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.
...or simply pick and choose which feats and content you allow. Not all of the new options blow the older ones out of the water. Case-by-case approval can work. At least, it does for me.
I'm in the camp that doesn't really appreciate the late-stage 5e power creep, and I tend to prefer PCs becoming strong in my games, not starting that way. Simply giving magic items and feats to PCs that aren't Tasha's-onward in origin doesn't really mesh with my play style, as it (at least in my head) feels like I'm doling out unearned power too early. Sure, it can certainly be a viable option to balance the party, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Whether it's selective banning or yellow-lighting content until you can review it, there are ways to navigate the slight power differentials without just throwing more feats into the mix.
I will say, though, that the more I've allowed players I trust to putter around with recent sourcebooks, the more I've come to find that some of the content isn't that bad. I still don't like it, and I probably will never like it. But at least for my table and my players, we've found ways of making it work in a way that doesn't bug me to DM.
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.
No, you could just stop buying the new books.
Ignoring books is a good solution. Or paying attention to the numerous people who say they have actually used games with a mix of old backgrounds and new and said it was not actually a problem. Or editing rules to make them better work for your table. Or adapt and embrace the new systems, as players have been doing since 1975.
Or, I suppose, just complain about new content without bothering to try it, ignore everyone who has actual experience with the system, and try to convince others that TSR/Wizards is the bad guy for giving folks new toys to play with--folks have been doing that since 1975 as well. Perhaps one day the Luddite argument will actually hold merit! I mean, it hasn't for the past forty-eight years, but eventually it has to work, right!?
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.
No, you could just stop buying the new books.
Ignoring books is a good solution. Or paying attention to the numerous people who say they have actually used games with a mix of old backgrounds and new and said it was not actually a problem. Or editing rules to make them better work for your table. Or adapt and embrace the new systems, as players have been doing since 1975.
Or, I suppose, just complain about new content without bothering to try it, ignore everyone who has actual experience with the system, and try to convince others that TSR/Wizards is the bad guy for giving folks new toys to play with--folks have been doing that since 1975 as well. Perhaps one day the Luddite argument will actually hold merit! I mean, it hasn't for the past forty-eight years, but eventually it has to work, right!?
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.
The backgrounds that give a feat are optional and don’t have to be allowed if the DM doesn’t want to use them. All I said was if they are used there’s an option for players who didn’t take a background that comes with a feat the option to take a feat.
I think one thing that's not getting much attention in this discussion is...
Backgrounds give you features beyond just some extra proficiencies. Some backgrounds, for example, give you the ability to always passively memorize geographical locations and allow you to reliably provide food for a decently sized group with no additional rolling. And some backgrounds just give you a "contact" in one city that you can call upon to... do something most DM's would just include as part of the most basic character background. There's no standard on what's too lame or too good for a background feature... We've already had the Anthropologist's ability to communicate despite language barriers listed as something that's useful enough that it would actually make for a solid feat.
Feats, at the very least, seem to have some kind of rules about them. If the unique ability the feat grants isn't potent enough in and of itself, it might include a +1 to an ability score. Some feats go outside of that, but they're outliers... unique because they buck the trend, although I suppose they still become instantly so popular that they often become the standard that everything else gets compared to. But the important thing is... every feat needs to be compared in value to a straight +2 to ability scores, which isn't an "absolute value" of any kind, but it's closer to a standard than anything we see in backgrounds right now.
I think that feats standardized with including backgrounds makes sense for One D&D, mostly because we know that One D&D is scaled with feats in mind, and the new feats are level-restricted. Having everyone start with a feat is less of a problem when it's limited strictly to "level 1" feats, which are likely to be less game-breaking than higher level feats. I think that's also why I'm not in favor of just offering blanket free feats with all backgrounds right now... The current backgrounds that include feats tend to focus on feats that are useful but aren't particularly popular because they might not be very exciting... that and explicitly tied to new feats included in the new books that are designed around coming with that specific background... whether it's like Strixhaven where the feats included with backgrounds are thematically tied to the setting, or like the Giants backgrounds that honestly kind of feel like a beta test for how OneD&D feats will work.
Thank you for the discussion. My concern is born of experience, not opinion. Below is the history I have experienced with the Dungeons and Dragons product.
I've seen this 4.5 times throughout the history of the game. AD&D got overcomplicated and overpowered (though it was horribly disorganized). 2nd Edition (less disorganized but still created by a team of people that had more passion than skill) was born, grew, became unbalanced and overcomplicated. 3rd edition was born (highly organized, but complex still), grew, became overcomplicated and unbalanced. 4th edition (a bold choice to move away from all previous edition styles) was created, grew, wasn't received well, but had some good mechanics, then ended. 5E (by far the lowest skill to entry version for the player while not providing key information for new DM's) comes along, content grew, power escalation is occurring, and despite WotC stating they aren't coming out with 6th Edition, the best option eventually is to have this happen to clean up the mess.
Though I am hopeful for the future due to the ability of WotC to update their information digitally. This would not assist those buying the physical books, but a simple online update is amazing, quick, and effective.
My concern is not for myself. If WotC does generate a new edition, I'm prepared and willing to spend my income to purchase the new edition and watch 5e (or 5.5) fall to the wayside. Those that have not experienced this may not understand that what they purchase today will not last forever and may feel a bitter sting upon realizing that to stay current, they will need to invest their money all over again.
I don't mind backgrounds with feats as long as they continue to be heavily tied into a specific setting, and expected to be banned by the DM unless you are specifically playing a campaign in that particular setting. Seems like a waste of WotC resources to keep making content that will be banned by 90%+ of groups, but I have no idea how much time is really wasted, maybe the feats are easy to come up with
Also I can't believe all the people claiming that Variant Human (and Custom Lineage) are balanced. They are objectively FAR better than any other race, and will always be picked by anyone who is power gaming. Thankfully most people aren't hardcore power gamers so other races do get played, but that only happens because people prioritize fun over in-game power. It still sucks that these races exist and we have to choose between boring overpowered race vs fun weak races.
I don't mind backgrounds with feats as long as they continue to be heavily tied into a specific setting, and expected to be banned by the DM unless you are specifically playing a campaign in that particular setting.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
Thank you for the discussion. My concern is born of experience, not opinion. Below is the history I have experienced with the Dungeons and Dragons product.
I've seen this 4.5 times throughout the history of the game. AD&D got overcomplicated and overpowered (though it was horribly disorganized). 2nd Edition (less disorganized but still created by a team of people that had more passion than skill) was born, grew, became unbalanced and overcomplicated. 3rd edition was born (highly organized, but complex still), grew, became overcomplicated and unbalanced.
Third Edition was never balanced. A wizard, cleric, or druid built using nothing but the PHB was better than 99% of all the ridiculous cheese that could be had via combining feats, spells, and prestige classes from all the splatbooks and Dragon issues. The complaints about power creep were largely people who mained wizards, clerics, or druids complaining that other classes were starting to encroach on their power tier. Not reach it, just getting closer to it.
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.
Thank you for the discussion. My concern is born of experience, not opinion. Below is the history I have experienced with the Dungeons and Dragons product.
I've seen this 4.5 times throughout the history of the game. AD&D got overcomplicated and overpowered (though it was horribly disorganized). 2nd Edition (less disorganized but still created by a team of people that had more passion than skill) was born, grew, became unbalanced and overcomplicated. 3rd edition was born (highly organized, but complex still), grew, became overcomplicated and unbalanced. 4th edition (a bold choice to move away from all previous edition styles) was created, grew, wasn't received well, but had some good mechanics, then ended. 5E (by far the lowest skill to entry version for the player while not providing key information for new DM's) comes along, content grew, power escalation is occurring, and despite WotC stating they aren't coming out with 6th Edition, the best option eventually is to have this happen to clean up the mess.
Though I am hopeful for the future due to the ability of WotC to update their information digitally. This would not assist those buying the physical books, but a simple online update is amazing, quick, and effective.
My concern is not for myself. If WotC does generate a new edition, I'm prepared and willing to spend my income to purchase the new edition and watch 5e (or 5.5) fall to the wayside. Those that have not experienced this may not understand that what they purchase today will not last forever and may feel a bitter sting upon realizing that to stay current, they will need to invest their money all over again.
The fact that you’ve seen this a number of times in the past yet the game is still going strong should be an indicator that you are needlessly pearl-clutching. The cycle you describe doesn’t discourage new players from picking up the game, it embitters those veteran players who do not wish to invest over and over in a game and who do appreciate that the game they enjoy now is not the way it will always remain. That’s ok though, while veteran players age and become increasingly grudging about parting with their money, the new generation with their ample disposable income fill the gap. So it is with most all consumer industries. No one cares what the olds think except the hearing aid and stair lift companies. We’re cheap and we’re not going to last much longer. This isn’t about new players who will eventually be sore about having to buy a new edition some years down the road, it’s about being confronted with looming cultural irrelevance and mortality.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
1DD is just what they’re calling the playtest. When it officially comes out next year it’ll be Revised 5th edition (or something like that).
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
I thought they stopped hating the half-feats behind a level cap with this last round of playtest content. Or was I misinformed?
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
I thought they stopped hating the half-feats behind a level cap with this last round of playtest content. Or was I misinformed?
I don’t remember that but now you’ve made me question it. Though allowing a level 1 half feat is, or at least could be, a pretty big power bump. Allowing you to start with an 18 somewhere.
Thank you for the discussion. My concern is born of experience, not opinion. Below is the history I have experienced with the Dungeons and Dragons product.
I've seen this 4.5 times throughout the history of the game. AD&D got overcomplicated and overpowered (though it was horribly disorganized). 2nd Edition (less disorganized but still created by a team of people that had more passion than skill) was born, grew, became unbalanced and overcomplicated. 3rd edition was born (highly organized, but complex still), grew, became overcomplicated and unbalanced. 4th edition (a bold choice to move away from all previous edition styles) was created, grew, wasn't received well, but had some good mechanics, then ended. 5E (by far the lowest skill to entry version for the player while not providing key information for new DM's) comes along, content grew, power escalation is occurring, and despite WotC stating they aren't coming out with 6th Edition, the best option eventually is to have this happen to clean up the mess.
Though I am hopeful for the future due to the ability of WotC to update their information digitally. This would not assist those buying the physical books, but a simple online update is amazing, quick, and effective.
My concern is not for myself. If WotC does generate a new edition, I'm prepared and willing to spend my income to purchase the new edition and watch 5e (or 5.5) fall to the wayside. Those that have not experienced this may not understand that what they purchase today will not last forever and may feel a bitter sting upon realizing that to stay current, they will need to invest their money all over again.
Something to keep in mind is that with each edition -- excepting 4e -- they grew not only the industry as a whole but the player base as a whole, and no version ever has had the sheer numbers and grown as fast, as 5e has.
My game group is unusually large. The core of it is all folks that started playing around the same time I did, with AD&D in 79/80. Through college, military service absences, marriages, divorces, deaths, births, and the whole litany so stuff, we have kept expanding and playing and growing. While I never did 4e, I bought the books, I learned the system, and tucked it away, lol. I was extremely disliking of 3/3.5 (and I have caried a general dislike of WotC's approach ever since).
As of this weekend, our game group is officially 38 players large, with six DMs. Different people have joined at different times, so we quite literally cover the bases of when new people come to the game. It isn't just our own kids, either -- it is friends, neighbors, and "random people who heard we played". We all heavily prefer the basics of 5e, even if the older players like myself deeply dislike the way classes have gone and complain about how they nerfed monsters...
Because we have played for a very long time, however, we also remember that we don't have to use the published worlds, the published backgrounds, the publishes species, the published classes We can throw all of that completely out the window and it is still D&D, because at this point, there is so little left of the Ship of Theseus, that the issue is moot.
That's 44 years (for me, right now) and 42 to 44 years for the other OG players, and we've played other games and even created our own. The one that is easiest to enter, that is quickest to learn, that is the most fun for kids (in our experience) is D&D. FOr the last decade we've played 5e, adapting the rules to fit our worlds, or adapting our worlds to fit our rules, and since we like a crunch level a bit between 2e and 5e, we have found our personal fun spot.
1st brought us the "Advanced version" and showed us the ropes. 2nd built on that, and showed us how to take the basics and make them our own. Then WotC came along, and 3/3.5 built it out way further and expanded the number of players more than the previous two editions combined did. $e contracted that, but 5 has now brought way more new players than 3.5 ever did. So the argument that they are, somehow, placing the game at risk doesn't really hold water, since the one time they genuinely did, they created what we are using right now to course correct.
And let us not forget that Magic: The Gathering started out as an AD&D game.
I am not a fan of the stewards of the hobby as a whole -- like you, I feel they have left DM's out in the cold in search of the 80% of folks who are Players. But I am onlya DM. I don't create characters to play. Even among the 20% of folks who are DMs, I am still a rarity. And as I have noted (because I am just as bad about some things I do as others in the assorted forum arguments your post was dragged into), I don't even pause when it comes to new systems, new ways that work better for us, for my table, and while I can ***** up a storm about how DDB is basically useless to me in the sense of what they hope to make it, that doesn't mean I fail to recognize how it is more valuable to those who come to D&D recently and today and tomorrow.
That digital landscape is changing the way the game is played, and if there was anything to fear, I would say that it is the way that those changes cut out folks like me, who create entirely custom worlds and set ups. The world building is about half the total player base, but the rules changes are only about 40% of them, and from experience, there has never been an easier version to make rules changes and adaptations to.
I have a choice as an old AD&D'er: I can sit in my rocking chair and talk about how we used to have roll dice uphill both ways to figure our THAC0, or I can evolve and adapt and stay abreast of the world around me, like did you know they have these things called "cell phones"?
Ok, bad joke, but the point is made. WotC isn't going to change anything that is working. And what is working is the power creep stuff and the no killing character stuff, and no matter how many people whine about it, the numbers don't lie. Especially not when alternatives don't do nearly as well.
I'm focused on what makes my table(s) happy. And as we have done since the very first days of the game, if we don't like what they do, we will just ignore it our make it a "better way" -- with better meaning for us. We aren't alone -- WotC has a whole deal with 3rd party sellers where there are thousands of people doing the same thing we are doing. We just don't bother to sell our stuff.
In my experience, "balance" has never existed in D&D. Trades were made, but never "balance". That's a myth we tell ourselves, relying on subjective measures. because if it were balanced, no one would ever play stuff. It is one of the sacred cows of the D&D world, lol. Also, it is my opinion.
And as you pointed out, buying all new books is going to suck. But we will all do it because we love the game -- and if we don't, well, then why are we even here?
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
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
I thought they stopped hating the half-feats behind a level cap with this last round of playtest content. Or was I misinformed?
I don’t remember that but now you’ve made me question it. Though allowing a level 1 half feat is, or at least could be, a pretty big power bump. Allowing you to start with an 18 somewhere.
That’s the first time I’ve heard that. I would have thought we’d have seen a lot more discussion in the UA forum if that had been announced.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
I thought they stopped hating the half-feats behind a level cap with this last round of playtest content. Or was I misinformed?
If you look at playtest 7 the only feat is the ASI feat and it has a prerequisite of level 4+ so they might still keep the curated level one background feats and I hope they do.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
I thought they stopped hating the half-feats behind a level cap with this last round of playtest content. Or was I misinformed?
I don’t remember that but now you’ve made me question it. Though allowing a level 1 half feat is, or at least could be, a pretty big power bump. Allowing you to start with an 18 somewhere.
Bah. If feats are (supposedly) balanced with half feats, then it shouldn’t really be a problem. Ne?
No, you could just stop buying the new books.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
...or simply pick and choose which feats and content you allow. Not all of the new options blow the older ones out of the water. Case-by-case approval can work. At least, it does for me.
I'm in the camp that doesn't really appreciate the late-stage 5e power creep, and I tend to prefer PCs becoming strong in my games, not starting that way. Simply giving magic items and feats to PCs that aren't Tasha's-onward in origin doesn't really mesh with my play style, as it (at least in my head) feels like I'm doling out unearned power too early. Sure, it can certainly be a viable option to balance the party, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.
Whether it's selective banning or yellow-lighting content until you can review it, there are ways to navigate the slight power differentials without just throwing more feats into the mix.
I will say, though, that the more I've allowed players I trust to putter around with recent sourcebooks, the more I've come to find that some of the content isn't that bad. I still don't like it, and I probably will never like it. But at least for my table and my players, we've found ways of making it work in a way that doesn't bug me to DM.
Ignoring books is a good solution. Or paying attention to the numerous people who say they have actually used games with a mix of old backgrounds and new and said it was not actually a problem. Or editing rules to make them better work for your table. Or adapt and embrace the new systems, as players have been doing since 1975.
Or, I suppose, just complain about new content without bothering to try it, ignore everyone who has actual experience with the system, and try to convince others that TSR/Wizards is the bad guy for giving folks new toys to play with--folks have been doing that since 1975 as well. Perhaps one day the Luddite argument will actually hold merit! I mean, it hasn't for the past forty-eight years, but eventually it has to work, right!?
Those are all valid options.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The backgrounds that give a feat are optional and don’t have to be allowed if the DM doesn’t want to use them. All I said was if they are used there’s an option for players who didn’t take a background that comes with a feat the option to take a feat.
I think one thing that's not getting much attention in this discussion is...
Backgrounds give you features beyond just some extra proficiencies. Some backgrounds, for example, give you the ability to always passively memorize geographical locations and allow you to reliably provide food for a decently sized group with no additional rolling. And some backgrounds just give you a "contact" in one city that you can call upon to... do something most DM's would just include as part of the most basic character background. There's no standard on what's too lame or too good for a background feature... We've already had the Anthropologist's ability to communicate despite language barriers listed as something that's useful enough that it would actually make for a solid feat.
Feats, at the very least, seem to have some kind of rules about them. If the unique ability the feat grants isn't potent enough in and of itself, it might include a +1 to an ability score. Some feats go outside of that, but they're outliers... unique because they buck the trend, although I suppose they still become instantly so popular that they often become the standard that everything else gets compared to. But the important thing is... every feat needs to be compared in value to a straight +2 to ability scores, which isn't an "absolute value" of any kind, but it's closer to a standard than anything we see in backgrounds right now.
I think that feats standardized with including backgrounds makes sense for One D&D, mostly because we know that One D&D is scaled with feats in mind, and the new feats are level-restricted. Having everyone start with a feat is less of a problem when it's limited strictly to "level 1" feats, which are likely to be less game-breaking than higher level feats. I think that's also why I'm not in favor of just offering blanket free feats with all backgrounds right now... The current backgrounds that include feats tend to focus on feats that are useful but aren't particularly popular because they might not be very exciting... that and explicitly tied to new feats included in the new books that are designed around coming with that specific background... whether it's like Strixhaven where the feats included with backgrounds are thematically tied to the setting, or like the Giants backgrounds that honestly kind of feel like a beta test for how OneD&D feats will work.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Thank you for the discussion. My concern is born of experience, not opinion. Below is the history I have experienced with the Dungeons and Dragons product.
I've seen this 4.5 times throughout the history of the game. AD&D got overcomplicated and overpowered (though it was horribly disorganized). 2nd Edition (less disorganized but still created by a team of people that had more passion than skill) was born, grew, became unbalanced and overcomplicated. 3rd edition was born (highly organized, but complex still), grew, became overcomplicated and unbalanced. 4th edition (a bold choice to move away from all previous edition styles) was created, grew, wasn't received well, but had some good mechanics, then ended. 5E (by far the lowest skill to entry version for the player while not providing key information for new DM's) comes along, content grew, power escalation is occurring, and despite WotC stating they aren't coming out with 6th Edition, the best option eventually is to have this happen to clean up the mess.
Though I am hopeful for the future due to the ability of WotC to update their information digitally. This would not assist those buying the physical books, but a simple online update is amazing, quick, and effective.
My concern is not for myself. If WotC does generate a new edition, I'm prepared and willing to spend my income to purchase the new edition and watch 5e (or 5.5) fall to the wayside. Those that have not experienced this may not understand that what they purchase today will not last forever and may feel a bitter sting upon realizing that to stay current, they will need to invest their money all over again.
I don't mind backgrounds with feats as long as they continue to be heavily tied into a specific setting, and expected to be banned by the DM unless you are specifically playing a campaign in that particular setting. Seems like a waste of WotC resources to keep making content that will be banned by 90%+ of groups, but I have no idea how much time is really wasted, maybe the feats are easy to come up with
Also I can't believe all the people claiming that Variant Human (and Custom Lineage) are balanced. They are objectively FAR better than any other race, and will always be picked by anyone who is power gaming. Thankfully most people aren't hardcore power gamers so other races do get played, but that only happens because people prioritize fun over in-game power. It still sucks that these races exist and we have to choose between boring overpowered race vs fun weak races.
They won’t be. When R5e comes out next year all the backgrounds will have feats, they’ve already said as much. Then you won’t have to worry about things being balanced anymore.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
R5e means One DnD? I haven't paid much attention to it since it's all subject to change and not set in stone yet, but from what I remember the background changes looked really good.
Third Edition was never balanced. A wizard, cleric, or druid built using nothing but the PHB was better than 99% of all the ridiculous cheese that could be had via combining feats, spells, and prestige classes from all the splatbooks and Dragon issues. The complaints about power creep were largely people who mained wizards, clerics, or druids complaining that other classes were starting to encroach on their power tier. Not reach it, just getting closer to it.
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.
The fact that you’ve seen this a number of times in the past yet the game is still going strong should be an indicator that you are needlessly pearl-clutching. The cycle you describe doesn’t discourage new players from picking up the game, it embitters those veteran players who do not wish to invest over and over in a game and who do appreciate that the game they enjoy now is not the way it will always remain. That’s ok though, while veteran players age and become increasingly grudging about parting with their money, the new generation with their ample disposable income fill the gap. So it is with most all consumer industries. No one cares what the olds think except the hearing aid and stair lift companies. We’re cheap and we’re not going to last much longer. This isn’t about new players who will eventually be sore about having to buy a new edition some years down the road, it’s about being confronted with looming cultural irrelevance and mortality.
1DD is just what they’re calling the playtest. When it officially comes out next year it’ll be Revised 5th edition (or something like that).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think the plan is for the default to be that all backgrounds will be custom, and one facet of that will be a feat. The catch is at level 1 it can’t be a half feat, so no bonus ability score point at 1. Then, level 4+ feats will all include asi. And you can still just take 2 points as your feat.
I thought they stopped hating the half-feats behind a level cap with this last round of playtest content. Or was I misinformed?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don’t remember that but now you’ve made me question it. Though allowing a level 1 half feat is, or at least could be, a pretty big power bump. Allowing you to start with an 18 somewhere.
Something to keep in mind is that with each edition -- excepting 4e -- they grew not only the industry as a whole but the player base as a whole, and no version ever has had the sheer numbers and grown as fast, as 5e has.
My game group is unusually large. The core of it is all folks that started playing around the same time I did, with AD&D in 79/80. Through college, military service absences, marriages, divorces, deaths, births, and the whole litany so stuff, we have kept expanding and playing and growing. While I never did 4e, I bought the books, I learned the system, and tucked it away, lol. I was extremely disliking of 3/3.5 (and I have caried a general dislike of WotC's approach ever since).
As of this weekend, our game group is officially 38 players large, with six DMs. Different people have joined at different times, so we quite literally cover the bases of when new people come to the game. It isn't just our own kids, either -- it is friends, neighbors, and "random people who heard we played". We all heavily prefer the basics of 5e, even if the older players like myself deeply dislike the way classes have gone and complain about how they nerfed monsters...
Because we have played for a very long time, however, we also remember that we don't have to use the published worlds, the published backgrounds, the publishes species, the published classes We can throw all of that completely out the window and it is still D&D, because at this point, there is so little left of the Ship of Theseus, that the issue is moot.
That's 44 years (for me, right now) and 42 to 44 years for the other OG players, and we've played other games and even created our own. The one that is easiest to enter, that is quickest to learn, that is the most fun for kids (in our experience) is D&D. FOr the last decade we've played 5e, adapting the rules to fit our worlds, or adapting our worlds to fit our rules, and since we like a crunch level a bit between 2e and 5e, we have found our personal fun spot.
1st brought us the "Advanced version" and showed us the ropes. 2nd built on that, and showed us how to take the basics and make them our own. Then WotC came along, and 3/3.5 built it out way further and expanded the number of players more than the previous two editions combined did. $e contracted that, but 5 has now brought way more new players than 3.5 ever did. So the argument that they are, somehow, placing the game at risk doesn't really hold water, since the one time they genuinely did, they created what we are using right now to course correct.
And let us not forget that Magic: The Gathering started out as an AD&D game.
I am not a fan of the stewards of the hobby as a whole -- like you, I feel they have left DM's out in the cold in search of the 80% of folks who are Players. But I am only a DM. I don't create characters to play. Even among the 20% of folks who are DMs, I am still a rarity. And as I have noted (because I am just as bad about some things I do as others in the assorted forum arguments your post was dragged into), I don't even pause when it comes to new systems, new ways that work better for us, for my table, and while I can ***** up a storm about how DDB is basically useless to me in the sense of what they hope to make it, that doesn't mean I fail to recognize how it is more valuable to those who come to D&D recently and today and tomorrow.
That digital landscape is changing the way the game is played, and if there was anything to fear, I would say that it is the way that those changes cut out folks like me, who create entirely custom worlds and set ups. The world building is about half the total player base, but the rules changes are only about 40% of them, and from experience, there has never been an easier version to make rules changes and adaptations to.
I have a choice as an old AD&D'er: I can sit in my rocking chair and talk about how we used to have roll dice uphill both ways to figure our THAC0, or I can evolve and adapt and stay abreast of the world around me, like did you know they have these things called "cell phones"?
Ok, bad joke, but the point is made. WotC isn't going to change anything that is working. And what is working is the power creep stuff and the no killing character stuff, and no matter how many people whine about it, the numbers don't lie. Especially not when alternatives don't do nearly as well.
I'm focused on what makes my table(s) happy. And as we have done since the very first days of the game, if we don't like what they do, we will just ignore it our make it a "better way" -- with better meaning for us. We aren't alone -- WotC has a whole deal with 3rd party sellers where there are thousands of people doing the same thing we are doing. We just don't bother to sell our stuff.
In my experience, "balance" has never existed in D&D. Trades were made, but never "balance". That's a myth we tell ourselves, relying on subjective measures. because if it were balanced, no one would ever play stuff. It is one of the sacred cows of the D&D world, lol. Also, it is my opinion.
And as you pointed out, buying all new books is going to suck. But we will all do it because we love the game -- and if we don't, well, then why are we even here?
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
That’s the first time I’ve heard that. I would have thought we’d have seen a lot more discussion in the UA forum if that had been announced.
If you look at playtest 7 the only feat is the ASI feat and it has a prerequisite of level 4+ so they might still keep the curated level one background feats and I hope they do.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Bah. If feats are (supposedly) balanced with half feats, then it shouldn’t really be a problem. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting