Strip "Background" out of classes

[Sadrik]

If background is an option, I want background stripped as much as possible out of classes. This means that wilderness background out of rangers and druids, granted I think this would be a popular choice for people to pick for them, but I think it would be fine to characterize rangers as simply lightly armored fighters, and druids as spellcasters that harness magic of the natural world. Additionally, barbaric culture should come out of barbarian... Monk too, the Asian theme could come out, make them jedi like mystical warriors. Asian, barbaric, and wilderness themes are all very valid backgrounds but do not tie them to class because I would like to take those backgrounds with other classes or try other backgrounds with the ranger, druid, monk, or barbarian.

Couple of examples with just the class and backgrounds mentioned above:

Ranger with barbaric background (pathfinder)
Druid with Asian background (shugenja)
Barbarian with Asian background (Asian nomadic conqueror)
Monk with wilderness background (hermit)

 

[rjfTrebor]

backgrounds are more of a descriptor of what your character is in the world. 'Asian' really doesn't seem like it could be a background, it's way too vague and doesn't really mean anything.

backgrounds should be concrete 'things' that make sense from a character perspective. i'd like for them to be things that aren't meta-elements like feats and classes. i want my wizard with the 'poet' background to be able to say that he's a poet.

backgrounds as you've described them seem more like themes than anything.

 

[Remathilis]

Mearls in his "ask me anything" reedit commented on how the bard had a more "celtic" feel again.

I think you're going to be very disappointed...

Which is fine. I want backgrounds to describe what I did before I went adventuring, not what my culture was. That's the DM's job, to tint the world to his color. I don't want a "asian" background for my monk, I want a commoner, or acrobat, or sage background.

Ditto with barbarian; a barbarian + noble background by be a chieftan's son, or thane to the overlord. A barbarian + priest might be on a vision quest for his god. I don't want to be forced to take "savage" as a background just to be a barbarian!

 

[GX.Sigma]

Mearls in his "ask me anything" reedit commented on how the bard had a more "celtic" feel again.

I think you're going to be very disappointed...

No more so than if the bard had an "arcane rogue" feel again.

A warrior who fights like a fighter and casts like a druid is not any more background specific than a wandering minstrel who skillmonkeys like a thief and casts like a wizard.

 

[Tallifer]

All the people who want to play ruthless, unscrupulous, animal-buggering paladins will certainly agree with you.

(I recently left the strangest campaign world, wherein for example the ruler of the "evil" empire was a "brave and noble" paladin who slew the "god of evil" and took his place, and now he is evil but not evil and honourable but kills babies, and whatever other fevered teenaged fantasies were rolling around in our forty-year-old dungeon master's head.)

 

[Minigiant]

If background is an option, I want background stripped as much as possible out of classes. This means that wilderness background out of rangers and druids, granted I think this would be a popular choice for people to pick for them, but I think it would be fine to characterize rangers as simply lightly armored fighters,

but lightly armored fighters.... are lightly armored fighters. The ranger is the wilderness warrior.

and druids as spellcasters that harness magic of the natural world.

so you want to take the wilderness out of the druid to make them the wlidness caster.

Additionally, barbaric culture should come out of barbarian...

Monk too, the Asian theme could come out, make them jedi like mystical warriors.

I don't think most classes will even have Skill bonuses from class features.
Only one of the current four playtest classes have skill bonuses from class.

In 5E you get Skills from background.

Background is already stripped from classes.
Unless the class requires a certain skill or is envision as a skills class, you don't think you will skills from class features.

 

[Sunseeker]

To an extent I suppose. I think classes need some background themselves as well though.

You could still be a monk with a thief background. You simply saw the wrongs in your life and sought a way to rectify them, but you remain more sneaky and souncredly than some other monks.

I think classes need some background to them to give them flavor, and your background is a more personal touch. Every fighter may default come with basic training from the local militia, but YOU are the one who brings your devout, dirty, arrogant, merciful past along with you.

 

[Sadrik]

but lightly armored fighters.... are lightly armored fighters. The ranger is the wilderness warrior.

Well then what is a ranger at its heart then? If it is tied to a guy who runs around in the forest only, then that is weak. If he is only a tracker/hunter I could buy that, however I still think that is narrow. To me I think of them as a lightly armored warrior type who excels at doing specialized tasks (tracking, hunting, sword play, archery, banditry, horsemanship) I guess the bottom line is a more skillful fighter. Fighters strongly focus on armor and weapons and lightly on all other stuff, the ranger is opposite. Decouple the wilderness background and you can have urban rangers, bounty hunters, sailors, investigators, and on and on. If they can only have a wilderness background everything has to go through that prism. Not unplayable, just more limited.

so you want to take the wilderness out of the druid to make them the wlidness caster.

Yes, elementalists, shaman, spiritualist, town elder, naturalist, scholar, I don't know. Uncoupled from a wilderness background it really frees it up, to be a lot more diverse though. Don't get me wrong I think a wilderness background makes a ton of sense for the class, but I dont want to be limited by it.

I don't think most classes will even have Skill bonuses from class features.
Only one of the current four playtest classes have skill bonuses from class.

In 5E you get Skills from background.

Background is already stripped from classes.
Unless the class requires a certain skill or is envision as a skills class, you don't think you will skills from class features.

I know I really like that.

Bottom line is I don't want to be limited to the city rogue and the wilderness ranger, I want a wilderness rogue and a city ranger.

 

[billd91]

Classes need some background information. They need, at the least, enough background to justify the things the class can do and the niche they fill. A ranger or druid without some element of wilderness background makes no sense to me, nor do I think it makes sense to D&D.

 

[billd91]

Yes, elementalists, shaman, spiritualist, town elder, naturalist, scholar, I don't know. Uncoupled from a wilderness background it really frees it up, to be a lot more diverse though. Don't get me wrong I think a wilderness background makes a ton of sense for the class, but I dont want to be limited by it.

As long as you have personal backgrounds to choose from as well as class backgrounds (or foundations), then I don't think leaving some wilderness in with certain classes (or arcane lore, religious lore, weapon training, etc) will be limiting.