What I really DON'T LIKE about backgrounds in D&D 2024

There's a lot of good stuff coming in D&D 2024, but this change to how backgrounds work has me scratching my head...
New Feats | Backgrounds | Species | 2024 Player's Handbook | D&D: • New Feats | Background...
Check out Wanderer's Guide to Enchanted Emporiums: eventyrgames.s...
Check out DELVE here: www.kickstarte...
Buy cool stuff:
eventyrgames.s...
Check out our web apps:
app.eventyrgam...
Support us on Patreon and get access to awesome 5E D&D content:
/ eventyr
Eventyr Games webpage:
eventyrgames.com/
Twitter:
/ eventyrgames

[@zenzuken]

I thought the same thing. Just add like a single sentence that says "add a 2/1 or 1/1/1" and then you don't need to waste the space in those pages for every single background. People are just going to do it anyway

[@EventyrGames]

Yeah, or you can even just decide that backgrounds/races/species/whatever doesn't give bonuses, if the intention is that you can just choose anything for any class. You only need to bump up the Standard Array/Point Buy to provide a 17, 15, 13, 12, 10, 8 or 16, 16, 13, 12, 10, 8 spread (or however you want it to be). No need for arbitrary bonuses at all.

[@X20Adam]

The 16(i think) backgrounds presented are templates. They covered this in the Master video. The core design intent is for players to work with their dm to make a custom background that reflects their characters life before they become an adventurer. This is actually exactly how the original 2014 rules worked too, but people tended to use the provided backgrounds for convenience.

[@optimus2200]

But the making your own background moved from the Core player book into the DMG which is a bad move . it should have been in the player book

[@X20Adam]

@@optimus2200 Why? Creating your own background really should be done with your DM.

[@sputnik90]

They had a problem, later solved it, and are now unsolving it again (unless theyve left out showing an optional rule that everyone will homebrew rule anyway)

[@Herbalizer28]

But it wasn't a real problem...they interpreted the different species as different race/culture and didn't want to discriminate...But species ARE different, and that is ok. A halfling can never be as strong as an Half-Orc..just like a chihuahua can never be as strong as a tiger...they are different species !! I understand not wanting to force players to pick a species to play a certain class, but this isn't really fixing and affects immersion for me. I'm not sure if there is a perfect solution, but I would have put limit on ability scores for certain species and allow players to choose were they put their stats. So that a halfling can only reach, for example, 18 STR (they have -2) while an Half-Orc can reach 22 (they have +2)..that way, you can still build a STR based halfling fighter, understanding that it will cap at 18, and that may be enough, if you use feats and/or other stats to boost.

[@sputnik90]

@@Herbalizer28 The problem wasn't in the fiction, the problem was in playerbase desires not matching the rules. They found that the majority of players weren't happy that their stats were tied to thier race, thus they updated the rule in Tasha's to solve that problem. The loosening of restrictions in Tashas does nothing except adds more possible options, and if you aren't a fan of the fiction of those options you aren't mandated to use them.

[@RottenRogerDM]

@@sputnik90 Two points. If you were and adventure league DM, you had to accept floating stats. Second to me coming all the way from 1e, non humans should had a floating +2. -1. But I am human centric that way.

[@asilva4956]

​@@Herbalizer28Why a gnome having 18 or 20 str is problematic? Like, its not a regular gnome, is a player

[@Herbalizer28]

@@asilva4956 because "realistically", a gnome shouldn't bench press the same amount as an half-orc..The strongest half orc shouldn't be as strong as the strongest gnome ! A gnome is 3 ft tall and weighs 40lbs !!! Even in a fantasy world, I, personally, find it ridiculous. The same way it would be ridiculous for a chihuahua to overpower a tiger..

[@DarkDefender1024]

I really don't understand the issue. Three options is better than two. It doesn't seem complicated to say there were two problems with species-based ASIs. One gets resolved by moving to backgrounds, the other by widening it to 3 abilities each. Maybe that's not quite enough, but the idea that they just didn't deal with it strikes me as odd.

[@EventyrGames]

The issue is that they had solved the issue - from Tasha's onwards, they introduced not tying ability score bonuses to any race. Like Crawford identifies, people don't really like to be tied down by their race - nor their background, it's safe to assume. So it might be "better" than having it be tied to two abilities from your race, but they had already solved the issue (as he himself identifies it): don't tie ability score bonuses to anything :)

[@michaelmclaughlin3013]

Didn’t they say in a previous talk that backgrounds in the new version would assume you’d custom build them, and that all of these templates were just examples and quick start options?

[@azzaelulbrinter]

yes, they did

[@X20Adam]

They did, but everyone seems to forget that.

[@nyanbrox5418]

They did, the rules for making a custom background will appear in the DMG, and they will be identical to the rules from the playtest

[@nyanbrox5418]

​@X20Adam they didn't forget, they just weren't listening because they don't actually care about the truth Now I would personally prefer custom background rules to be in the PHB, not DMG, but it really does need DM oversight when inventing lore for the DM's world

[@X20Adam]

@@nyanbrox5418 I was saying the players forgot. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the custom background rules to be in the DMG.

[@XanderHarris1023]

Sometimes people forget about new players. Set backgrounds with a couple of options is a lot less intimidating then here are all the choices, figure it out. I will be allowing complete customization, but I can understand why the moved it to the DMG.

[@joshuasmith9061]

I can understand having some premade backgrounds ready for the new player but not having custom as a primary option sets back certain players/DMs. Someone I used to play with had OCPD and couldn't use optional rules/homebrew or he would start panicking. Also, I had a DM rules lawyer who would say the rules are the rules. It just helps with the 20%.

[@MrsDeprimente]

This is why pathfinder linked the atributes to the 3 things… races, backgrounds and classes give atributes… they just got it wrong forever in d&d

[@joshuasmith9061]

It's really nice to finally see someone else mentioning this. The other thing I'm worried about is that since it's in the DMG if you don't own it on DNDBeyond it will be locked behind a pay wall for players who use the service. This truly feels like a step back.

[@badmojo0777]

the DM should be sharing it within the campaign.

[@joshuasmith9061]

@@badmojo0777 True, but there is a decent number of players who play with random groups online. And life can sometimes cause a group to separate.

[@DougCoughler]

A farmer who works in the fields all day or a blacksmith hammering away at the forge is going to be tougher and stronger than a scholar who spent their formative years in a library or a classroom studying, regardless of species. Moving the ability score buffs to the background makes PERFECT sense. Now, is it going to limit certain backgrounds from certain classes? Perhaps. But a scholar is also less likely to pick up a sword to become a fighter. And there's a choice between 3 stats, so assuming that some of the backgrounds have a mix of physical and mental stat choices, there are many possibilities available. I'm still sticking to 2014 rules for a while, but I like this change.

[@elementzero3379]

What about a War Mage who came up through the military? (Eberron is full of these characters.) Maybe Soldier seems to fit perfectly, but then the character can't boost his or her Intelligence. 😒

[@cooperreynolds5041]

Everybody in real life has a unique background that affected them in all sorts of different ways. This is something that just doesn't need to be restricted. The restrictions were removed in Tasha's and the community response was "it's about time they did that" because it allows people to come up with whatever they want for their character while remaining balanced.

[@DougCoughler]

@@elementzero3379 Fair point!

[@XanderHarris1023]

@@elementzero3379 A War Mage probably isn't a front liner. Maybe there will be a background where flavoring it as a commander or general will make sense. I say this as someone who has played a wizard with the soldier background.

[@EventyrGames]

You're not wrong, but... The point for me is that it's unnecessary. You can be a farmer that only picked tomatoes and read books all day = high Intelligence and low Strength. Or you could be a noble that was into dancing but hated books = high Dexterity and low Intelligence. And so on and so forth. Tying your background to 3 ability scores is unnecessarily restricting, because (just as was the case with tying it to races) it says: "A character that has this background/race/class/whatever must be this specific way". And Crawford specifically says they don't want to do that anymore and then immediately... they do it again. That's what irks me. That said, it's not a huge deal, it's just a bit silly to do, because they had already fixed the problem in Tasha's!

[@TwinSteel]

I’ve been toying with having a nature & nurture based system that lets you pick +1 from species & +1/+1 from background

[@EventyrGames]

I get the idea, but again it's like... why not just let ability scores not be tied to race or background, and just use rolls/point buy/standard arrays, whichever is your preference. There doesn't need to be any bonuses at all.

[@TwinSteel]

@@EventyrGames certainly don’t have to - could be a house rule - but the more we divorce from species and background the less important the choice feels to me - at some point, after we take away ASIs from them, then we might ask, why are skills, feats and special abilities tied to anything at all and just use custom everything - at which point it feels to me like why pick a species and background at all? Why not just go thru and select ASI, skill prof, feat and special ability - that would be the way to give the most freedom but would seem to be a very different system to me at that point, but if that’s how the table likes it, they should be able to do so - perhaps we cling to closely to WotC’s guides when we want to play our own versions of the game

[@elementzero3379]

I agree. This was a retrograde choice. Apparently, they put the "customizable background" option in the DMG. Any game I run will be using fully customizable backgrounds. I trust my players to build the characters they want to play. The game is about having fun. I don't understand how handcuffing player choice in this way promotes fun.

[@EventyrGames]

Agreed 100%

[@IRFine]

The point of having stat increases on the background is to avoid the biggest problem in the playtest which was that every Wizard/Sorcerer could get medium armor proficiency at first level at minimal opportunity cost (because in the playtest custom backgrounds were the default) So now they can avoid putting the medium armor feat on backgrounds that give INT or CHA to avoid that problem. It also is a balancing factor where they can put good proficiencies (like arcana or perception) with worse feats so that the options are balanced as well as possible with one another. If you want to mix and match to have all the best things, you have to make sure the DM is chill with it by using the DMG optional rule. And if you want to play a Wizard with a backstory that wouldn’t normally give an INT bonus, you can totally do that. Just take your stats, proficiencies, and feat from a background that does give an INT bonus, and swap in the flavor of the backstory you actually want. Flavor is free.

[@nyanbrox5418]

Custom background rules will be in the DMG, rather than in the PHB This way you can work with you DM to make a background which fits that specific campaign, for example if there is a group of witches who sort of go around as their own job, you could make a custom background for that The reason the PHB has a few presets is because of minmaxing gremlins, who do not care about flavour, or backstory, all they want is that one specific feat for their multiclassed character Sometimes that fits at your table, sometimes it doesn't, but every class will still have an array of backgrounds which would be very good for them If you want to play the wizard who was a circus performer, you can, just work out a "circus nerd" background with dexterity, constitution, and intelligence, and hey presto

[@adolfodef]

Batman is a Monk/Rogue/Artificer [DEX/INT]; the WIS requirement is covered by the backstory/lineage (childhood), while the rest is pure training/work (origin).

[@jefR6875]

the only reason to put it in the DMG and not the PHB is so that you can strongarm players that never DM into buying the DMG.

[@Whitecat-xx7rr]

For me both orcs being stronger then elves and blacksmiths being stronger then scribes made perfect sense. I also played with 3 half orc clerics, who were totally fine with 14 Wis. But for min/max sake, a sentence "its common for a blacksmith to have +str/+con, but you can be different" could be easily added.

[@Scimi325]

I think you missed an important point here. They might not have talked about it, but you can still adjust a background to better fit your character concept, or come up with a new one that isn't even an option. It's comical that you get almost heated, thinking you'll be stuck with the prewritten backgrounds as they will be presented. 😄

[@joshuasmith9061]

Say that to players who suffer from OCPD. Or to the DMs who are rules lawyers and see optional rules as bad for the game. And what about the people who use DNDBeyond who may have a paywall called the DMG to unlock the option. Most people seem to forget how everyone was saying "about time" and praised WotC when Tasha's came out with customize your origin.

[@Scimi325]

@@joshuasmith9061 First of all I don't know why the first thing you throw at me are players who suffer from OCPD. What are you trying to imply? Second of all, I obviously don't know how the 2024 PHB looks like yet, but in the playtest they offered the players 3 options how to determine their background, and it wasn't worded optional like in the past with Feats or Multiclassing, and something a DM could deny you reasonably. Regarding DNDBeyond, you might not have all published backgrounds available, but at least as of now you can always customize your background. And to your last point, in my opinion it doesn't change anything really, your background is literally part of your origin. So what difference does it make, if you change the bonuses to your attributes in your species (formerly know as race), or in your background?

[@joshuasmith9061]

@@Scimi325 For your first point I've played with people who have OCD and OCPD and they have had problems using optional rules which the video stated custom will be. Second, I never said backgrounds were optional. In the 2014 PHB customizing your background was in the book but like feats the wording made it sound like not a core feature. Third, after the OGL and Pinkerton fiasco I don't trust them to not squeeze every penny they can, and like I said it used to be part of the 2014 and that's why you have it for now. And with that final point you missed the mark entirely, I was drawing a comparison. People were happy to no longer have a race shoehorned into specific classes but now your background is. And I would say your character's history is far more important than your race. I also stated 2 types of people held back by this not being the standard as well as more creative new players. He used the noble rogue and acolyte barbarian as examples.

[@Scimi325]

@@joshuasmith9061 I know you didn't say backgrounds were optional, I was just trying to address your concern regarding DMs who might not let someone use the options, since there is a difference between having options for something and a rule that is undoubtedly being labeled as optional, and finally the DM's decision if it will be used or not. I don't think customizing a background was worded optional like Feats/Multiclassing in the 2014 PHB, but I could totally see that one might interpret it that way, and it's for the better that WotC seemed to be aware of that and changed the way the background section is written.

[@master_rafiki]

100% agree. Ability score adjustments/increases should be part of the Ability Score step, not backgrounds. This isn't a step forward. It's a step sideways and backwards.

[@SerifSansSerif]

t's swapping racism for classism. It's saying, " You're a noble so OF COURSE you're one of those elite wizards or spellcasters. Nobles are just naturally givfted to be wizards by their birth, You're an urchin so OF COURSE you grow up to be a rogue. It's just the natural order that if you are born into a caste, you should stay in that caste forever." It's even f***ing offensive. And even if you have a "homebrew option" it means having to get the DM to approve, which is NOT cool,, t's like revoking tasha and saying "well, it's a homebrew option......"

[@infinitedm5396]

This seems like a mountain out of molehills. Customs in the dmg. Cause its a heavy customization choice. Something new players don't need to be saddled with. And for these weird corner case scenarios some some people seem to be bringing up in the comments, just find a better table. Find a different table. We're not slaves to some singular table somewhere. This is a huge part of playing d&d, finding your table.

[@FlintFireforge]

Great thoughts. When I do learn to plays at my FLGS, we roll up characters species, class, background (origin). I may try class, background (origin), species to see if players play their characters any differently or if it causes better immersion. Thanks for the vid.

[@y2a1979]

Since Tasha's already lets you put your point wherever you want from your race, this seems like a largely cosmetic change to me. But if they really don't want it tied to race/species, just give every character their choice of adding three points to their attributes in either the 2/1 or 1/1/1 configuration, not tied to anything else. Just a thing you do after getting your base stats, so that you can personalize your stats to what you want/need.

[@JCinLapel]

I think that they needed to do it like the playtest pick your stats pick your background feet make up the rest or here are options. I think the best backgrounds in the game as is in 5E comes for Sword Coast Guide here is 4 skills to chose take 2, choose between these 2 nonweapon proficency (Keep the Xanithars advantage if you have prof in the skill and the tool) and pick a langage. MORE OPTIONS not less

[@generalsci3831]

Well, I know at my table I'm just going to throw that background restriction out. Why can't an acolyte make a great paladin? That's like... Their whole thing.

[@EventyrGames]

Yup, if there is something I'd want full customizability on, it's the players' backstories

[@jamesgotchall7205]

I don't like the backgrounds for one main reason: each background locks in your original feat. As a DM and partial player (only one player so I have to and they agree with it) I am going to let players use the UA version for the origin feat to let them change the origin feat to whichever they choose. It gives the player just a little more agency around the feat

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

Moving abilities to backgrounds rather than species is delightful, but I kinda wish it was removed and had free points to distribute instead. I can see custom backgrounds being pretty normalized, with the default ones used as a template for you to swap out like one or two items of your choice.

[@eliascabbio7598]

They announced that you'll be able to customize backgrounds, probability in the DMG

[@jackf4090]

Spot on as always, it’s definitely a step backwards. I hope to see an option rule to do away with this. Good to see your videos popping up again

[@EventyrGames]

Yeah, we'll get an alternate rule in the DMG for sure, but it's so weird for this to be the standard way. It's just weird to finally fix the issue with abilities on races/species just to move it to backgrounds. Just really odd.

[@snoochieboochies2011]

It sounds like a variant rule that is very much optimal. I mean what is going to like? Pick 3 ability scores, 2 skills, a feat etc. I’m speculating here but that’s how the UA worked and I kind of doubt there will be some complex balanced system to make a background that leaves the default as viable.

[@crydd3153]

This is the same thing I was saying. They are widening the limit, not getting rid of it. But the thing is, I like race locked stats. They make sense. Background? Not so much. Maybe a little. Of course your high elf can spend first 400 year of his life deadlifting. But in the end, he will still be more charismatic and agile than average human. Call me racist, but it's in his blood. Show me ugly elf (and I take no middle-earth orcs for an answer). Although, I'm not minmaxer nor powergamer. So what, if my halfling barbarian merchant has lower strength or my half-orc wizard acolyte is not that smart. It fits their story and I like playing them.

[@xdecatron2985]

When brainstorming a character, I typically start with a class I want to play, then consider a back story and then determine a species/race to support both; but when I actually build the character I go Species, Background, Class, as it just makes for a cleaner build process, imo.

[@geoffreyperrin4347]

A system I think would have worked better, but people that hated ability score bonuses in races would hate, is to do this: You get a +1 from 3 options in your race, another +1 from 3 options in your background, and a floating +1, with the main rule that you can't put all 3 in 1 ability

[@MyKarva]

I agree. Then they could cater for everyone's wants.

[@unknowncomic4107]

Personally, since I use a stat array for all new characters in my campaign, I am contemplating removing ability score adjustments from the backgrounds completely and just attaching ability score adjustments to class/subclass. Just pulling the trigger since people will tend to min/max those ability increases based on their backgrounds if left up to them.

[@edmundfreeman7203]

Absolutely. Let people pick their stats + origin feat, and then write a background to justify it.

[@marcducorsky8736]

Being a Noble is strenuous physical work. allowing them to add +2 to their strength?

[@luiken3]

More like they have the money and time to buy and use a home gym 😆

[@Rubycule]

I am fairly certain this is a nonissue because custom backgrounds are a non-optionl rule. Even in base 5e.

[@EventyrGames]

From what we've been told, custom backgrounds are going to be optional rules tucked away in the DMG.

[@Rubycule]

@@EventyrGames where and when?

[@joshuasmith9061]

@@Rubycule he stopped the video before they mentioned it at the end like a foot note.

[@X20Adam]

@Rubycule You're correct

[@badmojo0777]

i loved the playtest CORE RULE cusomizable Backgournds.. the only problem with hiding them in the DMG is now they ar ebehind the MOTHER MAY I mechanic...otherwsie they look awesome

[@EventyrGames]

Agreed!

[@Magnushamann]

I agree with your critique. Especially when they also combine it with a fixed feat. You will want a background that grants both tough and str/con for your martials.... almost every time.

[@EventyrGames]

Yup, get ready for every Fighter coming from a Soldier background (or whatever it'll be!) In many ways, I dislike this even more than bonuses tied to races, because your race doesn't have to determine your character's personality and experiences nearly as much as your background (at least not for me), so this even more so makes your desired mechanics dictate the personality and feel of your character, which should just be two separate things, as far as I'm concerned.

[@RottenRogerDM]

Backgrounds to me was either an idea generator for new people or I tired and just grabbing a background. With races/species changes from Tasha’s which had the floating stats, for those who are power gamers, race was no longer a problem choice. Adding feats, and stats bonus to backgrounds in 2024, screams WHA WHIMPER WHINE they not using the backgrounds. Which is right. Think of the various adventure books, and DMs Guild modules. How many of those used your pc background in a way that matter. Yes, it is exactly the same thing. Instead of races soft locking the power gamers, now that is the backgrounds. As an Adventure League DM, I am betting even money that custom backgrounds become standard.

[@Judas_Iscariote]

Why noble got 50 gp same as the rest of the backgrounds? I love Backgrounds, also, I called them Professions instead. Have you tried Historica: Arcanum backgrounds? those are amazing. I play without clases, only using backgrounds

[@edwardbirdsall6580]

Basically the DM can say here are 3 points. Put them where ever you want.

[@MyKarva]

So a gnome can start off a campaign stronger and tougher than an Orc or dwarf. Makes perfect sense 😂.

[@pontusleblanc1481]

Obviously everyone will just houserule that you can pick whatever ability scores and feat you want.

[@joshuasmith9061]

The issue is people with conditions like OCPD or rules lawyers. It just helps everyone to have custom as the standard.

[@starethesky]

Hi, i miss your DM Guides

[@integrity9186]

I really hope making custom backgrounds stays a thing lol

[@theKillahwatts]

Nah this isn't an issue really tbh. You can mix and match background feats/Ability scores with your dm to make sense for what you're after. Same as we could do before with custom backgrounds. It's way better than it being tied to the species of a character, because its leans far further away from biological determinism. Which is the pretty icky idea that people from a certain race can only do certain things well. And it's dumb for fantasy too, the idea that there can be no Elven blacksmiths or builders because no elf is strong enough to do that is kinda crappy as worldbuilding.

[@aaronbono4688]

I think this change is perfectly fine.

[@azzaelulbrinter]

I think you are lacking a critical piece of information from the playtest. By default, backgrounds are fully customizable now. It's just the ASI, + Origin Feat, + 50 GP. You can combine them any way you want. The backgrounds presented later on the book are just pre-made packages hinting at possible ability scores and equipment to reflect the background, and mostly there for new players to not have to build custom backgrounds.

[@joshuasmith9061]

watch the original video, customizing your background is only in the DMG.

[@azzaelulbrinter]

@@joshuasmith9061 so? It makes no sense to make such a complain when in reality, they are just presenting the easier method for new players. Advanced players can adjust as needed.

[@joshuasmith9061]

@@azzaelulbrinter You forget they had issues with people not using feats bc they just seemed like an optional feature. This would also keep rules lawyers and people with OCPD from limiting themselves. It's not like we're saying no to premade backgrounds, just include custom as well. the UA version was pretty darn easy to understand.

[@azzaelulbrinter]

@@joshuasmith9061 *shrug* if people limit themselves it's their choice. It's even better if the base rules are short and simple and the DM allows the variant rules, give the DM more control over their game.

[@joshuasmith9061]

@@azzaelulbrinter I get what you're saying about some rules not needed in base. ex: encumbrance. But what about picking asi bonuses, picking an origin feat, and using 50 gold to buy equipment not simple or game breaking? All but the origin feat was already allowed post Tasha races and the human can already pick any origin feat they want. What is 1 extra page for the freedom of choice they promised us. Also, it's not a person with OCPD's choice.

[@X20Adam]

Did you watch the entire video?

[@solitudinous6508]

Essentially, nearly everyone is just going to have to house rule 100% custom backgrounds and ignore these rules. Very puzzling choice on their part.

[@sortehuse]

It seems very strange that noble gain Strength, Intelligence and Charisma. They are not doing any manual labour so why are they strong, anybody can be intelligent I see no reason why a noble should be more intelligent than someone as a commoner. Maybe the know more etiquette than other people so you could maybe you could argue for Charisma. A noble seems fitting for a swashbuckler but now it's a bad idea because you can't get a bonus to Dexterity.

[@jgr7487]

Strength: Knights were usually nobles. Even to this day, most olympians come from old money. Intelligence: Nobles had (and still have) the best possible education. Charisma: Nobles had (and still have) to have good etiquette & were taught rhetoric & other speech techniques.

[@captaindudeman3613]

This makes 100% sense to me assuming a kind of medieval culture. Problem with that is there are plenty of newer players out there that aren't operating under that assumption their version of a medieval type setting is coming from anime or an interpretation that magic nullifies the realities and limitations of medieval life.

[@sortehuse]

@@jgr7487 You could argue just as well for all the other ability scores. Nobles learn dextrous things like dancing, fencing and embroidering Nobles have a good contusion because they where raced with better nutation than the peasants. Nobles high wisdom because they have travelled more knows more about what does on the the world that other people.

[@sortehuse]

@@captaindudeman3613 If you assume medieval culture nobles should just get +2 to all their ability scores 🙂

[@jgr7487]

@@sortehuse on Wisdom: shouldn't that be called instinct or something alike? Nothing about the skills related to WIS scream knowledge, on the contrary, it gets Perception. And, yes, DEX would have fit the Noble far better.

[@Vads0]

Come on, who picks an Acolyte background if they want to be a martial class...? And even if you want to have that kind of twisted backstory for some reason, then you can always bend the rules with your DM if it makes sense for you. No one will call the police for not following the book in your make belief game.

[@EventyrGames]

The DM might not be comfortable bending rules. Or you're playing adventurers league. Its just odd to make the preferred rule for most people be the optional rule

[@RangerSierra11]

This is all just totally unnecessary and complicated for no good reason. It is incredible this stuff is still debated or even a question. A standard array with the +1 and +2 incorporated is all we need. WOTC missed again. Making it optional just leads to issues for GMs and Players to work out and totally unnecessary complexity.

[@creedence2587]

Well said.

[@sohkaswifteagle2604]

lol it's even worst then what you are saying. Let's take the acolyte for example. My sorcerer I want my +2 cha and a +1 Con, so no I'm not taking acolyte My wizard I want +2 Int and +1 Con , so no I'm not taking acolyte My cleric I want +2 wis and +1 Con, so even for the cleric I'm not taking acolyte. Unless I want to multiclass Wizard/sorcerer or sorcere cleric , I will never want my bonus to be in 2 mental stats. So the acolyte is a background I will NEVER take unless I do a multiclass sorcerer/wizard Same issue with the Noble. Sure I want to do a paladin, Noble is great I get my +2 Str and +1 cha, I'm happy... oh no wait a minute, I don't want skilled... Skilled SUCKS for my paladin. I want alert, or maybe magic initiate, or maybe lucky, so sorry not taking Noble for my paladin I need to find the background that gives me the right combination of stat, skill language, tool and feat? yeah, good luck even when the background was only giving skill and language/tool, I never took the pre-made background and I always created a custom-made one using the rule in the PHB 2014. But now that rule is in the DMG... I need to bargain with my DM to get the background I want???

[@MrRJPE]

Your house looks like a cafe.

[@EventyrGames]

It's our office! :D

[@Herbalizer28]

The problem they were trying to fix wasn't real !!...they interpreted the different species as different race/culture and didn't want to discriminate...But species ARE different, and that is ok. A halfling can never be as strong as an Half-Orc in my world..just like a chihuahua can never be as strong as a tiger...they are different species !! I understand not wanting to force players to pick a species to play a certain class, but this isn't really fixing it and affects immersion for me. I'm not sure if there is a perfect solution, but I would have put limit on ability scores for certain species and allow players to choose where they put their stats. So that a halfling can only reach, for example, 18 STR (they have -2) while an Half-Orc can reach 22 (they have +2)..that way, you can still build a STR based halfling fighter, understanding that it will cap at 18, and that may be enough, if you use feats and/or other stats to boost.

[@EventyrGames]

I've always felt that the cap made more sense, especially for small and big races. In the end, I'm still more in favor of just letting the players choose their ability scores and then we make logic reflect that. Got a halfling with 20 STR? It's the world's strongest halfling - a freak of nature! - and that's alright. Might just not be common, that's all.

[@jiminkpen9750]

I've always like minimum and maximum stats for species, many other ttrpgs use it, along with bonus/penalties in char gen. Overcoming adversity, proving yourself the exception to the rule, is a core theme in epic stories and this is a way to reinforce through mechanics a certain species or background dis/advantage. DnD designers seem to just want to balance everything (in their own unique way) and allow players to create characters in a video game type of logic. I get that design paradigm but it works better for video games as opposed to ttrpgs.

[@Herbalizer28]

@@jiminkpen9750 I completely agree ! We're currently in an era where society is trying to make everything the same instead of accepting differences...

[@ArdaGreece]

Awesome

[@Ravenwoodgame]

I'd have to agree with the changes. I feel that putting the bonuses into species made no sense and moving it to Origin makes sense. I can still play a barbarian that found himself to be an acolyte, but because I'm an acolyte I would likely have higher int, wis, or cha. Now I can still put my standard array into Str, but origin bonuses now complement what I have done in my life. Logically speaking, being an Acolyte would not increase my str more. Now if we do away with backgrounds/origins all together and just do 2/1 or 1/1/1, and make players design their own, that's fine. Many players do. But as a starting point for new players, it makes absolute sense with the changes they made.

[@joshuasmith9061]

The paladin would disagree with your assessment. What about the urchin who made money looking for lost objects or people, or the sailor who was good at tying knots and could drink anyone under the table. He was not saying premade backgrounds should be discarded but to have custom be the standard and not locked behind the DMG.

[@Ravenwoodgame]

@joshuasmith9061 custom is great. But custom isn't for everyone. You can custom make any part of your character you want. But we are talking about how the PHB is written, which is a baseline. People prefer a baseline to go off of. As a baseline, using origins is far superior than species for ability increases. Thematically it makes more sense. If you want to make something that is outside the baseline, the only person stopping you is your DM.

[@joshuasmith9061]

@@Ravenwoodgame Thats why you have both custom and premade ones in the same section. Remember, some players were hesitant to use feats just bc they sounded optional. Why limit their future creativity or have rules lawyers block them. 2014, races can't customize Asi bonus without dm approval, but backgrounds could be in the PHB. Post Tasha's all published races no longer limit Asi bonus to allow more creative PC creation. Most people are happy with this change 2024, they move Asi to background while also not including custom ASI bonuses, the feature people loved by placing it in the DMG. This just a step back, and bc you had a specific job doesn't mean you were good at it.

[@MyKarva]

Its great for power gamers but terrible for role players. Their not fixing anything that was wrong with 5e.

[@marcducorsky8736]

Since ALL characters get a +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 stat boosts. Remove the boosts from species, remove them from Background and just add them when you determine stats.

[@davidarmstrong1617]

You're not wrong... they claim this is better but it's actually so, so much worse. Being pigeonholed because of your background makes no sense at all, since this timeline is off. One is born (species), then educated (background), then chooses a career (class). That's how it goes, and those with more brains are drawn to intellectual careers, and those with more brawn are drawn to more physical careers. Attributing ability score increases to race/species is the only way that makes any sense at all. You want to be ultra-inclusive and not restrict characters based on scores? Fine... give each race, class, and background a "suggested" 3-point ability score increase and let every character pick a set of bonuses from one of those categories. Like, you're an Elf, Rogue, Noble. So you can take the +2 Dex, +1 Int from Elf ... OR you can take the +2 Cha, +1 Str from Noble ... OR you can take the +2 Dex, +1 Cha from Rogue. That would make sense, and would meet their requirements of being super-careful not to offend anyone.

[@MyKarva]

I agree, race ability bonuses were great. But now I have to pick a solider background etc.. so that I can build a fighter? It's all wrong, I am so dissapointed.

[@PatriceBoivin]

This is not D&D to me. Jeremy seems to be lifting ideas from Rolemaster. In D&D it's supposed to take 15 minutes to prepare a character and start playing. Characters develop histories by playing not by making stuff up.

[@TwinSteel]

🥳❤️👍🏿

[@shadowmancer99]

I dont this the Attribute bonuses should be on Backgrounds, and should keep them RACE. It makes more sense. ORCS are bigger and stronger than humans. Hell, if they REALLY wanted to so something, give Attribute Bonuses based on Race AND on Background, best of both worlds. That might be better...

[@EventyrGames]

I don't like that solution either, because then every Fighter would have to be an Orc Soldier and every Wizard would be a Elf Sage, or whatever the bonuses are. Just do away with ability score bonuses from race and backgrounds, and let players create the characters they want to play, is my preference at least.

[@shadowmancer99]

@@EventyrGames And I dont like that because then there is NO difference inherent in the races and backgrounds. I dont like the Attribute bonus in Backgrounds at all, but the Races ARE different. And the stat differences reflect that. Players can still make their characters how they want, but some races being better at some professions seems reasonable, and with a lot of races having varients, and lore to go with them, or the ability to HB races this can still work pretty well. Its a core thing I think modern players have lost, that choices matter and not all choices are going to get you the same results. And they shouldnt.