D&D 5E Missing Backgrounds

[Connorsrpg]

Just a suggestion, but Morrus has a Background Page on ENWorld now, so if you have fully fleshed out some house ruled ones, I recommend you add them, so they are all in one place.

I am a little leary of organisations or specific setting rules as backgrounds. People of all backgrounds can have Dragonmarks or belong the Harmonium for eg.

Think as backgrounds as more of 'what you did before you were an adventurer'.

Though I am very interested to see how such ideas are handled. If they are like BGs (but you add one) I am okay with that. But I am worried that all these ideas are going to become BGs and therefore everyone will have their homeland, organisation, or specific magic tricks as their BGs and no one will end up with actual BGs.

 

[Raeif]

Can you post a link?

 

[Morrus]

Can you post a link?

To the backgrounds page? Click on Databases in the navbar up top.

 

[Plaguescarred]

I know i miss the Pub Crawler...

(It was a background in early ALPHA playtest that never made the cut which had a trait saying people in taverns you frequented recalled you by name...i'm sure that some who participated in the friends & family playtest will remember it : )

 

[Warunsun]

I just noticed that the Knight variant of the Noble background refers to the earlier play-test text of that background instead of the current/PH version.

 

[Warunsun]

A lot of playtesters seem to mourn the Bountyhunter, anyone want to share what it does?

Basically it gave you two free sets of manacles and the DM ability to nudge you toward adventure by chasing down wanted bad guys.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I just noticed that the Knight variant of the Noble background refers to the earlier play-test text of that background instead of the current/PH version.

Does it? I think the sidebar (which is available to all nobles) is what is being modded by the Knight background, not a play test thing. Unless I'm missing something?

 

[Warunsun]

Does it? I think the sidebar (which is available to all nobles) is what is being modded by the Knight background, not a play test thing. Unless I'm missing something?

Oh I see. The sidebar is/was the play-test version. It seems a bit jumbled since the Knight variant is listed before the Noble sidebar.

On a related vibe then we know that generally a commoner has 4 hit points and an armor class of 10 (the two other servants). So the optional squire is a Noble himself then with 9 hit points and an armor class of 15. That seems pretty cool at first level but when your knight has reached higher levels your poor squire is going to get slaughtered if he continued to aid you in combat. Would you all let this guy level up at all? I mean these NPCs don't seem to have classes and generally are similar to what was called non-heroic characters during 4th edition.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In my mind, they are there not as combat fodder but as ornaments for out-of-combat play/characterization. As long as that's how the player uses them, they have a kind of plot immunity, falling down or running away but not dying). But the second the player tries to leverage some mechanical combat advantage out of it (i.e. that their hit points or AC matter), then they'd be gone for good.

 

[rocket1969]

Hey--i'm new here and I don't mean to go with the snark right away...but I started with the first ed and have been playing pen and paper for 35 years. I left DnD a long time ago and only recently have come back with 5E. And while 5e is light years ahead of the previous versions IMO--it still has a couple of major problems that are exemplified with this concept.

Here's a background missing in the game that should have been a complete no brainer...Farmer.

You know--the actual profession of 85% of the people in a medieval, non-industrial feudal society.

Farmer. The lowly farm boy who goes on to a great destiny? Anyone?

Or how about Slave?

Why not simply let people work with the GM to get a tool proficiancy, a couple of skills including a language, etc. and call it what you will.

Instead I'm seeing the same routine as the previous editions, namely, cumbersome attempts to cover all the bases instead of having a way of simply building it to spec--allowing variances within the rule system while removing the munchkinism that is so much a hallmark of this particular game.


It's a taste thing and i get it. Folk like the "maximum calculated damage builds" et al--its a style. What I need to do is probably spend less time on these boards. The rule minutia really grinds me down.