D&D (2024) RIP, 2014 PHB backgrounds

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I haven't seen any discussion on the 2014 PHB backgrounds that aren't in the Character Origins UA:

• Folk Hero
• Outlander

All the others seem to be represented, although Guild Artisan has been renamed to be Artisan. (Putting them in a guild was probably too restrictive and too much world building -- is the one blacksmith in a town a guild of one?)

The two left out of this UA might still show up, and they're wildly different, IMO.

Folk Hero, first off, doesn't seem like a background, but something to grow into. Your first level character is already a folk hero? And the benefits of the background seem to be things that a DM would be granting to higher level heroic PCs by default. In practice, I never saw anyone with this background ever do much with it. At my tables, it's been very much a "eh, I guess I have to have a background" background. This very much feels like a background developed early in the game's development and one that doesn't stand up well years later.

Outlander is also treated the same way -- "well, I guess I need a background" -- but it's so generic and, frankly, so good, that I saw it used for nearly every wilderness character as a way to pick up some free-floating proficiencies. I'm surprised we don't have anything exactly like it -- a Guide or a Hermit isn't the same thing and is much more specific.

Yes, yes, the UA backgrounds are meant as examples, but as is, they will be used at many tables as the list of backgrounds to choose from and it's likely D&D Beyond will present them that way. I'd like to see a generic wilderness person background included in that list.

 

[bedir than]

Outlander was probably eliminated for its cultural leaning.

Folk Hero was rightly and justly tossed aside because you play the game to become a hero.

 

[Lidgar]

 

[MarkB]

I want most of them gone. Write one or two as "how to" illustrations if they must, but ditch the rest so that players stop treating the illustrative examples as proscriptive defaults.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I want most of them gone. Write one or two as "how to" illustrations if they must, but ditch the rest so that players stop treating the illustrative examples as proscriptive defaults.

Totally agree with this, give and Alice and Bob example but no pre cooked backgrounds or if they must put them in an appendix.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

While I hear you, @MarkB and @UngainlyTitan, WotC wants the barriers to entry to be lower, rather than higher. I suspect they might view new players assembling a custom background for a character to be a needless speed bump.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I completely disagree. There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like. Does anyone complain about the equipment packages? I've never heard it. You can choose to buy your gear, too. Everyone seems to understand this.

 

[CleverNickName]

I very much prefer creating my own backgrounds (the rules are right there in the Player's Handbook). Four of the last five characters I've played had custom backgrounds: Town Guard, Vampire Hunter, Whaler, and Tunnel Engineer. The one time I played a textbook background, it wasn't by choice: our DM told us that all characters had to have the Soldier background.

Do folks not write their own backgrounds? For me, it's a big part of the fun of character creation.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I completely disagree. There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like. Does anyone complain about the equipment packages? I've never heard it. You can choose to buy your gear, too. Everyone seems to understand this.

Then the examples should demonstrate that.

 

[Xamnam]

Do folks not write their own backgrounds?

I never did before, so I actively appreciate how the playtest material foregrounds building your own background as an expected route so much more explictly. For whatever reason, based on the layout of the PHB, I assumed that customizing a background was a secondary option, only for if there was some compelling reason one of the listed ones didn't fit, let alone building one from wholecloth. Plus, I felt like I'd then have to convince the DM that any "non-book" background was as acceptable, and the additional benefit of customization didn't feel worth that, when the ones there were close enough. And to be fair, I never felt like I wasn't able to find a good enough one. But I definitely could have had better ones, and the fact that the book calls those "sample" backgrounds should have clued me in.