I tend to pick a background based on 'what was I before I gained a level in this class?'
Same. I've had a cleric with the Clan Crafter background (and a semi-homebrew version of it at that, where they were trained as a tattooist), warlocks with Soldier, Criminal and Fisher, wizards with Archaeologist and Sailor, a druid with Entertainer, a rogue with Outlander... and those choices absolutely informed who they were as characters, how I flavored their spells and abilities, and my "play style" with them -- to the point that I suspect OP means something very different by "play style" than I do, if they don't think a character's background has any impact on it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Almost all of those background specific features are basically useless, and they all rely heavily on DM involvement
Focusing exclusively on any mechanical benefits of backgrounds completely misses the point of them. Yes, they're hooks for your DM, but they're also hooks for you to get a better handle on your character
A barbarian with the Outlander background should play very differently than a barbarian with the Soldier background, and I don't just mean in an RP sense
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I have never seen D&D players so vehemently advocating for removing features from the game--especially when their only defenses of removing the system boil down to "we should remove this system because some bad DMs do not use it"
Good DMs don't use it either. Seriously, I don't need a background trait to figure that, say, a devout religious character can get good treatment from their temple.
I have never seen D&D players so vehemently advocating for removing features from the game--especially when their only defenses of removing the system boil down to "we should remove this system because some bad DMs do not use it"
Good DMs don't use it either. Seriously, I don't need a background trait to figure that, say, a devout religious character can get good treatment from their temple.
Well, ignoring the (rather silly) humble brag about how you think you are a good DM, I'll note that you kind of cut out the important portion of my response--who this helps. Frankly, the "good DMs don't use it" argument is just as bad as the "bad DMs don't use it" argument--it ignores the simple reality that most folks are pretty mediocre and might not think about how a Folk Hero might be interpreted by the community.
Here's the reality--most new players and a lot of established players are overwhelmed by all their options. Giving those players a background feature they can point to is also giving them an established set of options for certain character interactions they might not otherwise think about. Sure, many of us on the forums would probably think of most of the stuff the background features have--but we are not representative of the community. Advocating for removing something that helps the majority just because people on the good and bad extremes do not use it is a poor reason to get rid of an entire system.
[Re: Background features, since there would be too many quote blocks]
I have never seen D&D players so vehemently advocating for removing features from the game--especially when their only defenses of removing the system boil down to "we should remove this system because some bad DMs do not use it" and "what if we present this issue as a false diachodemy where you have to have either the current system or you have the new system." Surely you can see how both those arguments are a bit on the ridiculous side.
Oh, I wasn't against removing backgrounds in general, they can serve as a great tool to help players roleplay their characters. What I did say it might make sense to remove are the abilities that are background specific, seeing as most of them are redundant (as Pantagruel explains, any decent DM knows a Cleric should get good treatment from their own church), and all of them take up unnecessary space and are overly DM reliant.
Yes, I want backgrounds in general to stay. But the background specific features such as the ones I mentioned in previous posts really don't need to be a part of the modern day background system..
Anyways, it seems that you are confusing my main point and my aside; my main point is that the way 1DD does it (allowing you to build-your-own-background as opposed to giving you a background specific ability) is much better than the way 5e did it. My aside is that those background specific abilities are practically useless and really aren't necessary. Honestly, (back to my main point) I don't see why you would rather have one of your abilities over the option to build your background. You can always take a pregenerated background from 1DD if you wanted to and you'd still get most of what you got in 5e, including the things to help you roleplay your character.
If you kept background specific features in your background, you would not be able to have the build-your-own-background system since there is no way to control the balance of people making those abilities. And you can't exactly have a list of RP, background related boons since those boons are supposed to be based-off and tied to your background and that would ruin the whole point of those specific abilities if they weren't tied to it, not to mention that you wouldn't be able to tie it into every buildable option.
In short, it's not that I dislike your idea because players wouldn't have feats at level 1 with it; it's because the customizable background system would have to be scrapped to do what you want. Anyways, this conversation has spun wildly off-track, I believe the original question was asking about the difference between class and background.
Almost all of those background specific features are basically useless, and they all rely heavily on DM involvement
Focusing exclusively on any mechanical benefits of backgrounds completely misses the point of them. Yes, they're hooks for your DM, but they're also hooks for you to get a better handle on your character
A barbarian with the Outlander background should play very differently than a barbarian with the Soldier background, and I don't just mean in an RP sense
Yes, but I was not talking about scrapping the background system as a whole. I was talking about removing the background specific abilities in favor of 1DD's build-your-own-background system. Removing those abilities would not stop your background from helping you roleplay your character, it would just remove redundant and useless abilities that don't need to be specified in favor of a different background system that allows for more customization. As I explained above in this post, you are confusing my aside and main point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Well, ignoring the (rather silly) humble brag about how you think you are a good DM, I'll note that you kind of cut out the important portion of my response--who this helps. Frankly, the "good DMs don't use it" argument is just as bad as the "bad DMs don't use it" argument--it ignores the simple reality that most folks are pretty mediocre and might not think about how a Folk Hero might be interpreted by the community.
I wasn't claiming to be a 'good DM', I was saying that someone who can't manage tasks I consider routine isn't a good DM, and the stuff you're talking about is routine roleplaying stuff that basically boils down to "Commoners are generally Friendly to you" (see the Influence action for what that means). If you can't decide whether NPCs are friendly, indifferent, or hostile to the PCs... you need to learn.
Of the backgrounds in the PHB:
Acolyte, Criminal/Spy, Guild Artisan, Noble, Sailor, and Soldier all amount to "Some person or group is friendly to you".
Entertainer, Gladiator, Outlander, and Sage are just side effects of their skills; anyone with Performance skill should be able to find an option to perform, anyone with survival skill can survive in the wilds, anyone with scholarly skills should know how to research stuff.
Charlatan (False Identity) should probably be a benefit of being proficient with a forgery kit.
Knight (Retainers) is distinctive... and likely to cause problems.
Pirate (Bad Reputation) is fairly useless... and if you actually want to do that, make an intimidate check.
Urchin (City Secrets) is distinctive... and almost never relevant to anything at all. It's probably a narrow specialization of investigate.
Maybe a better way to phrase that is, "What's the difference between a class and a background?"
The reason I ask, is that there should be something the player gain from this distinction... and given how small a background it, it's likely more important for new players than veterans.
I'm going to the OP because I think the nature of this question is being addressed more through the lens of 5E vs One rather than being really examined.
Firstly, there is the assumption that a background is "small." It's not. As many have said, it is everything that came before. You make this what it is though, so if it is small, that's your choice, not in the nature of the system.
If you mean "small" as it doesn't necessarily affect combat, then we have to look at the game more broadly. Combat is 30-40% of the game, usually. Background can really affect role-play and exploration, and can change a lot of how you choose to play combat.
Secondly, not all classes are completely adaptable to all backgrounds. A fighter could develop out of virtually anything. Lots of flexibility. A Ranger, or a Druid, however, is likely not going to mesh with some backgrounds in concept, role-play or in combat. Other classes may create some fun but uncommon combos, like a Pirate Monk.
You can be a Soldier Wizard, or a Soldier Fighter. You can be an Acolyte Cleric, or an Acolyte Barbarian. Background doesn't at all describe your play-style.
Background can describe your play style, but it doesn't have to. Class doesn't completely describe your play style, but it does set up constructive constraints. You do things (fight, explore, interact) with physical tools or with magic. If you choose to use both you then compromise your abilities in both.
As to your example, an Acolyte Cleric would be a very different character to play in so many ways than an Acolyte Barbarian. An acolyte barbarian might not be the usual smashing tank barbarian, but a kind and quiet nature focused barbarian with a bag of potions and some totems.
Maybe backgrounds are supposed to represent how you display outside of combat, while classes are in combat. I dunno.
But this question brings me to this conclusion: Backgrounds determine who you were before you were an adventurer. Your class is completely unrelated and tells you what to expect your character's play style to be.
Again I think the class is never "completely unrelated." Your background is yours to decide, but you also have to somehow draw a tale out between how that background led to this class while adventuring. It's probably not a coin flip.
Like sure, you can be more or less aggressive, but a character with heavy armor and no magic is much more likely to punch things. The style chosen by the mechanics of your character is punching.
Your background doesn't tell you what to expect out of the game. Your class does.
Do you have any different takes
Your class does determine what you wear, sometimes, but it doesn't always determine what you do. A Hexblade, an Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Bard College of Swords, etc, all break these archetypes, and that doesn't even get into multi-classing!
Find your own constraints and use them to have some fun making a quirky character!
To an extent. Eldritch knight has some magical tricks but you're still a fighter and will primarily be making weapon attacks. You simply don't have the spell sots to be full on caster.
But yeah there is variety. A fighter can go strength for big weapons or dex for bows, fill a multitude of archetypes with battlemaster maneuevers, be a magic archer, etc. Casters have so many spell options they can build for damage, aoes, healing, support, debuffs etc.
But yeah, class isn't strictly 'you will do this one specific thing' and more ' here are your general tools' and you can push those tools toward different goals depending on the class depending on what you want to d. No one class can be everything but they all have more than one role they can fill.
[Re: Background features, since there would be too many quote blocks]
I have never seen D&D players so vehemently advocating for removing features from the game--especially when their only defenses of removing the system boil down to "we should remove this system because some bad DMs do not use it" and "what if we present this issue as a false diachodemy where you have to have either the current system or you have the new system." Surely you can see how both those arguments are a bit on the ridiculous side.
I, for one, don't see 1DD as removing anything, but generally adding.
For starters, let's look at who the current background system helps--it helps players who do not write in-depth backstory have an "in" to certain groups which both gives them a mechanical advantage so they are not penalized for not writing a backstory and it helps DMs who might not be the most skilled with applying backstories to their actual games. Removing the system makes life easier for lazy DMs who wanted to ignore a portion of the rules or who construed the background rules aggressively against their players. Removing a system that helps people who deserve help just because bad DMs do not like it is rather silly.
I started going through the current Backgrounds and classifying their Features into various sorts. Anything I deemed "Social" is basically something that should come from someone just being a member of a certain community in good standing. As such, I think it's rather a waste to reprint them as Background Features, they should instead just have a sidebar about how to write Backgrounds to include what kind of people your character is on good standing with. Someone funny here called them the "I know a guy" features. I didn't get to all the Backgrounds, but I got a good number of them:
Acolyte - Social Anthropologist - Skill roll Archaeologist - Skill roll Astral Drifter - Feat Athlete - Social Azorius Functionary - Social + Add'l Spells Known Borol Legionairre - Social + Add'l Spells Known Celebrity Adventurer's Scion - Social Charlatan - Skill Roll City Watch - Social Clan Crafter - Social Cloistered Scholar - Social Courtier - Social Criminal - Social Dimir Operatve - Social Entertainer - Social Faceless - Skill Faction Agent - Social Far Traveler - Skill Feylost - Social Fisher - Social Folk Hero - Social Gambler - Skill Gladiator - Social Golgari Agent - Skill + Add'l Spells Known Grinner - Social Gruu Anarch - Social + Add'l Spells Known Guld Artisan - Social Haunted One - Skill Hermit - Plot House Agent (X) - Social Inheritor - Plot Investigator - Social + Skill Izzet Engineer - Skill + Add'l Spells Known Knight - Minions All the Strixhaven Backgrounds - Feat
Besides the "Social" Background Features, there were also features that I felt could just be the result of good Skill rolls and thus are also kind of a waste to be printed as a BG Feature. There are some unique ones that I think are worth keeping. The Hermit and the Inheritor in particular are unique because they are explicitly features that you work with the DM to make plot relevant.
Bringing it back to the thread, having a certain skill you can only have learned through years and years of training--even if it is just RP dependent--still makes sense for your background. That is a skill which takes specialized experiences beyond a feat (something you can get every 4 levels in your class--or whatever the new feat system ends up being), and does a better job at further differentiating your background and where you came from than your current job.
I think if we want to let people customize, but don't want to let them write their own mechanics a la Fate Aspects, giving them a bunch of level 1 Feats that they can reskin is probably the best gameable solution here. Otherwise how would you do a DIY Background mechanic?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Every class and sub class could have several general backgrounds written for them. This would be a very general explanation for why you chose that class and have those skills. The only reason to write a more detailed background is to either gain a skill not found in your class or you really just like writing up backgrounds.
Would it really be fair if you wrote up that your father was a fighter so you went that way, but your mother was a skilled apothecary so you know how to make poisons from her, and your great uncle Lou was a magician so you gained your magic from him and your brother was a sailor so you gained your pirate skills from him. I can write every proficiency into a background, I have seen it done and the player tried to argue that since it was in their background they should gain them all. Or at least an extra one or two.
Backgrounds should be nothing more than past flavor for your character. They should not influence your present proficiency and skills but instead your present, 1st level class proficiency and skills should influence your background. If you plan to add a second class later add that flavor to your background at the start. (Though through game play you might find you do not go in that direction.)
Every class and sub class could have several general backgrounds written for them. This would be a very general explanation for why you chose that class and have those skills. The only reason to write a more detailed background is to either gain a skill not found in your class or you really just like writing up backgrounds.
Would it really be fair if you wrote up that your father was a fighter so you went that way, but your mother was a skilled apothecary so you know how to make poisons from her, and your great uncle Lou was a magician so you gained your magic from him and your brother was a sailor so you gained your pirate skills from him. I can write every proficiency into a background, I have seen it done and the player tried to argue that since it was in their background they should gain them all. Or at least an extra one or two.
Backgrounds should be nothing more than past flavor for your character. They should not influence your present proficiency and skills but instead your present, 1st level class proficiency and skills should influence your background. If you plan to add a second class later add that flavor to your background at the start. (Though through game play you might find you do not go in that direction.)
Sure you shouldn't let players run rampant and give themselves whatever they want, but there's nothing wrong with having gotten skills from your background not directly related to your class. Backgrounds just give two skills and a combination of two tools/instruments/gaming sets/languages etc, it's not crazy and can help incorporate backstory elements not direclty related to the class. Because it's fine to have more to your background than 'I went to wizard school and nothing else' etc.
Even custom backgrounds still lay the ground rules of how much you can get from the background to keep it relevant and interesting without getting too carried away.
Creating an imaginary person that goes beyond a thinly veiled, one-dimensional reflection of yourself is harder than it seems. Even people who write seventeen pages of backstory can often find themselves basing every choice on one personality trait or motivation.
Things like alignment, description, and background act as a short list of references to remind you who your character is and where their perspective lies. A solider Wizard is likely to be roleplayed quite a bit differently than a noble Wizard.
In the end these are game elements that make it easier to get into character. To that end it doesn't really matter if they provide mechanical benefits or not - although that does tend to get people to pay more attention to them. But really, it's on the player whether they leverage these tools to create a character or not. No particular game element has yet been devised that can force someone to "roleplay better." The best you can do is encourage and reward it when you see it happen.
The background gives you help in establishing your character for role-play - thus it does inform you as to what to expect out of the RP side of the game.
I find this answer insightful and useful, but also slightly frustrating (even though it's probably right). I also feel like that's what a backstory does: so what's the difference between a backstory and a background?
It seems like up until my last character, I've been writing a backstory for that purpose and then choose a background mainly based on what else it gives my character, while also trying to choose a background that it somewhat justifiable and consistent with the character's backstory and who they are supposed to be). My most recent character, my DM highly encouraged me to change the background that I had chosen, based on what I thought it would "get" my character, for one that fit it with the campaign and party concept better. I was also asked to modify my backstory, so that it would fit with the campaign and party better. Even though that would not have been my first choice, at that moment, I have to admit that it likely was the right choice. My character got things that I might not have chosen myself, probably just based on familarity, that have turned out to be really interesting to play with.
The background gives you help in establishing your character for role-play - thus it does inform you as to what to expect out of the RP side of the game.
I find this answer insightful and useful, but also slightly frustrating (even though it's probably right). I also feel like that's what a backstory does: so what's the difference between a backstory and a background?
It seems like up until my last character, I've been writing a backstory for that purpose and then choose a background mainly based on what else it gives my character, while also trying to choose a background that it somewhat justifiable and consistent with the character's backstory and who they are supposed to be). My most recent character, my DM highly encouraged me to change the background that I had chosen, based on what I thought it would "get" my character, for one that fit it with the campaign and party concept better. I was also asked to modify my backstory, so that it would fit with the campaign and party better. Even though that would not have been my first choice, at that moment, I have to admit that it likely was the right choice. My character got things that I might not have chosen myself, probably just based on familarity, that have turned out to be really interesting to play with.
Backstory and background are related. Background is basically a mechanically codified aspect of your backstory. It gives you two skills, a combination of two tools/languages, and a bit of gold/flavor items. (Unless you roll for starting gold of course.)
Background is all written by you and doesn't directly impact the mechanics. The DM may at their discretion do things like 'because of your backstory as a sailor roll this check with advantage' or something but that's not codified in the rules and is up to DM discretion.
Given that they have rules for custom backgrounds, I think it's fair to pick and choose what fits your character's backstory if none of the backgrounds fit perfectly. I see them more as templates to use if they fit, while they give the custom background option for people that want to customize a bit more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Same. I've had a cleric with the Clan Crafter background (and a semi-homebrew version of it at that, where they were trained as a tattooist), warlocks with Soldier, Criminal and Fisher, wizards with Archaeologist and Sailor, a druid with Entertainer, a rogue with Outlander... and those choices absolutely informed who they were as characters, how I flavored their spells and abilities, and my "play style" with them -- to the point that I suspect OP means something very different by "play style" than I do, if they don't think a character's background has any impact on it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Focusing exclusively on any mechanical benefits of backgrounds completely misses the point of them. Yes, they're hooks for your DM, but they're also hooks for you to get a better handle on your character
A barbarian with the Outlander background should play very differently than a barbarian with the Soldier background, and I don't just mean in an RP sense
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Good DMs don't use it either. Seriously, I don't need a background trait to figure that, say, a devout religious character can get good treatment from their temple.
Well, ignoring the (rather silly) humble brag about how you think you are a good DM, I'll note that you kind of cut out the important portion of my response--who this helps. Frankly, the "good DMs don't use it" argument is just as bad as the "bad DMs don't use it" argument--it ignores the simple reality that most folks are pretty mediocre and might not think about how a Folk Hero might be interpreted by the community.
Here's the reality--most new players and a lot of established players are overwhelmed by all their options. Giving those players a background feature they can point to is also giving them an established set of options for certain character interactions they might not otherwise think about. Sure, many of us on the forums would probably think of most of the stuff the background features have--but we are not representative of the community. Advocating for removing something that helps the majority just because people on the good and bad extremes do not use it is a poor reason to get rid of an entire system.
Oh, I wasn't against removing backgrounds in general, they can serve as a great tool to help players roleplay their characters. What I did say it might make sense to remove are the abilities that are background specific, seeing as most of them are redundant (as Pantagruel explains, any decent DM knows a Cleric should get good treatment from their own church), and all of them take up unnecessary space and are overly DM reliant.
Yes, I want backgrounds in general to stay. But the background specific features such as the ones I mentioned in previous posts really don't need to be a part of the modern day background system..
Anyways, it seems that you are confusing my main point and my aside; my main point is that the way 1DD does it (allowing you to build-your-own-background as opposed to giving you a background specific ability) is much better than the way 5e did it. My aside is that those background specific abilities are practically useless and really aren't necessary. Honestly, (back to my main point) I don't see why you would rather have one of your abilities over the option to build your background. You can always take a pregenerated background from 1DD if you wanted to and you'd still get most of what you got in 5e, including the things to help you roleplay your character.
If you kept background specific features in your background, you would not be able to have the build-your-own-background system since there is no way to control the balance of people making those abilities. And you can't exactly have a list of RP, background related boons since those boons are supposed to be based-off and tied to your background and that would ruin the whole point of those specific abilities if they weren't tied to it, not to mention that you wouldn't be able to tie it into every buildable option.
In short, it's not that I dislike your idea because players wouldn't have feats at level 1 with it; it's because the customizable background system would have to be scrapped to do what you want. Anyways, this conversation has spun wildly off-track, I believe the original question was asking about the difference between class and background.
Yes, but I was not talking about scrapping the background system as a whole. I was talking about removing the background specific abilities in favor of 1DD's build-your-own-background system. Removing those abilities would not stop your background from helping you roleplay your character, it would just remove redundant and useless abilities that don't need to be specified in favor of a different background system that allows for more customization. As I explained above in this post, you are confusing my aside and main point.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I wasn't claiming to be a 'good DM', I was saying that someone who can't manage tasks I consider routine isn't a good DM, and the stuff you're talking about is routine roleplaying stuff that basically boils down to "Commoners are generally Friendly to you" (see the Influence action for what that means). If you can't decide whether NPCs are friendly, indifferent, or hostile to the PCs... you need to learn.
Of the backgrounds in the PHB:
I'm going to the OP because I think the nature of this question is being addressed more through the lens of 5E vs One rather than being really examined.
Firstly, there is the assumption that a background is "small." It's not. As many have said, it is everything that came before. You make this what it is though, so if it is small, that's your choice, not in the nature of the system.
If you mean "small" as it doesn't necessarily affect combat, then we have to look at the game more broadly. Combat is 30-40% of the game, usually. Background can really affect role-play and exploration, and can change a lot of how you choose to play combat.
Secondly, not all classes are completely adaptable to all backgrounds. A fighter could develop out of virtually anything. Lots of flexibility. A Ranger, or a Druid, however, is likely not going to mesh with some backgrounds in concept, role-play or in combat. Other classes may create some fun but uncommon combos, like a Pirate Monk.
Background can describe your play style, but it doesn't have to. Class doesn't completely describe your play style, but it does set up constructive constraints. You do things (fight, explore, interact) with physical tools or with magic. If you choose to use both you then compromise your abilities in both.
As to your example, an Acolyte Cleric would be a very different character to play in so many ways than an Acolyte Barbarian. An acolyte barbarian might not be the usual smashing tank barbarian, but a kind and quiet nature focused barbarian with a bag of potions and some totems.
Again I think the class is never "completely unrelated." Your background is yours to decide, but you also have to somehow draw a tale out between how that background led to this class while adventuring. It's probably not a coin flip.
Your class does determine what you wear, sometimes, but it doesn't always determine what you do. A Hexblade, an Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Bard College of Swords, etc, all break these archetypes, and that doesn't even get into multi-classing!
Find your own constraints and use them to have some fun making a quirky character!
To an extent. Eldritch knight has some magical tricks but you're still a fighter and will primarily be making weapon attacks. You simply don't have the spell sots to be full on caster.
But yeah there is variety. A fighter can go strength for big weapons or dex for bows, fill a multitude of archetypes with battlemaster maneuevers, be a magic archer, etc. Casters have so many spell options they can build for damage, aoes, healing, support, debuffs etc.
But yeah, class isn't strictly 'you will do this one specific thing' and more ' here are your general tools' and you can push those tools toward different goals depending on the class depending on what you want to d. No one class can be everything but they all have more than one role they can fill.
Background is where you came from and class is where you are going to with it.
I, for one, don't see 1DD as removing anything, but generally adding.
I started going through the current Backgrounds and classifying their Features into various sorts. Anything I deemed "Social" is basically something that should come from someone just being a member of a certain community in good standing. As such, I think it's rather a waste to reprint them as Background Features, they should instead just have a sidebar about how to write Backgrounds to include what kind of people your character is on good standing with. Someone funny here called them the "I know a guy" features. I didn't get to all the Backgrounds, but I got a good number of them:
Acolyte - Social
Anthropologist - Skill roll
Archaeologist - Skill roll
Astral Drifter - Feat
Athlete - Social
Azorius Functionary - Social + Add'l Spells Known
Borol Legionairre - Social + Add'l Spells Known
Celebrity Adventurer's Scion - Social
Charlatan - Skill Roll
City Watch - Social
Clan Crafter - Social
Cloistered Scholar - Social
Courtier - Social
Criminal - Social
Dimir Operatve - Social
Entertainer - Social
Faceless - Skill
Faction Agent - Social
Far Traveler - Skill
Feylost - Social
Fisher - Social
Folk Hero - Social
Gambler - Skill
Gladiator - Social
Golgari Agent - Skill + Add'l Spells Known
Grinner - Social
Gruu Anarch - Social + Add'l Spells Known
Guld Artisan - Social
Haunted One - Skill
Hermit - Plot
House Agent (X) - Social
Inheritor - Plot
Investigator - Social + Skill
Izzet Engineer - Skill + Add'l Spells Known
Knight - Minions
All the Strixhaven Backgrounds - Feat
Besides the "Social" Background Features, there were also features that I felt could just be the result of good Skill rolls and thus are also kind of a waste to be printed as a BG Feature. There are some unique ones that I think are worth keeping. The Hermit and the Inheritor in particular are unique because they are explicitly features that you work with the DM to make plot relevant.
I think if we want to let people customize, but don't want to let them write their own mechanics a la Fate Aspects, giving them a bunch of level 1 Feats that they can reskin is probably the best gameable solution here. Otherwise how would you do a DIY Background mechanic?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Every class and sub class could have several general backgrounds written for them. This would be a very general explanation for why you chose that class and have those skills.
The only reason to write a more detailed background is to either gain a skill not found in your class or you really just like writing up backgrounds.
Would it really be fair if you wrote up that your father was a fighter so you went that way, but your mother was a skilled apothecary so you know how to make poisons from her, and your great uncle Lou was a magician so you gained your magic from him and your brother was a sailor so you gained your pirate skills from him.
I can write every proficiency into a background, I have seen it done and the player tried to argue that since it was in their background they should gain them all. Or at least an extra one or two.
Backgrounds should be nothing more than past flavor for your character. They should not influence your present proficiency and skills but instead your present, 1st level class proficiency and skills should influence your background.
If you plan to add a second class later add that flavor to your background at the start. (Though through game play you might find you do not go in that direction.)
Sure you shouldn't let players run rampant and give themselves whatever they want, but there's nothing wrong with having gotten skills from your background not directly related to your class. Backgrounds just give two skills and a combination of two tools/instruments/gaming sets/languages etc, it's not crazy and can help incorporate backstory elements not direclty related to the class. Because it's fine to have more to your background than 'I went to wizard school and nothing else' etc.
Even custom backgrounds still lay the ground rules of how much you can get from the background to keep it relevant and interesting without getting too carried away.
Creating an imaginary person that goes beyond a thinly veiled, one-dimensional reflection of yourself is harder than it seems. Even people who write seventeen pages of backstory can often find themselves basing every choice on one personality trait or motivation.
Things like alignment, description, and background act as a short list of references to remind you who your character is and where their perspective lies. A solider Wizard is likely to be roleplayed quite a bit differently than a noble Wizard.
In the end these are game elements that make it easier to get into character. To that end it doesn't really matter if they provide mechanical benefits or not - although that does tend to get people to pay more attention to them. But really, it's on the player whether they leverage these tools to create a character or not. No particular game element has yet been devised that can force someone to "roleplay better." The best you can do is encourage and reward it when you see it happen.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I find this answer insightful and useful, but also slightly frustrating (even though it's probably right). I also feel like that's what a backstory does: so what's the difference between a backstory and a background?
It seems like up until my last character, I've been writing a backstory for that purpose and then choose a background mainly based on what else it gives my character, while also trying to choose a background that it somewhat justifiable and consistent with the character's backstory and who they are supposed to be). My most recent character, my DM highly encouraged me to change the background that I had chosen, based on what I thought it would "get" my character, for one that fit it with the campaign and party concept better. I was also asked to modify my backstory, so that it would fit with the campaign and party better. Even though that would not have been my first choice, at that moment, I have to admit that it likely was the right choice. My character got things that I might not have chosen myself, probably just based on familarity, that have turned out to be really interesting to play with.
Backstory and background are related. Background is basically a mechanically codified aspect of your backstory. It gives you two skills, a combination of two tools/languages, and a bit of gold/flavor items. (Unless you roll for starting gold of course.)
Background is all written by you and doesn't directly impact the mechanics. The DM may at their discretion do things like 'because of your backstory as a sailor roll this check with advantage' or something but that's not codified in the rules and is up to DM discretion.
Given that they have rules for custom backgrounds, I think it's fair to pick and choose what fits your character's backstory if none of the backgrounds fit perfectly. I see them more as templates to use if they fit, while they give the custom background option for people that want to customize a bit more.