But the weird thing is they had already moved to "ASI via players' want" with Tasha's - only to take it back and hard-code ASIs to backgrounds in 2024.
I mean you create your character, be it dice rolls, array or point buy. You re already making the choice for your ability scores. Why create a bump based on other selections which leads to min/maxing?
If they were redesigning 5e from the ground up in 2024 it would probably be gone, but "if you create your character with these rules it will be strictly worse than creating the character with the 2014 rules" is, unfortunately, quite likely to cause people to not use the new rules.
And yes, that's a somewhat notable flaw, but that's an issue with Beyond not the '24 update.
I think this is the root of the issue, it's not really the 24 ruleset, it is DDB that is driving the polarization on this issue. I think Wizards really underestimated the effect of upsetting people's interaction on this site would have on the new rules online reception. Pencil & paper and 24 rule games (full or hybrid) are the only ones not overly affected, the rest being the large majority have had significant disruption due to choices made that have negativity impacted the experience on DDB. Until the site issues are fixed, or the people unhappy abandon DDB, this debate will continue. I don't think Wizards will address this until it is too late, once people are frustrated enough to dump DDB getting them back is going to be tough especially those that walk away from purchases made here. Those will be the people steering players away from DDB where it matters, at the table. You don't need this site to play, convenience is what DDB sells, and there is nothing convenient about things not working, and sabotaging the user experience in the name of marketing while rolling out unfinished tools. It is a choice that underscores they don't understand what they sell on this site. The 24 ruleset is just a confused kid suffering through a nasty divorce. It is a shame really.
And yes, that's a somewhat notable flaw, but that's an issue with Beyond not the '24 update.
I think this is the root of the issue, it's not really the 24 ruleset, it is DDB that is driving the polarization on this issue. I think Wizards really underestimated the effect of upsetting people's interaction on this site would have on the new rules online reception. Pencil & paper and 24 rule games (full or hybrid) are the only ones not overly affected, the rest being the large majority have had significant disruption due to choices made that have negativity impacted the experience on DDB. Until the site issues are fixed, or the people unhappy abandon DDB, this debate will continue. I don't think Wizards will address this until it is too late, once people are frustrated enough to dump DDB getting them back is going to be tough especially those that walk away from purchases made here. Those will be the people steering players away from DDB where it matters, at the table. You don't need this site to play, convenience is what DDB sells, and there is nothing convenient about things not working, and sabotaging the user experience in the name of marketing while rolling out unfinished tools. It is a choice that underscores they don't understand what they sell on this site. The 24 ruleset is just a confused kid suffering through a nasty divorce. It is a shame really.
I mean, do we have statistics that people using Beyond for their sheets are a majority? You'll certainly see a lot of them in the forums for obvious reasons, but is the hard data there that this is how most of the player population does things anymore?
And frankly I wouldn't expect a mass walkout over this; if it was going to happen, it would have already.
But the weird thing is they had already moved to "ASI via players' want" with Tasha's..****y to take it back and hard-code ASIs to backgrounds.
A very bad choice.
It's true they'd already set them to floating, but it's easier to make the point that they're actively moving away from the baggage people can try to saddle racial ASIs with if they can point and say "we completely removed the concept of racial ASIs in our big update". The new DMG explicitly spells out the components of a background for DIY, so the concept is expressly a part of '24. The only issue with the concept is that Beyond doesn't support the custom ones yet afaik.
But the weird thing is they had already moved to "ASI via players' want" with Tasha's..****y to take it back and hard-code ASIs to backgrounds.
A very bad choice.
It's true they'd already set them to floating, but it's easier to make the point that they're actively moving away from the baggage people can try to saddle racial ASIs with if they can point and say "we completely removed the concept of racial ASIs in our big update". The new DMG explicitly spells out the components of a background for DIY, so the concept is expressly a part of '24. The only issue with the concept is that Beyond doesn't support the custom ones yet afaik.
Shuffling baggage from a Horse to a Zebra doesn't fix the issue that the baggage still exists and is just as stupid and ugly as it was before.
It's especially stupid because as has been pointed out: this is a problem that has been solved for 4 and a half years as an optional rule and then in 2022 it was made functionally the law of the land.
And yes, that's a somewhat notable flaw, but that's an issue with Beyond not the '24 update.
I think this is the root of the issue, it's not really the 24 ruleset, it is DDB that is driving the polarization on this issue. I think Wizards really underestimated the effect of upsetting people's interaction on this site would have on the new rules online reception. Pencil & paper and 24 rule games (full or hybrid) are the only ones not overly affected, the rest being the large majority have had significant disruption due to choices made that have negativity impacted the experience on DDB. Until the site issues are fixed, or the people unhappy abandon DDB, this debate will continue. I don't think Wizards will address this until it is too late, once people are frustrated enough to dump DDB getting them back is going to be tough especially those that walk away from purchases made here. Those will be the people steering players away from DDB where it matters, at the table. You don't need this site to play, convenience is what DDB sells, and there is nothing convenient about things not working, and sabotaging the user experience in the name of marketing while rolling out unfinished tools. It is a choice that underscores they don't understand what they sell on this site. The 24 ruleset is just a confused kid suffering through a nasty divorce. It is a shame really.
I mean, do we have statistics that people using Beyond for their sheets are a majority? You'll certainly see a lot of them in the forums for obvious reasons, but is the hard data there that this is how most of the player population does things anymore?
And frankly I wouldn't expect a mass walkout over this; if it was going to happen, it would have already.
Really only wotc has those statistics, if new non DDB useres first experience is at a table that is disgruntled ex DDB users how's that for a first impression? As to current users That is a different metric to my opinion.
I don't think it will be a mass exodus more like a slow thaw that will bring a lingering muddy mess that will be tracked into these forums for quite sometime and trying to clean it up will just be smearing it around more.
Again this is my opinion based on reading through many posts on many ttrpg sites including this one.
But the weird thing is they had already moved to "ASI via players' want" with Tasha's..****y to take it back and hard-code ASIs to backgrounds.
A very bad choice.
It's true they'd already set them to floating, but it's easier to make the point that they're actively moving away from the baggage people can try to saddle racial ASIs with if they can point and say "we completely removed the concept of racial ASIs in our big update". The new DMG explicitly spells out the components of a background for DIY, so the concept is expressly a part of '24. The only issue with the concept is that Beyond doesn't support the custom ones yet afaik.
Shuffling baggage from a Horse to a Zebra doesn't fix the issue that the baggage still exists and is just as stupid and ugly as it was before.
It's especially stupid because as has been pointed out: this is a problem that has been solved for 4 and a half years as an optional rule and then in 2022 it was made functionally the law of the land.
but all your doing is adding more shuffles.. from horse (2014) to pink elephant (tashas) to zebra (2024) back to pink elephant (tashas)
you get Asi from each of the methods, its just where they come from which is different... why does that matter??
if a background doesnt have the Asi you want, why not pick one that does??
if no background exists with the Asi you want, why not make a background that does??
there are methods to do exactly what people seem to want and get Asi in any combo desired, but apparently the issue continues over and over again like the "where is the love" song goes "I think the whole worlds addicted to the drama, only addicted to the things that'll bring you trauma"
if a background doesnt have the Asi you want, why not pick one that does??
if no background exists with the Asi you want, why not make a background that does??
1. Because the backgrounds as given in the 2024 PHB reinforce archetypes and predictability. What if I want to have a fight who was once an acolyte but I don't want to sacrifice my Strength score? What if I want to have a character who was forced into trying to be a soldier only to realize they were meant for wielding magic but I don't want to give my INT ASI?
Despite making a very big deal late in the life of the 2014 rules of decoupling ASIs away from races because it made creative builds much less desirable, they essentially just traded one set of archetypes for another, rather than just leaving it entirely up to the players. A bafflingly bad and restrictive choice.
2. First, I honestly don't think I should have to make one to fit my character. The game should allow for that level of creativity and customization without forcing me to homebrew additional content. Second, not everyone wants to homebrew. Not everyone even knows how or feels confident in doing so or has a DM that encourages that kind of creativity. And, as already pointed out, that functionality doesn't exist in DDB, which is the preferred tool for homebrewing for many folks.
if a background doesnt have the Asi you want, why not pick one that does??
if no background exists with the Asi you want, why not make a background that does??
1. Because the backgrounds as given in the 2024 PHB reinforce archetypes and predictability. What if I want to have a fight who was once an acolyte but I don't want to sacrifice my Strength score? What if I want to have a character who was forced into trying to be a soldier only to realize they were meant for wielding magic but I don't want to give my INT ASI?
Despite making a very big deal late in the life of the 2014 rules of decoupling ASIs away from races because it made creative builds much less desirable, they essentially just traded one set of archetypes for another, rather than just leaving it entirely up to the players. A bafflingly bad and restrictive choice.
2. First, I honestly don't think I should have to make one to fit my character. The game should allow for that level of creativity and customization without forcing me to homebrew additional content. Second, not everyone wants to homebrew. Not everyone even knows how or feels confident in doing so or has a DM that encourages that kind of creativity. And, as already pointed out, that functionality doesn't exist in DDB, which is the preferred tool for homebrewing for many folks.
Like the charming Tiefling before me has said, the issue here is that the whole point of neutering the various races of their lore and Attributes was so that players would be able to have more creative freedom in both world building and character creation so taking something that previously was there for a combination of flair and RP as opposed to power and making it so much more important to class synergy is honestly a really confusing decision that serves mainly to undermine said freedom.
And frankly if this whole thing is simply because of a coding issue with D&D beyond then I'm moving from disappointed to actively irritated.
It's true they'd already set them to floating, but it's easier to make the point that they're actively moving away from the baggage people can try to saddle racial ASIs with if they can point and say "we completely removed the concept of racial ASIs in our big update". The new DMG explicitly spells out the components of a background for DIY, so the concept is expressly a part of '24. The only issue with the concept is that Beyond doesn't support the custom ones yet afaik.
The problem is that Beyond doesn't implement backgrounds and species from older books at all. Otherwise, you could just use a custom background from the 2014 rules. You can still implement it by hand, just add an Other Modifier on the attributes tab and add a feat via the Manage Feats button on the character sheet, but it's a significant hassle.
if a background doesnt have the Asi you want, why not pick one that does??
if no background exists with the Asi you want, why not make a background that does??
1. Because the backgrounds as given in the 2024 PHB reinforce archetypes and predictability. What if I want to have a fight who was once an acolyte but I don't want to sacrifice my Strength score? What if I want to have a character who was forced into trying to be a soldier only to realize they were meant for wielding magic but I don't want to give my INT ASI?
Despite making a very big deal late in the life of the 2014 rules of decoupling ASIs away from races because it made creative builds much less desirable, they essentially just traded one set of archetypes for another, rather than just leaving it entirely up to the players. A bafflingly bad and restrictive choice.
2. First, I honestly don't think I should have to make one to fit my character. The game should allow for that level of creativity and customization without forcing me to homebrew additional content. Second, not everyone wants to homebrew. Not everyone even knows how or feels confident in doing so or has a DM that encourages that kind of creativity. And, as already pointed out, that functionality doesn't exist in DDB, which is the preferred tool for homebrewing for many folks.
going to skip the first part since that seems like a self inflicted issues
2. thought they had implemented the functionality on ddb of custom backgrounds already... (however i could be wrong)
go to background in character creator
choose "Custom Background" - it will ask for the following:
a name - what ever you wish
a description - what ever you wish
Proficiency/Language feature - includes a dropdown menu (a. 2 skills and 2 tools. b. 2 skills and 2 languages. c. 2 skills, 1 tool and 1 language)
Background Feature - includes a dropdown menu of backgrounds
Background Characteristics - includes a dropdown menu of backgrounds
go across to the Abilities tab and choose what you desire, either increase two scores (+2/+1) or increase three scores (+1/+1/+1)
choose which abilities gets which score (+1 or +2 depending on previous choice)
proceed to create your character as normal...
hope it helps with the love - "Take control of your mind and meditate. Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all"
if a background doesnt have the Asi you want, why not pick one that does??
if no background exists with the Asi you want, why not make a background that does??
1. Because the backgrounds as given in the 2024 PHB reinforce archetypes and predictability. What if I want to have a fight who was once an acolyte but I don't want to sacrifice my Strength score? What if I want to have a character who was forced into trying to be a soldier only to realize they were meant for wielding magic but I don't want to give my INT ASI?
The entire point of the backgrounds it to reflect some particularly formative aspects of your character's prior life. If your character was a devotee but was drawn more to martial stuff, then presumably their formative experiences would have been of a martial bent. If your character tried to be a soldier but found themselves better suited to magic instead, they would probably not have continued to drill their bodies into physical shape. As with so many identifiers some people struggle with in D&D, these are descriptive not proscriptive. There is nothing about taking Soldier that says your character can't have been or be strongly religious or affiliated with a religious organization. There is noting about Acolyte or Scribe that says you can't have been in an armed force in some capacity or other in the past. However, if your character chose a distinctly different path from those, then they probably weren't the kind of formative experiences that backgrounds are supposed to reflect.
The entire point of the backgrounds it to reflect some particularly formative aspects of your character's prior life. If your character was a devotee but was drawn more to martial stuff, then presumably their formative experiences would have been of a martial bent. If your character tried to be a soldier but found themselves better suited to magic instead, they would probably not have continued to drill their bodies into physical shape. As with so many identifiers some people struggle with in D&D, these are descriptive not proscriptive. There is nothing about taking Soldier that says your character can't have been or be strongly religious or affiliated with a religious organization. There is noting about Acolyte or Scribe that says you can't have been in an armed force in some capacity or other in the past. However, if your character chose a distinctly different path from those, then they probably weren't the kind of formative experiences that backgrounds are supposed to reflect.
The issue is that the background method doesn't work for the different styles of play and uses for it.
In some groups if you take a "soldier background", that is effectively your back story. There is nothing more added, no writing or added information about the character. who is your character? he's a former soldier. Under this style of play, players are going to pick the background that best fits their character build so it just becomes a part of character building. This isn't a problem per say, but it does mean that for the most part people are not really making "choices", they are selecting "options".
If you go the other way, a group that is heavily invested in story, the background ASI is just a punishment. Aka, I create a story about a fighter who was a former sailor, but the ASI doesn't work with the character build so I end up with a sub-optimal character because what I want is the soldier ASI.
The obvious solution today is just to ignore backgrounds, create your own and pretend the system doesn't exist which is what I think most groups are doing, which just re-enforces the point that any ASI based on anything is pointless. Just eliminate it altogether, there is quite literally no up side. Let players choose their attributes using whatever method you prefer and don't make any other selections/options during character creation that affect your ability scores. Its a clean solution that solves all problems.
The entire point of the backgrounds it to reflect some particularly formative aspects of your character's prior life. If your character was a devotee but was drawn more to martial stuff, then presumably their formative experiences would have been of a martial bent. If your character tried to be a soldier but found themselves better suited to magic instead, they would probably not have continued to drill their bodies into physical shape. As with so many identifiers some people struggle with in D&D, these are descriptive not proscriptive. There is nothing about taking Soldier that says your character can't have been or be strongly religious or affiliated with a religious organization. There is noting about Acolyte or Scribe that says you can't have been in an armed force in some capacity or other in the past. However, if your character chose a distinctly different path from those, then they probably weren't the kind of formative experiences that backgrounds are supposed to reflect.
The issue is that the background method doesn't work for the different styles of play and uses for it.
In some groups if you take a "soldier background", that is effectively your back story. There is nothing more added, no writing or added information about the character. who is your character? he's a former soldier. Under this style of play, players are going to pick the background that best fits their character build so it just becomes a part of character building. This isn't a problem per say, but it does mean that for the most part people are not really making "choices", they are selecting "options".
If you go the other way, a group that is heavily invested in story, the background ASI is just a punishment. Aka, I create a story about a fighter who was a former sailor, but the ASI doesn't work with the character build so I end up with a sub-optimal character because what I want is the soldier ASI.
The obvious solution today is just to ignore backgrounds, create your own and pretend the system doesn't exist which is what I think most groups are doing, which just re-enforces the point that any ASI based on anything is pointless. Just eliminate it altogether, there is quite literally no up side. Let players choose their attributes using whatever method you prefer and don't make any other selections/options during character creation that affect your ability scores. Its a clean solution that solves all problems.
If a group is running things that narrowly, that's a group issue not a system issue. And if you're heavily invested in story, you just ignore the one word at the top of the background and make up your own story. It's amazing how selectively inflexible people are about aspects of the game.
Isn't selective inflexibility exactly what lead to the 24 rules?
Now that they are here people have to figure out the new RAW so they can adapt to the new rules. It will take a while to get there, some just don't want to hand wave things that were changed only to move the problem somewhere else in the game.
Isn't selective inflexibility exactly what lead to the 24 rules?
Um, no? The 2024 rules are born from the desire to make more money, specifically by pushing everyone onto online platforms. 2024 isn't online exclusive, but part of a package of services to make DND ... rpg-as-a-service. A subscription based thing. With rules for how you're allowed to share your books, and with tiered access so you get more stuff if you pay more.
Selective inflexibility has nothing to do with it (in my opinion, which is barely biased at all =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Floating ASIs did not become "law of the land" in 2022. New species had floating ASIs, it is true. Old ones (from the point of view of that shift) didn't and still don't. It was paywalled behind Tasha's. If you wanted floating true ASIs, you bought Tasha's, or you bodged it. Which is what is being offered now.
If you want my cynical take, then I suspect the plan is that when Tasha's is updated, the same thing will happen - true floating ASIs will come back if you buy that.
if a background doesnt have the Asi you want, why not pick one that does??
if no background exists with the Asi you want, why not make a background that does??
1. Because the backgrounds as given in the 2024 PHB reinforce archetypes and predictability. What if I want to have a fight who was once an acolyte but I don't want to sacrifice my Strength score? What if I want to have a character who was forced into trying to be a soldier only to realize they were meant for wielding magic but I don't want to give my INT ASI?
Despite making a very big deal late in the life of the 2014 rules of decoupling ASIs away from races because it made creative builds much less desirable, they essentially just traded one set of archetypes for another, rather than just leaving it entirely up to the players. A bafflingly bad and restrictive choice.
2. First, I honestly don't think I should have to make one to fit my character. The game should allow for that level of creativity and customization without forcing me to homebrew additional content. Second, not everyone wants to homebrew. Not everyone even knows how or feels confident in doing so or has a DM that encourages that kind of creativity. And, as already pointed out, that functionality doesn't exist in DDB, which is the preferred tool for homebrewing for many folks.
going to skip the first part since that seems like a self inflicted issues
2. thought they had implemented the functionality on ddb of custom backgrounds already... (however i could be wrong)
go to background in character creator
choose "Custom Background" - it will ask for the following:
a name - what ever you wish
a description - what ever you wish
Proficiency/Language feature - includes a dropdown menu (a. 2 skills and 2 tools. b. 2 skills and 2 languages. c. 2 skills, 1 tool and 1 language)
Background Feature - includes a dropdown menu of backgrounds
Background Characteristics - includes a dropdown menu of backgrounds
go across to the Abilities tab and choose what you desire, either increase two scores (+2/+1) or increase three scores (+1/+1/+1)
choose which abilities gets which score (+1 or +2 depending on previous choice)
proceed to create your character as normal...
hope it helps with the love - "Take control of your mind and meditate. Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all"
My issue with this is that it's a bodge. It's creating substantially more work for something that should be hardly any at all. The backgrounds should have drop down menus with a choice of all the attributes to be assigned, perhaps with recommended ones at the top if people want that.
Which is more the issue. There's always been work arounds, and ones even easier than that suggestion. Before I bought Tasha's, I just altered the rolls that I input, and that's what I do now. It's more the principle and the fact that it's more work than should be the case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In the playtest backgrounds were examples and creating your own was expected. I really have no idea why they changed their mind.
THIS!
Quite literally until the PHB was released and in my hand, I had no idea ability scores were going to be tied to specific backgrounds. That was a last-minute change not based at all on beta testing or anything that came before. It was almost like the day the book went out to be printed they just changed it. What is in the 2024 PHB was never tested, mentioned, debated, or assumed.
I agree it's not a big deal, the general rule of thumb is if you don't like it change it, it's always been this way with D&D and every other RPG, in fact, in most games this is the rule that supersedes all other rules. It does however create some issues for people who want to play RAW and in fairness when you review a game, you review RAW, not based on the assumption that you can change things you don't like so this debate is more about what is and isn't a good way to do it RAW. It has nothing to do with traditions and conventions of the community, its about what it says in the book and at least it seems to me that by and large the general consensus is that it's not a great way to handle ability score improvements.
They should just errata this rule, change it to what it was during the beta test and update DND Beyond to work this way and just make everyone's life easier. After all, adding the change doesn't prevent anyone from using backgrounds for ASI as written, but not having it does prevent (or at least create a hurdle) to doing it in DNDbeyond character generator as you have to do custom changes to implement it so far as I understand it.
But the weird thing is they had already moved to "ASI via players' want" with Tasha's - only to take it back and hard-code ASIs to backgrounds in 2024.
A very bad choice.
If they were redesigning 5e from the ground up in 2024 it would probably be gone, but "if you create your character with these rules it will be strictly worse than creating the character with the 2014 rules" is, unfortunately, quite likely to cause people to not use the new rules.
I think this is the root of the issue, it's not really the 24 ruleset, it is DDB that is driving the polarization on this issue. I think Wizards really underestimated the effect of upsetting people's interaction on this site would have on the new rules online reception. Pencil & paper and 24 rule games (full or hybrid) are the only ones not overly affected, the rest being the large majority have had significant disruption due to choices made that have negativity impacted the experience on DDB. Until the site issues are fixed, or the people unhappy abandon DDB, this debate will continue. I don't think Wizards will address this until it is too late, once people are frustrated enough to dump DDB getting them back is going to be tough especially those that walk away from purchases made here. Those will be the people steering players away from DDB where it matters, at the table. You don't need this site to play, convenience is what DDB sells, and there is nothing convenient about things not working, and sabotaging the user experience in the name of marketing while rolling out unfinished tools. It is a choice that underscores they don't understand what they sell on this site. The 24 ruleset is just a confused kid suffering through a nasty divorce. It is a shame really.
I mean, do we have statistics that people using Beyond for their sheets are a majority? You'll certainly see a lot of them in the forums for obvious reasons, but is the hard data there that this is how most of the player population does things anymore?
And frankly I wouldn't expect a mass walkout over this; if it was going to happen, it would have already.
It's true they'd already set them to floating, but it's easier to make the point that they're actively moving away from the baggage people can try to saddle racial ASIs with if they can point and say "we completely removed the concept of racial ASIs in our big update". The new DMG explicitly spells out the components of a background for DIY, so the concept is expressly a part of '24. The only issue with the concept is that Beyond doesn't support the custom ones yet afaik.
Shuffling baggage from a Horse to a Zebra doesn't fix the issue that the baggage still exists and is just as stupid and ugly as it was before.
It's especially stupid because as has been pointed out: this is a problem that has been solved for 4 and a half years as an optional rule and then in 2022 it was made functionally the law of the land.
Really only wotc has those statistics, if new non DDB useres first experience is at a table that is disgruntled ex DDB users how's that for a first impression? As to current users That is a different metric to my opinion.
I don't think it will be a mass exodus more like a slow thaw that will bring a lingering muddy mess that will be tracked into these forums for quite sometime and trying to clean it up will just be smearing it around more.
Again this is my opinion based on reading through many posts on many ttrpg sites including this one.
but all your doing is adding more shuffles.. from horse (2014) to pink elephant (tashas) to zebra (2024) back to pink elephant (tashas)
you get Asi from each of the methods, its just where they come from which is different... why does that matter??
there are methods to do exactly what people seem to want and get Asi in any combo desired, but apparently the issue continues over and over again
like the "where is the love" song goes "I think the whole worlds addicted to the drama, only addicted to the things that'll bring you trauma"
1. Because the backgrounds as given in the 2024 PHB reinforce archetypes and predictability. What if I want to have a fight who was once an acolyte but I don't want to sacrifice my Strength score? What if I want to have a character who was forced into trying to be a soldier only to realize they were meant for wielding magic but I don't want to give my INT ASI?
Despite making a very big deal late in the life of the 2014 rules of decoupling ASIs away from races because it made creative builds much less desirable, they essentially just traded one set of archetypes for another, rather than just leaving it entirely up to the players. A bafflingly bad and restrictive choice.
2. First, I honestly don't think I should have to make one to fit my character. The game should allow for that level of creativity and customization without forcing me to homebrew additional content. Second, not everyone wants to homebrew. Not everyone even knows how or feels confident in doing so or has a DM that encourages that kind of creativity. And, as already pointed out, that functionality doesn't exist in DDB, which is the preferred tool for homebrewing for many folks.
Like the charming Tiefling before me has said, the issue here is that the whole point of neutering the various races of their lore and Attributes was so that players would be able to have more creative freedom in both world building and character creation so taking something that previously was there for a combination of flair and RP as opposed to power and making it so much more important to class synergy is honestly a really confusing decision that serves mainly to undermine said freedom.
And frankly if this whole thing is simply because of a coding issue with D&D beyond then I'm moving from disappointed to actively irritated.
The problem is that Beyond doesn't implement backgrounds and species from older books at all. Otherwise, you could just use a custom background from the 2014 rules. You can still implement it by hand, just add an Other Modifier on the attributes tab and add a feat via the Manage Feats button on the character sheet, but it's a significant hassle.
going to skip the first part since that seems like a self inflicted issues
2. thought they had implemented the functionality on ddb of custom backgrounds already... (however i could be wrong)
hope it helps with the love - "Take control of your mind and meditate. Let your soul gravitate to the love, y'all"
The entire point of the backgrounds it to reflect some particularly formative aspects of your character's prior life. If your character was a devotee but was drawn more to martial stuff, then presumably their formative experiences would have been of a martial bent. If your character tried to be a soldier but found themselves better suited to magic instead, they would probably not have continued to drill their bodies into physical shape. As with so many identifiers some people struggle with in D&D, these are descriptive not proscriptive. There is nothing about taking Soldier that says your character can't have been or be strongly religious or affiliated with a religious organization. There is noting about Acolyte or Scribe that says you can't have been in an armed force in some capacity or other in the past. However, if your character chose a distinctly different path from those, then they probably weren't the kind of formative experiences that backgrounds are supposed to reflect.
The issue is that the background method doesn't work for the different styles of play and uses for it.
In some groups if you take a "soldier background", that is effectively your back story. There is nothing more added, no writing or added information about the character. who is your character? he's a former soldier. Under this style of play, players are going to pick the background that best fits their character build so it just becomes a part of character building. This isn't a problem per say, but it does mean that for the most part people are not really making "choices", they are selecting "options".
If you go the other way, a group that is heavily invested in story, the background ASI is just a punishment. Aka, I create a story about a fighter who was a former sailor, but the ASI doesn't work with the character build so I end up with a sub-optimal character because what I want is the soldier ASI.
The obvious solution today is just to ignore backgrounds, create your own and pretend the system doesn't exist which is what I think most groups are doing, which just re-enforces the point that any ASI based on anything is pointless. Just eliminate it altogether, there is quite literally no up side. Let players choose their attributes using whatever method you prefer and don't make any other selections/options during character creation that affect your ability scores. Its a clean solution that solves all problems.
If a group is running things that narrowly, that's a group issue not a system issue. And if you're heavily invested in story, you just ignore the one word at the top of the background and make up your own story. It's amazing how selectively inflexible people are about aspects of the game.
Isn't selective inflexibility exactly what lead to the 24 rules?
Now that they are here people have to figure out the new RAW so they can adapt to the new rules. It will take a while to get there, some just don't want to hand wave things that were changed only to move the problem somewhere else in the game.
In the playtest backgrounds were examples and creating your own was expected. I really have no idea why they changed their mind.
Um, no? The 2024 rules are born from the desire to make more money, specifically by pushing everyone onto online platforms. 2024 isn't online exclusive, but part of a package of services to make DND ... rpg-as-a-service. A subscription based thing. With rules for how you're allowed to share your books, and with tiered access so you get more stuff if you pay more.
Selective inflexibility has nothing to do with it (in my opinion, which is barely biased at all =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Just pointing a misunderstanding out.
Floating ASIs did not become "law of the land" in 2022. New species had floating ASIs, it is true. Old ones (from the point of view of that shift) didn't and still don't. It was paywalled behind Tasha's. If you wanted floating true ASIs, you bought Tasha's, or you bodged it. Which is what is being offered now.
If you want my cynical take, then I suspect the plan is that when Tasha's is updated, the same thing will happen - true floating ASIs will come back if you buy that.
My issue with this is that it's a bodge. It's creating substantially more work for something that should be hardly any at all. The backgrounds should have drop down menus with a choice of all the attributes to be assigned, perhaps with recommended ones at the top if people want that.
Which is more the issue. There's always been work arounds, and ones even easier than that suggestion. Before I bought Tasha's, I just altered the rolls that I input, and that's what I do now. It's more the principle and the fact that it's more work than should be the case.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
THIS!
Quite literally until the PHB was released and in my hand, I had no idea ability scores were going to be tied to specific backgrounds. That was a last-minute change not based at all on beta testing or anything that came before. It was almost like the day the book went out to be printed they just changed it. What is in the 2024 PHB was never tested, mentioned, debated, or assumed.
I agree it's not a big deal, the general rule of thumb is if you don't like it change it, it's always been this way with D&D and every other RPG, in fact, in most games this is the rule that supersedes all other rules. It does however create some issues for people who want to play RAW and in fairness when you review a game, you review RAW, not based on the assumption that you can change things you don't like so this debate is more about what is and isn't a good way to do it RAW. It has nothing to do with traditions and conventions of the community, its about what it says in the book and at least it seems to me that by and large the general consensus is that it's not a great way to handle ability score improvements.
They should just errata this rule, change it to what it was during the beta test and update DND Beyond to work this way and just make everyone's life easier. After all, adding the change doesn't prevent anyone from using backgrounds for ASI as written, but not having it does prevent (or at least create a hurdle) to doing it in DNDbeyond character generator as you have to do custom changes to implement it so far as I understand it.