Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AtomicPope" data-source="post: 7682659" data-attributes="member: 64790">You are correct and this is why I feel the need to look down my nose at these new backgrounds, especially when this background is simply telling the player to pick their own skills and tools.  The ONLY backgrounds I feel should be added are those that are campaign and world specific, because those would tie the players into the metaplot in ways a generic background couldn't.  They've done this with Bonds in some of the campaign modules that were released and they work very well.  I suppose some examples might be in the Dragon Lance campaign setting supplement back in 1e they had separate classes for the various Knights.  The specific details of these knightly orders would be missing from the Knight background feature from the PHB core book.  Without creating an entire class, a great deal could be resolved through a Dragon Lance specific Background where the fluff meets the crunch, allowing players and DMs to see how the two interact.  What I like about this is it allows you to make a "Red Wizard of Thay" without creating an entire class or having a prestige class.  This frees up the DM from the worry of "power creep" while it allows the player to make what they want and connect their character to a particular feature of the campaign setting.Would some backgrounds be "better" than others?  Of course, but since it doesn't grant combat features Background features are regulated through roleplaying, which is an aspect in DnD that many gamers feel isn't addressed enough.  It's easier to reign in a runaway Background feature than it is a combat ability or Prestige Class.</blockquote>

Verification