited choice of ASI's with fixed skills and a fixed feat together. The 2014 version did not have that problem because the player-facing rules explicitly gave the power to customize backgrounds to the player.
That's the "Stormwind Fallacy"-Fallacy. No one argues that optimizers can or can't roleplay. The argument is that the choices you make do not reflect your story.
Let's take the wizard Bob example from above. Why does bob has Animal Handling as a Merchant? It doesn't fit the optimization you have mind? Because the assumption is, that a merchant in D&D is one that travels by oxcart or caravan to sell their stuff and thus has to interact with animals.
D&D is literally a game of the imagination, where you're allowed to create things which are not written in stone. Creating a character in D&D should not resemble a "character select" screen in a videogame where the choices you see are all you get.
It seems like you're saying that the Merchant background can not possibly describe a bookstore owner, that a Merchant background can only be a cart-traveling salesman, because that's what the background says they have to be. And that is probably the most un-D&D, anti-roleplaying thing you've said in this discussion.
How can you possibly say that the choices forced onto a PC because of the background designed by a committee in some distant room somewhere is MORE reflective of a PC's story than one the player came up with? That goes against all logic and common sense.
I’m going to stop you right there. No one was talking about species. Species areirrelevant to the discussion about Backgrounds, and bringing them up is a form of "moving the goalposts".
Species is akin to genetics. Background is life experience. Those are two very different things. Some people playing under the 2014 rules chafed at attribute scores being fixed for specific species because it didn’t allow for variation in an individual’s life experiences.
Classes, we have Ranger that do not get proficiency in persuasion/intimidation and history, but you want to be a ranger that hunts criminals in a urban setting. Well, the ranger is at its core assumption NOT a urban based class, but a wilderness based class and that is reflected in its features.
Irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is Backgrounds. (But you can search for "Urban Ranger" if you really want.)
and we could look at feats, items, spell and see the same.
If you want to change every single detail to be chosen, than D&D is the wrong system for that.
First, saying "you want to change every single detail" is a strawman. No one was arguing for that.
Secondly, even if someone was arguing that, if I were you I would not be so confident that your position is accurate: The Rules Primer for “Peril in Pinebrook,” an official WotC publication, has a definition of Rule 0 of D&D (the bottom of page 4 of the PDF).
“Rule 0. Rule 0 of D&D is simple: Have fun. It’s fine if everyone agrees to change the rules as long as doing so means the game is more fun for everyone.”
In fact the idea that the rules can be changed if that's what the table wants has been pretty consistently expressed by representatives of WotC in interviews, discussions, and in the rulebooks themselves.
As you say. People are too fixated on the exact name of backgrounds and forgot that these are very broad and a backstory can have multiple backgrounds in them by theme. Also people should look at backgrounds more as a archetype, then a prescribed story. Like Criminal is not any criminal, not a blackmailer, not a thug, but the archetypical thief.
That was not the case in 2014. There was a whole table of Specialties for your Criminal Background: Blackmailer, Burglar, Enforcer, Fence, Highway robber, Hired killer, Pickpocket, Smuggler. The table is gone in 2024.
I disagree. Entertainer Bard is the baridiest bard in that they get more music instruments than other bards, the Acolyte Cleric is the clericiest cleric as they get more cleric cantrips and spells, the Sage Wizard is the wizardiest wizard as they get more wizard cantrips and spells. That you think that is not good, is rooted in disregarding that specialization as unwanted, and would rather get something that gives them things not already present in the class. Which is fine, but again rooted in the pure Minmax/optimizer attitude that only cares about mechanics, not about the theme or story.
You keep talking about "roleplaying," yet you say "Entertainer Bard" is the bardiest Bard, "Acolyte Cleric" is the most cleric-y cleric, "Sage Wizard" is the most wizardly Wizard... and then you strongly imply that NOT picking Entertainer as the background for Bard, NOT picking Acolyte for the Cleric, NOT picking Sage for the Wizard automatically means that you only care about mechanics and not about theme or story. What kind of view do you have of roleplaying if it doesn't include room for unique and interesting combinations?
Up above, you claimed to not be saying that optimizers can't roleplay. Saying that something giving them things not already present in the class is a
Minmax/optimizer attitude that only cares about mechanics, not about the theme or story.
sounds exactly like you're saying that optimizers cannot roleplay.
And complaining that people want from their backgrounds "something that gives them things not already present in the class" proves that you do not even understand what Backgrounds are for.
Backgrounds are NOT YOUR CLASS, and are in no way required to have skills which match your class skills.
Your CLASS is your CLASS. The skills you get from your class DO have to come from the list of skills the class provides.
Your Background is the Life Experiences you had before you became your Class.
I found these kinda funny nonsensical maybe you will do. Feel free to add to the list.
Farmer. For some reason none of your stat boosts line up with your free skills
Artisan, apparently despite the flavor explicitly saying you learned how to interact with customer and given the persuasion skill does not get charisma as a stat choice.
I agree that there are some interesting mechanics for the backgrounds, but I also like that. There are some options that are there for those who want to double up on their strengths and there are some there that will allow a PC to be a bit more rounded. Farmer is the latter, where your ability score increases are physical and your skill bonuses are mental. To me though, the Farmer does make sense to me as it is designed with a farmer in mind.
Artisan might be seen as the more shrewd businessman and crafter on the surface, and maybe they are. Then again, you don't need an 18 in Charisma to 'sweet-talk a demanding customer', though if you would like to make sure you nearly always can, I suppose you would rather pick the Merchant.
Of course, these are labels for a collection of mechanical benefits. You can be a merchant without taking the Merchant background and the reverse is true, as the rules explicitly state that you can alter the details of the narrative section however you like. If I were to bring my 2014 Wizard with a pre-campaign history of thievery to the 2024 rules, I might choose Sage simply because I can.
For me at least, there are no backgrounds that don't make sense, but there are some that are ill-suited to fit classes in ways that might have been expected.
@Stabby_TC, I'll not go into detail of all that, quote by quote, as it is poor reading experience.
Class, Species, Background, Feats, Items, Spells all play into it, into this game. A game that has assumptions. A Druid is nature focused, a Warlock has a Patron, a Farmer is Tough, a Acolyte has mental abilities, a Dwarf is rockbound, a Elf doesn't need sleep. That and more are build into the game as core assumptions.
Of course you can Rule0 or Homebrew anything away, but then why play the game in the first place if you don't use the core assumptions at all?
The game has set assumptions, it is a game of choices where you get something positive for your choice, but also lock out other things. And claiming that species/classes are irrelevant to the discussion, shows the lack of understanding in the games design. No where else in the game can we just take all the best things. We are always limited. Be it our choice of items we can use, because we lack proficiency and training in them, be it spells which are not on the classes spell list, be it features like extra attack which is not existing on classes that might want it, be it darkvision from your species, or in this case, features from backgrounds.
A background gives, for the archetype of that background, matching abilities scores, proficiencies and feats.
And a background is NOT your roleplay story, it is part of it, but isn't everything of it.
If your roleplay story includes a person that comes from a farm, doesn't make them automatically a farmer, they could have been a Hermit, a Guide, a Sage, a Criminal living on a farm.
If you roleplay a noble, doesn't mean it has to be the background noble, as it could be a noble that is a Charlatan, or a Solider, or a Acolyte, or a Entertainer.
If you roleplay a sailor, doesn't meant it has to be the background sailor, as it could be a sailor that is a Criminal, a Guide, a Wayfarer, or a Noble.
Let's take a look at a few Characters in fiction that prove that point
From Critical Roles Vox Machina: Percival. What background does he have? Noble, sure he was born noble, but i would say he is a Crafter as it is more defining of who he is. From Avater The Last Airbender: Zukko. What background does he have? Sailor, because he spends the first act of the series always on a ship? Or is his noble upbringing more core to his story? From Final Fantasy 7: Cloud. What background does he have? Soldier, because that is what he claims he was? or rather Guard as that is what he actually was?
And these examples hold truth for our characters in D&D as well.
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.
While I actually tend towards the side of less customization (free-form customization, specifically), I actually share the same complaint as Stabbey here. The problem isn't that there are no optimal choices, it's that there are some (and the biggest problem part is the locked-in origin feat). My fix, however, wouldn't be to allow any choice of ability score adjustments, skills, proficiencies, and feats, but to just open it up a little bit more. In fact, I think the way they did ability score adjustments was the model they should have used for all of the things:
Choose +2/+1 of 2 of the 3 ability scores OR +1 in all 3 (as now) Choose 1 from a list of at least 2 origin feats that make sense for the background Choose 2 from a list of at least 3 skill proficiencies that make sense for the background Choose 1 from a list of at least 2 tool proficiencies that make sense for the background Choose starting equipment or gold (as now)
At a minimum, they should have done it with the origin feats (since things like tool proficiencies and many skill proficiencies aren't as mechanically significant).
That way, if you think your character should have the Tavern Brawler Origin Feat for background reasons, you don't have to twist your backstory to somehow fit a "Sailor" narrative. The bigger thing is allowing a feat like that with at least one different combination of Ability Score Adjustments, since we are told that you can change the details of a background.
In essence, it's two different ways to approach character creation: - Start with a story concept and see what your character would actually be good at from that concept. - Start with a character concept and see what kind of background fits that concept.
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.
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.
I think it's absolute folly to assume that they limited it 0.0017% of the system to stop "minmaxing." None of the possible combinations are broken, every one of them could be fit into any narrative, and the DMG literally allows all of them.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated.
Also including one that's optimized. Character optimization neither helps nor hinders roleplaying.
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.
I'm critical of the PHB backgrounds chapter because they chose to put the custom option in the DMG. Plain and simple, I think that was a misstep. Nothing terrible. Just annoying. It should have been right alongside their 16 pre-made backgrounds. _That_ would have made me think they intended for us to really embrace the options. Putting it in the DMG was a design choice, and (to me) shows they'd prefer it if people didn't optimize.
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.
I'm critical of the PHB backgrounds chapter because they chose to put the custom option in the DMG. Plain and simple, I think that was a misstep. Nothing terrible. Just annoying. It should have been right alongside their 16 pre-made backgrounds. _That_ would have made me think they intended for us to really embrace the options. Putting it in the DMG was a design choice, and (to me) shows they'd prefer it if people didn't optimize.
If they didn't want people to optimize, they would have put guidelines on what is and isn't optimal in the DMG. They didn't. (also because "optimal" is in the eye of the beholder; one person's sharpened tool is another person's wrong tool.)
They put it in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to say "no" and to make the default PHB options much simpler.
They put it in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to say "no" and to make the default PHB options much simpler.
They put it in the DMG because they wanted to make backgrounds new and exciting with illustrations and everything, and if they'd put the rules in the PHB everyone would have just used custom backgrounds and ignored the rest of the chapter, because the custom background is really simple
Come up with a backstory. Based on that backstory:
Pick a stat you want a +2 in.
Pick a stat you want a +1 in.
Pick a feat.
Pick two skills.
Pick a tool proficiency.
Spend 50 gp on equipment.
The DM should require characters to have a coherent backstory, but that doesn't require hardcoded backgrounds in the PHB.
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.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated.
Also including one that's optimized. Character optimization neither helps nor hinders roleplaying.
Why did you omit from your post what followed what you quoted? Given it was there where I explained what I meant with an analogy about music and why the optimization approach prioritizes performance—typically purely combat performance—and in turn homogenizes characters of any given class? That's terrible characterization. Plain and simple. Are you going to respond to these points or just the single line as if that is the extent of my argument?
If I make a backstory for Bob the Wizard, to be played by Dave, how is Dave's roleplaying better if Bob the Wizard has 13 Intelligence instead of 16? How has that improved the game? Does the roleplaying get better if instead I give Bob the 8 in Intelligence?
As for cookie cutter builds, you cannot possibly be making a serious argument against optimization, given that the 2024 rules for Backgrounds are both entirely free of any flavor or personalization, while at the same time being so mechanically restrictive that they do nothing BUT drive players into making cookie-cutter builds.
If Dave decided that Bob was a Merchant who sold books before discovering a dusty old spellbook in a box he acquired, starting him on the path to Wizardry, why is it good for the game that Bob just has to have proficiency in Animal Handling, and not History like he wanted? How is Dave's experience playing the game better better because he has to take a skill he didn't want and doesn't fit anything in his backstory, and yet he can't take a skill he does want and would fit in his backstory? How is Dave's roleplaying improved because he the rules say he is not allowed to take History instead of Animal Handling, despite having a shop full of history books, and his only interaction with animals being the bacon and eggs he has for breakfast?
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.
D&D is literally a game of the imagination, where you're allowed to create things which are not written in stone. Creating a character in D&D should not resemble a "character select" screen in a videogame where the choices you see are all you get.
The optimization approach makes character creation look and feel like a video game's because it is building a character from a menu of options to get what you want. People can spend a solid hour or two or three just making a character for an Elder Scrolls game so let's not pretend we are still at a point where a character is nothing more than an avatar that is chosen.
D&D is a game of the imagination. It's why in the past so many were able to roll their ability scores and conceive of a character in moments based on nothing but the numbers.
sounds exactly like you're saying that optimizers cannot roleplay.
It doesn't sound like that at all.
You are just refusing to distinguish the difference between saying an optimizer "cannot" role-play—an optimizer can very well role-play—and showing how an optimizer prioritizes how well a character will perform and usually in combat given the choices the optimizer has made over all else. I suspect you can see that difference. And accusing others of saying optimizers "can't" role-play is your only real response because you don't have one to an observation that is true.
Someone here once described a Fighter with a good STR but a below average CON as "unusable."
That is not an "unusable" character. That is an aged veteran. Who can fight. But no longer has the endurance he or she once had. Or one who is ill. Perhaps succumbing to a disease.
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.
Why did you omit from your post what followed what you quoted? Given it was there where I explained what I meant with an analogy about music and why the optimization approach prioritizes performance—typically purely combat performance—and in turn homogenizes characters of any given class? That's terrible characterization. Plain and simple. Are you going to respond to these points or just the single line as if that is the extent of my argument?
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.
The crafter feat has no effect on magic item creation; the 20% discount is for non-magical items.
Entertainer bard is fine; musician actually gives a useful bonus. The other two would be far better off with Skilled (honestly, just saying "You can replace any background feat with Skilled" would help a fair amount)
I’m not going to say crafter is great, but when it comes time to buy the fighter their plate mail, guess who I want making the purchase?
And, of course there’s lots of spell components that get really pricey. Of course, most campaigns have PCs end up with more money than they can really use. But crafter is going to be pretty handy at low levels.
1) Picking Sage on a wizard isn't "horrible." Yeah, you'd get more out of a different Magic Initiate, but at the end of the day an extra preparation/daily cast and two extra cantrips, especially at low levels, are still worth an origin feat even if it's not getting you access to any spells you couldn't get through your class. It's not like Wizard is short on good spells to choose from.
2) Acolyte on a Cleric isn't bad either. Since they start with Medium Armor, you don't need any stat to be above 14 except Wis, making them effectively SAD. Just dump the other mental stat to 9-11 for a total of 10-12 and put the points elsewhere.
You mean the non-magical items you need to make as part of magic item crafting anyway? With the new creation rules, even Crafter has its uses. It even gives you extra tool proficiencies, which are another thing you need for magic item crafting.
Why? Why must they double down on the music part?
An Entertainer can be many things besides an musician, they could be a storyteller, a juggler, an acrobat, a stand-up comedian/jester - there is explicitly a Bard subclass for the College of Dance in the 2024 rules. This is the reason why the PHB backgrounds should not tie a limited choice of ASI's with fixed skills and a fixed feat together. The 2014 version did not have that problem because the player-facing rules explicitly gave the power to customize backgrounds to the player.
D&D is literally a game of the imagination, where you're allowed to create things which are not written in stone. Creating a character in D&D should not resemble a "character select" screen in a videogame where the choices you see are all you get.
It seems like you're saying that the Merchant background can not possibly describe a bookstore owner, that a Merchant background can only be a cart-traveling salesman, because that's what the background says they have to be. And that is probably the most un-D&D, anti-roleplaying thing you've said in this discussion.
How can you possibly say that the choices forced onto a PC because of the background designed by a committee in some distant room somewhere is MORE reflective of a PC's story than one the player came up with? That goes against all logic and common sense.
I’m going to stop you right there. No one was talking about species. Species are irrelevant to the discussion about Backgrounds, and bringing them up is a form of "moving the goalposts".
Species is akin to genetics. Background is life experience. Those are two very different things. Some people playing under the 2014 rules chafed at attribute scores being fixed for specific species because it didn’t allow for variation in an individual’s life experiences.
Irrelevant to the discussion. The subject is Backgrounds. (But you can search for "Urban Ranger" if you really want.)
All still irrelevant.
First, saying "you want to change every single detail" is a strawman. No one was arguing for that.
Secondly, even if someone was arguing that, if I were you I would not be so confident that your position is accurate: The Rules Primer for “Peril in Pinebrook,” an official WotC publication, has a definition of Rule 0 of D&D (the bottom of page 4 of the PDF).
In fact the idea that the rules can be changed if that's what the table wants has been pretty consistently expressed by representatives of WotC in interviews, discussions, and in the rulebooks themselves.
That was not the case in 2014. There was a whole table of Specialties for your Criminal Background: Blackmailer, Burglar, Enforcer, Fence, Highway robber, Hired killer, Pickpocket, Smuggler. The table is gone in 2024.
You keep talking about "roleplaying," yet you say "Entertainer Bard" is the bardiest Bard, "Acolyte Cleric" is the most cleric-y cleric, "Sage Wizard" is the most wizardly Wizard... and then you strongly imply that NOT picking Entertainer as the background for Bard, NOT picking Acolyte for the Cleric, NOT picking Sage for the Wizard automatically means that you only care about mechanics and not about theme or story. What kind of view do you have of roleplaying if it doesn't include room for unique and interesting combinations?
Up above, you claimed to not be saying that optimizers can't roleplay. Saying that something giving them things not already present in the class is a
sounds exactly like you're saying that optimizers cannot roleplay.
And complaining that people want from their backgrounds "something that gives them things not already present in the class" proves that you do not even understand what Backgrounds are for.
Backgrounds are NOT YOUR CLASS, and are in no way required to have skills which match your class skills.
Your CLASS is your CLASS. The skills you get from your class DO have to come from the list of skills the class provides.
Your Background is the Life Experiences you had before you became your Class.
EDIT: Spelling.
I agree that there are some interesting mechanics for the backgrounds, but I also like that. There are some options that are there for those who want to double up on their strengths and there are some there that will allow a PC to be a bit more rounded. Farmer is the latter, where your ability score increases are physical and your skill bonuses are mental. To me though, the Farmer does make sense to me as it is designed with a farmer in mind.
Artisan might be seen as the more shrewd businessman and crafter on the surface, and maybe they are. Then again, you don't need an 18 in Charisma to 'sweet-talk a demanding customer', though if you would like to make sure you nearly always can, I suppose you would rather pick the Merchant.
Of course, these are labels for a collection of mechanical benefits. You can be a merchant without taking the Merchant background and the reverse is true, as the rules explicitly state that you can alter the details of the narrative section however you like. If I were to bring my 2014 Wizard with a pre-campaign history of thievery to the 2024 rules, I might choose Sage simply because I can.
For me at least, there are no backgrounds that don't make sense, but there are some that are ill-suited to fit classes in ways that might have been expected.
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
@Stabby_TC, I'll not go into detail of all that, quote by quote, as it is poor reading experience.
Class, Species, Background, Feats, Items, Spells all play into it, into this game. A game that has assumptions. A Druid is nature focused, a Warlock has a Patron, a Farmer is Tough, a Acolyte has mental abilities, a Dwarf is rockbound, a Elf doesn't need sleep. That and more are build into the game as core assumptions.
Of course you can Rule0 or Homebrew anything away, but then why play the game in the first place if you don't use the core assumptions at all?
The game has set assumptions, it is a game of choices where you get something positive for your choice, but also lock out other things. And claiming that species/classes are irrelevant to the discussion, shows the lack of understanding in the games design. No where else in the game can we just take all the best things. We are always limited. Be it our choice of items we can use, because we lack proficiency and training in them, be it spells which are not on the classes spell list, be it features like extra attack which is not existing on classes that might want it, be it darkvision from your species, or in this case, features from backgrounds.
A background gives, for the archetype of that background, matching abilities scores, proficiencies and feats.
And a background is NOT your roleplay story, it is part of it, but isn't everything of it.
If your roleplay story includes a person that comes from a farm, doesn't make them automatically a farmer, they could have been a Hermit, a Guide, a Sage, a Criminal living on a farm.
If you roleplay a noble, doesn't mean it has to be the background noble, as it could be a noble that is a Charlatan, or a Solider, or a Acolyte, or a Entertainer.
If you roleplay a sailor, doesn't meant it has to be the background sailor, as it could be a sailor that is a Criminal, a Guide, a Wayfarer, or a Noble.
Let's take a look at a few Characters in fiction that prove that point
From Critical Roles Vox Machina: Percival. What background does he have? Noble, sure he was born noble, but i would say he is a Crafter as it is more defining of who he is.
From Avater The Last Airbender: Zukko. What background does he have? Sailor, because he spends the first act of the series always on a ship? Or is his noble upbringing more core to his story?
From Final Fantasy 7: Cloud. What background does he have? Soldier, because that is what he claims he was? or rather Guard as that is what he actually was?
And these examples hold truth for our characters in D&D as well.
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.
While I actually tend towards the side of less customization (free-form customization, specifically), I actually share the same complaint as Stabbey here. The problem isn't that there are no optimal choices, it's that there are some (and the biggest problem part is the locked-in origin feat). My fix, however, wouldn't be to allow any choice of ability score adjustments, skills, proficiencies, and feats, but to just open it up a little bit more. In fact, I think the way they did ability score adjustments was the model they should have used for all of the things:
Choose +2/+1 of 2 of the 3 ability scores OR +1 in all 3 (as now)
Choose 1 from a list of at least 2 origin feats that make sense for the background
Choose 2 from a list of at least 3 skill proficiencies that make sense for the background
Choose 1 from a list of at least 2 tool proficiencies that make sense for the background
Choose starting equipment or gold (as now)
At a minimum, they should have done it with the origin feats (since things like tool proficiencies and many skill proficiencies aren't as mechanically significant).
That way, if you think your character should have the Tavern Brawler Origin Feat for background reasons, you don't have to twist your backstory to somehow fit a "Sailor" narrative. The bigger thing is allowing a feat like that with at least one different combination of Ability Score Adjustments, since we are told that you can change the details of a background.
In essence, it's two different ways to approach character creation:
- Start with a story concept and see what your character would actually be good at from that concept.
- Start with a character concept and see what kind of background fits that concept.
Per a previous post in a previous thread:
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.
I think it's absolute folly to assume that they limited it 0.0017% of the system to stop "minmaxing." None of the possible combinations are broken, every one of them could be fit into any narrative, and the DMG literally allows all of them.
THIS
I'm critical of the PHB backgrounds chapter because they chose to put the custom option in the DMG. Plain and simple, I think that was a misstep. Nothing terrible. Just annoying. It should have been right alongside their 16 pre-made backgrounds. _That_ would have made me think they intended for us to really embrace the options. Putting it in the DMG was a design choice, and (to me) shows they'd prefer it if people didn't optimize.
If they didn't want people to optimize, they would have put guidelines on what is and isn't optimal in the DMG. They didn't. (also because "optimal" is in the eye of the beholder; one person's sharpened tool is another person's wrong tool.)
They put it in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to say "no" and to make the default PHB options much simpler.
They put it in the DMG because they wanted to make backgrounds new and exciting with illustrations and everything, and if they'd put the rules in the PHB everyone would have just used custom backgrounds and ignored the rest of the chapter, because the custom background is really simple
The DM should require characters to have a coherent backstory, but that doesn't require hardcoded backgrounds in the PHB.
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.
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
Why did you omit from your post what followed what you quoted? Given it was there where I explained what I meant with an analogy about music and why the optimization approach prioritizes performance—typically purely combat performance—and in turn homogenizes characters of any given class? That's terrible characterization. Plain and simple. Are you going to respond to these points or just the single line as if that is the extent of my argument?
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.
The optimization approach makes character creation look and feel like a video game's because it is building a character from a menu of options to get what you want. People can spend a solid hour or two or three just making a character for an Elder Scrolls game so let's not pretend we are still at a point where a character is nothing more than an avatar that is chosen.
D&D is a game of the imagination. It's why in the past so many were able to roll their ability scores and conceive of a character in moments based on nothing but the numbers.
It doesn't sound like that at all.
You are just refusing to distinguish the difference between saying an optimizer "cannot" role-play—an optimizer can very well role-play—and showing how an optimizer prioritizes how well a character will perform and usually in combat given the choices the optimizer has made over all else. I suspect you can see that difference. And accusing others of saying optimizers "can't" role-play is your only real response because you don't have one to an observation that is true.
Someone here once described a Fighter with a good STR but a below average CON as "unusable."
That is not an "unusable" character. That is an aged veteran. Who can fight. But no longer has the endurance he or she once had. Or one who is ill. Perhaps succumbing to a disease.
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.
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.