Contrary to the impressions of many fans, I had a miserable time reading through the new 2024 Dungeons & Dragons Player’s HandbookAnd the new rules for character backgrounds are emblematic of the revision’s colossal missteps. Six years in 5 E dnd, Tasha’s cauldron of everything was released, which provided exciting new class features and a better way to handle racial ability score bonuses. The 2024 PHB Seems to have unlearned all of them Tasha Lessons. The new background rules are stifling to interesting character concepts, and somehow more offensive than the 2014 rules on racial ability bonuses that Tasha Corrected.
Many early reviews seem to like the 2024 DND Background ability score changes, however I can’t understand why the designers would go this route, having already found a better way back in 2020 when Tasha’s Cauldron was released. For some history, when the 5th DND Rules launched back in 2014, they followed the legacy system in which each playable fantasy species received set bonuses based on race. Half-orcs always get a bonus to Strength, and elves have a bonus to Dexterity. Some races offered more flexible options, like human, and others chose a “subrace” that increased a score.
Tasha’s Cauldron was the perfect balance of 5e D&D
Flexible guidelines from 2020 allowed for diverse characters and avoided bigotry
one of Tasha Biggest changes to DNDs rules was a universal shift in racial ability scores. A fantasy species now provided the “numbers” the players would use, like +2 to one score and +1 to another score, but the players instead selected which specific abilities the bonuses would go to. This solution worked on multiple levels. Players are no longer penalized for picking unconventional pairings of race and classSince they could customize their scores to fit their concept for the character. Also, the game’s baggage of “fantasy racism” was largely dispelled by not attributing inherent ability to a species.
Whether it’s in a TTRPG or a video game like Ascending AscendingFantasy racism is lazy, a tired trope that certainly hearkens back to the elves and dwarves who plagued Tolkien novels of the 1950s. There are many perspectives on this issue among hobbyists, but it is undeniable to me that the tone of older edition descriptions of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of fictional races reads uncomfortably close to the writings of real-world bigots discussing their contemptible world Opinion. Tasha Removing fixed racial ability scores was a good call, though four years later, DND Found another way to offend people.
Related
If you look at the free 2024 D&D Rules available online, under Character Origins you will notice background descriptions. When backgrounds were introduced as a mandatory part of character creation in the 2014 rules, I thought it was among the best changes 5e introduced to The game. Considering his character as more than a dwarf cleric is now hard coded into the game. Backgrounds encouraged players to think about their characters as more than a stereotype of their class or their species, but who they were as individuals, and the formative influences that shaped them. now, Backgrounds are the new straitjacket.
The 2024 D&D Players Handbook has failed fans
Restrictive character creation options now combine with problematic classicism
When Hasbro uses AI for DND Content, it shows the company is wildly out of touch with DND Fans, however The rules on backgrounds suggest that the designers are out of touch with humanity. Backgrounds, not species, now dictate specific ability scores a player can increase. This baffles me. Back in 2020, DND Designers read the room with Tasha’s cauldron of everything And realized mandating that any half-orc could start with an Intelligence or Charisma above the norm for an adventurer was a bad look. With the 2024 rules, this explanation now applies to backgrounds like farmer and sailor.
I don’t know how DND pivoted from a trend towards more flexible character creation and distancing itself from “fantasy racism” to Less flexible character creation and openly embracing real-world classism. In the 2024 rules, a Noble is inherently stronger, smarter, or more charming than a Guide. The rules give three ability options instead of two, and players still allocate their rolled stats or their point buys as they did with the 2014 rules. This is a terrible statement to codify in the DND Rule system. To say that nobles are trained in history and persuasion is very fine.
Related
Going the next step, saying that nobles tend to be inherently more likable or intelligent than many other backgrounds is classism, in the real world Sense: A prejudice based on social class. A character from a farmer background cannot start the game, which is more charming and intelligent than other adventuring heroes, based on the rules, Despite the fact that social standing has no bearing on someone’s innate ability and abilities. Giving a specific skill background is appropriate because it reflects training. Giving them limited choices for ability score increases addresses an individual’s personal qualities, and this is problematic.
D & D limits ideal background & class pairings
Players are funneled into several mechanically optimal backgrounds per class
Players should be encouraged to go beyond the cliché Dungeons & Dragons Character concepts, not just to create different kinds of clichés. Instead of a propensity to half-orc barbarian, 2024 DND Silo players to make farmer and soldier background barbariansSince these are the backgrounds that give both Strength and Constitution as eligible choices for level one bonuses. I loved that the 2014 backgrounds gave players the ability to play against type. If players choose the Barbarian class, but select a background like Acolyte or Sage, they can emphasize their background in characterization, making the character truly unique.
I am disappointed as a DND Fan at the narrowing of valid options created by the new background rules, but I am offended, as a person, at the addition of classist bigotry to the game.
A player can still go against the grain and choose an unconventional pairing of background and class, but now they pay a price for it. The Tasha’s cauldron of everything Rule changes opened the door to elf barbarians and dwarf bards as more viable build choices, since players didn’t lose effectiveness by picking a species not normally associated with a class. With a 2020 book already providing a fix that allows for maximum versatility while minimizing problematic elements, I can’t fathom why the 2024 revision would bring that back, Now made offensive to real-world walks of life.
I am disappointed as a DND Fan at the narrowing of valid options created by the new background rules, but I am offended, as a person, at the addition of classist bigotry to the game. The game has had a lot of implicit bias over the yearsAs Ravenloft’s Vistani race shows DND‘s age, and Forgotten Realms’ Chult area is generally avoided for similar reasons. These are cases where fictitious races and cultures are obviously thinly veiled, largely analogous to real-world cultures, but they are still fictitious. The 1e ADnD Player’s Handbook of the 1970s had lower maximum ability scores for female characters.
D&D 2024 brings back 1970s era bigotry
The game hasn’t overtly espoused real-world prejudice in decades
While DND has had decades worth of dog whistle prejudice, with its dated campaign settings and very ignorant cultural parallels, The game has at least avoided overt bigotry against any real-world group since the 1970s, but the 2024 revised Player’s Handbook broke the flow. In the 70s DND Capped the physical abilities of female characters, and now the game dictates that those who are noble by birth really are smarter than other adventurers, unlike farmers or soldiers. The backgrounds were my favorite addition to the 2014 5e DND system, to an unmitigated disaster for the 2024 Dungeons & Dragons Rules.
Source: Dungeons and Dragons / YouTube