D&D (2024) 2024 PHB Background discussion

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
The option to customize is fine, and yes it is in the PHB already, not even as an optional rule: you could always customize backgrounds; players tend not to, however -- particularly new ones.

As I suggested elsewhere, I have no problems with there being a "quick start" option for each background (for language and ASI), but it shouldn't be printed in the entry as the presumption.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
As far as I'm concerned, "make your own background or pick any of the following examples to use or modify" seems like the right way of doing it.
Agreed. It also makes it easier for WotC, because it's impossible to print all of the possible "backgrounds" that could lead to someone becoming an adventurer. They now can just make more Level 1 feats to support different types of backgrounds in later player option books, and not waste so many pages on what basically boiled down to very situational fluff text.
 


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I wonder why they even bothered printing these "backgrounds" when they have 0 unique game features? If I want to play a character who used to be a farmer I see no reason to even look at the "Farmer" background instead of doing a custom background with just the right features for my character.
I believe that’s the point. Custom background is the default. The only reason anyone would want to look at the examples is if they don’t know what choices they want to make for all the stuff backgrounds grant.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
I've always felt that backgrounds were one of the strongest additions to 5e, but that they never were capitalized upon fully. It is such a rich way to individuate a bog-standard fighter (for example), through a single player choice. And instantly they become more interesting, and easier to role-play. It was genius.

There are many ways that they could have gone with them over the years. During the initial playtest, I hoped that rather than having extra starting skills, the distinctive part of rogues was that they had two backgrounds: the Entertainer Acolyte, the Gladiator Sage, the Charlatan Noble. That would give them the extra skills and tools by default, but it would also give them a story that was operationalized through things on the character sheet.

In addition, there was the feature -- something you got from the background that couldn't be got elsewhere. Some of them were pretty lame, but some were fun and cool. The hermit had a Secret that you worked up with your DM. The Noble could have three plot-resistant NPCs following you around; a sailor could have a bad reputation. It was always something to lean into in roleplaying, and could be fun. The Charlatan's ability to forge documents, stated as fact, as well as a fully established secret identity was in many was the golden apple of all of these.

Did the player base all take advantage of this? No; but they didn't need to. There was a richness there for those that wanted it, and something you could sometimes trot out to make the game more interesting.

For me, the biggest loss of the new backgrounds is the loss of these features. I liked the tables outlining the basic motivations -- really helpful for new and younger players, I felt. The new backgrounds are now instead just a bundle-of-mechanical-abilities, including several (languages, ASI) that do not seem to fit comfortably.

Compare the Guide (playtest) with the Outlander (PHB). The outlander's feature says they can scramble up food and water for a party of 5. Cool and fun. Guide feels pale and limited (especially since it presents the presumption that you speak giant and are a primal spellcaster). That, to me, feels really regressive.

To be clear: I don't think it's all bad.

The addition of more working-class backgrounds is needed. Artisan, Farmer, Laborer, Pilgrim are all rich additions, to reflect that adventurers can come from the masses, as it should be. (Folk Hero was the closest in the PHB, but even that I felt constraining. One of my custom character backgrounds was Shepherd, which I was always proud of.

I want to think more about languages. The addition of Sign Language is great; The inclusion of Druidic and Thieves' Cant is significant, and even though it makes it non-exclusive for rogues and druids, it could lead to more use in game, which is a win.
 

TheSword

Legend
It’s a fine system.

Effectively for an Experienced player they add A customisable element. Race is fixed, class is fixed. But you can chose stat bonuses, languages, extra skills, a tool and a feat.

having two feats at first level for a human is very powerful I think. Some of those feats are very good.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
having two feats at first level for a human is very powerful I think. Some of those feats are very good.
I agree that it's powerful, but from what we've seen, it's nowhere as broken in this UA as it would be from the 2014 PHB. Imagine getting Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master (or Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter) at level 1. I'm glad this UA avoids ridiculously OP options like that.
 

Sanglorian

Adventurer
During the initial playtest, I hoped that rather than having extra starting skills, the distinctive part of rogues was that they had two backgrounds: the Entertainer Acolyte, the Gladiator Sage, the Charlatan Noble. That would give them the extra skills and tools by default, but it would also give them a story that was operationalized through things on the character sheet.
Love this idea!
 

Lojaan

Hero
My problem with these backgrounds is that there aren't any. It's just pick stat bonus, pick feat, pick language. None of these need to be connected in anyway to your character history. So they won't be. Give it a minute and people won't even mention backgrounds, they'll just say what their starting feat is.
 


Remove ads

Top