I feel that by offering backgrounds with feats tied into them, the game is now unbalanced without going back to the original backgrounds and adding a feat to each one.
This is evident in my current game. The Deck of Many things background has been taken by a variant human. This player has two additional feats compared to the rest of us schlubs creating a vast power difference between players.
To prevent this, I have placed the following sanctions on my games. No backgrounds with feats or all backgrounds have a feat. Team's choice at session zero. I remind them that whatever choices are made, the bad guys have those too.
I am concerned that WotC is heading down a dark path. We've all seen the variant human groups. Now we will see nothing but variant human with feat backgrounds and nothing more. Sad state of affairs.
I've honestly never seen such a group, nor actually even heard of one until this day.
Now we will see nothing but variant human with feat backgrounds and nothing more.
I remember when Tasha's Cauldron of Everything came out with ASI shuffling and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the prospect of every group being mountain dwarves because they get a better ASI spread than any other race. That never materialised, in fact I can't remember the last time someone mentioned mountain dwarf in the character discussion channel over on the discord.
or all backgrounds have a feat
This is actually an option presented in several of the books that include background feats. Also it's an incredibly common house rule, so much so that might explain WotC leaning into it.
I am concerned that WotC is heading down a dark path. .... Sad state of affairs.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither a dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
In games where backgrounds with fears are a thing, it's suggested that backgrounds without feats get a choice of a couple - at least in Dragonlance.
I don't really have an issue with it. My major concern is compatibility, but if I port a character over, it's easy.enough to just add a feat. 1D&D has scope for larger issue.
Variant humans are already balanced for the extra feat, so it's no big deal for me.
I like that feats can come in without the cost of an ASI. At the moment, the opportunity cost is to high. if anything, I hope that feats become their own thing in 1D&D so I feel Incan use them to flavour my character without worrying about hobbling my character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Background used to be designed to give additional language, skill or tool proficiency.
The newer Backgrounds granting feats clearly create unbalance with previous ones being simply better options in general.
GMs can also just give players who pick the old backgrounds a free feat. Old backgrounds will be slightly stronger since they come with background features, but unless you are in a campaign where tracking resources is a big thing, being able to sleep around for free, always successfully hunt in the wild, or march a really long time is not a huge deal. There are also some fun stuff like intimidating people with legalese, have NPC followers, access to various networks/contacts, etc., but missing out on them is not a huge deal mechanically.
I feel that by offering backgrounds with feats tied into them, the game is now unbalanced without going back to the original backgrounds and adding a feat to each one.
This is evident in my current game. The Deck of Many things background has been taken by a variant human. This player has two additional feats compared to the rest of us schlubs creating a vast power difference between players.
To prevent this, I have placed the following sanctions on my games. No backgrounds with feats or all backgrounds have a feat. Team's choice at session zero. I remind them that whatever choices are made, the bad guys have those too.
I am concerned that WotC is heading down a dark path. We've all seen the variant human groups. Now we will see nothing but variant human with feat backgrounds and nothing more. Sad state of affairs.
Of course you are correct. This increasing the inherent power of the PC's started with tasha's, and is ramped up to an even higher order with the new edition. You will get massive pushback on this site from many who will say "oh no, the game is still perfectly balanced", but you have identified examples where it is not. We have heard the marketese that "old builds and new builds, even in the same class, can exist in the same game". That is of course 100% true, if the DM and old build player are content with having a PC of the same class that is clearly more powerful than the old build PC.
Backgrounds with a feat are an important part of 5.5e’s design. The game is expanding on the feat system to make feat trees—meaning you have to have prerequisite feats in order to unlock a feat expanding on that feat. Giving you a starting feat allows you to start down that road immediately upon hitting level 4, rather than have to wait until you have received two feats. It also means you will have options to build on your background, developing that part of your character by following the feat tree as you level up.
This is hardly something new—prior editions had this as an option—and it was hardly apocalyptic then. Frankly, it was a mistake for 5e to make feats as simplistic as it did, and the game will be better off with more character creation options, such as a more complex feat system.
Does it cause some balance issues with the existing backgrounds? Sure, a little. But that is a really easy problem to solve - just give everyone with the old backgrounds a level 1 feat for free. Easy solution that returns everyone to an equal footing and fixes any potential balance issues.
I’m in a campaign now where some people took strixhaven backgrounds and got the accompanying feat, while others have no 1st level feat. I’m one of the people without. There is no power difference. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they mentioned it at level 6.
I’d suggest folks who are so terribly worried about what their white room calculations tell them to actually try playing. These gloom and doom predictions tend not to actually happen.
At this point I would just allow feats for all backgrounds and call it even, the features that the old feats give aren’t really “features,” they’re just things that any DM worth their salt should do for those backgrounds anyway. At this point any backgrounds I write I apply feats to these days.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither a dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
You mean how YOU and your table play it. I play/DM at 2 tables where zero free feats are given, and the 27 point buy or std array are used.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither a dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
You mean how YOU and your table play it. I play/DM at 2 tables where zero free feats are given, and the 27 point buy or std array are used.
Then obviously your table wouldn't allow backgrounds that provide feats to begin with and thus would not actually be affected in any way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither a dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
You mean how YOU and your table play it. I play/DM at 2 tables where zero free feats are given, and the 27 point buy or std array are used.
No, I don't actually use background feats in my game. In fact, in many of my games I don't use feats at all. I'm not sure why you immediately assumed that I was projecting how I play onto the game at large?
But in many of the designer interviews Jeremy et al have stated that a large proportion of the player base employ such a rule, hence their motivation to formalise it into the game. Sure, this wouldn't align with how you play, or how I currently play, but sometimes our play styles don't reflect the game as a heuristic whole, and that's a-okay.
It concers me as well, but for a different reason. I think feats should be special, something that sets a character apart from ordinary characters. It should be something they have to buy, not get given. I don't like the idea of any character getting feats for free, especially at level 1.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
You mean how YOU and your table play it. I play/DM at 2 tables where zero free feats are given, and the 27 point buy or std array are used.
But the feats from backgrounds aren’t “free,” they’re part of the background instead of those lame 455 “features” (🙄) they used to give. It’s just different is all.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither a dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
You mean how YOU and your table play it. I play/DM at 2 tables where zero free feats are given, and the 27 point buy or std array are used.
Our table uses a system we call Enhanced Standard Progression. You start with a background feat of choice (we have a not-quite-rule, string gentleman's agreement no one's broken yet that this feat is not a Big Fighty feat), and by-the-book point buy. You then take all your standard ASIs as ASIs, no feats. Instead, every time the *character* hits 4, 8, 12, 16, or 19, they gain a feat regardless of multiclass allowances or not.
We've found this is an excellent fit over systems such as 4d6kh designed to produce high-powered stat arrays that minimize the need to take ASIs. This way the characters still grow naturally in power and capability as the game progresses, but you don't lose out on the fun of feats. We've found that the decreased pressure on the ASI levels let characters take fun, flavorful feats you almost never see such as Skulker, Inspiring Leader, and other way off-standard options because you're not sacrificing a critical, extremely rare piece of character growth for.
You can easily adjust the "balance" of the game by adjusting when players gain these feats. "Every time your proficiency bonus increases" is also a good measure, and easier to track than character level. Most feats that aren't named Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, or Crossbow Expert don't usually swing games hard enough to be "balance" issues regardless.
Frankly, we've found that the moments those unusual, rarely-selected feats get their moment to shine make for great table stories. The moment the drow paladin with Skulker can be a superb underground tunnel fighter with excellent performance in total darkness is a really cool moment for that player, and it expands the party's options laterally without increasing their capability ceiling.
I get that some folks just absolutely hate anything that smacks of pandering, power creep, or powergaming, feel like it's the players grasping for mechanical power at the expense of the experience. And that's fine. Perfectly valid, and perfectly legitimate.
Buuuuut....so is more freely allowing feats. Feats are *fun*. Personalizing your character and making them feel unique is *fun*. It's why so many of us homebrew our own feats, unique to the character, without fishing for power. If you want the fun of feats without any power gain, brew up a set of feats that only add ribbon, noncombat, or background abilities with no impact on combat performance. Homebrewing feats is fun. Or at least I think so.
I do provide skills/talents/proficiencies, whatever. Backgrounds are critical to my game, though -- for others, it is a line of on the sheet they fill in and doesn't matter at all. A lot of those kinds of games people just die and that's it. I find such games to be boring and mostly run by ********. Just my opinion.
Instead, I took all the class features and feats that are in the game, put them in a big old pile, ad people get to pick and choose them at certain levels.
But I also don't use any of the "standard" classes or subclasses. I have 19 classes and then I have all the feats. I even made weapon specialization stuff and casting magic feats, so you can have a Wizard who sucks at spells but is ok at combat. Players get to seriously customize their character, and express their creativity. There are a few folks who find my doing that to be completely unwelcome. Just their opinion.
Underneath all of that stuff is a basic, core premise: character customization and the ability to step around, to an extent, the central Class mechanic. For some folks, their ability to effectively DM or play a lot of the feats is limited -- they lack the ability to adapt and deal with them. A Fighter is a fighter, and for a lot of folks, that all a Fighter needs to be.
For others, though, a Fighter might also be a Poet who likes to spend time singing tales in the local tavern -- not a bard, but she can do some bard like stuff, and that makes her a little different from the other fighters.
That's the idea behind feats -- and either a DM encourages players to be creative, or they discourage them from being creative. Unless you have a very settled, very fixed crew, you are going to want more people to join your game, and that means you will want to have a game that encourages customization and more detailed backgrounds and all of that. 5e is built around that idea, and lord knows we have more evidence of that when it comes to feats and backgrounds here on DDB than anywhere else.
Among the many kinds of Players of D&D, are some who prefer to just complain about the system, and some who prefer to make the system work for them. I stress, again, many kinds. Trying to limit it to just a number under 25 is a fools errand, lol, and I ain't a fool.
I think the ability to choose to not use feats, to not use classes, to not use spells, to not have people die, to take the game apart and put it back together again in s a way that you like it is a strength of 5e, a core part of the adaptability that it has, and that makes it stronger, more fit, than previous versions.
Others prefer to see adaptability as a weakness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I feel that by offering backgrounds with feats tied into them, the game is now unbalanced without going back to the original backgrounds and adding a feat to each one.
This is evident in my current game. The Deck of Many things background has been taken by a variant human. This player has two additional feats compared to the rest of us schlubs creating a vast power difference between players.
To prevent this, I have placed the following sanctions on my games. No backgrounds with feats or all backgrounds have a feat. Team's choice at session zero. I remind them that whatever choices are made, the bad guys have those too.
I am concerned that WotC is heading down a dark path. We've all seen the variant human groups. Now we will see nothing but variant human with feat backgrounds and nothing more. Sad state of affairs.
If you’re using the backgrounds that come with a feat those books have an option for players who didn’t take a background with a feat to select a feat. So it’s not unbalanced or sending the game down some “dark path”.
and Variant Human is balanced around having a feat at 1st level.
I feel that by offering backgrounds with feats tied into them, the game is now unbalanced without going back to the original backgrounds and adding a feat to each one.
This is evident in my current game. The Deck of Many things background has been taken by a variant human. This player has two additional feats compared to the rest of us schlubs creating a vast power difference between players.
To prevent this, I have placed the following sanctions on my games. No backgrounds with feats or all backgrounds have a feat. Team's choice at session zero. I remind them that whatever choices are made, the bad guys have those too.
I am concerned that WotC is heading down a dark path. We've all seen the variant human groups. Now we will see nothing but variant human with feat backgrounds and nothing more. Sad state of affairs.
If you’re using the backgrounds that come with a feat those books have an option for players who didn’t take a background with a feat to select a feat. So it’s not unbalanced or sending the game down some “dark path”.
and Variant Human is balanced around having a feat at 1st level.
So, in other words, to maintain internal balance, players and DM's are forced to adapt the new PC build mechanisms.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Long time player (30+ years).
I feel that by offering backgrounds with feats tied into them, the game is now unbalanced without going back to the original backgrounds and adding a feat to each one.
This is evident in my current game. The Deck of Many things background has been taken by a variant human. This player has two additional feats compared to the rest of us schlubs creating a vast power difference between players.
To prevent this, I have placed the following sanctions on my games. No backgrounds with feats or all backgrounds have a feat. Team's choice at session zero. I remind them that whatever choices are made, the bad guys have those too.
I am concerned that WotC is heading down a dark path. We've all seen the variant human groups. Now we will see nothing but variant human with feat backgrounds and nothing more. Sad state of affairs.
I've honestly never seen such a group, nor actually even heard of one until this day.
I remember when Tasha's Cauldron of Everything came out with ASI shuffling and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the prospect of every group being mountain dwarves because they get a better ASI spread than any other race. That never materialised, in fact I can't remember the last time someone mentioned mountain dwarf in the character discussion channel over on the discord.
This is actually an option presented in several of the books that include background feats. Also it's an incredibly common house rule, so much so that might explain WotC leaning into it.
I suspect you may be catastrophizing a touch. This is neither a dark path nor a sad state of affairs. It's just the game changing to match how people actually play it.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
In games where backgrounds with fears are a thing, it's suggested that backgrounds without feats get a choice of a couple - at least in Dragonlance.
I don't really have an issue with it. My major concern is compatibility, but if I port a character over, it's easy.enough to just add a feat. 1D&D has scope for larger issue.
Variant humans are already balanced for the extra feat, so it's no big deal for me.
I like that feats can come in without the cost of an ASI. At the moment, the opportunity cost is to high. if anything, I hope that feats become their own thing in 1D&D so I feel Incan use them to flavour my character without worrying about hobbling my character.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There is always the option of simply not allowing feats, just let your players know before hand during session zero.
I wish they release some of the old background features as feats. Adept Linguist from anthropologist is pretty cool.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Background used to be designed to give additional language, skill or tool proficiency.
The newer Backgrounds granting feats clearly create unbalance with previous ones being simply better options in general.
GMs can also just give players who pick the old backgrounds a free feat. Old backgrounds will be slightly stronger since they come with background features, but unless you are in a campaign where tracking resources is a big thing, being able to sleep around for free, always successfully hunt in the wild, or march a really long time is not a huge deal. There are also some fun stuff like intimidating people with legalese, have NPC followers, access to various networks/contacts, etc., but missing out on them is not a huge deal mechanically.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Of course you are correct. This increasing the inherent power of the PC's started with tasha's, and is ramped up to an even higher order with the new edition. You will get massive pushback on this site from many who will say "oh no, the game is still perfectly balanced", but you have identified examples where it is not. We have heard the marketese that "old builds and new builds, even in the same class, can exist in the same game". That is of course 100% true, if the DM and old build player are content with having a PC of the same class that is clearly more powerful than the old build PC.
Backgrounds with a feat are an important part of 5.5e’s design. The game is expanding on the feat system to make feat trees—meaning you have to have prerequisite feats in order to unlock a feat expanding on that feat. Giving you a starting feat allows you to start down that road immediately upon hitting level 4, rather than have to wait until you have received two feats. It also means you will have options to build on your background, developing that part of your character by following the feat tree as you level up.
This is hardly something new—prior editions had this as an option—and it was hardly apocalyptic then. Frankly, it was a mistake for 5e to make feats as simplistic as it did, and the game will be better off with more character creation options, such as a more complex feat system.
Does it cause some balance issues with the existing backgrounds? Sure, a little. But that is a really easy problem to solve - just give everyone with the old backgrounds a level 1 feat for free. Easy solution that returns everyone to an equal footing and fixes any potential balance issues.
So, what, the game balance has been completely ruined by the last, I don't know, 20 updates? Maybe one of these days that will actually be true!
I’m in a campaign now where some people took strixhaven backgrounds and got the accompanying feat, while others have no 1st level feat. I’m one of the people without. There is no power difference. I didn’t even realize they had an extra feat until they mentioned it at level 6.
I’d suggest folks who are so terribly worried about what their white room calculations tell them to actually try playing. These gloom and doom predictions tend not to actually happen.
At this point I would just allow feats for all backgrounds and call it even, the features that the old feats give aren’t really “features,” they’re just things that any DM worth their salt should do for those backgrounds anyway. At this point any backgrounds I write I apply feats to these days.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You mean how YOU and your table play it. I play/DM at 2 tables where zero free feats are given, and the 27 point buy or std array are used.
Then obviously your table wouldn't allow backgrounds that provide feats to begin with and thus would not actually be affected in any way.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
No, I don't actually use background feats in my game. In fact, in many of my games I don't use feats at all. I'm not sure why you immediately assumed that I was projecting how I play onto the game at large?
But in many of the designer interviews Jeremy et al have stated that a large proportion of the player base employ such a rule, hence their motivation to formalise it into the game. Sure, this wouldn't align with how you play, or how I currently play, but sometimes our play styles don't reflect the game as a heuristic whole, and that's a-okay.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
It concers me as well, but for a different reason. I think feats should be special, something that sets a character apart from ordinary characters. It should be something they have to buy, not get given. I don't like the idea of any character getting feats for free, especially at level 1.
But the feats from backgrounds aren’t “free,” they’re part of the background instead of those lame 455 “features” (🙄) they used to give. It’s just different is all.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Our table uses a system we call Enhanced Standard Progression. You start with a background feat of choice (we have a not-quite-rule, string gentleman's agreement no one's broken yet that this feat is not a Big Fighty feat), and by-the-book point buy. You then take all your standard ASIs as ASIs, no feats. Instead, every time the *character* hits 4, 8, 12, 16, or 19, they gain a feat regardless of multiclass allowances or not.
We've found this is an excellent fit over systems such as 4d6kh designed to produce high-powered stat arrays that minimize the need to take ASIs. This way the characters still grow naturally in power and capability as the game progresses, but you don't lose out on the fun of feats. We've found that the decreased pressure on the ASI levels let characters take fun, flavorful feats you almost never see such as Skulker, Inspiring Leader, and other way off-standard options because you're not sacrificing a critical, extremely rare piece of character growth for.
You can easily adjust the "balance" of the game by adjusting when players gain these feats. "Every time your proficiency bonus increases" is also a good measure, and easier to track than character level. Most feats that aren't named Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, or Crossbow Expert don't usually swing games hard enough to be "balance" issues regardless.
Frankly, we've found that the moments those unusual, rarely-selected feats get their moment to shine make for great table stories. The moment the drow paladin with Skulker can be a superb underground tunnel fighter with excellent performance in total darkness is a really cool moment for that player, and it expands the party's options laterally without increasing their capability ceiling.
I get that some folks just absolutely hate anything that smacks of pandering, power creep, or powergaming, feel like it's the players grasping for mechanical power at the expense of the experience. And that's fine. Perfectly valid, and perfectly legitimate.
Buuuuut....so is more freely allowing feats. Feats are *fun*. Personalizing your character and making them feel unique is *fun*. It's why so many of us homebrew our own feats, unique to the character, without fishing for power. If you want the fun of feats without any power gain, brew up a set of feats that only add ribbon, noncombat, or background abilities with no impact on combat performance. Homebrewing feats is fun. Or at least I think so.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't provide feats with backgrounds.
I do provide skills/talents/proficiencies, whatever. Backgrounds are critical to my game, though -- for others, it is a line of on the sheet they fill in and doesn't matter at all. A lot of those kinds of games people just die and that's it. I find such games to be boring and mostly run by ********. Just my opinion.
Instead, I took all the class features and feats that are in the game, put them in a big old pile, ad people get to pick and choose them at certain levels.
But I also don't use any of the "standard" classes or subclasses. I have 19 classes and then I have all the feats. I even made weapon specialization stuff and casting magic feats, so you can have a Wizard who sucks at spells but is ok at combat. Players get to seriously customize their character, and express their creativity. There are a few folks who find my doing that to be completely unwelcome. Just their opinion.
Underneath all of that stuff is a basic, core premise: character customization and the ability to step around, to an extent, the central Class mechanic. For some folks, their ability to effectively DM or play a lot of the feats is limited -- they lack the ability to adapt and deal with them. A Fighter is a fighter, and for a lot of folks, that all a Fighter needs to be.
For others, though, a Fighter might also be a Poet who likes to spend time singing tales in the local tavern -- not a bard, but she can do some bard like stuff, and that makes her a little different from the other fighters.
That's the idea behind feats -- and either a DM encourages players to be creative, or they discourage them from being creative. Unless you have a very settled, very fixed crew, you are going to want more people to join your game, and that means you will want to have a game that encourages customization and more detailed backgrounds and all of that. 5e is built around that idea, and lord knows we have more evidence of that when it comes to feats and backgrounds here on DDB than anywhere else.
Among the many kinds of Players of D&D, are some who prefer to just complain about the system, and some who prefer to make the system work for them. I stress, again, many kinds. Trying to limit it to just a number under 25 is a fools errand, lol, and I ain't a fool.
I think the ability to choose to not use feats, to not use classes, to not use spells, to not have people die, to take the game apart and put it back together again in s a way that you like it is a strength of 5e, a core part of the adaptability that it has, and that makes it stronger, more fit, than previous versions.
Others prefer to see adaptability as a weakness.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
If you’re using the backgrounds that come with a feat those books have an option for players who didn’t take a background with a feat to select a feat. So it’s not unbalanced or sending the game down some “dark path”.
and Variant Human is balanced around having a feat at 1st level.
So, in other words, to maintain internal balance, players and DM's are forced to adapt the new PC build mechanisms.