# Just drop the backgrounds.



## Horwath (Sep 22, 2022)

With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.

Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
add choice of 2 languages/tool/weapons total to your 1st level class proficiencies.
Take one feat.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 22, 2022)

No thank you. My players would rather pick a thematic background than custom pick mechanical bits.  Doesn't fit their style. The current approach of providing the custom option as default and then example background options is the best of both worlds.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

Given a choice between choosing fully-fleshed and crunchy background, and a background where I can pick any two skills/languages/tools and weapons to my list of proficiencies in addition to a feat, I would probably pick the former for it's familiarity and ease of use. I won't be trying to guess what skills/languages/tool/weapons an Acolyte is likely to have based on some fluffy description. I won't need to because it would be there. And if don't like a particular feature of that crunchy background, I can tweak it with the DM's permission.   

Let's not give the poor DM a headache.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 22, 2022)

I'm actually thinking the opposite - with customisable backgrounds and a selection of level dependent feats why bother to have Classes?

Just turn everything into a Customisable Background


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 22, 2022)

I have never met anyone that dislikes backgrounds. I see no reason to remove them.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> I'm actually thinking the opposite - with customisable backgrounds and a selection of level dependent feats why bother to have Classes?
> 
> Just turn everything into a Customisable Background



Would it still be D&D if things went in that particular direction?  This question or something similar to it has been asked by players and DMs alike whenever a new edition is rolled out. Those new to 1D&D and D&D in general would probably say yes or maybe. Veteran players of a particular past edition of D&D will probably say no or maybe. It's in the literal eye(s) of the Beholder.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 22, 2022)

I really like backgrounds although wealways forgot inspiration and the background feature.

The OneDnD backgrounds are a big imorovement. Some crunch, some fluff and helping new and old players to bring their character to life.

I added background 1st level feats in my regular game at school, and the kids really lile them and chose them because of flavour, not mechanics.

Most interstingly, the new backgrounds work close to the battlemaster builds. Giving ideas but leaving everything open for customization. We need more of that, not less.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 22, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> I'm actually thinking the opposite - with customisable backgrounds and a selection of level dependent feats why bother to have Classes?
> 
> Just turn everything into a Customisable Background



I like this idea a lot.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> No thank you. My players would rather pick a thematic background than custom pick mechanical bits.  Doesn't fit their style. The current approach of providing the custom option as default and then example background options is the best of both worlds.



you can always have examples in PHB, and I'm looking forward to see their ideas.

But as it is customizable, we do not need two steps in character creation.

background, then class.
Just mold it into class at 1st level. Then you have only one step in character creation after race.
Then if needed you can look at some examples.

also if you remove class skill restriction, you can make your background better as you will have minimum of 4 skills and two tools/languages to customize it, plus additional if you class gives more than 2 skills at 1st level currently.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
> Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.
> 
> Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
> ...



Where are you putting ASI? Back into race?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 22, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Where are you putting ASI? Back into race?



forgot about that.
but, it is also irrelevant as it is floating +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1.
It can be in race or in 1st level class options.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 22, 2022)

I would leave the sample backgrounds in the book and let people that can make their own a way to do that.  I can see the abuse of letting everyone free range make a background and each Turnip Farmer being skilled in Perception and Investigation/Thieves' Tools and martial weapons.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 22, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I would leave the sample backgrounds in the book and let people that can make their own a way to do that.  I can see the abuse of letting everyone free range make a background and each Turnip Farmer being skilled in Perception and Investigation/Thieves' Tools and martial weapons.



If everyone wants to play some kind of burglar, let them.
Party will be short on other areas then.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 22, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I would leave the sample backgrounds in the book and let people that can make their own a way to do that.  I can see the abuse of letting everyone free range make a background and each Turnip Farmer being skilled in Perception and Investigation/Thieves' Tools and martial weapons.



I really hope, passive perception will be decoupled from the perception skill like grapple from athletics and acrobatics.


----------



## aco175 (Sep 22, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I really hope, passive perception will be decoupled from the perception skill like grapple from athletics and acrobatics.



I tend to not use passive checks that much.  Not sure if I should use them more.  Letting everyone just pick 2 bonus skills means that everyone picks the 'god' skill for one and shoehorn a reason that it fits.  "Turnip farmers need to have good Perception to spot blight on the plants and see if rabbits are eating the crops."


----------



## gorice (Sep 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> No thank you. My players would rather pick a thematic background than custom pick mechanical bits.  Doesn't fit their style. The current approach of providing the custom option as default and then example background options is the best of both worlds.



Serious question: how often does the thematic background (which I also like!) come up in play?

Unfortunately, my experience is that most players kind of forget about their backgrounds, or at least don't find ways of making them relevant to what is actually happening in play. With the new changes that remove background features and encourage customisation, I only see this getting worse. In which case, yeah, ditch 'em.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2022)

My general feeling is that freeform selection of abilities is not D&D to me. D&D was always the game where you chose a class, not picked from a menu of abilities. Same with the other modular elements. Both approaches are fine, and make for great games, but D&D is characterised by pre-written character options.


----------



## delericho (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
> Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.
> 
> Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
> ...



I would rather they get rid of the "fully customizable" aspect. Backgrounds were great; turning them into just a free selection of some stuff is a big retrograde step, IMO.

I'd actually make race and class and background all fixed, but then add a customization step, in which players can optionally switch out a small number of "things" for other, comparable "things" - be those "things" languages, proficiencies, or whatever. So that yes, your Fighter can be proficient in Arcana, or your Dwarf can have Improved Darkvision instead of Stonecunning, or your Hermit can have picked up proficiency in land vehicles along the way... but you can't have _all_ those things.

(Oh, if doing this I would also remove the ASIs from backgrounds. Either just by making them truly floating or, better, building them into the random roll/point buy/standard array all along.)


----------



## prabe (Sep 22, 2022)

I have always told the players in the campaigns I'm DMing that they'd have to tell me about their Background Features, because I wasn't going to keep track of them; I think they've come up occasionally but rarely. I'm actually happier to see something more consistent with other rules/character elements--such as Feats--replacing the bespoke Features. At least they'll get used.


----------



## payn (Sep 22, 2022)

PF2 came up with this clever little "know your ABCs" idea of character creation. Your stats will be determined by a process of choosing ancestry, then background, and finally class. However, the game math only works in a few varieties so only 2-3 stat arrays work anyways. Its a total smoke screen to make folks think the process is more organic. Probably best dropped in favor of just choose one of these arrays.

I think backgrounds a re a little different here in 5E. I can see the comparison though. The point about players never bringing up the background again is a good one. These mechanical packages dont really tie into the character or during play. So, the idea of just dropping them is, perhaps not popular, but makes some sense. I'd say expand backgrounds and give them more mechanical impact in game throughout the life of the character, but that is not the 5E way. Though, I have wanted this since PF1 introduced traits because its a flavorful idea that just doesn't have the staying power to matter. Ultimately, I think backgrounds will be the new BIFTs of 5.5E so I get where the OP is coming from.


----------



## prabe (Sep 22, 2022)

delericho said:


> I would rather they get rid of the "fully customizable" aspect. Backgrounds were great; turning them into just a free selection of some stuff is a big retrograde step, IMO.
> 
> (That said, I would _definitely _remove the ASIs from backgrounds before removing customization - by preference I'd just build them into the ability score generation step, but if they must be kept separate then make them genuinely separate. That is, they're not part of race _or _class_ or_ background.)



Backgrounds are fully customizable in 5e, RAW.









						Player's Handbook
					

Everything a player needs to create heroic characters for Dungeons & Dragons the world’s greatest roleplaying game.




					www.dndbeyond.com
				




There isn't anything in there that says this is an optional rule, and the only thing you're advised to work with your DM on is the Feature.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 22, 2022)

Morrus said:


> My general feeling is that freeform selection of abilities is not D&D to me. D&D was always the game where you chose a class, not picked from a menu of abilities. Same with the other modular elements. Both approaches are fine, and make for great games, but D&D is characterised by pre-written character options.



I agree that it can be that in "basic" mode or as a guideline for new players, and in most editions later addons in materials added lost of "alternate class features" to every class, some were made for balance sake, some for variety in character concept.

Rogue can be after racial choice:

1st option:
27 point buy,
+2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 ASI
6 skills
4 tools or languages(2 from background, rogues thieves tools, thieves cant language)
choice of feat.
expertise 2×

2nd option: suggested build,
STR 10, DEX 17, CON 14, INT 10, WIS 14, CHA 10
feat: skilled
tools: thieves tools(expertise), disguise kit, forgery kit,
languages: thieves cant
Skills(9): acrobatics, stealth(expertise), sleight of hands, investigation, history, insight, perception, survival, deception,


----------



## delericho (Sep 22, 2022)

prabe said:


> Backgrounds are fully customizable in 5e, RAW.



I didn't say it was a _new_ retrograde step. 

(Which, yes, means that Backgrounds were great for all of 300 words before WotC ruined them...)


----------



## prabe (Sep 22, 2022)

delericho said:


> I didn't say it was a _new_ retrograde step.
> 
> (Which, yes, means that Backgrounds were great for all of 300 words before WotC ruined them...)



That's fair.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 22, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Where are you putting ASI? Back into race?



Why attach them to anything?  Just make it part of building your character.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> you can always have examples in PHB, and I'm looking forward to see their ideas.
> 
> But as it is customizable, we do not need two steps in character creation.
> 
> ...



Quick note, Class comes before Race selection in OneD&D now.

They won't get rid of Backgrounds, that has been a hugely successful part of 5E.


----------



## Oofta (Sep 22, 2022)

Maybe there's people I've never played that get more out of them, but in my experience it's something you put on your character sheet along with traits and whatnot that are pretty much forgotten after the first session or two. I do like backgrounds as optional fluff for those that want them.  It's really campaign and DM dependent though, most of the time they don't really matter and people just select them for the associated proficiency bonuses.  

So I'd say keep the backgrounds, keep the instructions on customizing them.  I wouldn't tie ASIs to anything.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 22, 2022)

gorice said:


> Serious question: how often does the thematic background (which I also like!) come up in play?
> 
> Unfortunately, my experience is that most players kind of forget about their backgrounds, or at least don't find ways of making them relevant to what is actually happening in play. With the new changes that remove background features and encourage customisation, I only see this getting worse. In which case, yeah, ditch 'em.



It doesn't come up in play much at all, just character creation. They want a background that fits the theme of their character when they create it and that is about it. But it is important to them when they are making their character.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> you can always have examples in PHB, and I'm looking forward to see their ideas.
> 
> But as it is customizable, we do not need two steps in character creation.
> 
> ...



OK, I guess I misunderstood. However, I still disagree. Again, we play level 0 with just our background, no class. So it wouldn't work for us.  Also, a background should, IMO, be something separate from your class.  I don't see a benefit to making them the same step.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

The new edition could always come up with a Culture element instead. Background is what you did before you went out to become an Adventurer.   Culture is just as important as race and background.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 22, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> The new edition could always come up with a Culture element instead. Background is what you did before you went out to become an Adventurer.   Culture is just as important as race and background.



Yeah the idea of having four parts to character creation appeals personally,
Species: inherent biological traits (elven trance, tiefling fire resistance, halfling’s nimble)
Culture: learned societal traits (languages, dwarven armour training, Gnome’s tinker)
Background: skills from what you did before you became an adventurer (extra proficiencies, specific traits(folk hero’s rustic hospitality, noble’s position of privilege)
Class: class (rogue, cleric, warlock, ect...)


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Yeah the idea of having four parts to character creation appeals personally,
> Species: inherent biological traits (elven trance, tiefling fire resistance, halfling’s nimble)
> Culture: learned societal traits (languages, dwarven armour training, H-Orc’s savage attacks)
> Background: skills from what you did before you became an adventurer (extra proficiencies, specific traits(folk hero’s rustic hospitality, noble’s position of privilege)
> Class: class (rogue, cleric, warlock, ect...)



Character creation in Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition is composed of Heritage (who your parents are), Culture (the society you grew up in), Background (who you before you became an adventurer) and Destiny (your goal as an adventurer). And with regards to the first two, you can be a member of one heritage, but grow up in a completely different culture (and gain the benefits of being raised in that other culture). 

Why is culture not considered relevant in D&D?


----------



## gorice (Sep 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Again, we play level 0 with just our background, no class.



That's a really cool idea. Do you choose stats first, or generate them when you pick a class?


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 22, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Why is culture not considered relevant in D&D?



I don’t think it was considered irrelevant only that it was considered part and parcel of your species, ‘you are an X, you were raised in a society of other X’s’


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> I don’t think it was considered irrelevant only that it was considered part and parcel of your species, ‘you are an X, you were raised in a society of other X’s’



True, but what if you wanted X to be raised in a society of Y's?


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 22, 2022)

gorice said:


> That's a really cool idea. Do you choose stats first, or generate them when you pick a class?



Logically you would pick stats first right? Even commoners who don’t have a class still have stats.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 22, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> True, but what if you wanted X to be raised in a society of Y's?



Then you just had to deal with having your biological species societal traits, or build your character to accommodate, or ask your GM to homebrew/swap out some of your features.

But just because DnD doesn’t offer flexibility of culture doesn’t mean culture isn’t factored as a feature.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 22, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I tend to not use passive checks that much.  Not sure if I should use them more.  Letting everyone just pick 2 bonus skills means that everyone picks the 'god' skill for one and shoehorn a reason that it fits.  "Turnip farmers need to have good Perception to spot blight on the plants and see if rabbits are eating the crops."




I think, decoupling makes perecption a normal skill.
If stealth vs awareness defense is standard, you don't risk missing out an entire turn, just because you don't have skilled perception.

On a different note: the current rules also allow everyone to chose any skill they like, as backgrounds are already optional.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Then you just had to deal with having your biological species societal traits, or build your character to accommodate, or ask your GM to homebrew/swap out some of your features.
> 
> But just because DnD doesn’t offer flexibility of culture doesn’t mean culture isn’t factored as a feature.



True. In Advanced 5th Edition otoh, you get some crunch for being a member of a particular culture. The crunch takes on the form of additional proficiencies in skills, languages, tools and weapons. You might also get a spell-like ability. For instance, Dragonborn can be a part of the Dragonbound Culture and gain expertise to Charisma skill checks when dealing with dragons, a cantrip from either the Wizard's or Cleric's spell lists and a Progenitor's Boon (which depends on what kind of dragon your progenitor happens to be- Chromatic, Essence, Gem and Metallic). Chromatic Dragonborn with this background get a limited form of _Cause Fear. _Essence Dragonborn, who have something of a druidic bent get the Druidcraft cantrip and get an expertise die not just with dragons, but with woodland creatures as well. Gem Dragonborn get three cantrips so that they can be better spies. And Metallic Dragonborn get a skill proficiency in a Knowledge skill and a expertise die in that skill.  

There are some non-heritage specific cultures in A5e too such as Cosmopolitan and Imperial.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 22, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Quick note, Class comes before Race selection in OneD&D now.



It's funny you say this, because whenever I create a character, I know I _should _build it chronologically: first choose a Race because that's who I was born as, then choose a Background because that's how I grew up, and finally choose a Class because that's what I do now.  But, inevitably, I always wind up choosing my Class first.

I once read a tip about improving your Role Playing that recommended the chronological method.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2022)

Horwath said:


> With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
> Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.
> 
> Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
> ...



That is exactly how it works, except that also if you want to take a set of pre-selected options (called a “background”) instead of choosing them yourself, you can.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2022)

aco175 said:


> I would leave the sample backgrounds in the book and let people that can make their own a way to do that.  I can see the abuse of letting everyone free range make a background and each Turnip Farmer being skilled in Perception and Investigation/Thieves' Tools and martial weapons.



You can make your own. Or change any of the examples however you want (so yes, you can take the farmer background and swap the skills and tools for Perception, Investigation, Thieves’ Tools, and… I dunno, Celestial (background give one tool and one language, no way to gain weapon proficiency from them as-written).


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 22, 2022)

delericho said:


> I would rather they get rid of the "fully customizable" aspect. Backgrounds were great; turning them into just a free selection of some stuff is a big retrograde step, IMO.



I mean, they’ve always been a free selection of some stuff, since the option to customize your background has always existed and never been an optional or variant rule. They’re just being more transparent about it now because they realize a lot of people didn’t know or didn’t believe that customizing backgrounds was a core option.


----------



## Vael (Sep 22, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, they’ve always been a free selection of some stuff, since the option to customize your background has always existed and never been an optional or variant rule. They’re just being more transparent about it now because they realize a lot of people didn’t know or didn’t believe that customizing backgrounds was a core option.




I remember a player getting upset that they wanted to play a Sage background Knowledge cleric, but wanted to change the Sage skills so they could get those skills with expertise from the subclass and were quite relieved when I told them they could do that. So, yeah, front loading that backgrounds are customizable is important.

Also, maybe it's from playing 13th Age and Fate, but now that backgrounds "expected" to be customized, I'm going for more evocative names. I drew up a character with the Lucky feat and said he was "_Favoured by the gods_". Don't say "_Guard_", say "_Honest Cop drummed out of the Service_". I expect a more Aspect, One Unique Thing style approach to making backgrounds in my One DnD games. That will bring back the more ribbon-y background features.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 22, 2022)

gorice said:


> That's a really cool idea. Do you choose stats first, or generate them when you pick a class?



Stats first. Not sure how you would play without stats, never thought of doing it any other way.

I do think there is a good argument for your class giving you a stat boost, but we haven't played that way.


----------



## beancounter (Sep 22, 2022)

One thing for certain is that D&D is slowly but surely moving in the "anything goes" direction.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2022)

If I were redesigning things, I'd make a general rule what backgrounds do mechanically and then take existing ones to use as examples.

I'm actually doing a redesign for 6SteveC edition, and that's how I'm doing it.


----------



## Shiroiken (Sep 22, 2022)

gorice said:


> Serious question: how often does the thematic background (which I also like!) come up in play?



In my group, the players usually play up what their background is. A noble acts like a noble, a folk hero talks to the peasants more often, etc. The feature background, however, is usually forgotten by both the player and DM. This is why I like the new feat setup, since it allows players the freedom for roleplay setup while giving a useful mechanical benef


Corinnguard said:


> Why is culture not considered relevant in D&D?



I think there's fear of backlash, just like they've experienced with race. Culture is another concept that people can be touchy about, even if it's not supposed to correlate with anything IRL. Unlike A5E, there's people out there looking for things to get offended about from WotC, so they have to be much more careful.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 22, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> In my group, the players usually play up what their background is. A noble acts like a noble, a folk hero talks to the peasants more often, etc. The feature background, however, is usually forgotten by both the player and DM. This is why I like the new feat setup, since it allows players the freedom for roleplay setup while giving a useful mechanical benef
> 
> I think there's fear of backlash, just like they've experienced with race. Culture is another concept that people can be touchy about, even if it's not supposed to correlate with anything IRL. Unlike A5E, there's people out there looking for things to get offended about from WotC, so they have to be much more careful.



Good point. D&D has 50 years of baggage to clear whereas A5e is the new kid on the block.


----------



## gorice (Sep 23, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Logically you would pick stats first right? Even commoners who don’t have a class still have stats.



Maybe? If you pick stats first, you're limiting your class options down the road. And, stats could start at 10 and develop later based on your class training or whatever.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> No thank you. My players would rather pick a thematic background than custom pick mechanical bits.  Doesn't fit their style. The current approach of providing the custom option as default and then example background options is the best of both worlds.



I agree the 1DD backgrounds are best of both worlds.

I strongly prefer customizability. At the same time, I like to see examples of what backgrounds are supposed to do, to get a sense of what they are about.

Other players couldnt care less about customizability, and for casual play, just pick a readymade background and move on to the next item in character creation.

The only thing missing is, new feats with specific features that certain backgrounds need. But the place to find special feats is in each setting. For example, one town in Forgotten Realms might have different backgrounds that are prominent, than other town in Forgotten Realms. And generally speaking, the most common backgrounds in Forgotten Realms might be different from the most common backgrounds in Dark Sun. So, the core rules should only focus on a general medievalesque setting except magic exists, and should avoid mentioning details that are peculiar to a specific setting.

In my view, the 1DD backgrounds are kinda perfect. Typical examples for any medievalesque context, but customizable if necessary.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Regarding "culture". I view it as the sum total of backgrounds.

Whatever backgrounds happen are most prominent (whether most typical or most prestigious) tend to define what the culture is.

A culture is a like a deck of cards. Each card is a background.

For example, among elves, if the High culture is known for its griffon rider background, and the Wood culture its deer riding background, that tends to affect the overall "impression" of each culture.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> Regarding "culture". I view it as the sum total of backgrounds.
> 
> Whatever backgrounds happen are most prominent (whether most typical or most prestigious) tend to define what the culture is.
> 
> ...



This makes sense. In the Dragonborn nation of Tymanther in the FR, the soldier background is the most prominent background because every Dragonborn citizen in that nation is required to spend two years serving in their armed forces, the Lance Defenders. In A5e, the only culture that conscripts it's citizenry into it's armed forces is the Imperial Culture. 

However, culture is also dependent on which race is in the majority too. If the nation has a majority population of Dragonborn, then they are going to influence the overall culture.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> This makes sense. In the Dragonborn nation of Tymanther in the FR, the soldier background is the most prominent background because every Dragonborn citizen in that nation is required to spend two years serving in their armed forces, the Lance Defenders. In A5e, the only culture that conscripts it's citizenry into it's armed forces is the Imperial Culture.
> 
> However, culture is also dependent on which race is in the majority too. If the nation has a majority population of Dragonborn, then they are going to influence the overall culture.



The dragonborn race can also have many different cultures. Each dragonborn culture would have its own deck of cards sotospeak, where each background is a card. These decks − like Magic The Gathering − may or may not have particular cards in common.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 23, 2022)

Horwath said:


> With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
> Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.
> 
> Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
> ...



This is my problem with the playtest backgrounds. 

I 100% think that this background approach will turn into an optimization tool and not a backstory tool. Instead of choosing x background to get y, it’ll be choose y and move on. Why bother with the ‘background’ step at all? I see this very quickly moving to “you can choose a background but don’t worry about it – it doesn’t matter anyway. Just choose the stat increase and a feat that is good for your class and a useful skill (stealth or perception).”

For backgrounds to be meaningful they need to be part of a living world, and only the DM really knows that world. So, step one would be a guided discussion you have with the DM, starting with the following questions, so that both of you can find the actual place in the world that you are from;

• Did you grow up in the wilds or an urban, or rural area?
• What was the place like (dangerous, friendly)?
• What do you family do for a living, or what did you do before you started training to be your class (noble, craftsman, laborer, trader, hunter)?
• Why did you change (tragic event, heroic moment, divine intervention)?

Then group the 1st levels feats by the responses (ie, the feats for growing up in the wilds, the feats for coming from a dangerous environment etc…). The feats would be in more than one category – lots of overlap. Like, you could get ‘arcane initiate’ from where you grew up, what you did for a living, or what made you change. Pick a 1st level feat that reflects one or more of your answers. This represents a particularly significant aspect of, or event in, your background.

Then expand languages so that knowing a language means you also know about that society. Speak Orcish? Then you may also know the culture and traditions of this tribe that has just confronted you. Speak elvish? You may know about the courts of the fey etc… And instead of saying ‘choose a language’ ask ‘what other peoples have you spent time with? Was your best friend growing up of a different species? Did your family trade with different tribes? Was a favorite teacher from another species, or even another plane of existence?

(I think stat bonus should be moved to class – people choose stat bonus to suit their class anyway so this will remove all the “you have to choose x to play y” problems)

If this feels like an involved process, that’s kinda the point. If backgrounds are going to be a backstory tool, then _go story_. Ironically, the proposed system really suits people who are not interested in story at all, and it under serves those that are by saying “it doesn’t matter, just choose some game abilities and say you are from anywhere.”


----------



## Azzy (Sep 23, 2022)

_Sigh_

No.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 23, 2022)

gorice said:


> Maybe? If you pick stats first, you're limiting your class options down the road. And, stats could start at 10 and develop later based on your class training or whatever.



Maybe it would limit class options but if the point of ‘level 0’ is ‘playing your character before they had a class’ then isn’t that part of learning about your character from playing/rolling them, ‘tom the former urchin didn’t roll good on his INT, so he couldn’t become a wizard’ then like i said, it just makes sense to me to do it that way, you can play a character with stats but no class but not the other way around


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> This is my problem with the playtest backgrounds.
> 
> I 100% think that this background approach will turn into an optimization tool and not a backstory tool. Instead of choosing x background to get y, it’ll be choose y and move on. Why bother with the ‘background’ step at all? I see this very quickly moving to “you can choose a background but don’t worry about it – it doesn’t matter anyway. Just choose the stat increase and a feat that is good for your class and a useful skill (stealth or perception).”



If this is a problem with 1D&D backgrounds, it’s a problem with 5e backgrounds too. 5e backgrounds have always been fully customizable and it’s not even an optional rule. People who didn’t allow their players to swap out any and all background elements may not have realized it, but they were house ruling. This is barely a mechanical chance at all, it’s mostly a change of presentation. The only mechanical changes is that the total gp values of background equipment was standardized to 50 gp, all backgrounds give 1 tool and 1 language instead of a total of 2 between them, and the background feature and traits everyone forgot about anyway were removed.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Where are you putting ASI? Back into race?



Just add it into stat rolls,, if you feel you need it.  You don't need ASI at all, past 1st level.

No backgrounds in 1dnd isn't going to happen either, so it seems speculation is open.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Quick note, Class comes before Race selection in OneD&D now.



That makes no sense at all to me.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> I think there's fear of backlash, just like they've experienced with race. Culture is another concept that people can be touchy about, even if it's not supposed to correlate with anything IRL. Unlike A5E, there's people out there looking for things to get offended about from WotC, so they have to be much more careful.



Yeah, it's mostly fear of social media.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> If this is a problem with 1D&D backgrounds, it’s a problem with 5e backgrounds too. 5e backgrounds have always been fully customizable and it’s not even an optional rule. People who didn’t allow their players to swap out any and all background elements may not have realized it, but they were house ruling. This is barely a mechanical chance at all, it’s mostly a change of presentation. The only mechanical changes is that the total gp values of background equipment was standardized to 50 gp, all backgrounds give 1 tool and 1 language instead of a total of 2 between them, and the background feature and traits everyone forgot about anyway were removed.



It is a problem with 5e backgrounds.  This is why I prefer Level Up's origin system.


----------



## delericho (Sep 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That makes no sense at all to me.



In my experience, class is almost always the first choice made, regardless of what the book says. Then the player decides which type of elf provides the best ASIs for the chosen class, and then the various options from there.

Removing ASIs from the races was, IMO, a really good move - it made race _much_ less important, with the knock-on effect that we could see a greater variety of options. No need to choose the type of elf to get the 'best' ASIs; you can now choose any type of elf you prefer! (Of course, for the same reason putting them, and feats, into backgrounds has the opposite effect.)


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

delericho said:


> In my experience, class is almost always the first choice made, regardless of what the book says. Then the player decides which type of elf provides the best ASIs for the chosen class, and then the various options from there.
> 
> Removing ASIs from the races was, IMO, a really good move - it made race _much_ less important, with the knock-on effect that we could see a greater variety of options. No need to choose the type of elf to get the 'best' ASIs; you can now choose any type of elf you prefer! (Of course, for the same reason putting them, and feats, into backgrounds has the opposite effect.)



I'm not talking about ASIs.  I'm talking about how a person in a fantasy world has a race long before they have a class.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 23, 2022)

Horwath said:


> With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
> Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.
> 
> Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
> ...



I've seen a lot of discussion about preferences on backgrounds and especially the implications of giving a background a feat. This affects backward compatibility and also implies that feats may not be an optional rule going forward. Simply making the backgrounds customizable and also making them an optional rule solves both problems. My own preference is for backgrounds to have skills and some to have a language, but not all backgrounds need a language or a feat.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That makes no sense at all to me.



That's what the document says, but it also makes sense from a character creation perspective rather than a biography perspective: the Class is the main source of powers and abilities for a character, the archetype in play. I actually usually think "Idlike to try a Wizard, or maybe a Fighter" before Race selection, and it makes sense that WotC may have found people usually are doing that.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I'm not talking about ASIs.  I'm talking about how a person in a fantasy world has a race long before they have a class.



During character creation, a player is making a mechanical game piece as much as a fictional character. Form follows function.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> During character creation, a player is making a mechanical game piece as much as a fictional character. Form follows function.



An Orc Wizard will feel different from an Elf Wizard, and sometimes even tend to do things differently.

Use is meaning.

The narrative and the mechanics are equally important, and it is important they can inform each other.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2022)

Yaarel said:


> An Orc Wizard will feel different from an Elf Wizard, and sometimes even tend to do things differently.
> 
> Use is meaning.
> 
> The narrative and the mechanics are equally important, and it is important they can inform each other.



Sure, it makes a difference, but mechanically Class dictates 95% of what a PC can do in game and provides the main bulk of narrative, too. Race and Background are important, but they are riders to Class, as far as the game is concerned.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> During character creation, a player is making a mechanical game piece as much as a fictional character. Form follows function.



Not for me.  That is relentlessly gamist.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Not for me.  That is relentlessly gamist.



Not necessarily. "I want to be Aragorn!" or "I want to be Robin Hood!" or "I want to be Merlin!" are not gamist takes, but thsthow I see people go about conceptualizing their characters. D&D is a Class based system, not a life path system.


----------



## Yaarel (Sep 23, 2022)

In the same way that cantrips and other spells come with an "At Higher Levels" mechanic. The race should to.

For example, a race like Dragon can be able to fly at higher level. Such as shedding skin like a snake and emerging in a new form with wings (such as eaglelike or batlike). An Ardling-Aasimar might gain permanent flight at higher levels.

An Elf might swap its (choice of) lower level spells for a higher one instead.

A Dwarf might be able to phase thru earth at-will at higher levels.



I also want to see the background with stuff to do at higher levels. But in this case, I am looking specifically at levels 9 to 12, when acquiring a fortress, magic school, sacred community, thieves guild, even starting a business, or so on.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 23, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That's what the document says, but it also makes sense from a character creation perspective rather than a biography perspective: the Class is the main source of powers and abilities for a character, the archetype in play. I actually usually think "Idlike to try a Wizard, or maybe a Fighter" before Race selection, and it makes sense that WotC may have found people usually are doing that.



The only time I choose race first is when I don’t already have a character concept in mind and want to generate one randomly. Then I’ll pick a race, assign the ASIs to the most typical selection for that race, roll scores in order, and pick a class that suits what I rolled. But it’s not often I go that route because between the campaign pitch and the other players’ characters I usually have enough of a starting point to build a character more intentionally


----------



## niklinna (Sep 23, 2022)

Tonguez said:


> I'm actually thinking the opposite - with customisable backgrounds and a selection of level dependent feats why bother to have Classes?
> 
> Just turn everything into a Customisable Background



Classes are one of the Things That Make D&D, D&D.

I'm no fan of them myself, especially since the whole paradigm reduces character creation to a menu of approved choices in the form of package deals, but that seems to be what's popular. Then again, there seem to be multiple thriving homebrew movements, so I guess it all works out, especially if your DM is cool with that.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 23, 2022)

Backgrounds in A5e aren't just useful for the player to pick up. They're also useful to the Narrator thanks to each Background's list of Connections and Mementos. Does the character with this background have a lover, a mentor or a rival? The narrator could use it to make one of the NPCs be that person. Does that character have a particular memento? Maybe it's the item that the party's enemies are looking for, for some mysterious reason. Or maybe it's the much sought after key the party needs to reactivate a long dormant magic portal. 

Backgrounds are a much needed story element, as are Heritage, Culture and Destiny.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 23, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> The only time I choose race first is when I don’t already have a character concept in mind and want to generate one randomly. Then I’ll pick a race, assign the ASIs to the most typical selection for that race, roll scores in order, and pick a class that suits what I rolled. But it’s not often I go that route because between the campaign pitch and the other players’ characters I usually have enough of a starting point to build a character more intentionally



I think a random life path style system, as seen in Xanathar's and the Wildemount Guide, is really cool. Amd using a method like that, obviously heritage and background comes first. But in terms of priority for a careful design of a character, D&D as set up makes Class more of a priority.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 23, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Backgrounds in A5e aren't just useful for the player to pick up. They're also useful to the Narrator thanks to each Background's list of Connections and Mementos. Does the character with this background have a lover, a mentor or a rival? The narrator could use it to make one of the NPCs be that person. Does that character have a particular memento? Maybe it's the item that the party's enemies are looking for, for some mysterious reason. Or maybe it's the much sought after key the party needs to reactivate a long dormant magic portal.
> 
> Backgrounds are a much needed story element, as are Heritage, Culture and Destiny.



ASI should be in class. Where you grew up should in never determine what you can be.

Besides, who cares if you spent your early years as a <insert whatever>. You spend 2 years at fighter school you gonna get buff. You go to wizard school? If you survive, you going to come out smarter than you went in etc...


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 23, 2022)

Lojaan said:


> ASI should be in class. Where you grew up should in never determine what you can be.
> 
> Besides, who cares if you spent your early years as a <insert whatever>. You spend 2 years at fighter school you gonna get buff. You go to wizard school? If you survive, you going to come out smarter than you went in etc...



Pathfinder 2nd edition tries to do it all when it comes ASIs. You get ASIs from your ancestry, your background and your class at 1st level.


----------



## niklinna (Sep 23, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Pathfinder 2nd edition tries to do it all when it comes ASIs. You get ASIs from your ancestry, your background and your class at 1st level.



It also has what @Yaarel brought up, in approch if not specifics.


Yaarel said:


> In the same way that cantrips and other spells come with an "At Higher Levels" mechanic. The race should to.
> 
> For example, a race like Dragon can be able to fly at higher level. Such as shedding skin like a snake and emerging in a new form with wings (such as eaglelike or batlike). An Ardling-Aasimar might gain permanent flight at higher levels.
> 
> ...



Looks like Pathfinder 2 does it all! The only problem is your _character_ can't. So many feats, so few slots.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 23, 2022)

niklinna said:


> It also has what @Yaarel brought up, in approch if not specifics.
> 
> Looks like Pathfinder 2 does it all! The only problem is your _character_ can't. So many feats, so few slots.



It's why Pathfinder 2 also goes by the nickname, Featfinder.  There are feats for just about everything in Pathfinder 2.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 23, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Not for me.  That is relentlessly gamist.



Unless you use a character creation system that progresses a character through each stage in their lives up to now, it is what you're doing, whether you prefer to think about it that way or not. Race and class partly determine how the character interacts mechanically with the game world.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 23, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> Unless you use a character creation system that progresses a character through each stage in their lives up to now, it is what you're doing, whether you prefer to think about it that way or not. Race and class partly determine how the character interacts mechanically with the game world.



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.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 23, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> Pathfinder 2nd edition tries to do it all when it comes ASIs. You get ASIs from your ancestry, your background and your class at 1st level.



Yeah they unnecessarily complicate it because Pathfinder. It's a whole mini game where you have to work backwards and read a textbook just so that you can... choose the ASIs that benefit your class.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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.



Character creation isn't "realistic," never has been.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Character creation isn't "realistic," never has been.



You take every piece you can get, and every piece you lose makes me just a little sadder.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> You take every piece you can get, and every piece you lose makes me just a little sadder.



Making the structure mirror actual play is a good thing: and putting Class first is how I see people conceive characters. That's the point of a Class system.


----------



## niklinna (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Making the structure mirror actual play is a good thing: and putting Class first is how I see people conceive characters. That's the point of a Class system.



I see quite a lot of people trying to contort the predefined classes & subclasses to fit their specific concepts, myself. Or doing homebrew classes like I mentioned elsewhere. With all these digital platforms that is both easier & harder to do, just in different ways.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Making the structure mirror actual play is a good thing: and putting Class first is how I see people conceive characters. That's the point of a Class system.



People would conceive characters differently if the material was presented differently.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> People would conceive characters differently if the material was presented differently.



It's been presented Race then Class for as far back as I can remember, yet people would still start with a Class concept then hash out the details. Thst makes this change particularly sensible to me, because people are already following a certain pattern in spite of the structure, making the structure follow the path people tend towards will probably make the game more accessible.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> It's been presented Race then Class for as far back as I can remember, yet people would still start with a Class concept then hash out the details. Thst makes this change particularly sensible to me, because people are already following a certain pattern in spite of the structure, making the structure follow the path people tend towards will probably make the game more accessible.



Fine.  I'm glad they're designing the new version of D&D to what are apparently your exact specifications.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Fine.  I'm glad they're designing the new version of D&D to what are apparently your exact specifications.



I wouldn't have thought of it, myself, even though it's how I see it done. It's just clever design, focused on improving the user experience.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I wouldn't have thought of it, myself, even though it's how I see it done. It's just clever design, focused on improving the user experience.



Just remember that a design you think is clever is just subjectively so.  Same as me.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Just remember that a design you think is clever is just subjectively so.  Same as me.



No, whether you enjoy it or not is subjective. Whether it works better for most players is something that WotC can test and measure.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> No, whether you enjoy it or not is subjective. Whether it works better for most players is something that WotC can test and measure.



Yes, but whether or not something is "clever" is subjective.  That's what I'm saying.  I was calling out your claim that the design was clever being objectively true.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Yes, but whether or not something is "clever" is subjective.  That's what I'm saying.  I was calling out your claim that the design was clever being objectively true.



Making a decision that does an end run on what is obvious to meet customer needs better is clever.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 24, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> Where are you putting ASI? Back into race?



I'd put them in the stat generation section.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 24, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Making the structure mirror actual play is a good thing: and putting Class first is how I see people conceive characters. That's the point of a Class system.



When a character dies in a session at our table 9 times out of 10 when we ask the player "What's your next character?" the answer is what class they are going to play.  1 times out of 10 it's a race.  Never once has "Folk Hero" or "Sailor" been an answer.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome (Sep 24, 2022)

It doesn't really matter to me what order the chargen elements are in. My first step is to visualize the character I want to play, then I decide which mechanical bits would best actualize it.


----------



## FrogReaver (Sep 24, 2022)

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.


----------



## jasper (Sep 25, 2022)

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.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 25, 2022)

jasper said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

FrogReaver said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

jasper said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

edosan said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

edosan said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 25, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Azzy said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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 (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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...?


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


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



They probably don't. So it's up to the players to decide how they want to approach the creation of their character. Some players will start the process by examining the classes and subclasses first, and then work their way toward pairing their choice with a particular race. Other players are going to start by checking out the races and work their way toward picking a class. Like it's been mentioned earlier in this thread, there is no right or wrong way to making a character. 

There ought to be a poll on this.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


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



As has been said for 5-ish editions, race/heritage has been listed first, as the first choice you make at character creation.  Is there a problem with that?  If not, why change it?

I would certainly be happier if more content creators asked that question.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> As has been said for 5-ish editions, race/heritage has been listed first, as the first choice you make at character creation.  Is there a problem with that?  If not, why change it?
> 
> I would certainly be happier if more content creators asked that question.



If people are mostly ignoring the structure in practice, then yes, something is wrong with it. That's some Design 101 stuff.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> If people are mostly ignoring the structure in practice, then yes, something is wrong with it. That's some Design 101 stuff.



Are they?  Do you have any evidence beyond personal experience?  Has this question even been asked in a systematic way, or are you assuming its true because you agree with it?


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 25, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> If people are mostly ignoring the structure in practice, then yes, something is wrong with it. That's some Design 101 stuff.



What is it about the classes that make them more appealing to you than the races?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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.





Micah Sweet said:


> 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.



There isn't a right or wrong way to design your character . . . but there is a right or wrong way to tackle character design in the core rulebooks. The wrong way would be to differ from how the majority of players do character design. And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people don't take a Traveler-esque way of choosing who/what their character is in D&D. That's not how anyone that I've ever met or heard of before you plays 5e. So changing character generation in the core rulebooks to your niche way would definitely be "wrong", because it would confuse a lot of people for no reason. 


Micah Sweet said:


> 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 it's not "realism". To our characters, we're omniscient observers from beyond their universe. We can design them any way we want. Your way isn't more "realistic" when we exist out of their time stream and can design them and their identity backwards, forwards, or even jumping around in their timeline (getting really technical, we exist on 4 spatial dimensions and 2 time dimensions from the perspective of your characters). Your way isn't more _realistic_. It's just your preferred way of making them. 

And there's nothing wrong with that. But that you like your way more doesn't mean that it's the base of the community or should be included in the books.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 25, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Are they?  Do you have any evidence beyond personal experience?  Has this question even been asked in a systematic way, or are you assuming its true because you agree with it?



I'm sure WotC has studied this, and while I never had a problem with just ignoring the book structure in practice, I immediately saw when they put thst in the packet that it made more sense on the level of design.


Corinnguard said:


> What is it about the classes that make them more appealing to you than the races?



It's not that one or the other is more "appealing," it's that Class matters way more to the game than Race. An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff, with only a couple of minor differences, and share more in common in play than with an Elf or Dwarf of any other Class.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> I'm sure WotC has studied this, and while I never had a problem with just ignoring the book structure in practice, I immediately saw when they put thst in the packet that it made more sense on the level of design.
> 
> It's not that one or the other is more "appealing," it's that Class matters way more to the game than Race. An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff, with only a couple of minor differences, and share more in common in play than with an Elf or Dwarf of any other Class.



An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff with regards to the base class (sans the subclass features). But when you throw the subclasses into the mix, the only time they would do the same stuff is when both are members of the same subclass. There are quite a number of official WoTC subclasses for the Ranger class, and an untold number of Ranger subclasses that have been created by 3rd party companies and those D&D fans who like to homebrew. 

But there is no generic Elf and no generic Dwarf in 5e. Instead there is quite a number of official elven and dwarven subraces, 3rd party company versions of both races, and homebrewed versions of both races. 

The players with their DM's approval can choose any version of elf and dwarf they want. They can choose any version of the Ranger class or Ranger subclass (again with DM approval) they want. 

So it's hard to say IMO if class matters way more than race.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 26, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> There isn't a right or wrong way to design your character . . . but there is a right or wrong way to tackle character design in the core rulebooks. The wrong way would be to differ from how the majority of players do character design. And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people don't take a Traveler-esque way of choosing who/what their character is in D&D. That's not how anyone that I've ever met or heard of before you plays 5e. So changing character generation in the core rulebooks to your niche way would definitely be "wrong", because it would confuse a lot of people for no reason.
> 
> But it's not "realism". To our characters, we're omniscient observers from beyond their universe. We can design them any way we want. Your way isn't more "realistic" when we exist out of their time stream and can design them and their identity backwards, forwards, or even jumping around in their timeline (getting really technical, we exist on 4 spatial dimensions and 2 time dimensions from the perspective of your characters). Your way isn't more _realistic_. It's just your preferred way of making them.
> 
> And there's nothing wrong with that. But that you like your way more doesn't mean that it's the base of the community or should be included in the books.



As I said, I'm not asking them to change the existing order.  I'm asking them to maintain it.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan (Sep 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> As I said, I'm not asking them to change the existing order.  I'm asking them to maintain it.



The existing order is Race then Class then Ability Scores. Background isn't mentioned in the Step-by-Step guidelines to creating a character. Also, race and class can very, very easily be swapped in this order, and are so commonly swapped that it's often the norm.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff with regards to the base class (sans the subclass features). But when you throw the subclasses into the mix, the only time they would do the same stuff is when both are members of the same subclass. There are quite a number of official WoTC subclasses for the Ranger class, and an untold number of Ranger subclasses that have been created by 3rd party companies and those D&D fans who like to homebrew.
> 
> But there is no generic Elf and no generic Dwarf in 5e. Instead there is quite a number of official elven and dwarven subraces, 3rd party company versions of both races, and homebrewed versions of both races.
> 
> ...



That really doesn't complicate things much: sure, both Class and Subclass make more of a difference than Race, by a lot.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> As I said, I'm not asking them to change the existing order.  I'm asking them to maintain it.



Why should they maintan an order if there is a way to do things more in line with player needs?


----------



## Composer99 (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff with regards to the base class (sans the subclass features). But when you throw the subclasses into the mix, the only time they would do the same stuff is when both are members of the same subclass. There are quite a number of official WoTC subclasses for the Ranger class, and an untold number of Ranger subclasses that have been created by 3rd party companies and those D&D fans who like to homebrew.
> 
> But there is no generic Elf and no generic Dwarf in 5e. Instead there is quite a number of official elven and dwarven subraces, 3rd party company versions of both races, and homebrewed versions of both races.
> 
> ...



This honestly seems to miss @Parmandur's points quite badly.

First, it's absolutely the case that _in terms of game mechanics_, over multiple levels of play, that one's choice of class will matter more than one's choice of race or background. 1D&D might try to change that, but that's how it is in 5e (and has been in any WotC edition of the game and in either edition of AD&D).

Second, if the gamebook is a user interface - which it is - and if on the main players choose their class before choosing a race or background, shouldn't the user interface reflect _how it's actually used_? That has nothing to do with which aspect of a character any given individual player finds more appealing than others.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> So it's hard to say IMO if class matters way more than race.




I don't think it's hard to say at all. The role your character plays in a party is very nearly entirely defined by class and has little to nothing to do with race. You're the party's Wizard, or you're not. You are never the party's "Elf" (barring early editions).


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> That really doesn't complicate things much: sure, both Class and Subclass make more of a difference than Race, by a lot.



By a lot because the class offers so much more than race?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> By a lot because the class offers so much more than race?



Yes: the character is a game piece as much as a narrative one, and Race plays a fairly small role in game mechanics, while Class is almost everything. Subclass is also more important than Race, that sort of reinforces my point.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Yes: the character is a game piece as much as a narrative one, and Rave plays a fairly small role in game mechanics, while Class is almost everything. Subclass is also more important than Race, that sort of reinforces my point.



Okay. That makes sense. 

Anyone remember when 3e's Unearthed Arcana created the racial paragon class, and the Races book (Races of the Wild, Races of Stone) created the racial substitution levels? _curious_ The former was a 3-level class that provided features for a specific race, and allowed you to become a paragon of your respective race. The racial substitution levels otoh replaced up to three levels of a particular class with ones geared toward a specific race. These were 3e's attempts to make race more relevant in D&D. 

4e tried to do the same, and not in a good way IMO.


----------



## Cadence (Sep 26, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> The existing order is Race then Class then Ability Scores. Background isn't mentioned in the Step-by-Step guidelines to creating a character. Also, race and class can very, very easily be swapped in this order, and are so commonly swapped that it's often the norm.




Background is in "4. Describe Your Characters" in the Step-by-Step guidelines (in bold along with alignment, ideals, bonds, and flaws).

I hadn't really noticed before that ability scores were in the 3rd step, instead of where they were in B/X, 1e, 2e, PF, but where they are for 13th age, and 4e.  Feels like that re-ordering says a lot about a shift in the game (and it makes sense to me).

And I agree, that folks often pick race before class in my experience.


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (Sep 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> 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.



If you don't care how many people agree with you, why are you even posting your opinion? This seems like a really weird flex to me.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 26, 2022)

Ulorian - Agent of Chaos said:


> If you don't care how many people agree with you, why are you even posting your opinion? This seems like a really weird flex to me.



I wonder about that actually.  How many posters here actually think they can change other people's minds about this stuff?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I wonder about that actually.  How many posters here actually think they can change other people's minds about this stuff?



My mind can always be changed by anyone with an argument that makes any sense. However, I don't expect my challenging their argument will change _their_ mind, but it might have them explain their case in such a way as to change _mine_.

Doesn't happen often, though. I'll grant you that.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I wonder about that actually.  How many posters here actually think they can change other people's minds about this stuff?



Absolutely not a bit, I post to refine my own thoughts. Changing myself is possible, changing others is a Fools errand.


----------



## Composer99 (Sep 26, 2022)

I like to establish what are the points of agreement and disagreement, and hopefully refine what I have to say into a better form. If I bring someone round to my view, or they bring me round to theirs, that's kind of a bonus.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff with regards to the base class (sans the subclass features). But when you throw the subclasses into the mix, the only time they would do the same stuff is when both are members of the same subclass. There are quite a number of official WoTC subclasses for the Ranger class, and an untold number of Ranger subclasses that have been created by 3rd party companies and those D&D fans who like to homebrew.
> 
> But there is no generic Elf and no generic Dwarf in 5e. Instead there is quite a number of official elven and dwarven subraces, 3rd party company versions of both races, and homebrewed versions of both races.
> 
> ...



It's not hard to say.

Pick a random character sheet from a pile of every character sheet ever made in 5e.

Highlight all the things in the sheet tied to class in yellow.  Highlight everything from race in blue.  Then everything from background in green.

The sheet will have more yellow than blue and more blue than green.  The higher the level of the character the greater percentage will be yellow.


----------



## TwoSix (Sep 26, 2022)

Composer99 said:


> I like to establish what are the points of agreement and disagreement, and hopefully refine what I have to say into a better form. If I bring someone round to my view, or they bring me round to theirs, that's kind of a bonus.



I'm generally not posting to convince the poster I'm responding to, but I like to imagine a well-presented argument might have an impact on people who are just lurking and reading.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

With so much of the character sheet devoted to character class, race becomes something of an afterthought, doesn't it?


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

Sabathius42 said:


> It's not hard to say.
> 
> Pick a random character sheet from a pile of every character sheet ever made in 5e.
> 
> ...



Notably in OneD&D, the percentage of green would be higher than blue.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> With so much of the character sheet devoted to character class, race becomes something of an afterthought, doesn't it?



Always was. That's why BD&D just cut it successfully.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 26, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> With so much of the character sheet devoted to character class, race becomes something of an afterthought, doesn't it?



Not to mention with floating ASI’s one of the main impacts of picking a species might have is gone, i know it’s _convenient _but is it _meaningful?_


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> Not to mention with floating ASI’s one of the main impacts of picking a species might have is gone, i know it’s _convenient _but is it _meaningful?_



Sure, it's meaningful: RCe abilities are often flavorful and come up frequently. Still way less of an impact on play than Class, but not without some meaning.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> Sure, it's meaningful: RCe abilities are often flavorful and come up frequently. Still way less of an impact on play than Class, but not without some meaning.



You misunderstand i think, I meant are _floating ASI_ meaningful, not species themselves, personally I’d love if species had more significance than what they currently do.


----------



## overgeeked (Sep 26, 2022)

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> I have never met anyone that dislikes backgrounds. I see no reason to remove them.



Hello. I dislike backgrounds. At least as presented in 5E. It bugs me that ribbon abilities range from multiverse-wide peasant mind control to a free meal. It bugs me that most players use backgrounds as an excuse to pick up a skill they think is vital or a bit of kit they'll just sell later. I'm glad the ribbon abilities have been nuked from orbit. I like the build-your-own as default approach. It prevents all the needless arguments and justifications for swapping skills that make zero sense for a background.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> You misunderstand i think, I meant are _floating ASI_ meaningful, not species themselves, personally I’d love if species had more significance than what they currently do.



In 5E, the floating ASI and Race abilities have equal significance: the Racial abilities are usually worth an ASI and a half, except for Half-Elf and Dwarf being worth an ASI and standard Human just being 3 ASIs.


----------



## CreamCloud0 (Sep 26, 2022)

Parmandur said:


> In 5E, the floating ASI and Race abilities have equal significance: the Racial abilities are usually worth an ASI and a half, except for Half-Elf and Dwarf being worth an ASI and standard Human just being 3 ASIs.



While I don’t deny floating is good for getting that +3 where you want it but I’m more of the opinion that ASI should be saying something about the species they’re on, halflings are nimble, halflings are wise, halflings are personable, +DEX, +WIS, +CHA, even just letting players assign their +3 between those any way they like, if you want to be ‘the strongest halfling this side of the horizon’ then that’s what you determine with your assigning of stat rolls/array/point buy.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 26, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> While I don’t deny floating is good for getting that +3 where you want it but I’m more of the opinion that ASI should be saying something about the species they’re on, halflings are nimble, halflings are wise, halflings are personable, +DEX, +WIS, +CHA, even just letting players assign their +3 between those any way they like, if you want to be ‘the strongest halfling this side of the horizon’ then that’s what you determine with your assigning of stat rolls/array/point buy.



That's flavor, I'm just talking the game mechanics math: a ability bonus is just an ability bonus as far as the game is concerned, which one gets boosted doesn't matter.


----------



## Corinnguard (Sep 26, 2022)

CreamCloud0 said:


> You misunderstand i think, I meant are _floating ASI_ meaningful, not species themselves, personally I’d love if species had more significance than what they currently do.



Both 2e and 3e D&D had books that covered the races in greater detail. For instance, 2e had books such as the _Complete Book of Elves _which talked about the history and culture of elves while also providing elf-specific kits for the various D&D classes. 3e had _Races of the Wild_ , which did the same as the Complete Books of Elves in addition providing racial substitution levels, elven feats, elven weapons, and elven magic.

The other Player Character races in 2e and 3e received the same amount of love. Pathfinder 1st edition continued on with this practice by coming out with their Player Companion books such as _Elves of Golarion_ and their _Inner Sea Races_ book.

Race was significant back then, but not now because WoTC sadly has accumulated too much baggage that it is now seeking to shed. If you want to find anything on races in 5e, you have to seek it out in 3rd party material or someone's homebrew.

Hehe. I am afraid that the topic for this particular thread has been dropped.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 26, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I wonder about that actually.  How many posters here actually think they can change other people's minds about this stuff?



I don’t think I can change the minds of the peopole I’m arguing with. I do think the conversion may be of value to third parties who may be reading it, and if I represent my position well, it might influence such readers more towards my position.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 27, 2022)

Horwath said:


> With backgrounds being fully customizable, there is no need for them at all mechanically.
> Keep them in description chapter of character creation as fluff.
> 
> Add 2 skills to you 1st level class proficiencies. Drop the class skills limit.
> ...



If backgrounds are removed from character creation in the 2024 PHB, as you suggest, how will a player establish any "non-professional" or "secondary" knowledge of mundane matters outside of a PC's class, picked up through incidental learning or training in early life? Both editions of (Advanced) D&D with which I'm familiar, 1E and 5E, have a method for doing so.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 27, 2022)

Hriston said:


> If backgrounds are removed from character creation in the 2024 PHB, as you suggest, how will a player establish any "non-professional" or "secondary" knowledge of mundane matters outside of a PC's class, picked up through incidental learning or training in early life? Both editions of (Advanced) D&D with which I'm familiar, 1E and 5E, have a method for doing so.



no class skills, no limit what tools/languages can be taken. no limit on 1st level feat that can be taken.

So if you want to be academic rogue, you can take History, Religion and Nature as 3 out of your 6 starting skills(4 normal + 2 as "background")

also every class can have a sample of 2 or 3 characters with skills and feats taken.


----------



## Hriston (Sep 27, 2022)

Horwath said:


> no class skills, no limit what tools/languages can be taken. no limit on 1st level feat that can be taken.
> 
> So if you want to be academic rogue, you can take History, Religion and Nature as 3 out of your 6 starting skills(4 normal + 2 as "background")
> 
> also every class can have a sample of 2 or 3 characters with skills and feats taken.



I feel like, without the unifying theme of a background, this assortment of free choices will tend towards oatmeal, especially the choice of feat. The published feats aren't very flavorful as representations of a character's life experience and are a poor substitute for background features, IMO.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 27, 2022)

Hriston said:


> I feel like, without the unifying theme of a background, this assortment of free choices will tend towards oatmeal, especially the choice of feat. The published feats aren't very flavorful as representations of a character's life experience and are a poor substitute for background features, IMO.



then I guess they will have to make all feats be worth equally and be worth losing +2 to primary ability.
also skills.

yes, hard work...


also, all feats could be expression of characters origins;

Fey touched/shadow touched are self explanatory, same as Telekinetic/Telepathic. An innate ability born with.
Sharpshooter could be and English archer that was trained in longbow since being 10 years old.
Magic adept could be someone that hang around spellcasters all his puberty or a spellcaster that really went that extra mile in learning.
PAM could be a Spartan that trained in formation fighting since he was a kid.
Lucky is just stupid and should be deleted.
Mobile could be a tribesman just trained for delivering messages as a kid.
All racial feats could be just inborn abilities that some members of that specific race are born with.


----------

