D&D (2024) Background feats and flexibility

[Charlaquin]

Simple solution: tell your players if they want a background for story reasons but don’t want the Feat or ASIs that come with it, they can take the equivalent background from the 2014 rules, and use the guidelines in the 2024 PHB for updating backgrounds for other sources (which just say to the +2/+1 or three +1s in the ability scores of your choice and pick a Background Feat).

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand there definitely is the impetus to not want to take a "useless" feat because it makes one feel like they are mechanically a step behind other characters (although the longer a character plays and the more levels they gain, the more new and more powerful mechanics greatly outshine whatever little mechanic they got at 1st level so the disparity disappears after a time.) But on the other... giving out too many options or letting people pick what they want just allows for people to really think in terms of min-maxing and pretty soon one has an entire party filled with PCs that all have the same two feats because they're "the best". Which just removes the creativity and narrative originality of there being separate backgrounds in the first place if everyone takes the same starting set of mechanics.

I don't know what the proper answer to this quandry is... other than each DM being willing to make adjustments for their own games. Whether that's letting people create their own custom backgrounds or creating new feats to substitute in that are more specific to the background in the game, or expanding out or editing the existing starting feats to be more applicable to a character if their class selection was such that the regular feat just wouldn't do a whole lot. I know for me I've always been a DM that has never had a problem with doing feature swaps for players if they really wanted just a singular mechanic that their class or a feat wouldn't ordinarily give them (and it avoids level dipping)-- like a Cleric PC whose deity's favored weapon was dual-wielded and they wanted to acquire the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style (back in early 5E14 when there wasn't a feat to let other classes acquire fighting styles.) So making adjustments or edits to certain feats so that they would be useful to a PC regardless of their class or how they might fight or behave would be the way I'd probably go. Especially because I am not one who feels the need to carry over house rules to every single subsequent game I run (thus a PC in the next campaign wouldn't get the amended feat the PC in the first campaign got after I edited it-- especially if that new PC would make full use of the regular feat to begin with.)

 

[MoonSong]

giving out too many options or letting people pick what they want just allows for people to really think in terms of min-maxing and pretty soon one has an entire party filled with PCs that all have the same two feats because they're "the best".

Beats everybody being stuck with skilled because it is just basically everywhere.

 

[Horwath]

But on the other... giving out too many options or letting people pick what they want just allows for people to really think in terms of min-maxing and pretty soon one has an entire party filled with PCs that all have the same two feats because they're "the best". Which just removes the creativity and narrative originality of there being separate backgrounds in the first place if everyone takes the same starting set of mechanics.

you know what is worse?

having players come up with a backstory of a desert warrior from Anauroch with Sailor background.
And you ask why sailor background if your are in a sand wasteland?
answer: I had no choice, only combination of skills, abilities and a feat that fits my character concept.

 

[DEFCON 1]

you know what is worse?

having players come up with a backstory of a desert warrior from Anauroch with Sailor background.
And you ask why sailor background if your are in a sand wasteland?
answer: I had no choice, only combination of skills, abilities and a feat that fits my character concept.

Heh heh... while I appreciate your sentiment, you probably could have selected a better example. "Sailing" across the sand is probably one of the easier ways to creatively put together a desert warrior and Sailor background just by suggesting the kinds of sand sailing rigs the warrior and their clan could ride across the dunes.

But that does bring up a very good point-- I think there are very few combinations of Background and a backstory a player creates that can't logically be put together in some form or fashion with just simple tweaks to the backstory. So in this case in particular... a player wanted to be from the desert and the game mechanic they wanted was from the Sailor background. Okay, cool. How can we tweak the backstory so as to make them logically work together? So a desert warrior who gets across the oceans of sand on a desert skimmer works great to justify both sides of the equation. Was that the player's original idea for a backstory? Maybe not. But once they decided they wanted Sailor and they decided they wanted to align the two... that simple tweak brings everything together. And quite possibly gives additional depth to the PC that the player hadn't originally thought about (once they start thinking about what these desert vehicles are, why the exist, why their clan uses them, what the clan does with them etc.)

But this of course assumes though that the player WANTS to create a justification between their backstory and a "non-customized" Background from the book they choose. I'm sure there will be plenty of players who won't care at all and will take mechanics just because they want mechanics, story be damned. But that's fine too. And its not like this is specific to 5E24, as that kind of thing happened in 5E14 all the time as well if players wanted specific skills and took a background just so they could get Perception for example.

 

[Horwath]

Heh heh... while I appreciate your sentiment, you probably could have selected a better example. "Sailing" across the sand is probably one of the easier ways to creatively put together a desert warrior and Sailor background just by suggesting the kinds of sand sailing rigs the warrior and their clan could ride across the dunes.

But that does bring up a very good point-- I think there are very few combinations of Background and a backstory a player creates that can't logically be put together in some form or fashion with just simple tweaks to the backstory. So in this case in particular... a player wanted to be from the desert and the game mechanic they wanted was from the Sailor background. Okay, cool. How can we tweak the backstory so as to make them logically work together? So a desert warrior who gets across the oceans of sand on a desert skimmer works great to justify both sides of the equation. Was that the player's original idea for a backstory? Maybe not. But once they decided they wanted Sailor and they decided they wanted to align the two... that simple tweak brings everything together. And quite possibly gives additional depth to the PC that the player hadn't originally thought about (once they start thinking about what these desert vehicles are, why the exist, why their clan uses them, what the clan does with them etc.)

But this of course assumes though that the player WANTS to create a justification between their backstory and a "non-customized" Background from the book they choose. I'm sure there will be plenty of players who won't care at all and will take mechanics just because they want mechanics, story be damned. But that's fine too. And its not like this is specific to 5E24, as that kind of thing happened in 5E14 all the time as well if players wanted specific skills and took a background just so they could get Perception for example.

That is why I prefer custom bacground.

Make whatever story and history for your character as you like and take any mechanics that fits your vision of the character.

One farmer is surely somewhat different from another, surely we do not have clones working the fields.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That is why I prefer custom bacground.

Make whatever story and history for your character as you like and take any mechanics that fits your vision of the character.

One farmer is surely somewhat different from another, surely we do not have clones working the fields.

I absolutely agree. My original point was only that it could result in every player at the table taking the exact same skills and feat if all that mattered was mechanical efficiency. Which isn't something bad in and of itself... but was merely a comment reflective to the idea that players now can't choose Backgrounds suited for their character backstory.

If a player wants both a Background that is most in line with their backstory and they want a very strong set of mechanics... they are probably going to need to make a Custom one. Which just might result (if every player does that) in five different Custom Backgrounds, ALL of which give almost the exact same skills and feat (because all five players look for the strongest and most useful mechanics from the list.) Which defeats the purpose of having a narratively-strong Background system in the first place that is supposed to make characters narratively different. It ends up being a bit of a lie when a player says they need their Background to match their specific backstory when the mechanics of their Background are exactly the same as the mechanics of another completely unrelated Background. They end up being "specific" in name only.

 

[ECMO3]

There really is no reason to restrict players IMO. The ability increases associated with the backgrounds are the big problem for me, they make no sense at all when put against the backdrop of a character.

We had a good thing going with TCE and put your bonuses where you want them, I don't understand the rationale for abandoning that and if you are going to abandon it I don't understand why it is tied to background and not class.

I am less concerned with the feat selection, although I don't understand why it is necessary. I see no good reason to tie feat to background when it is so easy to just not do that.

The current background system in the 2024 PHB has mechanical incentives for NOT choosing a background typically thematically associated with your class. Accolyte for example is mechanically a bad background for a Cleric and a horrible background for a Paladin, the two classes that make the most sense thematically. Meanwhile Criminal is a bad background for a Rogue. Mechanically, both of those backgrounds make more sense for a Wizard. While we are talking about Wizards, Sage is not great for Wizards but it is probably the best background for a Cleric.

 

[ECMO3]

I absolutely agree. My original point was only that it could result in every player at the table taking the exact same skills and feat if all that mattered was mechanical efficiency.

Theoretically yes. But theoretically every PC could play a Sorcerer or a Wizard if all that mattered is mechanical efficiency.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't know what the proper answer to this quandry is...

Your post is spot-on. The PHB isn't out yet and some are already complaining that the power creep they got (free feat) is restrictive. But as soon as you make it flexible, they will flock to the same few feats most of the times. Maybe then they will ask for those to became default mechanics 'because we always take them anyway', and then complain the backgrounds are so dry, they should have something that fits with narrative. Vicious cycle...

My 'proper' answer is dump those players to other DMs.