D&D (2024) 2024 Player's Handbook Reveal: Feats/Backgrounds/Species

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I suspect someone WotC hired told them outlander was a "social red flag", and that's why it's gone.

Or just common sense.

The general concept of an outlander was that they were a traveler from somewhere else - what are they then if the campaign happens to take the party back to where the outlander originally came from? Are they still an outlander in their own homeland? Is everyone else in the party now outlanders, since they've now traveled to someplace far from their homelands?

It is a bit nonsensical to define a character solely by being from somewhere else... If I was trained as a doctor, I don't stop being a doctor if I travel halfway around the world. Travelers and migrants had a life before they became travelers and migrants.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What gets me about it is that it's completely an unforced error. No one was clamoring for stat boosts to be attached to the backgrounds.

Just leave the Tasha's status quo, have the stat boosts as a purely game mechanical step unattached to any narrative, and no one would be complaining about anything.

Or remove stat bonuses altogether.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It should be noted that you are starting the argument from the base of an adventurer - not the general public. Therefore, everything you are saying is invalid. The commoner, and by that I mean blacksmith, carpenter, merchant, sailor, farmer, etc. has a 10 intelligence. That is the average. So, anyone with a 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 is above average. Spend two points in the point buy, and the urchin is starting out of average intelligence. Spend 3 and they are above average for the population as a whole.
So this is not class essentialism. It might be some adventurer problem where some players will have a problem having a 15 (way above average) instead of a 16 (way above average).

The same can be said for species.

 

[TwoSix]

Or remove stat bonuses altogether.

I got to that point a little later (see post #325).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm going to make it about class entitlement in game.

Guy raised on the streets has a rival that was raises as a noble. Both excel in school but the guy from the street always end up half a step behind, dealing 27 damage with his fireball while his rival deals 28.

The guy from the stret doing everything he can to wipe the smugness off the nobles face while the noble's pride of having a commoner right on his heels driving him forward in return.

Eventually, there is a situation where the noble is about to die, but the street gut saves him using his street skills. Making the noble jealous of the commoner for the first time, and having the commoner finally see the noble not as a target, but as a person.

They then quickly go back to trying to one up eachother, but with an undercurrent of respect and friendship this time.

Are you controlling both characters in this story?

 

[Bagpuss]

It is less inflammatory. Racial, even fantasy racial makeups, are frowned upon by many. An orc being less intelligent than a gnome is not the same thing as a street urchin being less intelligent than a noble. One comes from an innate/genetic disposition, the other comes from a lack of exposure.

It is more inflammatory in my opinion.

I would expect say a dolphin to have a different baseline intelligence to a human, being a different species (like orcs and gnomes) their physiological brain structure will be completely different so why would they be on a level playing field?

But to say a person in innately less intelligent due to their up bringing and opportunities, seems more inflammatory. Someone can never better themselves because they started as an urchin, they will always be thicker than someone who had a different start in life. That to me seems more inflammatory.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I strongly feel that customizable backgrounds should be front and centre in the background section of the book.
Have examples, sure, but encourage players to create their own or tinker with the examples. I want to see players create backgrounds like Pearl Diver, Lamplighter, Rat Catcher, Kitchen Witch, Changeling, Raised by a Dragon or Magical Accident. I want a wide variety of Nobles, Urchins and Acolytes. Training at a War God's temple should be completely different from training at a Healing Shrine. And just having a uniquely named background on the sheet can go a long way in getting a feel for the character.

Modern D&D is an odd mix of high fantasy wish fulfilment with sudden, unnecessary constraints. Why the backpedalling on customizable backgrounds? Yes, I know I can do what I like at my table, I know there will be guidelines in the DMG, but looking at the game as a whole, shouldn't the designers be encouraging and celebrating creativity, rather than directing it, or tucking it away. Crawford assured us in the first video this week, we'd be excited by all the new options and "glow." Then this. I am a little confused.

Seems like a big priority for WotC this time around is flash.

 

[CreamCloud0]

"Play culture" doesn't matter when it comes to any individual table.

But the reverse is also true which is what my point was, even if Belen’s individual table didn’t use tasha’s floating the consensus appears to be that the vast majority of tables do and WotC ought to of considered that before reintroducing semi-fixed ASI.

They did it that way not because they didn't want the stat distribution limitations at all, but rather than they wanted them off of species. It was causing them too much social blowback, making this essentially a political move.

IMO, of course.

i think it was a bit of both, they wanted fixed modifiers off species but there was no need to go sticking them on backgrounds, someone was mentioning this change is basically just another form of essentialism, different but not really any better than biological essentialism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is though. On a standard array, it is a mere three points added to something versus the already 24 points added. And in the statement you responded to, I was very specifically discussing the suggestion that "stats be tied to class." With point buy or standard array or rolling, they are assigned to class. By no one except the player.

What you are discussing is this:
If you are the player that can't bear to be 5% behind another, even though that lack of 5% might give you something else in another category outside of damage, then you're going to complain. And how a person complains is also part of the problem.
Start throwing around philosophies like essentialism and equating it to the game. That's probably a good way to get traction because it's inflammatory. Saying, the actual facts: I had to give up 5% extra damage, but in return I am better at ___________ and also got ____________. This gets people nowhere in the argument. Therefore, they don't do it. They instead use something that will incite others.
It's the +1 argument all over again. Instead of simply and honestly stating that someone wanted their dwarf to have a 16 starting intelligence instead of 15, they complained about other things. They eventually break it down to extremely negative outlooks, rather than just admitting all they really wanted was a 16.

All @Ruin Explorer seems to be saying is that a lot of people are going to complain about this, and that stats matter rather a lot in 5e. I find it hard to argue with either point.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, if your -7 why even bother?

Peasants: does nothing
Nonwarrior: 0
Warrior: +3

Well that's why the peasant is +0 and the warrior is +7.

People want low modifiers then cry about the ramifications.