Just drop the backgrounds.

[Corinnguard]

They mad because people did not use backgrounds except for the skills. But I don't recall any adventure in which backgrounds were important. and only about 3 or 4 of the season modules which your back ground was of use.

My character's Soldier background actually proved useful in the adventure my party is currently in. Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus. He was the only member of the party who was proficient in driving a vehicle (a Demon Grinder). He's been driving his teammates all over Hell.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

While not perfectly on topic. IMO, there's no real reason for classes to have a restricted skills list anymore. I can imagine a deceptive and insightful fighter just as easily as an athletic historian.

While I agree in principle, I kind of think that's meant to be covered by background. The skills listed in class are meant to show the skills you got while specifically training to be a member of a class. So Rogues get Stealth and Sleight of Hand as options because training to be dexterous like a rogue makes you likely to be good at those things, while being a Wizard grants History and Arcana because Wizard-training typically covers those topics (I'm just choosing some main examples, not listing all of the skills the classes get access to).

 

[edosan]

They mad because people did not use backgrounds except for the skills. But I don't recall any adventure in which backgrounds were important. and only about 3 or 4 of the season modules which your back ground was of use.

I am disappointed that “we had a decent original idea but never figured out a good way to use it so let’s just scrap it instead of fixing it” seems to be a tenet of 1D&D’s design philosophy.

Personally, I wish they would just bundle ASIs into rolling for stats instead of feeling like it needs to be bundled into background, it just feels so arbitrary. If background became more like 13th Age’s “One unique thing,” being only an RP hook without a bunch of mechanical stats attached, I’d be thrilled.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am disappointed that “we had a decent original idea but never figured out a good way to use it so let’s just scrap it instead of fixing it” seems to be a tenet of 1D&D’s design philosophy.

Personally, I wish they would just bundle ASIs into rolling for stats instead of feeling like it needs to be bundled into background, it just feels so arbitrary. If background became more like 13th Age’s “One unique thing,” being only an RP hook without a bunch of mechanical stats attached, I’d be thrilled.

If it were just a RP hook, I strongly suspect it would be even more ignored.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am disappointed that “we had a decent original idea but never figured out a good way to use it so let’s just scrap it instead of fixing it” seems to be a tenet of 1D&D’s design philosophy.

Personally, I wish they would just bundle ASIs into rolling for stats instead of feeling like it needs to be bundled into background, it just feels so arbitrary. If background became more like 13th Age’s “One unique thing,” being only an RP hook without a bunch of mechanical stats attached, I’d be thrilled.

Also disappointed that it did not work (for us). Somehow, the background feature was either not useful or trivializing some aspect of the adventure or too much work for the DM to make it work. Also it was a feature you easily forget.
And last but not least, background features make creating your own background much more difficult, so premade background are perceived as the default.

I hope the features will still be somewhere in the rules. Maybe on the DM side as rewards or something like that.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I would like a life path as an option, yes. In any case, a character that starts as a class feels unrealistic to me. As you said in the other thread though, I guess we have to always go with what the majority wants.

Are you saying that when you create characters, you decide, "I'm going to play a Dwarf!" and then roll or chose stats for a dwarf, pick a background (or custom build it, let's hope) and only THEN decide if he/she/they is going to train as a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or a Wizard (etc)?

That seems... unusual.

IME most players ask "what does the party need?" (which means CLASS) and then works on picking WHO that Ranger (or whatever) is going to be.

Ultimately, choices usually bounce back-and-forth in the character's history as you build them, each part informing the other.

There's a reason why we all long ago abandoned the really old-school idea of rolling abilities first (in order!) and then picking the class that you "qualify" for, with many of them being impossible to play if you didn't roll "right".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are you saying that when you create characters, you decide, "I'm going to play a Dwarf!" and then roll or chose stats for a dwarf, pick a background (or custom build it, let's hope) and only THEN decide if he/she/they is going to train as a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or a Wizard (etc)?

That seems... unusual.

IME most players ask "what does the party need?" (which means CLASS) and then works on picking WHO that Ranger (or whatever) is going to be.

Ultimately, choices usually bounce back-and-forth in the character's history as you build them, each part informing the other.

There's a reason why we all long ago abandoned the really old-school idea of rolling abilities first (in order!) and then picking the class that you "qualify" for, with many of them being impossible to play if you didn't roll "right".

I do roll abilities first usually and then decide what I'm going to play, based on what ideas I have that the stats align with. Real people don't get to decide every aspect of themselves. So I don't see why a PC needs to be pieced together like a robot.

Of course, I rarely play, so it doesn't come up often. And I let my players decide how they're going to make their PCs.

 

[Corinnguard]

Are you saying that when you create characters, you decide, "I'm going to play a Dwarf!" and then roll or chose stats for a dwarf, pick a background (or custom build it, let's hope) and only THEN decide if he/she/they is going to train as a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue or a Wizard (etc)?

That seems... unusual.

IME most players ask "what does the party need?" (which means CLASS) and then works on picking WHO that Ranger (or whatever) is going to be.

Ultimately, choices usually bounce back-and-forth in the character's history as you build them, each part informing the other.

There's a reason why we all long ago abandoned the really old-school idea of rolling abilities first (in order!) and then picking the class that you "qualify" for, with many of them being impossible to play if you didn't roll "right".

Realistically, you are born as a member of a particular race/heritage, you grow up in a particular culture, and you get a job/background. Then something comes along which can only be an act of destiny. The class you then pick up is the one you always wanted to be if it wasn't for that meddling background. "I wanted to be a Fighter, but my parents insisted that I had to be a lawyer...."

 

[Parmandur]

Realistically, you are born as a member of a particular race/heritage, you grow up in a particular culture, and you get a job/background. Then something comes along which can only be an act of destiny. The class you then pick up is the one you always wanted to be if it wasn't for that meddling background. "I wanted to be a Fighter, but my parents insisted that I had to be a lawyer...."

In fiction, yea, but I don't see people make characters that way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I do roll abilities first usually and then decide what I'm going to play, based on what ideas I have that the stats align with. Real people don't get to decide every aspect of themselves. So I don't see why a PC needs to be pieced together like a robot.

Of course, I rarely play, so it doesn't come up often. And I let my players decide how they're going to make their PCs.

That's cool, sure. But you have to understand that it's an unusual way of creating a character. And it has nothing to do with "realism" - many of us are happy to build 'realistic' flaws into our characters. We are NOT our characters. The character is deciding nothing about themselves just because the player makes up who they are. There's nothing more realistic about randomly deciding on flaws than there is about making them up. Ultimately, it all relies on your imagination.

 

[Azzy]

Realistically, you are born as a member of a particular race/heritage, you grow up in a particular culture, and you get a job/background. Then something comes along which can only be an act of destiny. The class you then pick up is the one you always wanted to be if it wasn't for that meddling background. "I wanted to be a Fighter, but my parents insisted that I had to be a lawyer...."

Realistically? Who cares? We're creating a fictional character. What aspect of character creation you choose to focus on first when coming up with a character concept is a matter of preference (that can differ from character to character). There is no right or wrong way here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Realistically, you are born as a member of a particular race/heritage, you grow up in a particular culture, and you get a job/background. Then something comes along which can only be an act of destiny. The class you then pick up is the one you always wanted to be if it wasn't for that meddling background. "I wanted to be a Fighter, but my parents insisted that I had to be a lawyer...."

Yeah, sure. That's how the character's STORY tends to go, but it has pretty much nothing to do with how you build them. I mean, it's pretty weird that they start all grown up, too. Time is such a malleable thing when you're telling stories!

 

[Corinnguard]

In fiction, yea, but I don't see people make characters that way.

True. It's easier to pick a class, a background and then a race in 5e.

 

[Corinnguard]

In A5e, however, there is an attempt to make more of your character's origin before they picked up a class. While class is still important and still the first thing a player is likely to look at, I think A5e is trying to narrow the gap on how you build your character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Realistically? Who cares? We're creating a fictional character. What aspect of character creation you choose to focus on first when coming up with a character concept is a matter of preference (that can differ from character to character). There is no right or wrong way here.

I agree, there's no right or wrong way. But that means my way is exactly as right as yours is. I care about "realism" as far as it goes. What I don't care about is how many people agree with me.

 

[Parmandur]

I agree, there's no right or wrong way. But that means my way is exactly as right as yours is. I care about "realism" as far as it goes. What I don't care about is how many people agree with me.

OK, but WotC has to care about the general user experience and accessibility.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I agree, there's no right or wrong way. But that means my way is exactly as right as yours is. I care about "realism" as far as it goes. What I don't care about is how many people agree with me.

I don't think anyone was trying to tell you that you do it "wrong", but you absolutely do it differently than (at least IME) most players do. I also believe (maybe I'm wrong) that you started this tangent by suggesting that WotC ought to push doing it your way. (I admit that if I'm mistaken, it's a common mistake when communicating by text).

I know that @Parmandur was only pointing out that WotC is likely trying to move toward the common method, and not away from it.

 

[Azzy]

I agree, there's no right or wrong way. But that means my way is exactly as right as yours is.

That's pretty much implied by what I said.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, there's no right or wrong way. But that means my way is exactly as right as yours is. I care about "realism" as far as it goes. What I don't care about is how many people agree with me.

You said "who cares about realism" (paraphrased) that is a value judgement. I care. Having a character be created organically matters to me far more than slotting into the empty "melee fighter" space in the party.

 

[Parmandur]

You said "who cares about realism" (paraphrased) that is a value judgement. I care. Having a character be created organically matters to me far more than slotting into the empty "melee fighter" space in the party.

But why should WotC care about procedural "realism" over fitting the process to actually usage by most players...?