# Bonus languages in One D&D backgrounds goes contrary to their other goals



## Whizbang Dustyboots

In One D&D, some dated ideas are being dropped, including racial essentialism and the pernicious real world idea that even a drop of "impure" blood fundamentally changes a person. Eric's Grandma wouldn't want us to go down that rabbit hole, but if you're unfamiliar with this, look up "octoroon" on Wikipedia and be, I hope, a little shocked at an attitude that was still around at least as recently as 1974.

So while half-orcs and half-elves aren't their own special categories any more, One D&D walks back in the door with a related idea that I don't think anyone was asking for:

Certain cultures, by default, are associated with certain jobs in D&D. I don't think you'd see a modern ruleset try to codify a similar argument.

If you haven't read the One D&D Character Origins UA yet (and it seems that plenty of YouTubers haven't, for instance, although that doesn't stop them from making 45 minute videos expressing their opinions about it), every one of the new backgrounds includes a bonus language.

The new PHB is going to say these are just examples and players should be making custom backgrounds. But let's be honest, that's an option already, and most players just go with the example ones. So what WotC puts in the examples matters, both as a model and because probably most players will use them and never make a custom background of their own.

Some of the languages seem like reasonable expectations for most worlds. Entertainers all know Elvish, which suggests that the elves have created great works of music and drama that other peoples will either perform verbatim or learn so they can adapt them to their native cultures. Urchins know Common sign language (a new default language added to the list, which is a nice change that I approve of, especially as it carries with it the real world reality that not every deaf person uses the same sign language), which I guess they're using to communicate on the street -- which is takes sign language to a little bit of a weird place, but OK. Acolytes know Celestial, which feels a bit limited (do the Lawful Neutral gods really write their holy books in the language of the upper planes?), but I can see what they're going for.

But Criminals all know Thieves Cant, which feels like a pretty significant element, historically, being handed out a little too freely. (I know people will tell me that Thieves Cant never comes up in their game, but I use it all the time, including just recently when a group playing through Empire of the Ghouls made a wrong turn in the sewers and stumbled into thieves guild territory, shrugging and ignoring the cant signs painted on the walls. I use this PDF from the DMs Guild, and it's served me well in the often rogue-heavy games I run.) And notably, they're not giving out the other class language, Druidic, as part of a background.

Why does every guide speak Giant? Every pilgrim speaks Halfling? Every sailor can speak Primordial? These feel like big setting decisions and some of them turn ordinary zero level characters (remember, the background is what happens to them before they start adventuring) into something mythic. A sailor being able to speak to magical sea creatures in their own language belongs on Odysseus' ship, not on some random fishing trawler.

And then it starts to get a bit icky. Every charlatan knows Infernal, which suggests unpleasant things about my gnome illusionist. Every gladiator speaks Orcish, which -- despite them walking back previously problematic descriptions of orcs in the Character Races section, makes a strong contrary statement here.

What's more, this feels unnecessary. If groups aren't using languages "enough" for WotC, that's those groups' call. (I make language pretty important in my games, but we're now reaching the level in my main campaign where magic will make it never an issue again.) Under the current rules, anyone can learn additional languages during downtime, so they don't need them handed out willy-nilly at character creation.

This is just a beta test, but this is a decision that should be rolled back. If you agree, please consider including this in your feedback in September.


----------



## darjr

Those are example backgrounds. They do not represent every gladiator etc. Each is an example for an individual.

But I do think they shouldn’t give them generic names but the names of whose backgrounds they are.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

darjr said:


> Those are example backgrounds. They do not represent every gladiator etc. Each is an example for an individual.



The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.

But let's step back one level: If you were to design backgrounds for the 2024 PHB, would you include a free language by default for each and every one of them?


----------



## darjr

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.
> 
> But let's step back one level: If you were to design backgrounds for the 2024 PHB, would you include a free language by default for each and every one of them?



How else are they to show what one looks like? What if they said this is John the single legends background? He learned goblin from his Hobgoblin professor at the university of war in Eberron?
(Which I think is an hidden secret, the Ebberron reference, maybe)

But I do agree as presented it’s a problem.


----------



## OakenHart

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.



I don't think we actually know that, they're giving a lot of space emphasizing that they expect people to alter the example backgrounds to better fit their own character if needed.  Why are we assuming that people won't alter them any as a default?

I just don't see an issue here.


----------



## beancounter

I'm fine with every background including a language, but that language should be the choice of the player.


----------



## Lanefan

I'd rather see non-mother-tongue languages somewhat divorced from capital-B Background and instead based on either small-b background (i.e. what makes sense for the region in the setting where the PC either a) grew up or b) is meeting the party) or on random roll (i.e. what did you happen to learn during your previous studies, travels, etc.).

Even less likely, but I'd also like to see something where a character's Intelligence score has input to how many languages said character can or does know, and-or whether said character is literate in any of those languages.  Ideally there'd still be a random factor as well such that not every character of Int-score X always knows the same number Y of languages - maybe something like:

Int 7 or lower - d2 languages
Int 8-10 - d3 languages
Int 11-12 - d2+1 languages
Int 13-15 - d3+1 languages
Int 16-17 - d4+1 languages
Int 18+ - d4+2 languages

I also don't care if not every PC shares a common language with every other PC; while it's recommended they all know Common it's not required.


----------



## darjr

There was a comment somewhere that language like “Orcish” are really what the problem is. Which I think is a valid point. I’m not sure what I think about that entirety, yet.


----------



## Kobold Stew

I agree with the general premise of the OP. As written, the language from background is optional, but I would prefer if it weren't written as a default, but presented as a "quickbuild" choice. The same for ability modifiers.

I've seen many new players appreciate the quick build suggestions for ability score assignments in the PHB class descriptions. Exactly the same thing could be implemented for backgrounds: you pick a language, you apply +2/+1, and each background has a suggestion available for people not wanting to choose, or for DMs to have a "default".

The addition of CSL is great, in my opinion. I love it.

I too am hesitant about the addition of druidic and thieves' cant, but I am much happier with them being available than Abyssal/Infernal/etc. for most characters. Certainly the thought that all charlatans no a default extraplanar deception language seems, to me, wrongheaded.


----------



## edosan

I think it trivializes the idea of backgrounds and just makes it a bundle of characteristics with a collective label on it. If every background comes with a bonus language but they’re going to say “well of course you can swap out anything you like in your background if you decide your Guard doesn't know Dwarven,” why not just say everyone gets a bonus language, pick one? Why bother tying it in to background? They’re just saying “pick another language” in a more complicated way.

I think it would be a lot easier to say something like “everyone gets their race’s language and common, plus a number of languages equal to your intelligence modifier.”


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.
> 
> But let's step back one level: If you were to design backgrounds for the 2024 PHB, would you include a free language by default for each and every one of them?



What’s the alternative, not giving languages?


----------



## Charlaquin

beancounter said:


> I'm fine with every background including a language, but that language should be the choice of the player.



It is


----------



## Charlaquin

edosan said:


> I think it trivializes the idea of backgrounds and just makes it a bundle of characteristics with a collective label on it. If every background comes with a bonus language but they’re going to say “well of course you can swap out anything you like in your background if you decide your Guard doesn't know Dwarven,” why not just say everyone gets a bonus language, pick one? Why bother tying it in to background? They’re just saying “pick another language” in a more complicated way.
> 
> I think it would be a lot easier to say something like “everyone gets their race’s language and common, plus a number of languages equal to your intelligence modifier.”



Literally they are saying everyone gets their choice of one language. And one tool. And two skills. And a Feat. And a floating +2/+1. Then they are providing several pre-chosen sets of those things, for people who want to make one choice instead of seven.


----------



## Ancalagon

I too feel uneasy by some of these choices, and I'm also realising that this is a sensitivity that a lot of people _don't_ have.  As a minority language speaker, I have frequently witness the ... crass dismissiveness unilingual speakers of the dominant language (in NA, English) think and speak about other languages.


----------



## MatthewJHanson

Yeah, I agree. 

If every background gets a free languages, it shouldn't be part of the background, it should just be under languages. 

And in another thread I suggested that people who don't know what to pick should just roll on a random table.


----------



## Charlaquin

MatthewJHanson said:


> Yeah, I agree.
> 
> If every background gets a free languages, it shouldn't be part of the background, it should just be under languages.



There is nothing about background that everyone doesn’t get for free.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

OakenHart said:


> I don't think we actually know that, they're giving a lot of space emphasizing that they expect people to alter the example backgrounds to better fit their own character if needed.  Why are we assuming that people won't alter them any as a default?



Because customized backgrounds are already a thing in the PHB, but are rarely used. The D&D ruleset is big and sprawling and most people never read it all (witness all the times someone wants a "new system" that's been in the DMG all along).


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

beancounter said:


> I'm fine with every background including a language, but that language should be the choice of the player.



I think giving a tool proficiency by default, with an option to swap to a language of the player's choosing, makes more sense.

Adding languages to backgrounds feels like a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Because customized backgrounds are already a thing in the PHB, but are rarely used.



Right, which is why they’re making it the default, and standardizing the components of background slightly more so that all of the examples fit the same structure.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think giving a tool proficiency by default, with an option to swap to a language of the player's choosing, makes more sense.
> 
> Adding languages to backgrounds feels like a solution in search of a problem.



You do know backgrounds already grant languages in the 2014 PHB, right?


----------



## MatthewJHanson

Charlaquin said:


> There is nothing about background that everyone doesn’t get for free.



You have convinced me that we should not have backgrounds, just floating options.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> What’s the alternative, not giving languages?



Yes. Everyone did fine with backgrounds not giving languages by default for eight years.

2024 characters will get languages from their species and maybe their class already. And unless they remove the option, they can learn them during downtime. (When my campaign turned out to be about a war against a kobold tribe/Cult of Tiamat due to some player choices, I had players pick up Draconic soon thereafter.)


----------



## darjr

No, backgrounds can be great. Just needs more care.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> You do know backgrounds already grant languages in the 2014 PHB, right?



Five of the 13 do: Acolyte, Artisan, Hermit (?!), Noble, Outlander and Sage. Amazingly, Spy does not. 

But WotC isn't saying with the 2014 backgrounds that "if you're a gladiator, you obviously have a lot of contact with orcs," which goes directly against what they've been doing with orcs recently, including this UA.

Imagine a D&D Modern game where the Chef background automatically came with Spanish. You could make an argument for it, sure (a whole lot of Latin American folks in the kitchen of nearly every restaurant in the US), but you can also see why it's problematic by default, I imagine.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

MatthewJHanson said:


> You have convinced me that we should not have backgrounds, just floating options.



I think background packages have a lot of potential -- my dad's bard is basically defined by his background as a pirate, and it led to a nice campaign centered on piracy.

This version of backgrounds needed one more pair of eyeballs before going out as-is, even as a beta product.


----------



## Haplo781

The solution is to reduce the number of differently-named backgrounds and instead provide several variations on a few.

E.g. here's a soldier that speaks Goblin and has proficiency in tinker's tools, and here's another Soldier who knows Abyssal and can play the lute. Give a short description of how each came by these elements.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Haplo781 said:


> The solution is to reduce the number of differently-named backgrounds and instead provide several variations on a few.
> 
> E.g. here's a soldier that speaks Goblin and has proficiency in tinker's tools, and here's another Soldier who knows Abyssal and can play the lute. Give a short description of how each came by these elements.



"Veteran of the Goblin Wars," etc. That works.

I don't think it's realistic, but it'd be nice to get a light re-theming of the PHB backgrounds in every setting that way.


----------



## Charlaquin

MatthewJHanson said:


> You have convinced me that we should not have backgrounds, just floating options.



That is the default. A “background” is just a set of those floating options you can take as a package, if you want to make one choice instead of several.


----------



## Smackpixi

Every background gets a language, every character has a background…so everyone gets a second language.  Doesn’t have to be in Background, could be race, but doesn’t matter to me really.  For the most part I think they just need to leave the example language blank, and say “pick a language”. 

But in some cases, the suggestions can be useful prompts.  I wouldn’t suggest Common Sign language for Urchins, but rather “Street Signs” something street kids communicate with silently that Squares don’t understand.  Something very easy to work into a campaign for a DM even if it only comes up once.  Obviously Sailor can be whatever, but some suggestions like Thieve’s Cant for Criminals seems appropriate (missing why you don’t) as a suggestion.  What would be useful in the PHB would be a list of languages to choose from…though, that’s really more a DM obligation, tell your players what languages are in your world/might factor into adventure.


----------



## SakanaSensei

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.
> 
> But let's step back one level: If you were to design backgrounds for the 2024 PHB, would you include a free language by default for each and every one of them?



I'd love to see them make it very bold and clear that they expect people to make their own and then give only three examples. A number large enough to illustrate their process but small enough that no one can mistake the intention that they are only examples.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Smackpixi said:


> some suggestions like Thieve’s Cant for Criminals seems appropriate (missing why you don’t) as a suggestion.



Mostly historical. For the bulk of D&D's history, thieves cant was emphatically exclusive to one class.

Now the only people with a secret language are druids, which seems implausible to me: Dandelion Starflower is better at keeping secrets than the Mob?

But you're right, if I was creating D&D for the first time today, I wouldn't be that precious with thieves cant.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yes.



Then from where should PCs get languages?


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Everyone did fine with backgrounds not giving languages by default for eight years.



Backgrounds did give languages though.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> 2024 characters will get languages from their species and maybe their class already.



Race doesn’t grant languages in the UA. Except Dragonborn, which I don’t think should, in much the same way that I don’t think dwarf should grant tool proficiencies. Language is cultural, not biological.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> But WotC isn't saying with the 2014 backgrounds that "if you're a gladiator, you obviously have a lot of contact with orcs," which goes directly against what they've been doing with orcs recently, including this UA.



They are saying no such thing. They are giving one example of a gladiator background which speaks orc. Your gladiator character might speak elvish instead. Backgrounds are entirely floating, they are just giving examples of possible combinations so people who just want to pick one and be done with it can do so.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Imagine a D&D Modern game where the Chef background automatically came with Spanish. You could make an argument for it, sure (a whole lot of Latin American folks in the kitchen of nearly every restaurant in the US), but you can also see why it's problematic by default, I imagine.



That would be a problem, if backgrounds were fixed. But they aren’t. They’re just examples.


----------



## Haplo781

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Mostly historical. For the bulk of D&D's history, thieves cant was emphatically exclusive to one class.
> 
> Now the only people with a secret language are druids, which seems implausible to me: Dandelion Starflower is better at keeping secrets than the Mob?
> 
> But you're right, if I was creating D&D for the first time today, I wouldn't be that precious with thieves cant.



Drop Druidic, replace with Sylvan. Make it a valid selection for bonus language.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Mostly historical. For the bulk of D&D's history, thieves cant was emphatically exclusive to one class.
> 
> Now the only people with a secret language are druids,



Druidic is explicitly one of the options you can pick for your background language. None of the example backgrounds happen to grant it (and I think a hermit or outlander type background that granted it would probably be a good idea) but it’s not true that Druidic is exclusive to Druids in this packet. Your Laborer could know Druidic if you want.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Drop Druidic, replace with Sylvan. Make it a valid selection for bonus language.



Druidic _is_ a valid selection for bonus language in the packet.


----------



## Malmuria

I totally agree, and there has been some discussion on twitter about this.  The sample backgrounds, as constructed, lean into existing dnd tropes and conventions.  I can see why they did this, as some people really like those conventions, but it undermines their attempts to open up if not do away with those same conventions.  So whereas previous editions might describe Orcs as "brutish warriors," here we get a gladiator archtype that knows Orcish (and for bonus ickiness, they get "savage" attack and galdiators are historically associated with slavery).

There is huge potential in backgrounds doing collaborative worldbuilding work, but not if they just rely on the same tropes.  They should emphasize that backgrounds are _specific_ and meant to correspond not just to general archtypes, but your character's origin in a particular setting.  So the basic rule would be to craft your own, and then a sidebar they walk you through the process with setting-specific examples.  You're not just an "urchin," you are urchin from waterdeep.  What is waterdeep like, specifically?  Why are there urchins in this city and how do urchins fit into that very specific setting?  Or, you are an entertainer in Theros.  What is the role of entertainment in that setting?  What musical instruments are specifically popular there?

The way out of sterotypes is through _specificity_ and _worldbuilding_.  Admittedly, this is hard to present in an economical fashion and to standardize into a set of easy to pick up examples.  But it's necessary if they want these aspects of the game to become less problematic.  Background creation should be part of a session 0 _procedure_ through which players contribute to defining aspects of the setting in these small ways.  In the OSR, this is referred to as "anti-canon" worldbuilding.  Or, take a page from dungeon world, and allow players to fill in some of the "blanks" on the conceptual map of the world.


----------



## edosan

SakanaSensei said:


> I'd love to see them make it very bold and clear that they expect people to make their own and then give only three examples. A number large enough to illustrate their process but small enough that no one can mistake the intention that they are only examples.



It just seems clunky, presenting the formula in an easy to miss prelude then tossing out a bunch of “examples” that 90% of readers are going to see at the only choices available. I’d rather streamline it by making all these decision points steps on the chargen process and the have them pick a background for thematic reasons. Telling people to pick a background of guard then saying “now, you don’t really have to take Dwarven if you don't want to” seems like unnecessary steps compared to “pick a language, then pick a background.”


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I think that these are just example backgrounds, that there will be very few example backgrounds in the coming PHB,
Or may be a table that generates random backgrounds.

Personally I would like a random life history generator of a more extensive nature to the one in Xanathar's with instruction to select ASI's languages and feats.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Druidic _is_ a valid selection for bonus language in the packet.



Then what's the problem?


----------



## Charlaquin

edosan said:


> It just seems clunky, presenting the formula in an easy to miss prelude then tossing out a bunch of “examples” that 90% of readers are going to see at the only choices available. I’d rather streamline it by making all these decision points steps on the chargen process and the have them pick a background for thematic reasons. Telling people to pick a background of guard then saying “now, you don’t really have to take Dwarven if you don't want to” seems like unnecessary steps compared to “pick a language, then pick a background.”



I’ve seen a lot of people making this argument, but I haven’t seen anyone actually saying they missed the rules for building your own background or that they see the examples as the only options available.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Then what's the problem?



I don’t think there is a problem.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> Then from where should PCs get languages?



Races, classes and downtime. If (sample) backgrounds give languages in 2024, it should be only a few backgrounds, not all of them.


Charlaquin said:


> Backgrounds did give languages though.



5/13 did. The UA version is a dramatic boost to that.


Charlaquin said:


> They are saying no such thing. They are giving one example of a gladiator background which speaks orc. Your gladiator character might speak elvish instead. Backgrounds are entirely floating, they are just giving examples of possible combinations so people who just want to pick one and be done with it can do so.



Then they should just "say pick a language," which is what the 2014 backgrounds did.

The cultural and worldbuilding implications of the languages they're using aren't great.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Haplo781 said:


> Drop Druidic, replace with Sylvan. Make it a valid selection for bonus language.



I'd go further: Replace Druidic with Sylvan generally. Why do druids have a secret language at all?


----------



## Smackpixi

Also, even random languages that you, as DM, don’t think will matter, can surprisingly pop up as useful.  Current campaign, one of my PCs had a sidekick that had taken a vow of silence due to a past crime, would not speak to anyone and only communicated by hand signals to his main Character.  But was an Outlander background so had a bonus language.  Since guy wouldn’t actually speak I didn’t think the bonus language was important, but I tossed out ideas mentioning “well, there will be dragons…”. “Oh, I wanna speak Dragon!”  Ok Draconic it is…thinking useless as Dragons speak Common and never was there going to be a time spying on Dragons speaking to each other.  But some Lizaardfolk too in the adventure, so maybe, whatever.

Flash forward 7 months and I’ve long forgotten about this and they’re on a side track where I’m frantically making up stuff off the top of my head with no plan as we go what they’re seeing in this bazaar and I drop there’s a mean guy with animals in tiny cages for sale, and one cage is empty, and they’re like what’s that?  And mean guy says, “Faerie Dragon“.  And they’re like I don’t see anything, he’s like, “trust me he’s in there, poke it”….

Anyway, long story short, RAW, Faerie Dragons don’t speak Common.  But they do speak Draconic.  So, this sidekick, who hasn’t spoken in the 7 months we’ve been playing suddenly starts speaking to FD and yadda yadda yadda…dead evil merchant and now sidekick has a sidekick and the PCs sidekick has a major personality transformation after meeting what’s become his “service” Faerie Dragon.


----------



## Amrûnril

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think giving a tool proficiency by default, with an option to swap to a language of the player's choosing, makes more sense.
> 
> Adding languages to backgrounds feels like a solution in search of a problem.




The customization rules in the current PHB allow a total of two language and tool proficiencies (so 2 tools, 2 languages or one of each). I'm not sure why the playtest drops this flexibility, and I'd probably keep it in my own games.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

UngainlyTitan said:


> I think that these are just example backgrounds, that there will be very few example backgrounds in the coming PHB,



I would like to think that, but if that was the case, devoting four pages to examples in the UA seems a little excessive. I would assume we're going to see almost this exact list in the 2024 PHB.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Races, classes and downtime.



Races do not grant languages in the packet (except dragonborn because reasons), and shouldn’t do so because languages are learned, not inborn. Downtime being the only way to gain languages seems limiting.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If (sample) backgrounds give languages in 2024, it should be only a few backgrounds, not all of them.
> 
> 5/13 did. The UA version is a dramatic boost to that.



Backgrounds need to come with standardized benefits for custom to be the default. I would be alright with the standard benefit being your choice of two total between tools and languages, as it is in the 2014 rules, rather than always one language and one tool.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Then they should just "say pick a language," which is what the 2014 backgrounds did.



They do. The sample backgrounds are examples of fully-built backgrounds with all the  choices made for you, so if you don’t want to make the choice yourself, you don’t have to.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The cultural and worldbuilding implications of the languages they're using aren't great.



They have no cultural and worldbuilding implications because they’re just examples of where you can put the 7 floating benefits a background gives you.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> In One D&D, some dated ideas are being dropped, including racial essentialism and the pernicious real world idea that even a drop of "impure" blood fundamentally changes a person. Eric's Grandma wouldn't want us to go down that rabbit hole, but if you're unfamiliar with this, look up "octoroon" on Wikipedia and be, I hope, a little shocked at an attitude that was still around at least as recently as 1974.
> 
> So while half-orcs and half-elves aren't their own special categories any more, One D&D walks back in the door with a related idea that I don't think anyone was asking for:
> 
> Certain cultures, by default, are associated with certain jobs in D&D. I don't think you'd see a modern ruleset try to codify a similar argument.
> 
> If you haven't read the One D&D Character Origins UA yet (and it seems that plenty of YouTubers haven't, for instance, although that doesn't stop them from making 45 minute videos expressing their opinions about it), every one of the new backgrounds includes a bonus language.
> 
> The new PHB is going to say these are just examples and players should be making custom backgrounds. But let's be honest, that's an option already, and most players just go with the example ones. So what WotC puts in the examples matters, both as a model and because probably most players will use them and never make a custom background of their own.
> 
> Some of the languages seem like reasonable expectations for most worlds. Entertainers all know Elvish, which suggests that the elves have created great works of music and drama that other peoples will either perform verbatim or learn so they can adapt them to their native cultures. Urchins know Common sign language (a new default language added to the list, which is a nice change that I approve of, especially as it carries with it the real world reality that not every deaf person uses the same sign language), which I guess they're using to communicate on the street -- which is takes sign language to a little bit of a weird place, but OK. Acolytes know Celestial, which feels a bit limited (do the Lawful Neutral gods really write their holy books in the language of the upper planes?), but I can see what they're going for.
> 
> But Criminals all know Thieves Cant, which feels like a pretty significant element, historically, being handed out a little too freely. (I know people will tell me that Thieves Cant never comes up in their game, but I use it all the time, including just recently when a group playing through Empire of the Ghouls made a wrong turn in the sewers and stumbled into thieves guild territory, shrugging and ignoring the cant signs painted on the walls. I use this PDF from the DMs Guild, and it's served me well in the often rogue-heavy games I run.) And notably, they're not giving out the other class language, Druidic, as part of a background.
> 
> Why does every guide speak Giant? Every pilgrim speaks Halfling? Every sailor can speak Primordial? These feel like big setting decisions and some of them turn ordinary zero level characters (remember, the background is what happens to them before they start adventuring) into something mythic. A sailor being able to speak to magical sea creatures in their own language belongs on Odysseus' ship, not on some random fishing trawler.
> 
> And then it starts to get a bit icky. Every charlatan knows Infernal, which suggests unpleasant things about my gnome illusionist. Every gladiator speaks Orcish, which -- despite them walking back previously problematic descriptions of orcs in the Character Races section, makes a strong contrary statement here.
> 
> What's more, this feels unnecessary. If groups aren't using languages "enough" for WotC, that's those groups' call. (I make language pretty important in my games, but we're now reaching the level in my main campaign where magic will make it never an issue again.) Under the current rules, anyone can learn additional languages during downtime, so they don't need them handed out willy-nilly at character creation.
> 
> This is just a beta test, but this is a decision that should be rolled back. If you agree, please consider including this in your feedback in September.




 It's not icky, it's just that it's mostly just place holders, with only a few having any thought put into it at all.


----------



## Sir Brennen

Though I agree with the sentiment that the examples are just that, and things can be easily replaced, the examples as they are presented are problematic in some cases. This article goes into more detail on that (and some other issues with the UA races):









						OneD&D and Designing Better Fantasy Calipers
					

The first playtest document from WOTC’s Marvel-like unveiling of new, “edition-less” D&D – currently titled OneD&D – is out, and is it ever bad. First, just a …




					labyrinthlesbian.wordpress.com


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Charlaquin said:


> Races do not grant languages in the packet (except dragonborn because reasons), and shouldn’t do so because languages are learned, not inborn. Downtime being the only way to gain languages seems limiting.
> 
> Backgrounds need to come with standardized benefits for custom to be the default. I would be alright with the standard benefit being your choice of two total between tools and languages, as it is in the 2014 rules, rather than always one language and one tool.
> 
> They do. The sample backgrounds are examples of fully-built backgrounds with all the  choices made for you, so if you don’t want to make the choice yourself, you don’t have to.
> 
> They have no cultural and worldbuilding implications because they’re just examples of where you can put the 7 floating benefits a background gives you.




 Dragonborn are an exception because knowledge of Draconic IS INNATE to the Dragonborn, a divine blessing like trades are to Dwarves. Toss a bady Dragonborn into the woods to be raised by wolves, and it will still know Draconic magically. Think of it as a limited to Draconic, permanent comprehend languages cast on all Dragonborn that can't be disspelled.

 But here is the thing, Innate knowledge of Draconic means you have to know what all the words actually mean. Like to know what the Draconic word for Mindflayer is, you have to know what Mindflayers are. Perfect Knowledge of a whole complex language comes with vaszts amoung of connected knowledge.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> Races do not grant languages in the packet (except dragonborn because reasons), and shouldn’t do so because languages are learned, not inborn. Downtime being the only way to gain languages seems limiting.



I mean, I _did_ say "classes," too. If Draconic is the language of magic, give it to wizards for free. Let druids pick between Primordial and Sylvan. Let rangers pick up Sylvan for free. Let clerics pick between Primordial, Infernal, Abyssal, Celestial and Cthonic. (Also, Cthonic needs to be a language.)


Charlaquin said:


> They have no cultural and worldbuilding implications because they’re just examples of where you can put the 7 floating benefits a background gives you.



Examples in the PHB carry a great deal of worldbuilding implications, especially in an era where more newbies are picking up the rulebooks than ever before. If the example gladiator background says that all gladiators know Orcish, then that's a message about how WotC sees orcs, no matter what they also say in their "Orcs of Many Worlds" paragraph. (Maybe it just says that everyone at WotC plays a lot of World of Warcraft, but there are people who'd say that's a problem, too.)

And maybe tools and languages should also be able to be swapped out for something else. I don't think Maximus in "Gladiator" learned a new tool or a new language as a gladiator. Should players be able to cash in more background options for another level 1 feat?


----------



## Charlaquin

Henadic Theologian said:


> Dragonborn are an exception because knowledge of Draconic IS INNATE to the Dragonborn, a divine blessing like trades are to Dwarves. Toss a bady Dragonborn into the woods to be raised by wolves, and it will still know Draconic magically. Think of it as a limited to Draconic, permanent comprehend languages cast on all Dragonborn that can't be disspelled.



I understand that’s how they’re saying it works. I just think that’s a poor decision. “This cultural trait is innate because the gods made it so” doesn’t work when it’s Gruumsh creating all orcs to be aggressive, why would it be any different when it’s Bahamut creating all dragonborn to know draconic?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's not icky, it's just that it's mostly just place holders, with only a few having any thought put into it at all.



Not putting any thought into something that's going to be seen by hundreds of thousands of people, or more, is inherently problematic.


----------



## Malmuria

Charlaquin said:


> because languages are learned, not inborn



But is the Gnomish in the north of the sword coast the same as the gnomish in the south?  Is the gnomish on faerun the same as the gnomish in exandria?  Why?  

Even if there was some mythological origins to each language, it would take just a few hundred years for them to drift into dialects and then new languages.

It's a small point, and maybe worth handwaving, but if done correctly could really make groups thing seriously about what's specific about their setting and play into that.


----------



## Haplo781

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I mean, I _did_ say "classes," too. If Draconic is the language of magic, give it to wizards for free. Let druids pick between Primordial and Sylvan. Let rangers pick up Sylvan for free. Let clerics pick between Primordial, Infernal, Abyssal, Celestial and Cthonic. (Also, Cthonic needs to be a language.)
> 
> Examples in the PHB carry a great deal of worldbuilding implications, especially in an era where more newbies are picking up the rulebooks than ever before. If the example gladiator background says that all gladiators know Orcish, then that's a message about how WotC sees orcs, no matter what they also say in their "Orcs of Many Worlds" paragraph. (Maybe it just says that everyone at WotC plays a lot of World of Warcraft, but there are people who'd say that's a problem, too.)
> 
> And maybe tools and languages should also be able to be swapped out for something else. I don't think Maximus in "Gladiator" learned a new tool or a new language as a Gladiator. Should players be able to cash in more background options for another level 1 feat?



Celestial has too much of an implied connection to Mount Celestia to be _the_ language of the upper planes. It should probably be changed as well.

"Supernal" would be nice.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> I understand that’s how they’re saying it works. I just think that’s a poor decision. “This cultural trait is innate because the gods made it so” doesn’t work when it’s Gruumsh creating all orcs to be aggressive, why would it be any different when it’s Bahamut creating all dragonborn to know draconic?



It is pretty clearly a cheat both with dwarves and especially the giff.

"Uh, our _god_ wants us to be good at blowing stuff up, not our culture."

"Who's your god?"

"We don't know and have no contact with them."


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Not putting any thought into something that's going to be seen by hundreds of thousands of people, or more, is inherently problematic.




 Nope, it's just place holders, don't like the chosen laugage, simply choose another,don't over think it.


----------



## cbwjm

One thing I'm glad about is that Thieves can't seems divorced from rogues (they might still get it, which will mean that scouts that rogues who have nothing to do with criminal organisations will still be a little weird), I always felt that it should be something granted by the criminal background at least.

As others have said, it is something you can choose. If your gnome illusionist plied his trade in a dwarven capital then presumable he'd choose dwarven instead of Infernal.

Languages don't really come up much in my game, sometimes there might be instances where people are listening in to the baddies but not know goblin or giant so or whatever so they can't won't be able to understand stuff.

I do feel like replacing common with local languages in a general sense, just because there are some areas in the world where you get to them and the common language is completely different to what you otherwise know.


----------



## Haplo781

Henadic Theologian said:


> Nope, it's just place holders, don't like the chosen laugage, simply choose another,don't over think it.



This is for a player base that apparently can't figure out whether rolling a 20 on a spell attack is an critical hit...


----------



## Galandris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Certain cultures, by default, are associated with certain jobs in D&D. I don't think you'd see a modern ruleset try to codify a similar argument.




This is quite similar to the real world. Executioner isn't a job in many places of the world. I'd guess Butcher isn't a job in vegan cultures and if some of the D&D races are physiologically carnivore, one would expect grocers to be bankrupt quickly. The background in the playtest are explicitely marked as samples. If anything, they should provide _less_, not _more_, to emphasize that they are mere illustrations and not an attempt to cover any possible backstory (them deriving from backstory is pretty explicitely said p.11 in the Build your Background (not "Choose your Background", I feel it's important) section.

There is no expectation whatsoever that certain cultures are associeted with jobs in the playtest.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If you haven't read the One D&D Character Origins UA yet (and it seems that plenty of YouTubers haven't, for instance, although that doesn't stop them from making 45 minute videos expressing their opinions about it), every one of the new backgrounds includes a bonus language.




Indeed. It's on page 11: a background is a collection of +2/+1 or 3 +1s ASIs, two skill proficiencies, a tool proficiency, and one language (that can include Druidic, as per the table referenced at the end of the document, a feat and 50 gp. It makes every hero quite literate, espeically if they'll also gain a racial language and maybe some from class. On the other hand, the goal was to make every background buildable among the 97 920 possibilities with equal power.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The new PHB is going to say these are just examples and players should be making custom backgrounds. But let's be honest, that's an option already, and most players just go with the example ones. So what WotC puts in the examples matters, both as a model and because probably most players will use them and never make a custom background of their own.




Too bad. Maybe WotC should provide less background, or name them Bob's Fighter background to emphasize they are pecular to a player background and derived from their background (ie, the backstory of the player). At least it would force... hum "help" players who can't bother to write 5 lines when asked by including a rule "if you can't include those elements in your backstory, you can't claim the benefit").



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Some of the languages seem like reasonable expectations for most worlds. Entertainers all know Elvish, which suggests that the elves have created great works of music and drama that other peoples will either perform verbatim or learn so they can adapt them to their native cultures. Urchins know Common sign language (a new default language added to the list, which is a nice change that I approve of, especially as it carries with it the real world reality that not every deaf person uses the same sign language),




I'd have liked this idea expanded to the extranous idea that every country in a world often earth-sized and with thousands of years of isolations could no longer speak the same language. But nodding to the existence of non-English speaking societies is probably too much to ask for, unless you're racially different for some reason, then you can have a different language. Sometimes WotC amaze me with their design decisions.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> which I guess they're using to communicate on the street -- which is takes sign language to a little bit of a weird place, but OK. Acolytes know Celestial, which feels a bit limited (do the Lawful Neutral gods really write their holy books in the language of the upper planes?), but I can see what they're going for.




That's where I'd like them to specify the sample background "Acolyte of Tyr" would have Celestial, while "Acolyte of Aurile" would get Infernal, for example. Having them side by side would emphasize the need to customize.




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And notably, they're not giving out the other class language, Druidic, as part of a background.




They don't provide any druidic background either. Like Acolyte of Nature would be.



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Why does every guide speak Giant? Every pilgrim speaks Halfling? Every sailor can speak Primordial? These feel like big setting decisions and some of them turn ordinary zero level characters (remember, the background is what happens to them before they start adventuring) into something mythic. A sailor being able to speak to magical sea creatures in their own language belongs on Odysseus' ship, not on some random fishing trawler.




The characters are already heroes, even at 0th level. Their racial features are explicitely linked to being PCs, NPCs can have other racial traits, or none (p. 2 of the playtest document). They might make that clearer by calling Guide "Guide as envisionned by John when creating his character" or being more specific in description like "Guide at the Holy Gigantess Museum of Eltabar".



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And then it starts to get a bit icky. Every charlatan knows Infernal, which suggests unpleasant things about my gnome illusionist. Every gladiator speaks Orcish, which -- despite them walking back previously problematic descriptions of orcs in the Character Races section, makes a strong contrary statement here.




Orcs are said to be gifted with capabilities that would make them excellent entertainment fighters: might, endurance, determination. Since they don't have a drop of evil in them (and their god Gruumsh sounds nicer than Corellon who's said to be very questionable in his race-wide punishment of the rebels) it's believable they'd turn to the show business industry and enter the WBA. And if many orcs work in a branch, every gladiator will pick up a few words by chatting with them in the locker room. In a world where slavery isn't a thing, most negative association to gladiator disappeared logically.




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> What's more, this feels unnecessary. If groups aren't using languages "enough" for WotC, that's those groups' call.




Yes, but I feel they strived for equality here, not to make a background having "more" than any other. And a language isn't something that is worth foregoing a feat, a prociency or an ASI.




Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The will be treated as default and standard, even if WotC writes "EXAMPLE -- PLEASE MAKE YOUR OWN INSTEAD" in big bold letters before each entry.
> 
> But let's step back one level: If you were to design backgrounds for the 2024 PHB, would you include a free language by default for each and every one of them?




No, but I would operate on a very different outlook than WotC for a 2024 PHB, for example I don't have problem with a race or class being objectively better than another. I would have no problem having someone with a backstory of being a member of the royal family have more than 50 gp of starting equipment, while another player has 3 sp because he's a labourer-turned-hero when his village was burned to cinders.




Lanefan said:


> I'd rather see non-mother-tongue languages somewhat divorced from capital-B Background and instead based on either small-b background (i.e. what makes sense for the region in the setting where the PC either a) grew up or b) is meeting the party) or on random roll (i.e. what did you happen to learn during your previous studies, travels, etc.).




Races are "everything innate". Classes are "everything learnt as part of the main job" and Background are "everything learnt culturally". I can't see languages fitting elsewhere than background, unless one would want to make them a separate category.




Lanefan said:


> Even less likely, but I'd also like to see something where a character's Intelligence score has input to how many languages said character can or does know,




If you're taught two or three languages from the youngest age, you don't need to be supremely intelligent to pick them up. A child can be fluent in 3 languages at the seventh grade, I wouldn't link that to intelligence.


darjr said:


> There was a comment somewhere that language like “Orcish” are really what the problem is. Which I think is a valid point. I’m not sure what I think about that entirety, yet.




Common (which is in fact "Human" since they don't have a racial language) is also problematic. Racial languages should be removed and replaced by regional languages, unless there is a strong in-setting reason to explain them (ie, every member of this race dreams in the language of his gods, which teach him new words here and there).



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yes. Everyone did fine with backgrounds not giving languages by default for eight years.




It's a move toward equality. Why wouldn't everyone start with three languages?



> Imagine a D&D Modern game where the Chef background automatically came with Spanish. You could make an argument for it, sure (a whole lot of Latin American folks in the kitchen of nearly every restaurant in the US), but you can also see why it's problematic by default, I imagine.




I'd have said that the language most commonly associated with chef is French. Does this association feel better to you? If not, why? If it is true that working the cooking industry involves dealing with Spanish-speaking people a lot (I'll trust you on that), then what's the problem with picking it up as part of the trade?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Malmuria said:


> But is the Gnomish in the north of the sword coast the same as the gnomish in the south?  Is the gnomish on faerun the same as the gnomish in exandria?  Why?
> 
> Even if there was some mythological origins to each language, it would take just a few hundred years for them to drift into dialects and then new languages.
> 
> It's a small point, and maybe worth handwaving, but if done correctly could really make groups thing seriously about what's specific about their setting and play into that.



Single cultural languages aren't great, although they could make an argument for it by saying A) most of the cultural languages are among long-lived people (not much linguistic drift if you can live up to 1,000 years as an elf) and B) they're magical reflections of the First World languages. 

But if that's the case, they should say so.

I would rather have campaign-based languages. Everyone with hairy feet speaking Halfling feels only slightly removed from alignment languages.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I mean, I _did_ say "classes," too. If Draconic is the language of magic, give it to wizards for free. Let druids pick between Primordial and Sylvan. Let rangers pick up Sylvan for free. Let clerics pick between Primordial, Infernal, Abyssal, Celestial and Cthonic. (Also, Cthonic needs to be a language.)



That’s a lot of choices. The whole point of this change is to give players the option to make fewer choices if they want to.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Examples in the PHB carry a great deal of worldbuilding implications, especially in an era where more newbies are picking up the rulebooks than ever before. If the example gladiator background says that all gladiators know Orcish, then that's a message about how WotC sees orcs, no matter what they also say in their "Orcs of Many Worlds" paragraph.



But it _doesn’t_ say all gladiators know Orcish. It provides _a gladiator who knows orcish_ as _one example_ of a background your character might have. You could instead be a gladiator who knows Elvish. Or a laborer who knows Orcish. Or a laborer who knows Druidic. All PC backgrounds are unique, the examples are just examples, and you can take an example as-is, if you don’t want to make all the decisions involved in creating your own, or modify an example if you want most of it but want a different language or different tool or whatever.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> And maybe tools and languages should also be able to be swapped out for something else. I don't think Maximus in "Gladiator" learned a new tool or a new language as a Gladiator. Should players be able to cash in more background options for another level 1 feat?



Again, the benefits need to be standardized for the custom default to work.


----------



## Charlaquin

Malmuria said:


> But is the Gnomish in the north of the sword coast the same as the gnomish in the south?  Is the gnomish on faerun the same as the gnomish in exandria?  Why?
> 
> Even if there was some mythological origins to each language, it would take just a few hundred years for them to drift into dialects and then new languages.
> 
> It's a small point, and maybe worth handwaving, but if done correctly could really make groups thing seriously about what's specific about their setting and play into that.



Yeah I mean naming languages after races is its own problem. Frankly, I’m not convinced that having languages as a mechanic is worth the trouble.


----------



## Cadence

darjr said:


> There was a comment somewhere that language like “Orcish” are really what the problem is. Which I think is a valid point. I’m not sure what I think about that entirety, yet.




Would have been a chance here for them to put unexpected languages in backgrounds with who it was learned from.  Scholar - Orcish (learned from working with the head librarian).  Soldier - Elvish (learned from drill sergeant swearing) .


----------



## Thommy H-H

I mean, it _is_ worth reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds in the context of the "[X]s of Many Worlds" sections, since Backgrounds are obviously meant to be, to some extent, setting specific. Not all gnomes have to be artificers, and not all orcs have to be gladiators, but in some of the worlds of D&D, those are things they're associated with. All along with these attempts to divorce 'race' from certain archetypes, they've had to thread the needle and say that, in the past, these traits have been used to encourage the kinds of characters that appeared in the game's fiction: nimble elves, burly orcs, chonky dwarves. Those archetypes _still exist_, you just don't have to play one. The choice is the point, and Backgrounds _are_ entirely custom now, with these just serving as examples of what's possible.

Admittedly, it's perhaps a bit unfortunate that they chose to lean into the very things they were trying to discourage with certain examples, but I believe the idea was to demonstrate how a Background can inform a language choice and be used to imply certain worldbuilding elements. Halflings are great farmers in _some_ D&D worlds so naturally they write the almanacs in those worlds. Hobgoblins are great generals in _some_ D&D worlds, and soldiers from the same worlds might conceivably learn strategy from their works. They just need to be clearer about how including these elements is completely optional.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> That is the default. A “background” is just a set of those floating options you can take as a package, if you want to make one choice instead of several.





Charlaquin said:


> That’s a lot of choices. The whole point of this change is to give players the option to make fewer choices if they want to.




Tangent:

I get the idea of wanting to cut down choices for new players or players who want streamlining.  But this still feels like a lot smaller choice than assigning the ability scores.  (Saying where the high one goes, giving a choice for where the second goes, and nothing on the next three... )  I wonder if for the classes they'll give a suggested full assignment for what folks might want it.  And I wonder what the complaints would be if they did.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Galandris said:


> That's where I'd like them to specify the sample background "Acolyte of Tyr" would have Celestial, while "Acolyte of Aurile" would get Infernal, for example. Having them side by side would emphasize the need to customize.



In my game, I associate all religions with a liturgical language, which I think I picked up somewhere in 3E.

At the very least, I'd like to see 5E Planescape put out a few more planar languages than we have now. The lawful planes seem extremely likely to have a single language -- that's the kind of thing they'd all dig -- which we could call Axiomatic, to bring back a 3Eism.

The Cthonic fiends who play both sides of the Blood War against one another seem like an ideal group to have their own language that they look down upon others knowing or using. (Telepathy can't be used for everything.)

If the Feywild uses Sylvan as its Common tongue (which I would have liked them to have at least nodded at in Wild Beyond the Witchlight, which I missed, if they did), the Shadowfell, which also has developed societies and even trade, seems like it ought to, independent of the Domains of Dread. Call it Umbral.


Galandris said:


> Yes, but I feel they strived for equality here, not to make a background having "more" than any other. And a language isn't something that is worth foregoing a feat, a prociency or an ASI.



It's officially as good as a tool proficiency. I'd like them to boost the value of tool proficiencies rather than just give up on them and broadly declare everyone in Generic D&Dland to be multilingual. (And yes, lots of people in real life are multilingual. But it's only specific cultures where that's the default.)


Galandris said:


> Races are "everything innate". Classes are "everything learnt as part of the main job" and Background are "everything learnt culturally". I can't see languages fitting elsewhere than background, unless one would want to make them a separate category.



If wizardly magic is built on Draconic, which has been the idea, to a greater or lesser extent for three editions, it seems hard for me to imagine wizards not getting it by default, as part of being a wizard. It's apparently the machine code of the multiverse.


Galandris said:


> Common (which is in fact "Human" since they don't have a racial language) is also problematic. Racial languages should be removed and replaced by regional languages, unless there is a strong in-setting reason to explain them (ie, every member of this race dreams in the language of his gods, which teach him new words here and there).



100% yes.

I would be A-OK with the removal of all racial languages.


----------



## Malmuria

Thommy H-H said:


> Halflings are great farmers in _some_ D&D worlds so naturally they write the almanacs in those worlds. Hobgoblins are great generals in _some_ D&D worlds, and soldiers from the same worlds might conceivably learn strategy from their works.




But worlds are big places, right?  And presumably the halfling farmers need soldiers sometimes, and the hobgoblin generals need to eat.  Unless there is some kind of planar backstory to halflings have a knack for agriculture, halfling societies ought to not be monocultural


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Thommy H-H said:


> Halflings are great farmers in _some_ D&D worlds so naturally they write the almanacs in those worlds.



I believe they're also nodding at 3E and 4E halflings with Pilgrims speaking Halfling, which I am guessing means they're hanging out with traveling bands of them while on the road.


----------



## Galandris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Single cultural languages aren't great, although they could make an argument for it by saying A) most of the cultural languages are among long-lived people (not much linguistic drift if you can live up to 1,000 years as an elf) and B) they're magical reflections of the First World languages.




I could accept language-as-magic. Evolving less because people are longer lived, I am not sure, though. We certainly don't speak like we did 40 years ago. Sure, we don't speak the exact same language as teenagers, but we no longer speak as we did back when we were teenagers. I am not sure the increase in lifespan over the course of the 19th and 20th century led to more language staticality.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Sir Brennen said:


> Though I agree with the sentiment that the examples are just that, and things can be easily replaced, the examples as they are presented are problematic in some cases. This article goes into more detail on that (and some other issues with the UA races):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OneD&D and Designing Better Fantasy Calipers
> 
> 
> The first playtest document from WOTC’s Marvel-like unveiling of new, “edition-less” D&D – currently titled OneD&D – is out, and is it ever bad. First, just a …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> labyrinthlesbian.wordpress.com



Then leave feed back on the topic. 

In my opinion, they need to emphasise that backgrounds are personal to the character. Races should have a selection of optional characteristics and pick a selection. Mixed race pick from one, other or both.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> But it _doesn’t_ say all gladiators know Orcish. It provides _a gladiator who knows orcish_ as _one example_ of a background your character might have. You could instead be a gladiator who knows Elvish. Or a laborer who knows Orcish. Or a laborer who knows Druidic. All PC backgrounds are unique, the examples are just examples, and you can take an example as-is, if you don’t want to make all the decisions involved in creating your own, or modify an example if you want most of it but want a different language or different tool or whatever.



If there is a sizeable number of folks who need/want the pre-built ones so they don't have to spend mental overhead on the choices, then there will be a sizeable number of gladiators that get Orcish because that's what the book gives.  And a sizeable number of players who will associate Orcish with violent things like being a gladiator.

If there isn't a sizeable number of folks who need/want pre-built examples, then we don't need to give them at all.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> Again, the benefits need to be standardized for the custom default to work.



That doesn't mean it has to be _this_ standard.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Tangent:
> 
> I get the idea of wanting to cut down choices for new players or players who want streamlining.  But this still feels like a lot smaller choice than assigning the ability scores.  (Saying where the high one goes, giving a choice for where the second goes, and nothing on the next three... )  I wonder if for the classes they'll give a suggested full assignment for what folks might want it.  And I wonder what the complaints would be if they did.



I don’t disagree. I also know players who would absolutely be in favor of classes suggesting how to prioritize all six scores. In fact, I’ll do one better: use the standard array. So, the “quick build” section for cleric might say “your Strength is 12, your Dexterity is 8, your Constitution is 13, your Intelligence is 10, your Wisdom is 15, and your Charisma is 14” or something like that.


----------



## Galandris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It's officially as good as a tool proficiency.




I'd like to say -- but it would only be true in an ideal world -- that language is very campaign-dependant. If all your campaign will happen in a single place, where there is an official, dominant language, one will never need other language except for intra-party chatter. If you're plane-hopping, it can be paramount. While tools are theoretically more broadly useful, but in the "real D&D" it seems that many GM forget tools, so I guess you're right.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Malmuria said:


> But worlds are big places, right?  And presumably the halfling farmers need soldiers sometimes, and the hobgoblin generals need to eat.  Unless there is some kind of planar backstory to halflings have a knack for agriculture, halfling societies ought to not be monocultural



I mean, no one said they were? It's like...French cuisine has been historically regarded as superior. Any elite chef trained before the 21st Century might have picked up a little French just from working in the finest restaurants. That doesn't mean that all French people are amazing cooks and can't do anything else. It just means that, rightly or wrongly, the best cooks were believed by others to found amongst French speakers.

Not all halflings are farmers, but farming is one of the things that - in _some_ D&D worlds - some of their cultures have a reputation for doing well. You might also learn Halfling if you're a ranger with a pet dinosaur wandering the edges of the Talenta Plains in Eberron because, in that world, the halflings of that region are nomadic, dinosaur-riding warriors.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> If there is a sizeable number of folks who need/want the pre-built ones so they don't have to spend mental overhead on the choices, then there will be a sizeable number of gladiators that get Orcish because that's what the book gives.



That’s true.


Cadence said:


> And a sizeable number of players who will associate Orcish with violent things like being a gladiator.



That seems like a huge stretch to me. Just because many players have characters who are gladiators that know orcish doesn’t mean those players will assume all orcs are violent. And, even if that was the case, what’s the alternative? Some feature has to grant languages. Whatever feature that might be, some of the examples of it will have to grant orcish.


Cadence said:


> If there isn't a sizeable number of folks who need/want pre-built examples, then we don't need to give them at all.



I do definitely think there is a sizable number of folks who want pre-built examples.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

cbwjm said:


> One thing I'm glad about is that Thieves can't seems divorced from rogues (they might still get it, which will mean that scouts that rogues who have nothing to do with criminal organisations will still be a little weird), I always felt that it should be something granted by the criminal background at least.



OK, that argument makes a lot of sense for me. Totally divorce Thieves Cant from the rogue class and this works for me.

I DM a swashbuckler and an arcane trickster in the games I run in person (and many, many more in the online games) and neither of them have any contact with a guild. The swashbuckler has used his knowledge of written cant (again, see the above PDF, which is swell) before, but it doesn't make a ton of sense that he knows it, except it was a freebie given to him.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> That seems like a huge stretch to me. Just because many players have characters who are gladiators that know orcish doesn’t mean those players will assume all orcs are violent. And, even if the case, what’s the alternative? Some feature has to grant languages. Whatever feature that might be, some of the examples will have to grant orcish.



I'd pick ones that go against type, and provide a parenthetical about why that was the language picked up.  (Scholar - Orcish - learned from fellow students;  Soldier - Gnomish - learned from assigned tentmate in training; etc...)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not convinced that having languages as a mechanic is worth the trouble.



That is wild to me. I know languages get effectively taken out of the game once characters have enough spell slots to cast Tongues without worrying they'll be left defensive, but languages come up in my games all the time. You are playing very different games than I am.


----------



## Malmuria

Thommy H-H said:


> I mean, no one said they were? It's like...French cuisine has been historically regarded as superior. Any elite chef trained before the 21st Century might have picked up a little French just from working in the finest restaurants. That doesn't mean that all French people are amazing cooks and can't do anything else. It just means that, rightly or wrongly, the best cooks were believed by others to found amongst French speakers.
> 
> Not all halflings are farmers, but farming is one of the things that - in _some_ D&D worlds - some of their cultures have a reputation for doing well. You might also learn Halfling if you're a ranger with a pet dinosaur wandering the edges of the Talenta Plains in Eberron because, in that world, the halflings of that region are nomadic, dinosaur-riding warriors.



The analogy doesn't quite hold up because french is a particular culture that originated in a particular place.  Two halflings, meanwhile, might be born on opposite sides of a continent or planet; in that sense it doesn't make sense that both would be equally good at farming.  My overall point is that culture needs to be more specific than race in dnd settings.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Galandris said:


> in the "real D&D" it seems that many GM forget tools, so I guess you're right.



I have to work constantly to remember them. Luckily, I have players who love to have their characters gamble, so that's at least one tool proficiency I use.

(On a related note: I also don't give out Inspiration as often as I ought to, and am delighted that they're making Inspiration flow more freely in the 2024 PHB, since it's a great mechanic that I feel badly about not using more.)


----------



## beancounter

Charlaquin said:


> It is




Not by default, according to the OP.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Cadence said:


> I'd pick one's that go against type, and provide a parenthetical about why that was the language picked up.  (Scholar - Orcish - learned from fellow students;  Soldier - Gnomish - learned from assigned tentmate in training; etc...)



Yes, I'd have preferred if they'd chosen examples like these tbh. But when I was reading it for the first time, I thought that actually some of them were initially counter-intuitive, then I went "oh yes, of course!" when I read the descriptions, because I saw how they fit in with some of the settings. Conversely, some of them did go with very specific rationales - Giant for scout, for example, learned from some friendly druids - and I think the implication that gladiators would know Orcish is something they ought to have avoided. There isn't even anything really in the description they used that specifically points to Orcish; they mention other races as fellow performers as well.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

beancounter said:


> Not by default, according to the OP.



She's referring to the PDF saying how to make a custom language, I'm referring to the examples. We are talking about two related but not identical things.


----------



## Charlaquin

I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khuzdul instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Malmuria said:


> The analogy doesn't quite hold up because french is a particular culture that originated in a particular place.  Two halflings, meanwhile, might be born on opposite sides of a continent or planet; in that sense it doesn't make sense that both would be equally good at farming.  My overall point is that culture needs to be more specific than race in dnd settings.



Again, I don't think that's implied? To continue the analogy, there are other countries where French is an official or widely-spoken language, and no one would assume people from there were good at cooking (or conform to any of the other stereotypes associated with French people). Saying "the best farming almanacs are written in Halfling, because in this world, there is at least one halfling culture that is known for excellent agriculture" isn't the same as saying "all halflings everywhere are good farmers".


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khazad instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.



I think the solution is to learn languages from multiple sources, as it is in the 2014 edition.

The acolyte shouldn't learn Celestial, they should learn "the liturgical language of their faith (consult your DM)" but the cleric should also get the same note, along with the obligatory note that if they already know that language, they can pick another. (I have a paladin in my campaign who was also a village priest, and the division of cleric and acolyte is one that's always pleased me, even if they often overlap.)

And they should definitely not be called the same thing as their species. (Again, can you imagine doing that with a D&D setting book about contemporary Earth?) For orcs in the Forgotten Realms, I might go with "Many-Voices," with the language being officially standardized during the time of Many-Arrows, and given a name to match.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Charlaquin said:


> I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khazad instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.



This would be good too.

I mean, look, everyone's version of D&D is different. In my setting, I treat the 'racial' languages as the names outsiders give to the language families spoken by certain cultures. It's "Orcish" because orcs speak it (or variations of it). But not every orc or group of orcs can necessarily speak it, and two orc cultures that have never had any contact with one another wouldn't speak the same language (though speakers of other languages living near them might call the respective languages their equivalent of 'Orcish', making them identical in game terms until it matters). So "Dwarvish" is "the language spoken by the dwarves that the characters have met", not literally some language every dwarf is born knowing how to speak somehow.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khazad instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.




Would it work even better to have some associated with geographies?  So Sindarin is almost a "forest humanoid common for elves and forest gnomes, and tabaxi", Khazad is almost a "hill/mountain humanoid common" for dwarves, tinker gnome, and whatnot, aquan for "underwater common", and then throw in giant, draconic, supernal, and infernal for.the iconic creatures.  Could also suggest some geographical ones like southern trade common, North Island trade common, and the like that varied by campaign.


----------



## Charlaquin

beancounter said:


> Not by default, according to the OP.



OP is mistaken.


----------



## Galandris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> That is wild to me. I know languages get effectively taken out of the game once characters have enough spell slots to cast Tongues without worrying they'll be left defensive, but languages come up in my games all the time. You are playing very different games than I am.




It's very GM-dependant, I guess. Languages are giving a lot of flavour to our games as well. We even assign real-world equivalent to use at the table to signify we're speaking draconic or infernal. I won't say which is which publicly.

With regards to atypical languages, the sample in the playtest already include some odd choices:

Laborer picking up Dwarf because you're apprenticed to someone who was apprenticed to a dwarf (and obviously kept teaching dwarf to his apprentices because he's... some kind of snotty guy? "Look students, today we'll start studying philosophy. However, let's start by learning greek because, frankly, many good books are in greek...". There is no assumption that the current laborer has ever even seen a dwarf. And the background for Noble includes Draconic with a mention of "Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient history in their original draconic?". There is no relationship between draconic and nobility except that your family had some ideas on education you don't share (but you still know draconic).


----------



## Charlaquin

Thommy H-H said:


> Yes, I'd have preferred if they'd chosen examples like these tbh. But when I was reading it for the first time, I thought that actually some of them were initially counter-intuitive, then I went "oh yes, of course!" when I read the descriptions, because I saw how they fit in with some of the settings. Conversely, some of them did go with very specific rationales - Giant for scout, for example, learned from some friendly druids - and I think the implication that gladiators would know Orcish is something they ought to have avoided. There isn't even anything really in the description they used that specifically points to Orcish; they mention other races as fellow performers as well.



The problem is, you have to actually read the fluff to notice that


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Yeah, nobles knowing Draconic is an extremely weird one. I could see Halflings, as a people who often travel. I could see Elves, which I could easily see as diplomats. Dragons are hard, unless it's because you expect to have to convince them not to eat all the princesses.

It's a good example of why "pick a language" should just be put there, even in a sample background.


----------



## Cadence

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, nobles knowing Draconic is an extremely weird one. I could see Halflings, as a people who often travel. I could see Elves, which I could easily see as diplomats. Dragons are hard, unless it's because you expect to have to convince them not to eat all the princesses.
> 
> It's a good example of why "pick a language" should just be put there, even in a sample background.



Make Draconic like Latin?  Only the religious, scholars, and nobles know it usually.  And they begrudge the Dragonborn of their number for not having to suffer through memorizing the grammar rules and coming to it inately.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think the solution is to learn languages from multiple sources, as it is in the 2014 edition.



We haven’t seen classes yet to know if they grant languages, but I would assume those that did in 2014 will still do so in 2024, and that learning language will still be something you can do during downtime. But starting languages still need to come from somewhere. And they certainly shouldn’t come from race. Background makes sense to me. But wherever they come from, there should be examples with the language pre-selected so players who don’t want to decide don’t have to.


Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> The acolyte shouldn't learn Celestial, they should learn "the liturgical language of their faith (consult your DM)" but the cleric should also get the same note, along with the obligatory note that if they already know that language, they can pick another. (I have a paladin in my campaign who was also a village priest, and the division of cleric and acolyte is one that's always pleased me, even if they often overlap.)
> 
> And they should definitely not be called the same thing as their species. (Again, can you imagine doing that with a D&D setting book about contemporary Earth?) For orcs in the Forgotten Realms, I might go with "Many-Voices," with the language being officially standardized during the time of Many-Arrows, and given a name to match?



Yeah, on that we are in agreement.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cadence said:


> Make Draconic like Latin?  Only the religious, scholars, and nobles know it usually.  And they begrudge the Dragonborn of their number for not having to suffer through memorizing the grammar rules and coming to it inately.



I use Celestial that way in my campaign.

I have a hard time picturing dragons having the patience to sit down and write books and no reason for the bards and scholars who interview them to do so.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Charlaquin said:


> The problem is, you have to actually read the fluff to notice that



Yeah...I'm realising that a lot of people haven't...


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Thommy H-H said:


> Yeah...I'm realising that a lot of people haven't...



Folks here are Talmudic scholars compared to the folks on YouTube. Some of those videos have to be seen to be believed.


----------



## Cadence

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I use Celestial that way in my campaign.
> 
> I have a hard time picturing dragons having the patience to sit down and write books and no reason for the bards and scholars who interview them to do so.




Seems un-bardy to not use oral tradition, but it feels like scholars would want to write everything down.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, nobles knowing Draconic is an extremely weird one. I could see Halflings, as a people who often travel. I could see Elves, which I could easily see as diplomats. Dragons are hard, unless it's because you expect to have to convince them not to eat all the princesses.
> 
> It's a good example of why "pick a language" should just be put there, even in a sample background.



Okay, seriously, it is worth actually reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds given, because every one of them explains exactly why the character with that Background learned that particular language.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Cadence said:


> If there is a sizeable number of folks who need/want the pre-built ones so they don't have to spend mental overhead on the choices, then there will be a sizeable number of gladiators that get Orcish because that's what the book gives.  And a sizeable number of players who will associate Orcish with violent things like being a gladiator.



Will they really, does not any orc grow spuds? Who make boot for the orcish warriors?


Cadence said:


> If there isn't a sizeable number of folks who need/want pre-built examples, then we don't need to give them at all.



Agree, we should not make them all. Give them a random tables for those that could not be bothered to think up their own.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Thommy H-H said:


> Okay, seriously, it is worth actually reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds given, because every one of them explains exactly why the character with that Background learned that particular language.



I did.

"Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?"

It's still stupid.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, nobles knowing Draconic is an extremely weird one. I could see Halflings, as a people who often travel. I could see Elves, which I could easily see as diplomats. Dragons are hard, unless it's because you expect to have to convince them not to eat all the princesses.
> 
> It's a good example of why "pick a language" should just be put there, even in a sample background.



How about if they give a suggestion for those who don’t want to make the choice themselves but add a parenthetical reminder that you can choose a different one. So Gladiator would say “Orcish (or another language of your choice)”?

Of course, you’d also need to do that with the tool, the feat, the skills, the ASIs, and the equipment package… At which point, it seems redundant. A single explanation at the beginning that you can change any or all of the options would do. And the packet already provides that.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cadence said:


> Seems un-bardy to not use oral tradition, but it feels like scholars would want to write everything down.



Fair. I don't think the scholars who interview dragons would leave the oral histories in Draconic, but would translate it into a more widely spoken language.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I did.
> 
> "Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?"
> 
> It's still stupid.



So why are you confused by the idea of a noble knowing Draconic? It says right there why this particular noble does!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> Of course, you’d also need to do that with the tool, the feat, the skills, the ASIs, and the equipment package… At which point, it seems redundant. A single explanation at the beginning that you can change any or all of the options would do. And the packet already provides that.



Spelling out those choices has been a conscious part of WotC style for a long time now, since when you don't specify things, you end up having to relitigate it all in Sage Advice (and countless online forums) anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

darjr said:


> Those are example backgrounds. They do not represent every gladiator etc. Each is an example for an individual.
> 
> But I do think they shouldn’t give them generic names but the names of whose backgrounds they are.



no not every... but a good cross section I would think


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Thommy H-H said:


> So why are you confused by the idea of a noble knowing Draconic? It says right there why this particular noble does!



I'm not confused. I think it's a stupid and implausible choice, which I've explained over several posts.

If you are secretly the person who wrote the Noble background, lighten up and accept the feedback.


----------



## Thommy H-H

GMforPowergamers said:


> no not every... but a good cross section I would think



Do you think everyone with the scout Background occasionally travelled with two friendly druids?


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Thommy H-H said:


> Do you think everyone with the scout Background occasionally travelled with two friendly druids?



not every


----------



## Charlaquin

Thommy H-H said:


> Yeah...I'm realising that a lot of people haven't...



I mean, I’ll be honest, I haven’t. Because I understood immediately that the example backgrounds were examples of individual characters’ backstories, not broad archetypes.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Spelling out those choices has been a conscious part of WotC style for a long time now, since when you don't specify things, you end up having to relitigate it all in Sage Advice (and countless online forums) anyway.



So you’re saying you’re in favor of adding that reminder after every option in every background?


----------



## Thommy H-H

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm not confused. I think it's a stupid and implausible choice, which I've explained over several posts.
> 
> If you are secretly the person who wrote the Noble background, lighten up and accept the feedback.



The idea that Draconic is used as a language outside of communication between dragons or dragonborn is in the PHB. It's often used for writing about arcana, so makes perfect sense as something the scion of a noble family would have to be versed in.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Thommy H-H said:


> The idea that Draconic is used as a language outside of communication between dragons or dragonborn is in the PHB. It's often used for writing about arcana, so makes perfect sense as something the scion of a noble family would have to be versed in.



Because nobles all learn about arcana?


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I'm not confused. I think it's a stupid and implausible choice, which I've explained over several posts.
> 
> If you are secretly the person who wrote the Noble background, lighten up and accept the feedback.



I mean, I think it’s a perfectly plausible explanation of how a single individual noble might have learned Draconic. And that’s exactly what it’s meant to be. They’re literally examples of individual character backgrounds.


----------



## Cadence

Thommy H-H said:


> Okay, seriously, it is worth actually reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds given, because every one of them explains exactly why the character with that Background learned that particular language.



Wait, what, read?

And so...
Celestial must just obviously go with religion
Gnomes are the cause of may artisan terms
Infernal is the language of deception
Thieve's can't seems to obviously go with thieves
Abbysal seems to obviously go with the otherworldly cults
Elvish poetry appealed to at least one performer
Halflings write famous farming almanacs
Orc for gladiators because random over the draconic and dwarvish it could also have been
At least one guard worked for Dwarven smiths
etc...

And now I'm wondering if I would like it better if they made the background examples' names more specific.  "Acolyte of Pelor", "Guard for Dwarvish Smiths", etc...


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Because nobles all learn about arcana?



No, but the noble character the example describes did.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> So you’re saying you’re in favor of adding that reminder after every option in every background?



I think it would be consistent with their existing style which spells out, for instance "either a Short Rest or a Long Rest" every time, instead of just saying "after a rest."


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> And now I'm wondering if I would like it better if they made the background examples names more specific.  "Acolyte of Pelor", "Guard for Dwarvish Smiths", etc...



I think that would be a good idea because it would make it clearer that they’re examples of individual character backgrounds rather than background archetypes.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cadence said:


> And now I'm wondering if I would like it better if they made the background examples names more specific.  "Acolyte of Pelor", "Guard for Dwarvish Smiths", etc...



If these are intended as examples and they genuinely expect groups to mostly make their own examples, this would be a great tweak.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Because nobles all learn about arcana?



No, but this one did. And it's plausible that others might too, because in some D&D worlds, Draconic is a language used by ancient empires or humanoid scholars. So a noble in one of those worlds who has been the recipient an expensive education might well have had to learn it during their studies.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I think that would be a good idea because it would make it clearer that they’re examples of individual character backgrounds rather than background archetypes.






Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If these are intended as examples and they genuinely expect groups to mostly make their own examples, this would be a great tweak.




I'm definitely putting that one in my suggestion list now


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> No, but the noble character the example describes did.



"You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership."

No, the writer is saying that history books are written in Draconic, not that this noble learned anything about arcana.

I mean, I do believe there would be dragons who would love to watch History Channel and yell about all the things they get wrong, because they were _there_, but I think the suggestion that Draconic is the language of history books is pretty goofy.


----------



## Galandris

Thommy H-H said:


> Okay, seriously, it is worth actually reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds given, because every one of them explains exactly why the character with that Background learned that particular language.




I agree with you (even if it could be more explicit). 

I concur with you on draconic. If you want to learn history, you turn to witnesses, and dragons are long-living. If you're a wizard, you know draconic (because it's the language of magic) so you go and interview dragons, write history books in draconic (you don't target a mass market). A few decades later, they are picked up as curricular material by the court wizard who's in charge of teaching the scion of the house about the deed of the past to inspire him to emulate them. It's not that far-fetched to warrant rejection. 

I'd even say that the fact that Farmer picked up halfling doesn't mean anything about halflings and farming in general. "Like many farmers, you made frequent use of the agricultural almanachs producted by the greatest halfling farmers." It just means that some of the greatest halfings farmers (which doesn't imply halflings are generally better at farming, nor than any other races can't have superior farmers) wrote agricultural almanachs that were a library success among farmers in your area and that you DECIDED to pick up halfling as a foreign language because you liked the idea of reading them in their original language. The regular farmer doesn't get the background benefits of being a hero, so he probably just read the translated version and never picked halfling anyway.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership."
> 
> No, the writer is saying that history books are written in Draconic, not that this noble learned anything about arcana.
> 
> I mean, I do believe there would be dragons who would love to watch History Channel and yell about all the things they get wrong, because they were _there_, but I think the suggestion that Draconic is the language of history books is pretty goofy.



It’s not saying Draconic is the language of history, it’s saying that the history books “you” read were written in Draconic.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership."
> 
> No, the writer is saying that history books are written in Draconic, not that this noble learned anything about arcana.
> 
> I mean, I do believe there would be dragons who would love to watch History Channel and yell about all the things they get wrong, because they were _there_, but I think the suggestion that Draconic is the language of history books is pretty goofy.



In the Nentir Vale setting, Draconic is the language of Arkhosia, one of the two ancient empires that dominate the history of the known world. So there's at least one D&D world where it makes perfect sense for histories to be written in Draconic.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> It’s not saying Draconic is the language of history, it’s saying that the history books “you” read were written in Draconic.




@Whizbang Dustyboots 

Does "Noble of Drakewind Pass" (or some other draconic sounding place name) make it happier?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Thommy H-H said:


> In the Nentir Vale setting, Draconic is the language of Arkhosia, one of the two ancient empires that dominate the history of the known world. So there's at least one D&D world where it makes perfect sense for histories to be written in Draconic.



It would be an extremely good change to label this as "Scion of Arkhosia," then, rather than "Noble."


----------



## Thommy H-H

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It would be an extremely good change to label this as "Scion of Arkhosia," then, rather than "Noble."



Idk, _I_ understood what they were getting at.


----------



## Galandris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> "You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership."
> 
> No, the writer is saying that history books are written in Draconic, not that this noble learned anything about arcana.







			
				Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I mean, I do believe there would be dragons who would love to watch History Channel and yell about all the things they get wrong, because they were _there_, but I think the suggestion that Draconic is the language of history books is pretty goofy.





Draconic isn't implied to be the language of history books. If it were, the fluff wouldn't say "was it necessary to read in Draconic?" when the answer would be "yes, silly, draconic IS the language of history books." It's the language that were part of the specific curriculum designed by the teacher of the person holding this background, who resented being taught draconic instead of a perfectly useful language like elvish to woo the elvish girls, but no, all he got were crummy draconic lessons.

Is it a WONDERFUL example of a SMART way to include draconic in your backstory? Maybe not. It is, however, sufficent and I wouldn't ban a player from justifying having learnt Draconic this way if he came up with this background sample. What I accept from my wonderful players, I can tolerate from mere game designers at WotC.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cadence said:


> @Whizbang Dustyboots
> 
> Does "Noble of Drakewind Pass" (or some other draconic sounding place name) make it happier?



Yep.

Lack of specificity implies generality.

If this is supposed to be an example of a custom background, then it should be as specific as possible.

If it's supposed to be an example of a generic background, the elements included should be more generic. ("Choose a language" rather than "Draconic.")


----------



## Galandris

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think it would be consistent with their existing style which spells out, for instance "either a Short Rest or a Long Rest" every time, instead of just saying "after a rest."




They are going with Natural language here. If they don't specify they are using game term, a rest (including one that wouldn't qualify as either a Short or Long Rest) would be sufficent to refresh the power.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> It would be an extremely good change to label this as "Scion of Arkhosia," then, rather than "Noble."



That feels like a good move to me.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Galandris said:


> What I accept from my wonderful players, I can tolerate from mere game designers at WotC.



Ooh, strong disagree. Your players don't have to do anything that make their ideas clear to you and you all just need to come with stuff that works for your table. I know the internet has really lowered expectations for professional writing, but professional writers should be held to a much higher standard.

Again, WotC's own current style prizes clarity above all else (do a search for the phrase "after a Short or Long Rest" on D&D Beyond, as a good example of them stylistically wearing a belt and suspenders at the same time, just so everyone's clear about recharge rules). This document is not up to that standard, even though its explicit purpose is for hundreds of thousands of people -- many of them not speaking English as a native language -- to read through it. They need to make it at least as clearly written as their standard publications.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yep.
> 
> Lack of specificity implies generality.
> 
> If this is supposed to be an example of a custom background, then it should be as specific as possible.
> 
> If it's supposed to be an example of a generic background, the elements included should be more generic. ("Choose a language" rather than "Draconic.")



I think under this new paradigm there is not meant to be any such thing as a “generic background.” Creating your own background is the default because they’re trying to acknowledge and honor the fact that each individual character’s background is unique. However, they also know that a lot of their players don’t want to have to make all those choices. They’d rather just pick a sample background and have it tell them what skills, tools, languages, etc. they know. So, they need to provide lots of examples those people can choose from and make small tweaks to if they feel the need.


----------



## Galandris

Would anyone support the suggestion that the section about background being totally enriched by a few sentences so as to be linked to a specific character :

"*Demokritos of Aurausius' background*

_Scion of a noble family, you were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic? That history teacher and court wizard was a boring man, except when he tried to teach actual battle strategy using chess pieces and minor illusion of the battle's location!) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership._

Resulting in the character picking +2 to Charisma and +1 to Intelligence, reflecting his rote learning and oratory lessons, draconic as a language, the skilled feat, history and persuasion, as well as proficency with gaming tools (chess). "


----------



## Haplo781

Cadence said:


> Would it work even better to have some associated with geographies?  So Sindarin is almost a "forest humanoid common for elves and forest gnomes, and tabaxi", Khazad is almost a "hill/mountain humanoid common" for dwarves, tinker gnome, and whatnot, aquan for "underwater common", and then throw in giant, draconic, supernal, and infernal for.the iconic creatures.  Could also suggest some geographical ones like southern trade common, North Island trade common, and the like that varied by campaign.



No need to reinvent the wheel. Just do Sylvan for elves, Deep Speech for dwarves, Common for halflings, etc.


----------



## Haplo781

Thommy H-H said:


> Okay, seriously, it is worth actually reading the descriptions of the Backgrounds given, because every one of them explains exactly why the character with that Background learned that particular language.



This is D&D. People don't read the rules.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> No need to reinvent the wheel. Just do Sylvan for elves, Deep Speech for dwarves, Common for halflings, etc.



Those have historically been separate languages though. I think FR has actual names for its racial languages, I wouldn’t mind if those were used.


----------



## Parmandur

Cadence said:


> I'm definitely putting that one in my suggestion list now



Yeah,this discussion is also informing my feedback on Backgrounds. Thanks for the civil discussion, everyone.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Those have historically been separate languages though. I think FR has actual names for its racial languages, I wouldn’t mind if those were used.



Ok but really, why would they be separate?


----------



## Parmandur

Thommy H-H said:


> Idk, _I_ understood what they were getting at.



I don't think anyone here misunderstood, but these points are valid for helping form feedback.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Galandris said:


> Would anyone support the suggestion that the section about background being totally enriched by a few sentences so as to be linked to a specific character :



Yes. The 2014 PHB does a bit of this using Salvatore characters, and it's a good way to provide examples of how the rules work and, in this case, would be a good way of showing how to make custom backgrounds. A noble of Menzoberranzan (holy crap, I spelled it right the first time) should be wildly different than a noble of Al-Qadim.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> Those have historically been separate languages though. I think FR has actual names for its racial languages, I wouldn’t mind if those were used.



I think Deep Speech is actually just for aberrations. Undercommon is what I think what was meant, and that has an analogous role to Common. I don't think most Underdark societies (who are generally paranoid and insular) would be using it as their primary language.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Ok but really, why would they be separate?



Why wouldn’t they be? Sylvan is the language spoken in the feywild. Elvish is the language spoken… wherever elves live.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Why wouldn’t they be? Sylvan is the language spoken in the feywild. Elvish is the language spoken… wherever elves live.



Just like all humans speak the same language IRL?


----------



## Lanefan

Galandris said:


> I could accept language-as-magic. Evolving less because people are longer lived, I am not sure, though. We certainly don't speak like we did 40 years ago. Sure, we don't speak the exact same language as teenagers, but we no longer speak as we did back when we were teenagers. I am not sure the increase in lifespan over the course of the 19th and 20th century led to more language staticality.



Keep in mind that unlike the real world in a typical D&D setting you have a) interplanar travel, b) some very long-lived species with fairly stable cultures, and c) deities, any of which can serve as maens of keeping a culture's or species' language vaguely consistent from place to place and time to time.

In a different post you said Common is "Human" as they don't have their own tongue.  Humans have lots of languages, or should, in any setting.  Common is the somewhat-bastardized result of trying to trade in all those different languages, plus with Dwarves and Elves and so forth who add even more languages to the mix.


----------



## Lanefan

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Fair. I don't think the scholars who interview dragons would leave the oral histories in Draconic, but would translate it into a more widely spoken language.



Scholars who interview dragons make nice light dragon snacks, after which they don't translate anything into anything......


----------



## Lanefan

It occurs to me that one not-necessarily-good side effect of giving so more mechanical heft to background is that doing up a background during char-gen now becomes mandatory rather than optional.

One can't really take the old-school approach any longer of rolling up the basics, getting it in play, and sorting out background and history etc. some days or weeks or even years later; as you now need that background info as part of those basics in order to make the character playable.  Result: char-gen on the fly becomes more complex, and thus will take longer.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Just like all humans speak the same language IRL?



Consolidating Sylvan and Elvish does nothing to address that problem, it just makes there be fewer languages. You just shift the problem from “all elves speak the same language” to “all fey speak the same language.” The solution is not to remove languages but to deracialize them. Chande the the language from Elvish to Espruar (that’s the FR name for it, I didn’t make it up) and have it be spoken regionally instead of tying it to a race.


----------



## Charlaquin

Lanefan said:


> It occurs to me that one not-necessarily-good side effect of giving so more mechanical heft to background is that doing up a background during char-gen now becomes mandatory rather than optional.
> 
> One can't really take the old-school approach any longer of rolling up the basics, getting it in play, and sorting out background and history etc. some days or weeks or even years later; as you now need that background info as part of those basics in order to make the character playable.  Result: char-gen on the fly becomes more complex, and thus will take longer.



This is why they have the example races. You can just pick one (or roll for one) instead of creating your own if you want to.


----------



## Galandris

Lanefan said:


> It occurs to me that one not-necessarily-good side effect of giving so more mechanical heft to background is that doing up a background during char-gen now becomes mandatory rather than optional.
> 
> One can't really take the old-school approach any longer of rolling up the basics, getting it in play, and sorting out background and history etc. some days or weeks or even years later; as you now need that background info as part of those basics in order to make the character playable.  Result: char-gen on the fly becomes more complex, and thus will take longer.




Yes. Though a background-less character wouldn't be "unplayable." I'd allow a player to roll a character, assign a race and class and start playing, with the benefits of background (a feat, a language, two skill proficiencies, a tool) are defined later, at the "price" of the character describing the flashback from his youth to explained his newly-gained ability to be a master lute player when the group stumbles upon a bard's contest.

ASIs would need to be a given, but since they are floating and this type of players always puts them in the most optimized stat anyway...

(I might sound negative to the old school approach but I am asking more than average when it comes to backstory... Playing a "black slate" character in a campaign of mine would mean "the GM is free to fill in the blanks" [within limits of not screwing the player over].


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Charlaquin said:


> Consolidating Sylvan and Elvish does nothing to address that problem, it just makes there be fewer languages. You just shift the problem from “all elves speak the same language” to “all fey speak the same language.” The solution is not to remove languages but to deracialize them. Chande the the language from Elvish to Espruar (that’s the FR name for it, I didn’t make it up) and have it be spoken regionally instead of tying it to a race.



The problem is that language in rpg serves to give the Indiana Jones vibe or scholarly types rooting about in ancient ruins not the issues of intercultural communications in the real world. Because the latter would be more work than anyone wants to put in. Unless the players were all linguists and philologists. it is the Same reason that all the aliens in Stargate speak english except the plot demands otherwise.


----------



## Lanefan

Charlaquin said:


> This is why they have the example races. You can just pick one (or roll for one) instead of creating your own if you want to.



I'm thinking more of situations - and I've done this many times - where I don't want to know much about the character's background up front (e.g. random language generation), and just let it evolve organically through play and-or whatever leaps to mind later, possibly much later.

With the 1dnd method I have to almost completely nail the background down ahead of time in order to unlock various very important things, not least of which are my ASIs.


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> The problem is that language in rpg serves to give the Indiana Jones vibe or scholarly types rooting about in ancient ruins not the issues of intercultural communications in the real world.



In your game, maybe. 


UngainlyTitan said:


> Because the latter would be more work than anyone wants to put in. Unless the players were all linguists and philologists.



Yeah, I've in fact had a few of those.

But even without that, I prefer the realism of not everyone automatically being able to talk to everyone else.


UngainlyTitan said:


> it is the Same reason that all the aliens in Stargate speak english except the plot demands otherwise.



I always assume that they're just skipping showing us the whole translation step, but that it's still taking place regardless.


----------



## Lanefan

Galandris said:


> Yes. Though a background-less character wouldn't be "unplayable." I'd allow a player to roll a character, assign a race and class and start playing, with the benefits of background (a feat, a language, two skill proficiencies, a tool) are defined later, at the "price" of the character describing the flashback from his youth to explained his newly-gained ability to be a master lute player when the group stumbles upon a bard's contest.



Personally, of those I'd much rather have the skill proficiencies and tool (if necessary - is it?) be baked into class; feats be baked in as class abilities or not exist at all, and the non-mother-tongue languages be determined independently either by player choice or random roll or a combination of these.


Galandris said:


> ASIs would need to be a given, but since they are floating and this type of players always puts them in the most optimized stat anyway...
> 
> (I might sound negative to the old school approach but I am asking more than average when it comes to backstory... Playing a "black slate" character in a campaign of mine would mean "the GM is free to fill in the blanks" [within limits of not screwing the player over].



Sounds like a direct path to some arguments, depending on the player(s)...


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Lanefan said:


> In your game, maybe.
> 
> Yeah, I've in fact had a few of those.
> 
> But even without that, I prefer the realism of not everyone automatically being able to talk to everyone else.
> 
> I always assume that they're just skipping showing us the whole translation step, but that it's still taking place regardless.



Lanefan my dude, we have been knocking about this forum for a long time and your campaign is a pretty unique thing. One thing it is not, is a template for a commercial game.


----------



## Charlaquin

UngainlyTitan said:


> The problem is that language in rpg serves to give the Indiana Jones vibe or scholarly types rooting about in ancient ruins not the issues of intercultural communications in the real world. Because the latter would be more work than anyone wants to put in. Unless the players were all linguists and philologists. it is the Same reason that all the aliens in Stargate speak english except the plot demands otherwise.



Well that’s why we have Common


----------



## Ondath

I agree with the OP there that backgrounds universally giving bonus languages is weird, even if those backgrounds are only for demonstrative purposes. In 5E, some backgrounds give no languages and only tool proficiencies, because narratively it doesn't make sense for them to give languages. You can explain a Sage or a Noble learning extra languages as part of their training, but why should an Outlander learn an extra language while living away from civilisation? Why does being a labourer grant me Dwarvish or any other language automatically? Even if I grow up in a monocultural town, why does my background make me bilingual automatically?

I think they chose this path because they decided to standardise a few things in Backgrounds even if narratively it doesn't make sense (both a Noble and an Urchin start with 50 gp worth of things, every background grants one Language and one Tool, every instrument costs 20 gp and every tool costs 5 gp etc.). I'll already mention I don't like this general trend in my feedback to the playtest, but since this is the general trend, I doubt my opinion will change much.


----------



## Charlaquin

Lanefan said:


> I'm thinking more of situations - and I've done this many times - where I don't want to know much about the character's background up front (e.g. random language generation), and just let it evolve organically through play and-or whatever leaps to mind later, possibly much later.
> 
> With the 1dnd method I have to almost completely nail the background down ahead of time in order to unlock various very important things, not least of which are my ASIs.



I don’t see how. Again, you can just grab one of the sample backgrounds.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t see how. Again, you can just grab one of the sample backgrounds.



Except that the sample backgrounds all come with a very particular story.  So if there's lots of just grabbing and no thinking we end up with lots of scholars having learned from boring Draconic books, and lots of gladiators having bunked with a dragonborn, and orc, and a dwarf, and....

Would it be better to have the sample backgrounds have some randomly rolled things in them?


----------



## Charlaquin

Ondath said:


> I agree with the OP there that backgrounds universally giving bonus languages is weird, even if those backgrounds are only for demonstrative purposes. In 5E, some backgrounds give no languages and only tool proficiencies, because narratively it doesn't make sense for them to give languages. You can explain a Sage or a Noble learning extra languages as part of their training, but why should a Sailor learn an extra language while living in the streets? Why does being a labourer grant me Dwarvish or any other language automatically? Even if I grow up in a monocultural town, why does my background make me bilingual automatically?
> 
> I think they chose this path because they decided to standardise a few things in Backgrounds even if narratively it doesn't make sense (both a Noble and an Urchin start with 50 gp worth of things, every background grants one Language and one Tool, every instrument costs 20 gp and every tool costs 5 gp etc.). I'll already mention I don't like this general trend in my feedback to the playtest, but since this is the general trend, I doubt my opinion will change much.



Standardizing the benefits backgrounds grant is necessary for custom background to be the default. You need a common set of rules for what a background gives you in order to make your own. This is a big part of why in the 2014 rules a lot of people don’t even realize customizing backgrounds is an option. The 2014 Noble background just straight-up gives you _more stuff_ than the 2014 Urchin background does, so picking the noble background but changing it to give you the same proficiencies as an Urchin grants is technically allowed by the 2014 rules, but it _feels_ like cheating because it makes you functionally an Urchin with more stuff. That’s not a problem with these playtest rules because the background benefits have been standardized.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Except that the sample backgrounds all come with a very particular story.  So if there's lots of just grabbing and no thinking we end up with lots of scholars having learned from boring Draconic books, and lots of gladiators having bunked with a dragonborn, and orc, and a dwarf, and....
> 
> Would it be better to have the sample backgrounds have some randomly rolled things in them?



You don’t have to use the backstory provided with a sample background…


----------



## Ondath

Charlaquin said:


> Standardizing the benefits backgrounds grant is necessary for custom background to be the default. You need a common set of rules for what a background gives you in order to make your own. This is a big part of why in the 2014 rules a lot of people don’t even realize customizing backgrounds is an option. The 2014 Noble background just straight-up gives you _more stuff_ than the 2014 Urchin background does, so picking the noble background but changing it to give you the same proficiencies as an Urchin grants is technically allowed by the 2014 rules, but it _feels_ like cheating because it makes you functionally an Urchin with more stuff. That’s not a problem with these playtest rules because the background benefits have been standardized.



I'm not saying WotC did this by mistake, but it shows a thematic shift from 5E that doesn't fit my tastes. 5E was much more simulationist in how it judged equipment (things were priced according to how much they probably should cost in a faux-fantasy economy, and backgrounds and classes received equipment packs according to _what made sense_ for their economic status and tools of the trade). Now, backgrounds are clearly a gamist construct that doesn't concern itself with creating a sense of verisimilitude: It's more important for the rules to give a fair amount of resources to everyone.

But since the resources in question are trivial (who cares if the Urchin starts with 2 silver pieces and the Noble starts with 10 gp? They'll both get hundreds of gp upon completing their first quest!), I don't think this standardisation was needed. Hell, you could still have custom backgrounds be the default but still keep simulationist prices: Just tell the players that they can choose up to 50 gp worth of starting equipment, but they're advised to choose 1 gp total for a lower-class character, 10 gp for a middle-class character and 50 gp for an upper-class one.

Hell, when it comes to tools and languages, 5E already was making things equal without making everyone bilingual: Backgrounds that gave no languages gave two tool proficiences and backgrounds that gave no tools gave two languages. The game already assumed that tools and languages were interchangeable. Why do we need to force everyone to get exactly one language and one tool now?


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> You don’t have to use the backstory provided with a sample background…



Does that make it bad to give the background a particular name (liked we discussed above) then, if the particular name was chosen to go with the sample story and doesn't need to apply?

Why is it bad to put in a randomizer for things that don't go with almost all scholars, or soldiers or whatnot?  If Draconic is only for a small subset of scholars who have a story akin to this one, why not 1=Draconic, 2=Elvish,....etc...     Does that make it that hard to make the new character?

---

if the goal of the backgrounds is to make it easy to make characters, do they only need one sample background for each class?


----------



## Charlaquin

Ondath said:


> I'm not saying WotC did this by mistake, but it shows a thematic shift from 5E that doesn't fit my tastes. 5E was much more simulationist in how it judged equipment (things were priced according to how much they probably should cost in a faux-fantasy economy, and backgrounds and classes received equipment packs according to _what made sense_ for their economic status and tools of the trade).



Right, but the result was that nobody customized backgrounds because it felt like cheating.


Ondath said:


> Now, backgrounds are clearly a gamist construct that doesn't concern itself with creating a sense of verisimilitude: It's more important for the rules to give a fair amount of resources to everyone.



I mean, they always were a gamist construct. I guess if you don’t like that fact being transparent that’s unfortunate for you. Personally, I think transparency of design is always a good thing.


Ondath said:


> But since the resources in question are trivial (who cares if the Urchin starts with 2 silver pieces and the Noble starts with 10 gp? They'll both get hundreds of gp upon completing their first quest!), I don't think this standardisation was needed.



The thing is, it doesn’t matter that the difference between starting with 2sp and starting with 10 gp is negligible by the time you finish your first quest. It still makes it feel like cheating to take the proficiencies that come with the 2 sp but still get the 10 gp; enough so that DMs are gonna ban customizing backgrounds, and players aren’t even gonna realize they had the option in the first place.


Ondath said:


> Hell, you could still have custom backgrounds be the default but still keep simulationist prices: Just tell the players that they can choose up to 50 gp worth of starting equipment, but they're advised to choose 1 gp total for a lower-class character, 10 gp for a middle-class character and 50 gp for an upper-class one.



You could do that. I don’t think very many players would ever go for less than the full 50, but it wouldn’t hurt to mention that you can start with less than the full 50 if you want to.


Ondath said:


> Hell, when it comes to tools and languages, 5E already was making things equal without making everyone bilingual: Backgrounds that gave no languages gave two tool proficiences and languages that gave no tools gave two languages. The game already assumed that tools and languages were interchangeable. Why do we need to force everyone to get exactly one language and one tool now?



True, and I would not at all be opposed to backgrounds granting two total between languages and tools, as they do in the 2014 rules. I’ll probably suggest that in the survey.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Does that make it bad to give the background a particular name (liked we discussed above) then, if the particular name was chosen to go with the sample story and doesn't need to apply?



Giving the sample backgrounds names makes it easier for the player who just wants to pick a sample background and go to decide which one they want. They just choose based on which name sounds closest to what they envision for their character. This just happened a week ago, I was helping a friend make a character for an upcoming Witchlight game we’re both going to play in. She just had me read off the names of the backgrounds in the PHB, said, “Entertainer sounds close enough,” and then had me tell her what stuff she got from it.


Cadence said:


> Why is it bad to put in a randomizer for things that don't go with almost all scholars, or soldiers or whatnot?  If Draconic is only for a small subset of scholars who have a story akin to this one, why not 1=Draconic, 2=Elvish,....etc...     Does that make it that hard to make the new character?



You could put in some tables for rolling a random background. That might appeal to some more old-school players. I don’t think it would appeal to most new players these days. Going back to my example of the friend I just helped make a character, she _insisted_ on making her own character; she thought using a pre-generated one would suck the fun out of it, because it wouldn’t feel like “hers,” and I have no doubt a random one wouldn’t have either. But, she didn’t really do what I would normally think of as “making a character.” She just picked things she thought sounded cool - fairy, sorcerer, entertainer - and had me tell her what to write down on the sheet. That’s how casual players are. 


Cadence said:


> ---
> 
> if the goal of the backgrounds is to make it easy to make characters, do they only need one sample background for each class?



Nah, that wouldn’t work for the same reason it doesn’t work to randomly generate a character. Casual players want to feel like they made a decision. They just don’t care about the mechanics. They want to pick race, class, and background because it feels like they’re deciding who the character is. They don’t want to choose proficiencies and the like because they barely understand what that even means, and don’t really care.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Consolidating Sylvan and Elvish does nothing to address that problem, it just makes there be fewer languages. You just shift the problem from “all elves speak the same language” to “all fey speak the same language.” The solution is not to remove languages but to deracialize them. Chande the the language from Elvish to Espruar (that’s the FR name for it, I didn’t make it up) and have it be spoken regionally instead of tying it to a race.



Sylvan _is_ a regional language. That region is "the Feywild and deep forests."

I'm not really seeing the big distinction here.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> Sylvan _is_ a regional language. That region is "the Feywild and deep forests."
> 
> I'm not really seeing the big distinction here.



Right, I’m saying _make Elvish a regional language too_ (and change the name because elf is a race, not a region).


----------



## Cadence

Haplo781 said:


> Sylvan _is_ a regional language. That region is "the Feywild and deep forests."
> 
> I'm not really seeing the big distinction here.



Hmmm. ::::  It seemed obvious to me that the deep forests in mythic China might be really different culturally than than the deep forests in mythic Germany than the deep forests in mythic Africa.  And that really different places might have really different languages.


----------



## Haplo781

Charlaquin said:


> Right, I’m saying _make Elvish a regional language too_ (and change the name because elf is a race, not a region).



So, take Elvish, change the name, and divorce it from elves? And assign it to a region - what region? A specific geographical area? That's going to be setting-specific thing. A general type of environment? That's already covered by existing languages.


----------



## Charlaquin

Haplo781 said:


> So, take Elvish, change the name, and divorce it from elves? And assign it to a region - what region? A specific geographical area? That's going to be setting-specific thing.



Yes, this does summarize the problem with languages in D&D.


Haplo781 said:


> A general type of environment? That's already covered by existing languages.



Huh?


----------



## Ondath

Charlaquin said:


> Right, but the result was that nobody customized backgrounds because it felt like cheating.



Maybe. In my experience, it's just that players don't bother designing a background from scratch, and if that's the real reason, then One D&D's guidelines on designing your own background will also be ignored in favour of people selecting one of the premade ones.


Charlaquin said:


> I mean, they always were a gamist construct. I guess if you don’t like that fact being transparent that’s unfortunate for you. Personally, I think transparency of design is always a good thing.



Well, that's not true. Starting equipment _is_ gamist to some extent in 5E (every class is given the bare minimum they need to go out adventuring), but older editions could have a simulationist approach to this: I recall each class in 3.5 getting a different amount of starting gold to reflect their social class, and I liked that. 5E supported this playstyle somewhat, but saying everyone gets 50 gp makes that harder.

I think this push towards standardisation indicates a return to 4E-style unabashed gamism that completely abandons any simulationist pretenses. Maybe the game's demographics have shifted enough so that this won't crash the game like it did in 2008, but it's contrary to my tastes for sure.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Giving the sample backgrounds names makes it easier for the player who just wants to pick a sample background and go to decide which one they want. They just choose based on which name sounds closest to what they envision for their character. This just happened a week ago, I was helping a friend make a character for an upcoming Witchlight game we’re both going to play in. She just had me read off the names of the backgrounds in the PHB, said, “Entertainer sounds close enough,” and then had me tell her what stuff she got from it.
> 
> You could put in some tables for rolling a random background. That might appeal to some more old-school players. I don’t think it would appeal to most new players these days. Going back to my example of the friend I just helped make a character, she _insisted_ on making her own character; she thought using a pre-generated one would suck the fun out of it, because it wouldn’t feel like “hers,” and I have no doubt a random one wouldn’t have either. But, she didn’t really do what I would normally think of as “making a character.” She just picked things she thought sounded cool - fairy, sorcerer, entertainer - and had me tell her what to write down on the sheet. That’s how casual players are.



Now I'm wondering about something like a questionnaire ap/web-page that asks folks to pick the word or idea that most describes their character, and then spits one out.   (Just 5 questions with 5 answers is like 3,125 different characters, 6 questions with 6 answers each is almost 50,000).

What do you picture for your characters home - show picture of plains/islands/swamp/mountains/forests
How do you picture your characters early home life - show 10 pictures of different wealth and occupations
etc...

Would that have been any benefit at all for her?  Would it seem too cheesy?


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Now I'm wondering about something like a questionnaire ap/web-page that asks folks to pick the word or idea that most describes their character, and then spits one out.   (Just 5 questions with 5 answers is like 3,125 different characters, 6 questions with 6 answers each is almost 50,000).
> 
> What do you picture for your characters home - show picture of plains/islands/swamp/mountains/forests
> How do you picture your characters early home life - show 10 pictures of different wealth and occupations
> etc...
> 
> Would that have been any benefit at all for her?  Would it seem too cheesy?



 I would guess too cheesy, but I’d have to ask. My gut feeling is that it would just feel like a personality quiz instead of making a character for a game.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> I would guess too cheesy, but I’d have to ask. My gut feeling is that it would just feel like a personality quiz instead of making a character for a game.



I was thinking it might.  But the actual process doesn't feel that much different to me than picking the things with names that sound good (if they aren't looking at what those names give).


----------



## Lanefan

UngainlyTitan said:


> Lanefan my dude, we have been knocking about this forum for a long time and your campaign is a pretty unique thing. One thing it is not, is a template for a commercial game.



Oh?

Whyever not?


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I was thinking it might.  But the actual process doesn't feel that much different to me than picking the things with names that sound good (if they aren't looking at what those names give).



Yeah, it’s weird to me too. Personally, I can’t imagine ever wanting to use a sample background. I want to understand the game system and have control over all of my character choices within it (which is why custom backgrounds as default appeals to me.) But I’m a huge nerd. As D&D gets bigger, it needs to become more accessible to normies who can’t be arsed what a proficiency bonus is, they just want to know if they can be a cat-person who grew up on the streets and learned how to cast spells from a genie they found in a bottle they stole from their local pawn shop. Or whatever.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, it’s weird to me too. Personally, I can’t imagine ever wanting to use a sample background. I want to understand the game system and have control over all of my character choices within it (which is why custom backgrounds as default appeals to me.) But I’m a huge nerd. As D&D gets bigger, it needs to become more accessible to normies who can’t be arsed what a proficiency bonus is, they just want to know if they can be a cat-person who grew up on the streets and learned how to cast spells from a genie they found in a bottle they stole from their local pawn shop. Or whatever.




Maybe there's a suite of tools that could do it and give most people something to get a character up and running...

Old school gamer type
Personality test type
Flow chart
Chunks of things like the current playtest looks
etc...


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

You know what would be neat? If the sample backgrounds each had an explicit reference to a different Campaign Setting in their names. I'd drive home the point these are just examples, and show that WotC is actually serious about the multiverse being the default setting.


----------



## Charlaquin

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> You know what would be neat? If the sample backgrounds each had an explicit reference to a different Campaign Setting in their their names. I'd drive home the point these are just examples, and show that WotC is actually serious about the multiverse being the default setting.



It would be. But thinking about it, I think the names might need to be fairly general to work for their purpose as the option folks like my aforementioned friend grab as a package instead of wading through all the floating options. It’s easy to pick “entertainer” from a list of generic-sounding  job descriptions. But if the options are like “Acolyte of Pelor” and “Athasian Gladiator” and “Candlekeep Scholar,” the kind of player who wants to just pick a background and go… doesn’t know what any of that means.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> It would be. But thinking about it, I think the names might need to be fairly general to work for their purpose as the option folks like my aforementioned friend grab as a package instead of wading through all the floating options. It’s easy to pick “entertainer” from a list of generic-sounding  job descriptions. But if the options are like “Acolyte of Pelor” and “Athasian Gladiator” and “Candlekeep Scholar,” the kind of player who wants to just pick a background and go… doesn’t know what any of that means.




Put Acolyte in big bold and under it have Acolyte of Pelor as a smaller sub-title?


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Put Acolyte in big bold and under it have Acolyte of Pelor as a smaller sub-title?



Maybe. At this point, I think maybe just making it two total between languages and tool’s instead of one of each may be the best solution.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khuzdul instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.



One thing I appreciate about the discussion in this thread, most everybody seems to be trying to move towards a better representation of race, culture, and language in our fantasy elf games. But still, a few seem intent on not just disagreeing, but tearing down the arguments and opinions of others. Ah well, it's what we do . . .

The problem facing the D&D designers, and our discussion here, as I see it, is how confusing the concept of race is. In the real world, _race_ is a term scientists don't like because it's vague, loaded, and confuses genetics and culture. When we port it over to the fantasy game, it gets worse by blending in mythic tropes of fairy creatures.

I've come to view the traditional D&D view towards _race_ as (unwittingly) _super-ethnicity_. Elves aren't really another species from human, but humans with a different culture, different language, and greater physiological differences than merely skin color or hair texture. As the designers try to leave the hidden negative tropes of race behind in the game, they are getting hung up on exactly how to do it without fundamentally changing the game. Crawford (was it Crawford?) states outright in the One D&D video that they are trying to make the _elfiest elf_, the _dwarfiest dwarf_ . . . they are deliberately leaning into classic fantasy tropes, while simultaneously trying to leave negative tropes about race behind . . . . and that's a tall order. 

I agree with @Whizbang Dustyboots that they've stepped backwards with language and background here. I think it comes from a good place, but ends up taking us in a circle. If we try to separate the orcish language from the orcish people, not only does that not make much intuitive sense, but when you give the language to all gladiators . . . . and yes, even with custom backgrounds being the default, and the provided examples being just that, examples, we are still world-building here in an unintentionally harmful way.

What is the best solution? I don't know, but I hope WotC keeps trying and moves away from this particular choice.

In Tolkien's world, elves were not a monolithic culture with a single language, they had cultural and linguistic diversity. Perhaps not as much as humans do in the real world, but representing real world diversity is tough, because it's complicated and huge. I wouldn't mind D&D moving towards a more Tolkieneque approach on this however, even if it puts more world-building detail in the core books (vs in the various setting books). Get rid of the monolithic racial languages, and give us three languages commonly spoken by elves in the world, seven dwarven languages, and four orcish tongues . . . or something like that. I think WotC needs to admit that the D&D core IS a world with setting assumptions and lean into it, and be careful with it.


----------



## Charlaquin

Dire Bare said:


> One thing I appreciate about the discussion in this thread, most everybody seems to be trying to move towards a better representation of race, culture, and language in our fantasy elf games. But still, a few seem intent on not just disagreeing, but tearing down the arguments and opinions of others. Ah well, it's what we do . . .
> 
> The problem facing the D&D designers, and our discussion here, as I see it, is how confusing the concept of race is. In the real world, _race_ is a term scientists don't like because it's vague, loaded, and confuses genetics and culture. When we port it over to the fantasy game, it gets worse by blending in mythic tropes of fairy creatures.
> 
> I've come to view the traditional D&D view towards _race_ as (unwittingly) _super-ethnicity_. Elves aren't really another species from human, but humans with a different culture, different language, and greater physiological differences than merely skin color or hair texture. As the designers try to leave the hidden negative tropes of race behind in the game, they are getting hung up on exactly how to do it without fundamentally changing the game. Crawford (was it Crawford?) states outright in the One D&D video that they are trying to make the _elfiest elf_, the _dwarfiest dwarf_ . . . they are deliberately leaning into classic fantasy tropes, while simultaneously trying to leave negative tropes about race behind . . . . and that's a tall order.
> 
> I agree with @Whizbang Dustyboots that they've stepped backwards with language and background here. I think it comes from a good place, but ends up taking us in a circle. If we try to separate the orcish language from the orcish people, not only does that not make much intuitive sense, but when you give the language to all gladiators . . . . and yes, even with custom backgrounds being the default, and the provided examples being just that, examples, we are still world-building here in an unintentionally harmful way.
> 
> What is the best solution? I don't know, but I hope WotC keeps trying and moves away from this particular choice.
> 
> In Tolkien's world, elves were not a monolithic culture with a single language, they had cultural and linguistic diversity. Perhaps not as much as humans do in the real world, but representing real world diversity is tough, because it's complicated and huge. I wouldn't mind D&D moving towards a more Tolkieneque approach on this however, even if it puts more world-building detail in the core books (vs in the various setting books). Get rid of the monolithic racial languages, and give us three languages commonly spoken by elves in the world, seven dwarven languages, and four orcish tongues . . . or something like that. I think WotC needs to admit that the D&D core IS a world with setting assumptions and lean into it, and be careful with it.



I agree with your general position, but I don’t think these examples have worldbuilding implications. Again, the example gladiator background granting orcish doesn’t mean every gladiator speaks orcish, or even that most gladiators speak orcish. It means your gladiator character might speak orcish, unless you decide they speak a different language instead.


----------



## Remathilis

Sigh...

I get that a lot of people want to read this like they read the 2014 Backgrounds: a predetermined packet of goodies that says "I am a noble" and presents you with things and options that ALL nobles have, rather than using them as a quick build option. Most of the write-ups specifically call out WHY they picked the feat and language they did, but since that would require reading the blurb, I have a suggestion on how WotC should handle backgrounds:

ACOLYTE
Ability Scores. Choose two of them and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat.
Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.

You devoted yourself to service in a temple, either nestled in a town or secluded in a sacred grove. There you performed hallowed rites in
honor of a god or pantheon.  There you performed hallowed rites in honor of a god or pantheon.

ARTISAN
Ability Scores. Choose two of them and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat.
Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.

You began mopping floors and scrubbing counters in an artisan’s workshop for a few coppers per day as soon as you were strong
enough to carry a bucket. When you were finally old enough to apprentice, you learned to create basic crafts of your own, as well as how to sweet-talk the occasional demanding customer.

Etc, etc.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Remathilis said:


> Sigh...
> 
> I get that a lot of people want to read this like they read the 2014 Backgrounds: a predetermined packet of goodies that says "I am a noble" and presents you with things and options that ALL nobles have, rather than using them as a quick build option.



I've got friends who are videogame designers and one thing they all have to eventually let go is designing for the platonic ideal of how players _ought_ to play their games and instead design for how players _actually_ play their games. (The same is also true of every sort of designers. One of my favorite concepts is "desire paths," which are the paths pedestrians wear in landscaping when they ignore the circuitous sidewalks and paths designers put in place in favor of the way they _actually_ want to walk.)

Like it or not -- and there are clearly people who are very much "not" -- I don't think it's realistic to expect players, especially new players, not to just grab an example and go, especially if WotC is trying to streamline play for newbies.

So sure, maybe there's a reason why the sample Jester background needs to have proficiency in fishing tools -- this particular jester is very into fish-based comedy -- but if WotC puts that in the list, it means that most of the time when you see a jester in the wild, they're going to stink like fish. And everyone at WotC knows this is how players behave, after years and years of more data than any D&D design team has ever had before it. And they need to design accordingly.

Example backgrounds need to be _extremely_ specific, including with their names, or made much more general, because general backgrounds are likely to be the default choice for many players, even if that causes the designers' ulcers to flare up.


----------



## edosan

Remathilis said:


> ACOLYTE
> Ability Scores. Choose two of them and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
> Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
> Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
> Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables
> Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat.
> Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.
> 
> You devoted yourself to service in a temple, either nestled in a town or secluded in a sacred grove. There you performed hallowed rites in
> honor of a god or pantheon. There you performed hallowed rites in honor of a god or pantheon.



I’m sure you’re being sarcastic but that feels more intellectually honest than the current “these example backgrounds are very carefully thought out, as shown by the flavor text but feel free to change literally anything you want because we know you’re just picking stuff off a menu” we currently have.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> I agree with your general position, but I don’t think these examples have worldbuilding implications. Again, the example gladiator background granting orcish doesn’t mean every gladiator speaks orcish, or even that most gladiators speak orcish. It means your gladiator character might speak orcish, unless you decide they speak a different language instead.



You've mentioned this a few times, that the gladiator background doesn't represent a generalized gladiator in the D&D world, but a specific gladiator in the D&D world. And . . . that's not what the playtest document actually says. The document does say each background has _"story-orientated details meant to inspire"_, but that's not the same thing as saying, _"This is A gladiator, not ALL gladiators." _Perhaps this was their intent, but if so, it's not clear (to me). And even if they did outright say what you put forth, I still think the example backgrounds ARE world-building, and unintentionally, negatively doing so.

D&D players are used to general archetypal options that define their character, classically race and class, but also backgrounds with the 2014 rules. In the potential upcoming 2024 rules, many players will customize their backgrounds, but many others will take the example backgrounds given along with their uncomfortable world-building. Games will be filled with gladiators all knowing orcish, reinforcing the already existing trope of savage, aggressive warriors reminiscent of some real-world stereotypes.

A minor tweak makes this go away . . . don't assign languages to most backgrounds. Some make sense, like Thieves' Cant for criminals, or celestial for acolytes (as a liturgical language), but each background doesn't need an assigned language, even when player's can customize it to something different. Bring the tool and language traits together, each background gets two, rather than one of each. OR, give different _"story-orientated details"_. Make the gladiator background come packaged with the halfling language, because THIS gladiator had a halfling trainer . . . . I don't really like that idea, but it's better (to me) that what the current document has.


----------



## Charlaquin

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I've got friends who are videogame designers and one thing they all have to eventually let go is designing for the platonic ideal of how players _ought_ to play their games and instead design for how players _actually_ play their games. (The same is also true of every sort of designers. One of my favorite concepts is "desire paths," which are the paths pedestrians wear in landscaping when they ignore the circuitous sidewalks and paths designers put in place in favor of the way they _actually_ want to walk.)
> 
> Like it or not -- and there are clearly people who are very much "not" -- I don't think it's realistic to expect players, especially new players, not to just grab an example and go, especially if WotC is trying to streamline play for newbies.



But that’s just the thing. The fact that most players are just going to grab an example and go is _exactly why these example backgrounds are needed_. Ultimately everyone gets a floating +2/+1, two floating skills, one floating tool, one floating language, one floating Feat, and 50 gp to spend on whatever equipment they want. But since ain’t nobody got time for that, they offer several pre-selected sets of the above and call them “backgrounds.”


----------



## Charlaquin

edosan said:


> I’m sure you’re being sarcastic but that feels more intellectually honest than the current “these example backgrounds are very carefully thought out, as shown by the flavor text but feel free to change literally anything you want because we know you’re just picking stuff off a menu” we currently have.



But this IS LITERALLY WHAT THEY SAY. They just say it once, before showing you 17 pre-chosen sets of these options, instead of saying it 18 times.


----------



## Charlaquin

Dire Bare said:


> You've mentioned this a few times, that the gladiator background doesn't represent a generalized gladiator in the D&D world, but a specific gladiator in the D&D world. And . . . that's not what the playtest document actually says. The document does say each background has _"story-orientated details meant to inspire"_, but that's not the same thing as saying, _"This is A gladiator, not ALL gladiators." _Perhaps this was their intent, but if so, it's not clear (to me). And even if they did outright say what you put forth, I still think the example backgrounds ARE world-building, and unintentionally, negatively doing so.
> 
> D&D players are used to general archetypal options that define their character, classically race and class, but also backgrounds with the 2014 rules. In the potential upcoming 2024 rules, many players will customize their backgrounds, but many others will take the example backgrounds given along with their uncomfortable world-building. Games will be filled with gladiators all knowing orcish, reinforcing the already existing trope of savage, aggressive warriors reminiscent of some real-world stereotypes.



I think it only feels this way because you’re filtering this though how backgrounds work in the 2014 PHB instead of taking this as written. Instead of thinking of this step as “choose a background” and having the option to customize a background, think of the step as “create your background,” and having the option to choose one WotC created for you. Because that’s what the packet says.


Dire Bare said:


> A minor tweak makes this go away . . . don't assign languages to most backgrounds. Some make sense, like Thieves' Cant for criminals, or celestial for acolytes (as a liturgical language), but each background doesn't need an assigned language, even when player's can customize it to something different. Bring the tool and language traits together, each background gets two, rather than one of each.



Yeah, I think that would be a good decision. It is pretty odd to me that they decided to go with one language and one tool instead of two total between languages and tools. Not only because of what we’re discussing in this thread, but also because it’s weird that every PC in 1D&D is trilingual. I’ll definitely be bringing this up in my response to the survey.


Dire Bare said:


> OR, give different _"story-orientated details"_. Make the gladiator background come packaged with the halfling language, because THIS gladiator had a halfling trainer . . . . I don't really like that idea, but it's better (to me) that what the current document has.



But _some_ background is going to need to grant Orcish if Orcish is going to exist as a language. And whatever background does that is going to have unfortunate implications about orcs. This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the real problem here is that languages are racialized in D&D. They took the languages out of race without taking the race out of languages.


----------



## Ondath

Dire Bare said:


> A minor tweak makes this go away . . . don't assign languages to most backgrounds. Some make sense, like Thieves' Cant for criminals, or celestial for acolytes (as a liturgical language), but each background doesn't need an assigned language, even when player's can customize it to something different. Bring the tool and language traits together, each background gets two, rather than one of each. OR, give different _"story-orientated details"_. Make the gladiator background come packaged with the halfling language, because THIS gladiator had a halfling trainer . . . . I don't really like that idea, but it's better (to me) that what the current document has.



I don't know to what extent we're allowed to point others to another thread we've created in the forums, but I just want to point out that I've started another thread to discuss the place languages should or shouldn't have in D&D mechanics, as I feel like that's a discussion worthy of its own thread beyond their place in One D&D Backgrounds: Languages in D&D Are Weird, Let's Get Rid of Them.


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Charlaquin said:


> Race doesn’t grant languages in the UA. Except Dragonborn, which I don’t think should, in much the same way that I don’t think dwarf should grant tool proficiencies. Language is cultural, not biological.



I agree for most languages, but I think it's cool if Draconic is a genetic language that all dragons and dragon-kin instinctively know even if they never meet another speaker. It highlights that dragons are not just flying lizards with human intelligence, but a different kind of creature with a different mental model.


----------



## Thommy H-H

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that, whatever the final form of these Backgrounds in 2024 is, there needs to be proper guidance on how to create your own - as in, how to create the backstory elements - alongside the samples. This UA is just the rules, presented to experienced players, used to coming up with character concepts. One of the strengths of the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws framework is that it gives you a way to generate a character by rolling on a few tables. I'd like to see these Backgrounds combined with similar tables:

E.g.
*Gladiator - Language (d6)*
1: Your comrades in the arena included outsiders from the ungoverned lands to the north, many of whom boasted orc ancestry. (Orcish)
2: You were trained by an elven weaponmaster, rumoured to be an exiled noble from a distant land. (Elvish)
3. Your main rival was a dwarf berserker, with whom you traded many insults before bouts to whip up the crowd's fervour. (Dwarvish)
4. You trained in esoteric, mystic fighting styles with a master of  unarmed combat whose people revered angelic overlords. (Celestial)
5. A young kobold was your friend and protégé in the fighters' barracks, but you couldn't protect him in the end. (Draconic)
6. The patron of the arena where you fought was a notorious beholder crime lord, and for a time you became one of its inner circle. (Deep Speech)


----------



## Charlaquin

Thommy H-H said:


> I think the one thing we can all agree on is that, whatever the final form of these Backgrounds in 2024 is, there needs to be proper guidance on how to create your own - as in, how to create the backstory elements - alongside the samples. This UA is just the rules, presented to experienced players, used to coming up with character concepts. One of the strengths of the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws framework is that it gives you a way to generate a character by rolling on a few tables. I'd like to see these Backgrounds combined with similar tables:
> 
> E.g.
> *Gladiator - Language (d6)*
> 1: Your comrades in the arena included outsiders from the ungoverned lands to the north, many of whom boasted orc ancestry. (Orcish)
> 2: You were trained by an elven weaponmaster, rumoured to be an exiled noble from a distant land. (Elvish)
> 3. Your main rival was a dwarf berserker, with whom you traded many insults before bouts to whip up the crowd's fervour. (Dwarvish)
> 4. You trained in esoteric, mystic fighting styles with a master of  unarmed combat whose people revered angelic overlords. (Celestial)
> 5. A young kobold was your friend and protégé in the fighters' barracks, but you couldn't protect him in the end. (Draconic)
> 6. The patron of the arena where you fought was a notorious beholder crime lord, and for a time you became one of its inner circle. (Deep Speech)



You know, that’s a pretty neat idea.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Charlaquin said:


> You know, that’s a pretty neat idea.



It's basically how the 2014 backgrounds work, with Ideals keyed to alignments, etc. I would imagine this is what they're planning to do already, but it was too much content for the playtest document.


----------



## Charlaquin

Thommy H-H said:


> It's basically how the 2014 backgrounds work, with Ideals keyed to alignments, etc. I would imagine this is what they're planning to do already, but it was too much content for the playtest document.



It is, but it’s way cooler when applied to traits like languages than to Personality traits &c.


----------



## Thommy H-H

Charlaquin said:


> It is, but it’s way cooler when applied to traits like languages than to Personality traits &c.



I kind of want to do all of them now, but it would be wasted effort! For the sake of demonstrating what I think WOTC was going for though, here's the noble:

*Noble - Language (d6)*
1. Your stuffy tutors insisted your learn the histories of the ancient dragonborn empires that once ruled your home region in the original language. (Draconic)
2. In your youth, border skirmishes with a hobgoblin city state eventually turned into lengthy peace negotiations, and goblinoid envoys became a common sight at court. (Goblin)
3. Stubborn halfling landlords controlled the fertile heartlands of your family's territory, and negotiating with them was your first experience of real diplomacy. (Halfling)
4. A retired orc mercenary was hired to teach you how to use weapons, but her advice went much further than merely how to defend yourself in battle. (Orcish)
5. A Feywild crossing in your family's territory provided unusual and sometimes capricious allies. (Sylvan)
6. Disaster forced your family from their lands when you were young, and you fled into the Underdark where you relied on the kindness of strangers to survive. (Undercommon)


----------



## Remathilis

Thommy H-H said:


> I think the one thing we can all agree on is that, whatever the final form of these Backgrounds in 2024 is, there needs to be proper guidance on how to create your own - as in, how to create the backstory elements - alongside the samples. This UA is just the rules, presented to experienced players, used to coming up with character concepts. One of the strengths of the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws framework is that it gives you a way to generate a character by rolling on a few tables. I'd like to see these Backgrounds combined with similar tables:
> 
> E.g.
> *Gladiator - Language (d6)*
> 1: Your comrades in the arena included outsiders from the ungoverned lands to the north, many of whom boasted orc ancestry. (Orcish)
> 2: You were trained by an elven weaponmaster, rumoured to be an exiled noble from a distant land. (Elvish)
> 3. Your main rival was a dwarf berserker, with whom you traded many insults before bouts to whip up the crowd's fervour. (Dwarvish)
> 4. You trained in esoteric, mystic fighting styles with a master of unarmed combat whose people revered angelic overlords. (Celestial)
> 5. A young kobold was your friend and protégé in the fighters' barracks, but you couldn't protect him in the end. (Draconic)
> 6. The patron of the arena where you fought was a notorious beholder crime lord, and for a time you became one of its inner circle. (Deep Speech)



I'd be fine with this "to see what language you learned" approach, IF

1.) there is a table for the ASI, skills, tool, feat, and equipment choices too.
2..) there are six examples/backgrounds tops. That is a lot of space dedicated to giving sample loadouts multiple choice points.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> But _some_ background is going to need to grant Orcish if Orcish is going to exist as a language. And whatever background does that is going to have unfortunate implications about orcs. This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the real problem here is that languages are racialized in D&D. They took the languages out of race without taking the race out of languages.




But what's the alternative? You either create a Tower of Babel situation where the only language is Common, or you create languages by region (Illuski, Waelan, Ulou, Thorass, Chessan, Raumtheran, etc) which ties them to a certain setting, which appears to be the opposite of what they want in this edition. The sheer amount of space you'd use to list and explain every language in Faerun, Oerth, Eberron, Krynn, Exandria, the Domains of Dread, etc, would be tremendous, and doesn't even address homebrewers, who I bet nine times out of ten you just say, "uh, the people in the elf lands speak elf".


----------



## Thommy H-H

Remathilis said:


> I'd be fine with this "to see what language you learned" approach, IF
> 
> 1.) there is a table for the ASI, skills, tool, feat, and equipment choices too.
> 2..) there are six examples/backgrounds tops. That is a lot of space dedicated to giving sample loadouts multiple choice points.



Yes, I imagined there'd be tables for those as well, though maybe not the ASIs, which perhaps require a bit less narrative justification.


----------



## Remathilis

edosan said:


> I’m sure you’re being sarcastic but that feels more intellectually honest than the current “these example backgrounds are very carefully thought out, as shown by the flavor text but feel free to change literally anything you want because we know you’re just picking stuff off a menu” we currently have.



Because you already can do that. It's the first option on the page. But everybody skipped that part on the way to seeing what the new backgrounds looked like, so we'll just repeat it 17 times so that nobody misses the fact that backgrounds are suggestions.

I look at it like a combo meal at a restaurant: you can order anything on the menu but if you want a easy and quick choice that doesn't involve much thinking, order a combo meal # and your all set. But don't look at the combo menu and get angry all the combos come with fries when you want onion rings, the chicken sandwich is shown with a Sprite and you want a Diet Coke, or you wanted the California burrito and that's not on the combo menu so you can't get it with anything else.


----------



## Alzrius

Remathilis said:


> But what's the alternative? You either create a Tower of Babel situation where the only language is Common



That seems to be the ideal for some people, under the paradigm that "having languages none of your PCs speak isn't fun/doesn't move the game along, so why bother?"

Personally, I disagree with that. I think that having problems like that facilitates play, rather than impedes it, since they tend to invite solutions which bring adventure elements forward on their own, e.g. "this prisoner has vital intelligence, but no one here speaks his language. We need you to take him to the capital and find an interpreter there. Be careful though, his organization is likely to try and recover him before you arrive."


----------



## Remathilis

Thommy H-H said:


> Yes, I imagined there'd be tables for those as well, though maybe not the ASIs, which perhaps require a bit less narrative justification.



Not hard to do.

Acolyte
D4

1.) +2 Wis, +1 int. You spent much time studying the faith's holy scriptures
2.) +2 Cha, +1 Wis. You spent your youth spreading the word of your faith to others
3.) +2 Str, +1 Wis. You were part of the militant wing of your orders, fighting the enemies of your faith 
4.) +1 to Str, Wis, Cha. Being a small temple, you were expected to juggle multiple rolls.


----------



## Galandris

Remathilis said:


> Not hard to do.
> 
> Acolyte
> D4
> 
> 1.) +2 Wis, +1 int. You spent much time studying the faith's holy scriptures
> 2.) +2 Cha, +1 Wis. You spent your youth spreading the word of your faith to others
> 3.) +2 Str, +1 Wis. You were part of the militant wing of your orders, fighting the enemies of your faith
> 4.) +1 to Str, Wis, Cha. Being a small temple, you were expected to juggle multiple rolls.




Very hard to do, I'd say instead. I've seen players being impeded by the BIFTs, because they thought they were mandatory instead of roleplaying aids. The crutches had become a prison for them. If we have a table like you propose, I fully expect some people to think ASIs are supposed to be rolled on the table and complain that their CON/STR cleric concept is RUINED because they were put in a small temple. And from the other side of the screen, DMs asking "how is your Nobleman fighter having 18 STR at level 1? Noble background can't give STR, only WIS, CHA and INT!"


----------



## Remathilis

Galandris said:


> Very hard to do, I'd say instead. I've seen players being impeded by the BIFTs, because they thought they were mandatory instead of roleplaying aids. The crutches had become a prison for them. If we have a table like you propose, I fully expect some people to think ASIs are supposed to be rolled on the table and complain that their CON/STR cleric concept is RUINED because they were put in a small temple.



That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!

Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be: 

Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.


----------



## Galandris

Remathilis said:


> That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!
> 
> Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:
> 
> Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.




That's what I have been proposing. No "samples", the create your background, and illustrations on how to do it. Possibly as many illustrations as there are currently background, to show the variance, including within an intended class, using a pretend team of players creating their characters. No table, no anything that would tend to reinforce the idea that this part is "mechanic first, story second" and not "create a backstory that explains your assorted kit of abilities gained at this stage of character creation".


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Remathilis said:


> Not hard to do.
> 
> Acolyte
> D4
> 
> 1.) +2 Wis, +1 int. You spent much time studying the faith's holy scriptures
> 2.) +2 Cha, +1 Wis. You spent your youth spreading the word of your faith to others
> 3.) +2 Str, +1 Wis. You were part of the militant wing of your orders, fighting the enemies of your faith
> 4.) +1 to Str, Wis, Cha. Being a small temple, you were expected to juggle multiple rolls.



This is definitely not the way to go if the point of having pre-made backgrounds is to make the choice easier for new players. You have to roll a d4 to figure out if your background has synergy with the stats your class needs? Just nope.


----------



## Cadence

Sorcerers Apprentice said:


> This is definitely not the way to go if the point of having pre-made backgrounds is to make the choice easier for new players. You have to roll a d4 to figure out if your background has synergy with the stats your class needs? Just nope.




If one needs to have a certain background to synergize with a particular class, and also be easy for new players, then class/background should probably say which premade background/class to pick.

This sounds like another reason to just make ASIs free instead of being tied to race/class/background to me.  "Once you've laid out your base stats, add a +2 and a +1 to any tow different abilities you want.  Not sure which ones, here's some guidance to get you started ...". (And yes, I know the default is custom backgrounds, but apparently a lot of new players won't do custom).


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> In One D&D, some dated ideas are being dropped, including racial essentialism and the pernicious real world idea that even a drop of "impure" blood fundamentally changes a person. Eric's Grandma wouldn't want us to go down that rabbit hole, but if you're unfamiliar with this, look up "octoroon" on Wikipedia and be, I hope, a little shocked at an attitude that was still around at least as recently as 1974.
> 
> So while half-orcs and half-elves aren't their own special categories any more, One D&D walks back in the door with a related idea that I don't think anyone was asking for:
> 
> Certain cultures, by default, are associated with certain jobs in D&D. I don't think you'd see a modern ruleset try to codify a similar argument.
> 
> If you haven't read the One D&D Character Origins UA yet (and it seems that plenty of YouTubers haven't, for instance, although that doesn't stop them from making 45 minute videos expressing their opinions about it), every one of the new backgrounds includes a bonus language.
> 
> The new PHB is going to say these are just examples and players should be making custom backgrounds. But let's be honest, that's an option already, and most players just go with the example ones. So what WotC puts in the examples matters, both as a model and because probably most players will use them and never make a custom background of their own.
> 
> Some of the languages seem like reasonable expectations for most worlds. Entertainers all know Elvish, which suggests that the elves have created great works of music and drama that other peoples will either perform verbatim or learn so they can adapt them to their native cultures. Urchins know Common sign language (a new default language added to the list, which is a nice change that I approve of, especially as it carries with it the real world reality that not every deaf person uses the same sign language), which I guess they're using to communicate on the street -- which is takes sign language to a little bit of a weird place, but OK. Acolytes know Celestial, which feels a bit limited (do the Lawful Neutral gods really write their holy books in the language of the upper planes?), but I can see what they're going for.
> 
> But Criminals all know Thieves Cant, which feels like a pretty significant element, historically, being handed out a little too freely. (I know people will tell me that Thieves Cant never comes up in their game, but I use it all the time, including just recently when a group playing through Empire of the Ghouls made a wrong turn in the sewers and stumbled into thieves guild territory, shrugging and ignoring the cant signs painted on the walls. I use this PDF from the DMs Guild, and it's served me well in the often rogue-heavy games I run.) And notably, they're not giving out the other class language, Druidic, as part of a background.
> 
> Why does every guide speak Giant? Every pilgrim speaks Halfling? Every sailor can speak Primordial? These feel like big setting decisions and some of them turn ordinary zero level characters (remember, the background is what happens to them before they start adventuring) into something mythic. A sailor being able to speak to magical sea creatures in their own language belongs on Odysseus' ship, not on some random fishing trawler.
> 
> And then it starts to get a bit icky. Every charlatan knows Infernal, which suggests unpleasant things about my gnome illusionist. Every gladiator speaks Orcish, which -- despite them walking back previously problematic descriptions of orcs in the Character Races section, makes a strong contrary statement here.
> 
> What's more, this feels unnecessary. If groups aren't using languages "enough" for WotC, that's those groups' call. (I make language pretty important in my games, but we're now reaching the level in my main campaign where magic will make it never an issue again.) Under the current rules, anyone can learn additional languages during downtime, so they don't need them handed out willy-nilly at character creation.
> 
> This is just a beta test, but this is a decision that should be rolled back. If you agree, please consider including this in your feedback in September.



I mean, it's really boneheaded and opens them to unnecessary criticism simply for the sake of being cutesy.

They should have put "language of choice" there, or just not made language part of Background.

As an aside I've seen a lot of criticism of 1D&D for the half-race rules, which I think is fairly justified, but equally, a ton of it comes from keen PF2 boosters, and PF2 has a nearly identical issue (to be half-race in that, you have to select a "main" race then lose your subrace to get the benefits of the other race, IIRC).


----------



## edosan

Cadence said:


> This sounds like another reason to just make ASIs free instead of being tied to race/class/background to me. "Once you've laid out your base stats, add a +2 and a +1 to any tow different abilities you want. Not sure which ones, here's some guidance to get you started ...". (And yes, I know the default is custom backgrounds, but apparently a lot of new players won't do custom).



Just adding that as a sentence under rolling your stats feels way clearer than the current model of “here are seventeen different examples but really, just do whatever you want. “ Same with languages: “you get a bonus language, pick one or roll on this table.”


----------



## Sorcerers Apprentice

Cadence said:


> If one needs to have a certain background to synergize with a particular class, and also be easy for new players, then class/background should probably say which premade background/class to pick.
> 
> This sounds like another reason to just make ASIs free instead of being tied to race/class/background to me.  "Once you've laid out your base stats, add a +2 and a +1 to any tow different abilities you want.  Not sure which ones, here's some guidance to get you started ...". (And yes, I know the default is custom backgrounds, but apparently a lot of new players won't do custom).



I'm pretty sure the quick-build sections for each class will tell you to pick a specific background, just like they do in the 5e PHB.


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> As an aside I've seen a lot of criticism of 1D&D for the half-race rules, which I think is fairly justified, but equally, a ton of it comes from keen PF2 boosters, and PF2 has a nearly identical issue (to be half-race in that, you have to select a "main" race then lose your subrace to get the benefits of the other race, IIRC).



Bot subrace and mixed Race are a first Level Feat in PF2.


----------



## Nikosandros

Remathilis said:


> That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!
> 
> Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:
> 
> Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.



I really like this idea! They can provide a lot of examples, taken from previous lore and make some new characters as well.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!
> 
> Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:
> 
> Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.



This is great, I will suggest the same. No generic options, because people are, frankly, too dim to understand that generic options aren't the only options, and this has been proven repeatedly.


----------



## Nikosandros

Getting to the OP, I think that WotC is in a bit of a bind. In older editions, races tended to be somewhat culturally monolithic and thus it could make sense that there was such languages as halfling and elvish. OTOH, introducing even vaguely plausible languages in a generalist game like D&D seems very complicated and the opposite of what Wizards is aiming for.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Nikosandros said:


> Getting to the OP, I think that WotC is in a bit of a blind-spot. In older editions, races tended to be somewhat culturally monolithic and thus it could make sense that there was such languages as halfling and elvish. OTOH, introducing even vaguely plausible languages in a generalist game like D&D seems very complicated and the opposite of what Wizards is aiming for.



Sure, but all they need to do here to avoid criticism and silly business is not associate the languages with specific jobs.

PF2 dodges this bullet by not doing anything as silly as associating languages with jobs, and having a specific setting. 1D&D can't have a specific setting because D&D is a lot broader than PF. Indeed PF2 is a huge annoying chore to properly adapt to homebrew or indeed any non-Golarion settings, because so much of it is hard-tied to Golarion, esp. outside the core book, but even inside it, so I don't think it'd be smart for D&D to follow that path.


----------



## Nikosandros

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure, but all they need to do here to avoid criticism and silly business is not associate the languages with specific jobs.



That's fair. If they follow the above suggestion about removing generic examples of BGs, they solve the issue.


----------



## Cadence

Do D&D language choices match the way a lot of students in the US experience them?  Pick whichever off the list of what's offered, kind of at random, because you have to pick one.  Maybe use it once on a trip somewhere or briefly with a pen-pal.


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is great, I will suggest the same. No generic options, because people are, frankly, too dim to understand that generic options aren't the only options, and this has been proven repeatedly.



This is the kind of feedback a playtest can offer: the realization your target audience is going to misinterpret your ideas and that it isn't worth it.

For anyone who is arguing that 5e was "too dumbed down", I will point to this thread as proof it isn't dumb enough yet.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Malmuria said:


> I totally agree, and there has been some discussion on twitter about this.  The sample backgrounds, as constructed, lean into existing dnd tropes and conventions.  I can see why they did this, as some people really like those conventions, but it undermines their attempts to open up if not do away with those same conventions.  So whereas previous editions might describe Orcs as "brutish warriors," here we get a gladiator archtype that knows Orcish (and for bonus ickiness, they get "savage" attack and galdiators are historically associated with slavery).
> 
> There is huge potential in backgrounds doing collaborative worldbuilding work, but not if they just rely on the same tropes.  They should emphasize that backgrounds are _specific_ and meant to correspond not just to general archtypes, but your character's origin in a particular setting.  So the basic rule would be to craft your own, and then a sidebar they walk you through the process with setting-specific examples.  You're not just an "urchin," you are urchin from waterdeep.  What is waterdeep like, specifically?  Why are there urchins in this city and how do urchins fit into that very specific setting?  Or, you are an entertainer in Theros.  What is the role of entertainment in that setting?  What musical instruments are specifically popular there?
> 
> The way out of sterotypes is through _specificity_ and _worldbuilding_.  Admittedly, this is hard to present in an economical fashion and to standardize into a set of easy to pick up examples.  But it's necessary if they want these aspects of the game to become less problematic.  Background creation should be part of a session 0 _procedure_ through which players contribute to defining aspects of the setting in these small ways.  In the OSR, this is referred to as "anti-canon" worldbuilding.  Or, take a page from dungeon world, and allow players to fill in some of the "blanks" on the conceptual map of the world.



Maybe they just want the game to be less problematic _enough._


----------



## Micah Sweet

Charlaquin said:


> I understand that’s how they’re saying it works. I just think that’s a poor decision. “This cultural trait is innate because the gods made it so” doesn’t work when it’s Gruumsh creating all orcs to be aggressive, why would it be any different when it’s Bahamut creating all dragonborn to know draconic?



Its because they refuse to add culture as a separate metric, like Level Up did.  Wouldn't be a problem otherwise.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> I understand that’s how they’re saying it works. I just think that’s a poor decision. “This cultural trait is innate because the gods made it so” doesn’t work when it’s Gruumsh creating all orcs to be aggressive, why would it be any different when it’s Bahamut creating all dragonborn to know draconic?



You can do that with any racial trait though: why are halflings lucky? Why are elves resistant to charm? Why do gnomes have innate magic? Why are humans automatically inspired? Biology can only explain so much, unless you want all racial traits to be size, movement, sensory and natural attacks.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> I'd pick ones that go against type, and provide a parenthetical about why that was the language picked up.  (Scholar - Orcish - learned from fellow students;  Soldier - Gnomish - learned from assigned tentmate in training; etc...)



That seems really forced. Just let them pick one language, if you have to have examples.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> That seems really forced. Just let them pick one language, if you have to have examples.



Sure.  But if we're going to give an example -and- don't want to play to stereotypes...


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> Sure.  But if we're going to give an example -and- don't want to play to stereotypes...



I definitely think any examples are going to become the default.  People can handle making a few decisions.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Charlaquin said:


> But that’s just the thing. The fact that most players are just going to grab an example and go is _exactly why these example backgrounds are needed_.



You are arguing against a point I don't think anyone is making.

I think these examples are a good idea, executed imperfectly.

EDIT: I stand corrected. A bunch of people are making that argument now.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Ruin Explorer said:


> As an aside I've seen a lot of criticism of 1D&D for the half-race rules, which I think is fairly justified, but equally, a ton of it comes from keen PF2 boosters, and PF2 has a nearly identical issue (to be half-race in that, you have to select a "main" race then lose your subrace to get the benefits of the other race, IIRC).



The half-race issue deserves its own thread (and I bet one is around here some place), but yeah, it's a collision of sacred cows born in a _very_ different time versus making that argument in public for the first time today is one of the few ways one can still destroy their career in 2022. (And it's bipartisan, which is a shocking thing to see in the United States at this moment in time.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Cadence said:


> Do D&D language choices match the way a lot of students in the US experience them?  Pick whichever off the list of what's offered, kind of at random, because you have to pick one.  Maybe use it once on a trip somewhere or briefly with a pen-pal.



"I picked Halfling because a really cute girl said she was going to take that class. Now I know 47 words for 'tobacco.'"


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> You can do that with any racial trait though: why are halflings lucky? Why are elves resistant to charm? Why do gnomes have innate magic? Why are humans automatically inspired?



None of those things are cultural.


Remathilis said:


> Biology can only explain so much, unless you want all racial traits to be size, movement, sensory and natural attacks.



I’m fine with traits being divinely granted, just not cultural ones.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> None of those things are cultural.
> 
> I’m fine with traits being divinely granted, just not cultural ones.



So you're cool sea elves being able to innately talk with creatures with a swim speed or forest gnome innately talking with animals, but a dragonborn innately speaking with dragons is a bridge too far?


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> So you're cool sea elves being able to innately talk with creatures with a swim speed or forest gnome innately talking with animals, but a dragonborn innately speaking with dragons is a bridge too far?



Giff getting firearm prowess from a literally unnamed God they don't even worship is a bridge too far.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> So you're cool sea elves being able to innately talk with creatures with a swim speed



I don’t particularly like sea elves in the first place. But talking to creatures with a swim speed is an inherently magical ability because not all creatures with a swim speed are even capable of speech let alone share a language.


Remathilis said:


> or forest gnome innately talking with animals,



See above. Also, it’s a spell in the packet.


Remathilis said:


> but a dragonborn innately speaking with dragons is a bridge too far?



If dragons were beasts incapable of speech and dragonborn had an innate ability to communicate with them, that would be one thing. But draconic is a language, with grammar and syntax and a writing system, that dragons invented and speak, and other peoples can learn, like any other language.


----------



## Charlaquin

Micah Sweet said:


> Giff getting firearm prowess from a literally unnamed God they don't even worship is a bridge too far.



Yes. Yes it is.


----------



## Lanefan

Remathilis said:


> This is the kind of feedback a playtest can offer: the realization your target audience is going to misinterpret your ideas and that it isn't worth it.
> 
> For anyone who is arguing that 5e was "too dumbed down", I will point to this thread as proof it isn't dumb enough yet.



But does that really mean it should shoot for the lowest common denominator?  I sure hope not! 

I mean, in the early 80s 1e was pretty complicated and lots of people still figured it out enough to play it.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> Giff getting firearm prowess from a literally unnamed God they don't even worship is a bridge too far.



That's where we run into the limits of biology being the only justification for racial traits. Firearm use has been a major part of the Giff story since their inception. Ask any D&D player who has heard of Giff prior to 5e and they will say they are "hippo people with guns". Remove the latter and they just are "hippo people" and they can be tossed on the furry pile with cat people, bird people, elephant people, etc. 

The alternative, of course, is that races NEVER grant proficiency in anything and only ever influence size, movement, senses, and natural attacks/defenses. But I think that design space isn't going to support a lot of options.


----------



## Remathilis

Lanefan said:


> But does that really mean it should shoot for the lowest common denominator? I sure hope not!
> 
> I mean, in the early 80s 1e was pretty complicated and lots of people still figured it out enough to play it.



One could certainly argue that every edition of D&D since has attempted to dumb down initiative into something usable.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> That's where we run into the limits of biology being the only justification for racial traits. Firearm use has been a major part of the Giff story since their inception. Ask any D&D player who has heard of Giff prior to 5e and they will say they are "hippo people with guns". Remove the latter and they just are "hippo people" and they can be tossed on the furry pile with cat people, bird people, elephant people, etc.



So make a “gun-loving people” background/culture and associate the Giff with it in the lore.


Remathilis said:


> The alternative, of course, is that races NEVER grant proficiency in anything and only ever influence size, movement, senses, and natural attacks/defenses. But I think that design space isn't going to support a lot of options.



There’s also room for unique race features like the new version of Stonecunning, inherent spellcasting, the halflings’ lucky, the Tabaxi’s cool dash move, orcs’ adrenaline rush, humans’ new inspiration feature, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

You need some flavour or you get very boring rules.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> That's where we run into the limits of biology being the only justification for racial traits. Firearm use has been a major part of the Giff story since their inception. Ask any D&D player who has heard of Giff prior to 5e and they will say they are "hippo people with guns". Remove the latter and they just are "hippo people" and they can be tossed on the furry pile with cat people, bird people, elephant people, etc.
> 
> The alternative, of course, is that races NEVER grant proficiency in anything and only ever influence size, movement, senses, and natural attacks/defenses. But I think that design space isn't going to support a lot of options.



The alternative is to have a culture metric in your character creation system, where stuff like that can go.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> The alternative is to have a culture metric in your character creation system, where stuff like that can go.




I was wondering earlier about something called just "Early Life" or "Formative Years", that combined the culture and background things.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> I was wondering earlier about something called just "Early Life" or "Formative Years", that combined the culture and background things.



I just use Level Up.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> I was wondering earlier about something called just "Early Life" or "Formative Years", that combined the culture and background things.



Isn’t that… what background is?


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> I just use Level Up.



It separates culture and background.



Charlaquin said:


> Isn’t that… what background is?



Maybe I'm spoiled by culture and background in A5e or thinking of race and background in 5e.

I wonder if changing the name would make people think about all of those things.  So the Giff that went off somewhere fairly young with a caravan might still have firearms skill because of being trained really young in it.  The Halfling who was hired as a cook for the Giff might have it for a very different reason.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Cadence said:


> It separates culture and background.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm spoiled by culture and background in A5e or thinking of race and background in 5e.
> 
> I wonder if changing the name would make people think about all of those things.  So the Giff that went off somewhere fairly young with a caravan might still have firearms skill because of being trained really young in it.  The Halfling who was hired as a cook for the Giff might have it for a very different reason.



I love the giff (one of my favorite parts of Spelljammer) so I built a Level Up heritage for them, and giff culture.  Works great for me.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> So make a “gun-loving people” background/culture and associate the Giff with it in the lore.
> 
> There’s also room for unique race features like the new version of Stonecunning, inherent spellcasting, the halflings’ lucky, the Tabaxi’s cool dash move, orcs’ adrenaline rush, humans’ new inspiration feature, etc, etc, etc.




Well since backgrounds aren't really anything more than a bunch of free choices, I guess you could take the Gunner feat from Tasha, strip out the ASI, and make it a level one feat (that's basically what the Giff firearm proficiency is anyway.) That leaves powerful build and astral spark as the giffs racial traits. Seems weak IMHO. 


What I'm not understanding is why Gods granting magical kewl abilities is ok, but granting mundane proficiency isn't. Why are ALL halflings lucky? The lore says they're blessed by the Gods of luck. Apparently, the Gods of luck can bless an entire race with good fortune, but hit Gods of crafting can't bless them with natural talent with crafts. Maybe the God of crafting should just give dwarves free rerolls when using artisan tools.


----------



## Galandris

Remathilis said:


> What I'm not understanding is why Gods granting magical kewl abilities is ok, but granting mundane proficiency isn't. Why are ALL halflings lucky? The lore says they're blessed by the Gods of luck. Apparently, the Gods of luck can bless an entire race with good fortune, but hit Gods of crafting can't bless them with natural talent with crafts. Maybe the God of crafting should just give dwarves free rerolls when using artisan tools.




Luck is impersonal (even if the players can use it so that other people fails when around their halflings). They are blessed and it affects the world around them. The ability to cast a spell is an ability that the character decides on using. On the other hand, inspiring the mind of their creatures toward studying stonecutting and masonry is not different to inspire hatred toward the god's enemy: WotC has clearly departed from that past and gods now respect free-will, and if gods can't inspire a basic emotion, they can't inspire a craving for studying masonry, that even a dwarf raised on the plane of Air, without any access to a mason or a boulder or a rock, because he lives on a floating cloud, would feel and self-teach somehow. It would certainly mesh better if the dwarf's creator god had commanded the stones to comply to the orders of his children, so they are considered proficient with mason's tools without any need to learn them (or even without the need to have them).


----------



## Remathilis

Galandris said:


> Luck is impersonal (even if the players can use it so that other people fails when around their halflings). They are blessed and it affects the world around them. The ability to cast a spell is an ability that the character decides on using. On the other hand, inspiring the mind of their creatures toward studying stonecutting and masonry is not different to inspire hatred toward the god's enemy: WotC has clearly departed from that, and if gods can't inspire a basic emotion, they can't inspire a craving for studying masonry, that even a dwarf raised on the plane of Earth, without any access to a mason or a boulder or a rock, because he lives on a floating cloud, would feel. It would certainly mesh better if the dwarf's creator god had commanded the stones to comply to the orders of his children, so they are proficient with mason's tools without any need to learn them (or even without the need to have them).



It's not that they're inspired to study, it's that they have instinctual racial memories that are part of their heritage. A dwarf, regardless of where they were born and raised, finds that if they pick up an artisan tool, they know how to use it. They have muscle memory and knowledge of the tool despite never having used one before granted by their creator. Likewise, a dragonborn might never have learned or spoken with someone in draconic, but when he finds another creature speaking it, he automatically understands what is being said and can respond*. If that's not as magical as supernatural luck or spell knowledge, I don't know what is.



* there are some recorded examples of people knowing a language despite never having studied it or heard it spoken before. My roommate in college could understand what his grandmother said when they were speaking Gaelic as a child despite him never learning the language, his own mother couldn't understand it. You can chalk this up to all sorts of phenomena, from past lives to osmosis, but in a world where 7 ft lizard people can literally spew fire from their mouths, I don't consider racial memories of their creator's tongue to be unreasonable.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> Well since backgrounds aren't really anything more than a bunch of free choices, I guess you could take the Gunner feat from Tasha, strip out the ASI, and make it a level one feat (that's basically what the Giff firearm proficiency is anyway.) That leaves powerful build and astral spark as the giffs racial traits. Seems weak IMHO.
> 
> 
> What I'm not understanding is why Gods granting magical kewl abilities is ok, but granting mundane proficiency isn't.



Nature vs. nurture. If it’s a learned trait, having it be inborn has unfortunate implications. Attributing those implications to divine will rather than genetics is worse if anything.


Remathilis said:


> Why are ALL halflings lucky? The lore says they're blessed by the Gods of luck. Apparently, the Gods of luck can bless an entire race with good fortune, but hit Gods of crafting can't bless them with natural talent with crafts. Maybe the God of crafting should just give dwarves free rerolls when using artisan tools.



Not a bad idea TBH.


----------



## Dire Bare

Charlaquin said:


> I think it only feels this way because you’re filtering this though how backgrounds work in the 2014 PHB instead of taking this as written.



Nope.



> But _some_ background is going to need to grant Orcish if Orcish is going to exist as a language. And whatever background does that is going to have unfortunate implications about orcs. This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the real problem here is that languages are racialized in D&D. They took the languages out of race without taking the race out of languages.



Not if languages are divorced from backgrounds, or if backgrounds aren't the only way to acquire languages. I would imagine an orc character would be able to start with orcish pretty easily, regardless of background. And besides . . . can't characters customize their backgrounds . . .


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> Nature vs. nurture. If it’s a learned trait, having it be inborn has unfortunate implications. Attributing those implications to divine will rather than genetics is worse if anything.



So explain where a human's bonus skill comes from then.


----------



## Dire Bare

Thommy H-H said:


> I think the one thing we can all agree on is that, whatever the final form of these Backgrounds in 2024 is, there needs to be proper guidance on how to create your own - as in, how to create the backstory elements - alongside the samples. This UA is just the rules, presented to experienced players, used to coming up with character concepts. One of the strengths of the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws framework is that it gives you a way to generate a character by rolling on a few tables. I'd like to see these Backgrounds combined with similar tables:
> 
> E.g.
> *Gladiator - Language (d6)*
> 1: Your comrades in the arena included outsiders from the ungoverned lands to the north, many of whom boasted orc ancestry. (Orcish)
> 2: You were trained by an elven weaponmaster, rumoured to be an exiled noble from a distant land. (Elvish)
> 3. Your main rival was a dwarf berserker, with whom you traded many insults before bouts to whip up the crowd's fervour. (Dwarvish)
> 4. You trained in esoteric, mystic fighting styles with a master of  unarmed combat whose people revered angelic overlords. (Celestial)
> 5. A young kobold was your friend and protégé in the fighters' barracks, but you couldn't protect him in the end. (Draconic)
> 6. The patron of the arena where you fought was a notorious beholder crime lord, and for a time you became one of its inner circle. (Deep Speech)



This is golden! Also, I hope they don't remove ideals, bonds and flaws from background!


----------



## Dire Bare

Remathilis said:


> So you're cool sea elves being able to innately talk with creatures with a swim speed or forest gnome innately talking with animals, but a dragonborn innately speaking with dragons is a bridge too far?



Depends on how it's characterized.

Is a sea elf's ability to talk with sea creatures something innate, even little baby sea elves can do it? Or is it learned? As sea elves grow up, they are taught how to communicate with the creatures of the sea. Tons of magical and seemingly innate racial characteristics could be done this way.

But overall your point is valid, trying to disentangle learned from innate traits in D&D races isn't going to be easy across the board, and will require a bit more work on WotC's part.

Creating a "culture" category I think is the right way to go . . . it could easily replace "sub-race", and this is where languages should go. WotC could even provide more culturally specific backgrounds, like a dwarven crafter or elven forester . . . .


----------



## Remathilis

Dire Bare said:


> Depends on how it's characterized.
> 
> Is a sea elf's ability to talk with sea creatures something innate, even little baby sea elves can do it? Or is it learned? As sea elves grow up, they are taught how to communicate with the creatures of the sea. Tons of magical and seemingly innate racial characteristics could be done this way.
> 
> But overall your point is valid, trying to disentangle learned from innate traits in D&D races isn't going to be easy across the board, and will require a bit more work on WotC's part.
> 
> Creating a "culture" category I think is the right way to go . . . it could easily replace "sub-race", and this is where languages should go. WotC could even provide more culturally specific backgrounds, like a dwarven crafter or elven forester . . . .




My problem with "cultural" traits is, it adds another level of complexity to character generation. I know Level Up does it, but my concern rather than simplify generation, you add another step. Further, cultures are complex, highly dependent on the world they originate from, and still run the risk of being problematic (a quick example: what cultural traits and abilities do you assign to the Vistani culture in Ravenloft?) And that doesn't even begin to address potential mechanical imbalances (if you strip out the cultural elements of a PHB dwarf, they lose more than half their racial traits. If you strip out the cultural elements of a tiefling, they lose... a language). 

I just think that if we're going to say, "Dwarves having a divinely-given knowledge of crafting" or "dragonborn instinctively remember draconic" is problematic but give a free pass to "all elves are perceptive" or "all tabaxi are stealthy" or even "all humans start with an extra skill" and "all elves can trance to learn two proficiencies". Either racial proficiencies are all bad, or we admit you can justify them via magical or biological means.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> My problem with "cultural" traits is, it adds another level of complexity to character generation. I know Level Up does it, but my concern rather than simplify generation, you add another step. Further, cultures are complex, highly dependent on the world they originate from, and still run the risk of being problematic (a quick example: what cultural traits and abilities do you assign to the Vistani culture in Ravenloft?) And that doesn't even begin to address potential mechanical imbalances (if you strip out the cultural elements of a PHB dwarf, they lose more than half their racial traits. If you strip out the cultural elements of a tiefling, they lose... a language).
> 
> I just think that if we're going to say, "Dwarves having a divinely-given knowledge of crafting" or "dragonborn instinctively remember draconic" is problematic but give a free pass to "all elves are perceptive" or "all tabaxi are stealthy" or even "all humans start with an extra skill" and "all elves can trance to learn two proficiencies". Either racial proficiencies are all bad, or we admit you can justify them via magical or biological means.



Adding another step is only an issue if your goal is to simplify things.  WotC appears to want that, but others (obviously including myself) don't.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> So explain where a human's bonus skill comes from then.



Humans learn fast


----------



## kigmatzomat

I think the background language is unnecessarily confusing.  It should have been listed as "the dominant non-Common language used by that group".  Yes, I know that is _effectively_ what is is but it isn't explicit and, in the case of the charlatan, quite confusing.  At least the Guard references a specific dwarven smith to indicate why _those_ guards learned dwarven, but being a genric "guard" makes it problematic. If it was "Guard of Redspire Pass" it would be clear it is a very specific group of guards. "Hellspawn's Charlatan" , which references a tiefling fence or mastermind would help clarify "this specific group".


----------



## Dire Bare

Remathilis said:


> My problem with "cultural" traits is, it adds another level of complexity to character generation. I know Level Up does it, but my concern rather than simplify generation, you add another step. Further, cultures are complex, highly dependent on the world they originate from, and still run the risk of being problematic (a quick example: what cultural traits and abilities do you assign to the Vistani culture in Ravenloft?) And that doesn't even begin to address potential mechanical imbalances (if you strip out the cultural elements of a PHB dwarf, they lose more than half their racial traits. If you strip out the cultural elements of a tiefling, they lose... a language).
> 
> I just think that if we're going to say, "Dwarves having a divinely-given knowledge of crafting" or "dragonborn instinctively remember draconic" is problematic but give a free pass to "all elves are perceptive" or "all tabaxi are stealthy" or even "all humans start with an extra skill" and "all elves can trance to learn two proficiencies". Either racial proficiencies are all bad, or we admit you can justify them via magical or biological means.



Real culture is complex, so perhaps counter-intuitively, a game "culture" (as a character option) would have to be very simple.

Under the elf race entry, players are asked to choose from 3 elven cultures, wood, high, and dark. The only game benefits would be the language tied to each culture. Maybe a list of suggested backgrounds. All of which are customizable. Perhaps other traits, that are described as learned rather than being innate. Each elf culture gets one magical environmental adaptation, such as sea elves learning to magically speak to sea creatures.

This would take up the same space that subrace currently does, so it wouldn't really add to the existing complexity of the game.

There are some good OGL and DMs Guild fan supplements that tackle this basic idea . . . most of them DO add complexity to character creation, however (at least the ones I've seen).


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> Humans learn fast



So you're saying a human with a three intelligence learns faster than a dwarf, elf, halfling, or orc with an 18 intelligence? That they are genetically more capable of learning than any other race?

And you don't find that problematic?


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> So you're saying a human with a three intelligence learns faster than a dwarf, elf, halfling, or orc with an 18 intelligence?



The Intelligence stat represents a character’s memory and deductive reasoning ability.


Remathilis said:


> That they are genetically more capable of learning than any other race?
> 
> And you don't find that problematic?



They’re not more capable of learning than any other race. They’re fast learners. Necessarily so due to their short lifespans relative to the other races.


----------



## Cadence

Charlaquin said:


> They’re not more capable of learning than any other race. They’re fast learners. Necessarily so due to their short lifespans relative to the other races.




Are they that different in lifespan from Halfling, Orc, and Dragonborn? In(Granted Dragonborn mature faster iirc).


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> The Intelligence stat represents a character’s memory and deductive reasoning ability.
> 
> They’re not more capable of learning than any other race. They’re fast learners. Necessarily so due to their short lifespans relative to the other races.




Memory and deductive reasoning are both components of learning, unless my pedagogy teacher was lying to me. 

Orcs, tieflings and dragonborn have lifespans equal to humans yet are not as fast as learning. Perhaps they are unmotivated or incapable of learning at the speed humans are?

You cannot justify humans having an extra skill in any way that doesn't border on phrenology. It is easily as problematic if not more so than dwarves with tools or giffs with guns.


----------



## Micah Sweet

Remathilis said:


> Memory and deductive reasoning are both components of learning, unless my pedagogy teacher was lying to me.
> 
> Orcs, tieflings and dragonborn have lifespans equal to humans yet are not as fast as learning. Perhaps they are unmotivated or incapable of learning at the speed humans are?
> 
> You cannot justify humans having an extra skill in any way that doesn't border on phrenology. It is easily as problematic if not more so than dwarves with tools or giffs with guns.



The human ability doesn't claim that it came from the gods.  I think that's the crux of the issue here.


----------



## Remathilis

Micah Sweet said:


> The human ability doesn't claim that it came from the gods. I think that's the crux of the issue here.



No, apparently it's biological superiority. Which is a different and worse can of worms.


----------



## Cadence

Micah Sweet said:


> The human ability doesn't claim that it came from the gods.  I think that's the crux of the issue here.



"And Moradin, Yondalla, Garl, Corellon, Io and the others looked down at the poor, what was it the foundlings called themselves - humans? , and gave them a gift."


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> "And Moradin, Yondalla, Garl, Corellon, Io and the others looked down at the poor, what was it the foundlings called themselves - humans? , and gave them a gift."



"and Asmodeus sat there, chuckling to himself..."


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Are they that different in lifespan from Halfling, Orc, and Dragonborn? In(Granted Dragonborn mature faster iirc).



Not much, but those races have other features.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> Memory and deductive reasoning are both components of learning, unless my pedagogy teacher was lying to me.
> 
> Orcs, tieflings and dragonborn have lifespans equal to humans yet are not as fast as learning. Perhaps they are unmotivated or incapable of learning at the speed humans are?
> 
> You cannot justify humans having an extra skill in any way that doesn't border on phrenology. It is easily as problematic if not more so than dwarves with tools or giffs with guns.



 Ok, then don’t give humans an extra skill. I don’t particularly care.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> Ok, then don’t give humans an extra skill. I don’t particularly care.



Or, hear me out, we can accept there are only so many things you can give a humanoid race and that free proficiencies are occasionally useful ways to add flavor and features without having to create elaborate excuses or whole new game systems to justify them. 

Sometimes a free proficiency is just a free proficiency.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> Or, hear me out, we can accept there are only so many things you can give a humanoid race and that free proficiencies are occasionally useful ways to add flavor and features without having to create elaborate excuses or whole new game systems to justify them.
> 
> Sometimes a free proficiency is just a free proficiency.



I’m not a fan of cultural traits from race. If you disagree, you’re welcome to your opinion.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not a fan of cultural traits from race. If you disagree, you’re welcome to your opinion.



Some Skills, like Perception, are not necessarily cultural.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Some Skills, like Perception, are not necessarily cultural.



I didn’t say they were?


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> I didn’t say they were?



Which raises the question; when is a skill learned and when is it inherent?

Are elves perceptive because they have inherently higher senses, because Corellon blessed them with greater ability to enjoy the world around them, or because every elf, thanks to their long life span, learns how to study things in minute detail? 

As an alternative, is the tabaxi stealthy because they are a race that values stealth and guile (like the khajit of Tamriel), because they were blessed by the Cat Lord with stealth, or because they look like giant cats and cats are biologically innately stealthy?

Of course, the question is "does it matter?" The reason elves have perception is that we associate elves with keen eyesight and hearing thanks to Tokien and tabaxi have stealth because cats are traditionally ambush hunters and we want cat people to emulate that. It's part of the race's story. Same with dwarves and crafting or giffs with guns. And to strip that out is to remove key parts of the identity from these races. 

So I propose that either we put a full embargo on proficiency from race OR accept it's fine when used sparingly to complete the race's story. But this "this skill is fine, this one is not" is an untenable position.


----------



## Alzrius

Charlaquin said:


> Nature vs. nurture. If it’s a learned trait, having it be inborn has unfortunate implications. Attributing those implications to divine will rather than genetics is worse if anything.



Personally, I disagree. I think that attributing various "cultural" aspects of demihuman (anyone else remember that term?) races to divine will makes for a lot of sense in the context of the game world. Moradin is the one who _created_ dwarves, so naturally he did so in a way that he found pleasing. Hence, they speak his language, are good with axes, skilled at crafting, etc.

In that context, "made in God's own image" is a very real thing in the setting, rather than a matter of belief.

Now, that doesn't work for settings where you don't have active deities (e.g. Eberron), but insofar as a default goes (which is what the Core Rules have to present) it works fine, even (or especially) if it's not explicitly stated.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> Which raises the question; when is a skill learned and when is it inherent?
> 
> Are elves perceptive because they have inherently higher senses, because Corellon blessed them with greater ability to enjoy the world around them, or because every elf, thanks to their long life span, learns how to study things in minute detail?
> 
> As an alternative, is the tabaxi stealthy because they are a race that values stealth and guile (like the khajit of Tamriel), because they were blessed by the Cat Lord with stealth, or because they look like giant cats and cats are biologically innately stealthy?
> 
> Of course, the question is "does it matter?" The reason elves have perception is that we associate elves with keen eyesight and hearing thanks to Tokien and tabaxi have stealth because cats are traditionally ambush hunters and we want cat people to emulate that. It's part of the race's story. Same with dwarves and crafting or giffs with guns. And to strip that out is to remove key parts of the identity from these races.
> 
> So I propose that either we put a full embargo on proficiency from race OR accept it's fine when used sparingly to complete the race's story. But this "this skill is fine, this one is not" is an untenable position.



 I think it’s perfectly tenable, but no race proficiencies is better than cultural race proficiencies.


----------



## Charlaquin

Alzrius said:


> Personally, I disagree. I think that attributing various "cultural" aspects of demihuman (anyone else remember that term?) races to divine will makes for a lot of sense in the context of the game world. Moradin is the one who _created_ dwarves, so naturally he did so in a way that he found pleasing. Hence, they speak his language, are good with axes, skilled at crafting, etc.
> 
> In that context, "made in God's own image" is a very real thing in the setting, rather than a matter of belief.
> 
> Now, that doesn't work for settings where you don't have active deities (e.g. Eberron), but insofar as a default goes (which is what the Core Rules have to present) it works fine, even (or especially) if it's not explicitly stated.



You’re making a Thermian argument. Yes, “made in God’s own image” is a thing in the setting. That’s the thing that’s problematic. It should not, in my opinion, be a thing in the setting.


----------



## Yaarel

Haplo781 said:


> Drop Druidic, replace with Sylvan. Make it a valid selection for bonus language.



The "Druidic" language should instead be a choice of fey Sylvan, elemental Primordial, or material Draconic.


----------



## Remathilis

Charlaquin said:


> I think it’s perfectly tenable, but no race proficiencies is better than cultural race proficiencies.



I just think if we're going to allow some proficiencies as acceptable and others as not, we need to clearly define which. Give me a list of the proficiencies that races can grant and the ones that are not. 

But I applaud your consistency that you'd rather get rid of races granting any proficiencies to stop races granting things you disagree with.


----------



## Yaarel

Racist predeterminism as if genetics and racist predeterminism as if "created that way", are equally problematic.

There were historical arguments that certain races were created to be slaves, etcetera. It is an unethical way of thinking.

Both Tolkien and Gygax were somewhat racist in how they interpreted their fantasy races. It is nonneutral to echo such traditions.


----------



## Alzrius

Charlaquin said:


> You’re making a Thermian argument. Yes, “made in God’s own image” is a thing in the setting. That’s the thing that’s problematic. It should not, in my opinion, be a thing in the setting.



A charge of "Thermian argument" is nothing more than an appeal to consequences dressed up in a pop culture reference. You might not like it, but I find that it highlights not only the high fantasy nature of the setting, but also helps to portray that elves, dwarves, etc. aren't simply humans in funny hats.


----------



## Ondath

Alzrius said:


> A charge of "Thermian argument" is nothing more than an appeal to consequences dressed up in a pop culture reference. You might not like it, but I find that it highlights not only the high fantasy nature of the setting, but also helps to portray that elves, dwarves, etc. aren't simply humans in funny hats.



"Appeal to consequences" makes it sound like the Thermian argument is a logical fallacy that establishes an incorrect way of forming a belief. The idea is that since our beliefs about what's true in the world should not be shaped by the social consequences of that truth, appealing to consequences is faulty logic.

In science, where facts can be established through rigorous methods, that might be true. But I think social truths *are* determined by their consequences simply because social facts are man-made — and thus, we should probably keep the ethicality of their consequences in mind.

Does the Thermian argument say that the socially undesirable consequences of a fictional fact weigh in on whether we take that fact to be acceptable? Yes it does. But given how the fictional worlds we consume have an effect on our worldviews whether we like them or not, I don't think this consideration is fallacious. Yes, older works of fiction often have species created in the image of their creator, but knowing what we do on critical theory and how such arguments have been used to demonise or oppress real peoples in the past, our fictional worlds are better off not having such species.


----------



## Charlaquin

Alzrius said:


> A charge of "Thermian argument" is nothing more than an appeal to consequences dressed up in a pop culture reference.



How so?


Alzrius said:


> You might not like it, but I find that it highlights not only the high fantasy nature of the setting, but also helps to portray that elves, dwarves, etc. aren't simply humans in funny hats.



That’s a valid opinion. I disagree with it, because I think the biological essentialist implications are more undesirable than “hilighting the fantasy nature of the setting” is desireable, and I think “humans in funny hats” is an un-compelling critique of keeping culture out of race.

Regardless, this battle has already been decided. WotC has said they’re trying to take cultural features out of races. All that’s left is to hammer out what that means.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ondath said:


> Does the Thermian argument say that the socially undesirable consequences of a fictional fact weigh in on whether we take that fact to be acceptable? Yes it does



Not really. A Thermian argument is an argument defending a critique of a work’s writing based on in-fiction logic. Pointing out that someone is making a Thermian argument is not inherently claiming that the critique is correct, only that the defense against it is not meeting the critique on its own terms.


----------



## Alzrius

Ondath said:


> "Appeal to consequences" makes it sound like the Thermian argument is a logical fallacy that establishes an incorrect way of forming a belief. The idea is that since our beliefs about what's true in the world should not be shaped by the social consequences of that truth, appealing to consequences is faulty logic.



Right, so far so good.


Ondath said:


> In science, where facts can be established through rigorous methods, that might be true. But I think social truths *are* determined by their consequences simply because social facts are man-made — and thus, we should probably keep the ethicality of their consequences in mind.



The problem with this is that it requires weighing every conceivable interpretation, which is not only impractical but also impossible, and then weighing contradictory interpretations against each other to decide which should be given more weight. Hence why the ethicality should be viewed as inherent to the nature of the action unto itself, rather than the consequences that they generate. For instance, murder is inherently wrong unto itself, not because the consequences might be deleterious for people (which correctly notes that it's not okay to murder someone even if they're a "bad person" or if you think no one will care). Of course, this also points out that fictional instances of a bad thing aren't the same as actual instances of it, since RPGs tend to involve murder on a large scale without anyone being hurt by it.


Ondath said:


> Does the Thermian argument say that the socially undesirable consequences of a fictional fact weigh in on whether we take that fact to be acceptable? Yes it does. But given how the fictional worlds we consume have an effect on our worldviews whether we like them or not, I don't think this consideration is fallacious. Yes, older works of fiction often have species created in the image of their creator, but knowing what we do on critical theory and how such arguments have been used to demonise or oppress real peoples in the past, our fictional worlds are better off not having such species.



The idea that what we consume has an effect on our worldviews is an idea which remains controversial, largely because the exact nature of what that effect is remains difficult (at best) to measure, let alone attribute to any particular source. This is especially true with regard to self-evident fiction (as opposed to, say, media that presents itself as factual in nature), which adults (presuming they don't have mental health problems preventing them from distinguishing between fantasy and reality) will be necessarily predisposed to dismissing in terms of shaping a worldview. For an example of this, notice how (at least until recently) violent crime rates were going down despite a rise in violent video game availability.

Which isn't to say that there's no effect at all, but in most cases this results in very short-term changes in mood in response to stimuli, such as sad movies making us feel sad, action films making us feel excited, porn making us aroused, etc. But those are all short-term effects, and are highly obtrusive in nature (e.g. there's no subconscious "programming" going on). To that end, the idea that repeated consumption of fiction will cause people to internalize (and translate, since quite often that fiction doesn't have a 1:1 parallel between what it presents and the real world) the messages it contains, which as noted often need to be translated anyway, is a much harder row to hoe. While I have no doubt that people have strongly held feelings about what they find personally off-putting in an RPG, to bring this back around to the context under discussion, I don't think that's necessarily a compelling argument unto itself for changing the presentation of the material in question.


----------



## Alzrius

Charlaquin said:


> How so?



It says that the possibility that someone could, or does, find the material unappealing is sufficient reason to change it, regardless of how much sense the material makes with regards to its own internal logic and self-consistency. Since those things are some of the hallmarks of good writing, it's therefore something I look askance on, as good writing is already hard enough to come by (e.g. Sturgeon's Law).


Charlaquin said:


> That’s a valid opinion. I disagree with it, because I think the biological essentialist implications are more undesirable than “hilighting the fantasy nature of the setting” is desireable, and I think “humans in funny hats” is an un-compelling critique of keeping culture out of race.



And that's a perfectly valid opinion; we might be on opposite sides of this particular issue, but I'm glad we can discuss it civilly (which is part of why I prefer these forums to most others).


Charlaquin said:


> Regardless, this battle has already been decided. WotC has said they’re trying to take cultural features out of races. All that’s left is to hammer out what that means.



So long as people care about these issues enough to speak up, I don't think the "battle" is ever truly decided.


----------



## Charlaquin

Alzrius said:


> It says that the possibility that someone could, or does, find the material unappealing is sufficient reason to change it, regardless of how much sense the material makes with regards to its own internal logic and self-consistency.



Not at all. It only points out that internal logic is not a compelling rebuttal of a critique about the real-world social implications of the work. It’s missing the point, because the critique isn’t _about_ the internal logic.


Alzrius said:


> Since those things are some of the hallmarks of good writing, it's therefore something I look askance on, as good writing is already hard enough to come by (e.g. Sturgeon's Law).



I agree that internal logic and self-consistency are desirable things in a work. It’s just not the thing that’s being critiqued in this case.


Alzrius said:


> And that's a perfectly valid opinion; we might be on opposite sides of this particular issue, but I'm glad we can discuss it civilly (which is part of why I prefer these forums to most others).






Alzrius said:


> So long as people care about these issues enough to speak up, I don't think the "battle" is ever truly decided.



I think the decision has been made and is not going to be changed by any amount of people on forums “speaking up.” WotC is taking cultural elements out of races in One D&D. Survey feedback will determine what exactly that means. I think whatever the next rules evolution after this one ends up being, that will be the soonest opportunity for that pendulum to swing back.


----------



## Alzrius

Charlaquin said:


> Not at all. It only points out that internal logic is not a compelling rebuttal of a critique about the real-world social implications of the work. It’s missing the point, because the critique isn’t _about_ the internal logic.



Leaving aside the validity of that particular form of critique (i.e. whether finding something personally unappealing is a compelling reason for its creator to change it), it should be noted that these are orthogonal points of discussion. How much sense a setting makes and how much someone likes it are two separate conversations.


Charlaquin said:


> I agree that internal logic and self-consistency are desirable things in a work. It’s just not the thing that’s being critiqued in this case.



In this case, I disagree; as noted above, I think that there are two (well, more than two, but for this particular instance we're talking about two) different conversations being held; it's just that there's not a lot of acknowledgment of that, and so they become blended.


Charlaquin said:


> I think the decision has been made and is not going to be changed by any amount of people on forums “speaking up.” WotC is taking cultural elements out of races in One D&D. Survey feedback will determine what exactly that means. I think whatever the next rules evolution after this one ends up being, that will be the soonest opportunity for that pendulum to swing back.



Probably, but it's not like that won't ever happen. Heck, I expect most of us will still be right here on these forums when it does!


----------



## Remathilis

I think in the case of D&D, the issue with races being humans in funny hats is that there are a finite amount of hats to go around, as far as mechanics are concerned. Biology might account for size, speed, senses, and natural attacks and defenses, but that is a very small window to design in. We've removed cultural influence from race, and we have decided racial penalty (slow speed, sunlight sensitivity) is likewise out of vogue. The only real design area left is magic, aka a wizard/demon/God did it. Which is why most races now get supernatural abilities or spellcasting. 

All we're arguing now is what is appropriate as far as the gifts given and the source of the gift. I'm getting a distinct feeling that "a God blessed them" isn't going to be sufficient, which is further going to limit design space. (And if anyone wonders why so many new races have Feywild origins, it's an easy way to give magical ability to races without the "a God did it" excuse).


----------



## Yaarel

If a nonhuman species has a nonhuman trait, like wings, then it is neutral.

But if the the trait is to have a slightly higher intelligence or strength, it is a reallife racist way of thinking.

Any fantasy species does better to have fantasy traits.


----------



## Cadence

Yaarel said:


> If a nonhuman species has a nonhuman trait, like wings, then it is neutral.
> 
> But if the the trait is to have a slightly higher intelligence or strength, it is a reallife racist way of thinking.
> 
> Any fantasy species does better to have fantasy traits.




Beings can't have nonhuman sizes? 
They can't have blatantly nonhuman physiologies (insect and blob in one case)?
We can't give adjustments to physical stats based on having blatantly nonhuman bodies without being racist?
Superhuman strength or dexterity due to being a super-sized insect is bad?  
But having wings is ok?


----------



## Aldarc

Cadence said:


> Beings can't have nonhuman sizes?
> They can't have blatantly nonhuman physiologies (insect and blob in one case)?
> We can't give adjustments to physical stats based on having blatantly nonhuman bodies without being racist?
> Superhuman strength or dexterity due to being a super-sized insect is bad?
> But having wings is ok?



Do you think that you are genuinely representing the other side and the issues at stake fairly with your questions that have been answered and explained numerous prior times for you?


----------



## Remathilis

Cadence said:


> Beings can't have nonhuman sizes?
> They can't have blatantly nonhuman physiologies (insect and blob in one case)?
> We can't give adjustments to physical stats based on having blatantly nonhuman bodies without being racist?
> Superhuman strength or dexterity due to being a super-sized insect is bad?
> But having wings is ok?



To be honest, I'm done with the racial ASI arguments. I'm concerned about balancing races when your hands are tied by biology and magical explanations.

You can have a bug race or a blob race or a winged race or an aquatic race and we can justify them because they are non-human and have unique physiology. But how do we balance them against a standard human? Further, how do we make an orc, dwarf, elf or halfling distinct if they have similar bodies and minds to humans. They're basically differently shaped humans with darkvision, biologically speaking. 

I guess we can continue to give races more and more magical abilities (tremorsense, teleporting, luck, etc) and have more and more fey-origins and god-blessed races. But I kinda feel it's a pretty small design box to work in.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> Beings can't have nonhuman sizes?



I mean, according to WotC, for the whole of 5E so far, and I think all of 4E?

Not _playable_ ones, no they cannot.

So let's not act like that particular point is novel. You've been able to be size L in 5E from race, and I'm pretty sure (correct me if I'm wrong) not size T either. Nor anything larger.

2E and 3E had some playable size L beings (and larger if we include Council of Wyrms, but that had special rules), but they were hideously unbalanced so I can see why WotC kind of didn't want to mess with that again.


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> I think the decision has been made and is not going to be changed by any amount of people on forums “speaking up.” WotC is taking cultural elements out of races in One D&D. Survey feedback will determine what exactly that means. I think whatever the next rules evolution after this one ends up being, that will be the soonest opportunity for that pendulum to swing back.



I think in practice, the final result will be muddled to some degree: Gnomes and Dwarves having tool proficiency is probably going to make it through, even if they have to default to divine formation.


----------



## Cadence

Aldarc said:


> Do you think that you are genuinely representing the other side and the issues at stake fairly with your questions that have been answered and explained numerous prior times for you?




tldr;  The previous post was because I was offended and feeling snarky. It didn't help anything, but I felt the urge to post something and did not choose the better part of valor. Read the below a few times and I'm not sure it's helpful, but it's seems better than the last few.  In any case I'm dropping it now and will avoid further comment on it.

----

Which other side?

The one that wants old fashioned ASIs for physical and mental stats and doesn't care about how that feels anywhere from icky at the edges to calling up awful racist thoughts?  The one that says it's racist thinking to think that physical capabilities are related to physical size but fine that fantasy races often have vastly different sizes?  The one that wants mental stats to not vary because that feels exceptionally problematic, and doesn't feel its worth dealing with small physical size differences for physical ones?   The one that agrees that a two point ASI doesn't capture much but might like something bigger or caps based on size to be considered for the physical ones? The one that thinks any story of the gods creating races at all in a fantasy story is bad?  The one that thinks the gods granting something like luck or perception or some types of languages to their creation is fine, but that granting other languages and any trained skill is bad?  The one that's fine with the gods granting anything is fine?  The one that wonders why "resourceful, skillful, and versatile" aren't listed among the problematic things too and wants them out?  The one that loves all the mixing and matching of different humanoid kinds the way they propose it?  The one that finds it really odd that the children of the different kinds of humanoid are just a reskin of one parent or the other?  The one that asks why all of those labeled as different types aren't really all one type and so we should do in the concept of race and lineage all together for the reason of allowing creativity?  Ditto, but for the sake of avoiding icky parallels to miscegenation laws?

Anyway, I think I'm vaguely well read on the issue.  Which is apparently not a preventative for being cheesed off and posting when you shouldn't.

And I'll certainly take getting rid of the physical ASIs since I agree they don't do enough to address anyone's concerns about verisimilitude and because their current implementation raises questions that quickly get to things that get to things well hashed over that shouldn't be gotten to.  And I am ecstatic that the mental ASIs are gone. And I am certainly not going to avoid the new edition or make elaborate house rules for it because I'm mad someone's halfling gets to be as strong as my would be paragon of strength orc or whatnot.

But I'm pretty sure I was offended to be told I'm engaged in racist thinking for preferring that strength and maybe dexterity is somewhat related to size (height? build?) . Maybe individual size category and a more fitness stat?

So anyway, I'll try to ignore it from now on and certainly avoid the unhelpful snark about it. <deletes several sentences below that wouldn't be helpful>.


----------



## Lanefan

Charlaquin said:


> I’m not a fan of cultural traits from race. If you disagree, you’re welcome to your opinion.



Meh - I'm happy enough to in effect have species and culture more or less tied together for a lot of creatures just for the sake of simplicity if nothing else; with Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Hobbits being the main exceptions who have multiple (and in the case of Humans, many) quite distinct cultures.  Which means, when you see a Goblin you've got a fair idea of what makes it tick, unless said Goblin is an exception to the norm.

That said, I don't - and won't - have to worry about expanding and fleshing out cultures for all the once-monster species (Goblin, Orc, Tabaxi, etc.) now being made PC-playable, as such isn't the case in my game.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I think in practice, the final result will be muddled to some degree: Gnomes and Dwarves having tool proficiency is probably going to make it through, even if they have to default to divine formation.



Probably true, but I’m still going to be expressing my distaste for that in the survey and encourage others to do the same, in hopes that enough people who feel as I do can sway WotC’s decision.


----------

