Improving Backgrounds and Themes

[Falling Icicle]

I love the concept of backgrounds and themes, but I'm not very happy with their current implementation. Right now, backgrounds are just a pre-selected skill packages and themes are just pre-selected feat packages. The problem is this is directly contrary to the entire reason for having skills and feats in the first place. Skills and feats exist primarily to let people make their characters customizable and have their own identity. Assigning players with a pre-selected package is, IMO, a terrible idea. Every character with the same class, background and theme will be almost exactly the same.

Yes, I am well aware that people can pick their skills and feats a la carte. But in order to do so, you have to have no background or theme for your character at all. That also bothers me, as I'd like to have both the distinctiveness of backgrounds and themes AND the ability to choose. I suspect that a large majority of players will prefer to choose their own feats, and that means that the entire system they're putting together for themes won't even be used by most players.

I'd much prefer if themes were more like 2e kits or Pathfinder archetypes, customizing your class by adding features and/or replacing some features with others. As for backgrounds, I don't mind getting certain skills for free, but I'd also like to be able to pick other skills on top of that. Not every commoner or sage should have the exact same skills! Besides, I think 3-4 skills are too few, in any case.

But what about the newbies? Weren't themes and backgrounds made specifically for them, to make it easier to make characters? Well yes, but I think that was a bad idea. People don't stay newbies forever. Besides, it's quite easy to suggest feats for beginners. That, and if the whole thing they promise about not having feat taxes and such is true, then it really doesn't matter what feats a player chooses because there won't be any must-have feats. Even if they fail at that goal, experienced players can simply point out which feats are best to take and which to avoid, as we've been doing for years.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yes, I am well aware that people can pick their skills and feats a la carte. But in order to do so, you have to have no background or theme for your character at all.

I disagree, and I feel you're missing the best part of the system. If there's no background for what you want, you can just pick whatever skills you want. That's fine. You could do that in 3e and 4e. The difference is, in 5e, you choose your skills and put them under "Background," and you give that background a name. So you put sailing, diplomacy, and intimidate with the lackeys trait, and you can say "I'm a sea captain." In fact, you're forced to put your skill selections in a bundle and figure out what they say about your character's place in the world.

But what about the newbies? Weren't themes and backgrounds made specifically for them, to make it easier to make characters?

Well, no. It was made for people who don't want to spend all day creating a character. While a lot of newbies fall in that group, most of the group that likes simplicity and elegance don't grow out of it.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I disagree, and I feel you're missing the best part of the system. If there's no background for what you want, you can just pick whatever skills you want. That's fine. You could do that in 3e and 4e. The difference is, in 5e, you choose your skills and put them under "Background," and you give that background a name. So you put sailing, diplomacy, and intimidate with the lackeys trait, and you can say "I'm a sea captain." In fact, you're forced to put your skill selections in a bundle and figure out what they say about your character's place in the world.

Why should every commoner and every sailor have the exact same skills? As I said, I don't mind them saying that all commoners have certain things in common, but at the very least I should get a couple more skills to choose myself to make my character different from every other sea captain.

Well, no. It was made for people who don't want to spend all day creating a character. While a lot of newbies fall in that group, most of the group that likes simplicity and elegance don't grow out of it.

So instead of picking a theme in one case, you're picking X number of feats instead. That number could be 1 or maybe even a dozen, depending on your level (though apparently at higher levels you have more themes, so it's not that many more). That really makes so much a difference in the time it takes to make your character that it takes a day? Besides, I bet that many, if not most people will look up the feats that various themes grant and decide which theme to choose on that basis.

I don't have anything against people who want simpler characters or easier character creation, but as I said, it's just as easy to just list some feat packages as recommendations for such players.

 

[1of3]

You might want to read mearl's most recent answers on reddit. There he spelled out that it is possible to ignore themes and go directly to feats.

And as for backgrounds, they seem rather easy to make. I want Seamanship on my Soldier? It's a Marine, man.

 

[Minigiant]

I tthink skills and feats should have ability score prerequisites

but themes and backgrounds don't.

That way themes and backgrounds will allow for unique race/class combinations. And skills and feat allow for unique skills and feat combinations.

Nothing too high.

A fighter will more like take the Magic User theme whereas the wizard can meet the prerequisites to take a feat from the Magic User theme and another from Necromancer theme.

 

[Gold Roger]

Backgrounds and themes are fine. Yes, backgrounds are just a skill bundle and one trait. Yes, themes are just a feat bundle.

Don't underestimate how many people who don't care about massive amounts of mechanical choices. There are many players who couldn't care less about freely choosable feats and skills. But they do care for a background that really says something about their pc. Themes make it easy to gloss over the feat choosing part of character creation.

I'm perfectly fine with people never again cherry picking those elements. In theorie, feats are a great way to flesh out your character. In practise, many players would pick only the really good feats that fit their PC and a bunch of stuff that doesn't really say anything about him. Many others would just be anoyed at having to choose one benefit from a huge list. I think you'll find many groups will play themes and backgrounds right out of the book. I know I certainly will.

 

[Yora]

you choose your skills and put them under "Background," and you give that background a name.

Which is what I really like about such systems. Even for people who are genuinely interesting in seeing the game from the characters perspective it's not that easy to take that perspective instead of making objective descisions based on the knowledge that this is a story that follows lots of well known and established conventions.
When faces with a situation to which there is no obvious right solution, most people will check their character sheet to see what options they have. And seeing "You are a nobleman, you have been trained in diplomacy and educated in the local politics" can make a very big difference. "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Usually this is treated as something negative, but in RPGs it's something very useful. If a player plays a nobleman, then give him the tools of a nobleman. And just by that, he will attempt to find solutions you would expect to come from a nobleman.

It's the same thing with the unfortunately obscure Allegiance System as an alternative to Alignment. Always doing to good thing and doing things well prepared and according to certain principles is nice and well, but not always very helpful to take the characters perspective. But when you instead see "You are a firm believer in the teachings of the God of Guardians and you undyingly loyal to your duke", then it will be often very obvious what your character would do, even when as a player with different ethics and knowledge of the conventions of the story you know it would not be wise and your character will probably regret it.

I am working on a setting both for my own campaigns and publication, in which social class will be very important (similar to a Samurai game). I have to see the final rules for 5th Edition, but currently I plan on using only 6 backgrounds that are available to characters in that setting, which correspond to the social class they grew up with. Noble, citizen, servant, slave, outcast, and monastic. In addition to skill bonuses, I particularly like the Background Features, which are completely roleplay traits:
- A noble will be offered food and accomodations, even in the lands of his enemies, as other nobles would bring shame on their families if they don't threat others of their class as they deserve, or allow their subjects to overstep their boundaries. On the other hand, nobles draw a lot of attention and commoners will not talk openly to them.
- Outcasts face persecutions wherever they go, as their family must have done something terrible to have been exiled. And since they are not welcome in any place, they all must be thieves and liars to go by. On the other hand, they all suffer the same prejudice, which makes them look out for their kind and only trust each other. As a result, an outcast character can walk freely in the hidden party of the city that other people don't even know exist and have ready access to information and services that are not available to anyone else.

Backgrounds are a lot more than just a skill package to speed up character creation. When the DM uses them well, they can have tremendous impact on how deep the players dive into the world of the game.

 

[steeldragons]

Backgrounds and Themes are just fine the way they are...so far.

I just love how the game's not even out yet and some feel the need to be making [self-proclaimed] "improvements"...about things that it seems many people (and myself included) really don't agree with.

 

[ren1999]

I don't think themes should be classes. That would just add too much complexity to those trying to learn the game. But if themes were advanced supplements to classes there could be endless themes.

But some classes seem to fall between the 4 iconic classes and themes.

Assassin
Monk
Druid
Illusionist
Ranger
Paladin
to name a few.. it's almost as if each is iconic enough to be their own class but because some can cast spells and swing a sword, might be difficult to design. All of these could be considered somewhere between a fighter and a wizard. None should be stronger than a fighter or as spell powerful as a wizard.
All the hit points, armor and weapon restrictions as well as known spell numbers and power should fall between the fighter and the wizard.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Why should every commoner and every sailor have the exact same skills? As I said, I don't mind them saying that all commoners have certain things in common, but at the very least I should get a couple more skills to choose myself to make my character different from every other sea captain.

They've already said you can use backgrounds (and themes) as presented... swap out one or more components of a selected background (or theme) for another choice of skill/feat... or create your own list of skills (or feats) and create your own background (or theme).

You'll be able to customize the backgrounds and themes as much or as little as you want.