Keep in mind that the ones that were "nerfed" like Alert and Lucky, used to be level 4 feats for everyone who wasn't a Vuman or CL anyway. They needed to be brought in line with other background feats.
I believe Lucky can still be used after the roll but before the result, though not 100% sure.
This is something that never even occurred to me until it was mentioned in a UA video, when the 2014 rules were written *every* feat was at least a level 4 feat because that was the earliest anyone could take one. The variant human threw the balance out slightly and they’ve had to tweak and nerf a few for them to work as level 1 feats
Getting a free feat at level 1 has been a popular house rule, so all feats were essentially level 1 feats in that circumstance.
Yeah I know, I use it at my table too, but that that doesn’t change that RAW feats were all designed to come on line at level 4 so many are over powered at level 1
Honestly, it seems that the stereotyping we have associated with the various Race/Class combos are gone, only to be replaced with more stereotyping between Background and Class combos instead.
So, people will feel less discouraged from trying out Dwarven Wizards or the like, but Sailors won’t be Wizards.
Sailors can be wizards. Will they be as good a wizard as a sage? Perhaps not. But that is to be expected. I don't expect a lawyer to be the best mechanic, i don't expect a warehouse worker to be a great doctor, and so on. They start a bit behind, but bring in things others would not have. And that is the great part about the backgrounds. A fighter that was a farmer makes a great frontliner, but a fighter that was a sage bring in the utility of magic.
Honestly, it seems that the stereotyping we have associated with the various Race/Class combos are gone, only to be replaced with more stereotyping between Background and Class combos instead.
I doubt it, for the simple reason that the percentage of DMs who will take offense at a custom background is much lower than the percentage who will take offense at a custom race.
Honestly, it seems that the stereotyping we have associated with the various Race/Class combos are gone, only to be replaced with more stereotyping between Background and Class combos instead.
So, people will feel less discouraged from trying out Dwarven Wizards or the like, but Sailors won’t be Wizards.
Sailors can be wizards. Will they be as good a wizard as a sage? Perhaps not. But that is to be expected. I don't expect a lawyer to be the best mechanic, i don't expect a warehouse worker to be a great doctor, and so on. They start a bit behind, but bring in things others would not have. And that is the great part about the backgrounds. A fighter that was a farmer makes a great frontliner, but a fighter that was a sage bring in the utility of magic.
That's really disingenuous, as those are two different professions that you are comparing. Wizard is not a profession. Why should a Wizard who threw in with a thieves guild (Criminal background) be a worse Wizard than one who studied books?
In fact, fantasy and actual criminal organizations have/had lots of people with different skills: pickpockets, bruisers, illusionists (fantasy), and con men (i.e. bards). Why should they all have the same ASI and same feat? Or take the Sailor background: in a world of magic, would it not be common for a ship to have a mage on board to help tame the winds (Gust of Wind) or tell the weather (Druidcraft)? Why on earth would that particular Sailor be good at throwing hands?
It has now become, "If you grew up in this background or had this job, you are good at doing this and only this!" Now, some might lean more heavily toward that (Soldier using weapons, Guide knowing some nature magic), but now you will never ever have a Soldier Wizard who slung spells in battle and has a great bond of camaraderie.
That's really disingenuous, as those are two different professions that you are comparing. Wizard is not a profession. Why should a Wizard who threw in with a thieves guild (Criminal background) be a worse Wizard than one who studied books?
In fact, fantasy and actual criminal organizations have/had lots of people with different skills: pickpockets, bruisers, illusionists (fantasy), and con men (i.e. bards). Why should they all have the same ASI and same feat? Or take the Sailor background: in a world of magic, would it not be common for a ship to have a mage on board to help tame the winds (Gust of Wind) or tell the weather (Druidcraft)? Why on earth would that particular Sailor be good at throwing hands?
It has now become, "If you grew up in this background or had this job, you are good at doing this and only this!" Now, some might lean more heavily toward that (Soldier using weapons, Guide knowing some nature magic), but now you will never ever have a Soldier Wizard who slung spells in battle and has a great bond of camaraderie.
You are conflating "criminals, as in anyone who does shady stuff" with the criminal archetype. Backgrounds are archetypes. Sailors are the archetypical, rough around the edges, tavern brawling archetype of many sailor and pirate fiction. They are not "the captain that uses intelligence and charisma to keep the crew in check and navigate the oceans" which would fall more in line with the noble background, they are not the "quartermaster that uses their intelligence to keep the cargo used optimally" which would be the merchant background. Criminals are the archetypical, "i steal your stuff and outsmart you, while i avoid the guards". Sages are the archetypical "i sit in my remote tower and practice magic", Farmers are the archetypical farmboy, wrangling with the pigs and doing hard labor work.
Backgrounds are NOT your backstory. If you have a mage that sails aboard a ship and uses magic to guide the ship, well, that's not a sailor, that fits a guide. And guess what, guide has Magic Initiate Druid, Survival and Cartography. Huh, perfect fit for a person sailing on a ship that has the archetype of guide, and not sailor.
I think it is not unreasonable to say that the emphasis of Backgrounds being essentially fluffy details to help round out your characters (as in 2014) has been replaced with mechanical details to be optimised in combos.
Individual players may wish to forgo optimisation for less usual combos - like combining Wizards and Sailors - but that is the sacrifice you choose.
Another gripe I have have is that some Classes just don’t seem to have good Background choices to make in terms of the fluffy stuff. The optimal choice for a Barbarian would seem to be a Soldier or a Farmer Background. However, both these Backgrounds seem particularly civilised - and not really what a Barbarian is about. Previously, you might choose an Outlander to be well suited - what is the best pick now?
I think it’s better not to feel too constrained by the titles of the Backgrounds. “Soldier” might make us think of a paid, uniformed member of a formal military service, but is applicable to anyone who has dedicated substantial time and effort in either active fighting or training for combat. So a Barbarian with the Soldier background could have been one of their tribe’s warriors or champions.
Historically, many of the peoples that the Barbarian archetype was based on, particularly the Vikings, spent much of their time farming (raiding and pillaging being only seasonal employment), so the Farmer background could be very appropriate.
Also, don’t be afraid to rebrand a Background. If you want your Monk to have been trained in martial arts in a monastery, then they might well have gained the Skill proficiencies, ability improvements and “Tavern Brawler”-like tricks that the Sailor background provides. Navigator’s Tools? Their education included mathematics and astronomy, mapping the stars from their mountaintop monastery. Just rename the Background to something that fits appropriately.
Now its little more than slightly modified Magic Initiate.
You can only get as many ritual spells as you have proficiency bonuses. 5 at best? I guess the idea of spell books has been thrown out. Oh but that is fine. You can now use a spell slot and if your lucky you can cast it in the normal amount of time and not the old 10 minute time.
Now its a combat ritual caster.
They threw away the ability to get all the ritual spells for their utility and replaced that with the ability to cast a few in combat. As long as you have a spell slot.
Now its little more than slightly modified Magic Initiate.
As an origin feat (with no ASI) it would be fine. The problem is that the characters gaining PB rituals for would be most useful are non-spellcasters, and most of them don't highly value Int/Wis/Cha.
Now its little more than slightly modified Magic Initiate.
As an origin feat (with no ASI) it would be fine. The problem is that the characters gaining PB rituals for would be most useful are non-spellcasters, and most of them don't highly value Int/Wis/Cha.
Sorry its not an oragin feat. And it does gain an ASI. Which to me does nothing to make up for the change.
Personally I would have preferred they kept Roleplay centric features instead of ability score increases and feats for backgrounds
there’s now nothing to ensure character backstory actually matters when it comes to an acolyte getting gauranteed help at a temple or a noble being able to easily have meetings with other nobles
its now just crunchy minmax slop, and it punishes people for daring to not play a trope.
not everyone wants to play the same ol boring redundant noble paladin, sage wizard, and soldier fighter
some of us want to be guide ancients paladins, acolyte barbarians, or bladesinging pirates
People played suboptimal builds before the 2024 rules, they will continue to do so with the 2024 rules. Probably more so now actually, since the swing between the worst build and the best has been depressed some, according to many who have had a chance to review the books.
Generally I like the backgrounds, though I do have a small personal gripe with Acolyte having the Cleric Initiate feat because it doubles down on the "everyone associated with a faith/deity is magical" idea, which I think gets overused. Not a huge problem and I've already got a concept for an Acolyte Wizard who has to keep explaining to people that no, he's not a Cleric even though he can Cure Wounds, but I kinda wish it wasn't reinforcing the idea that all members of a faith's clergy get magic powers.
Probably worth noting that Humans get bonus Skills and Feats - so in that sense you could still get half of the seemingly proscribed, optimal Background choice if you choose to pick something more unusual.
What are the most weird combinations that you could get from Class-Background (and Species)? Let's try a list:
Barbarian - Wayfarer, Aasimar?
Bard - Hermit, Orc?
Cleric - Charlatan, Goliath?
Druid - Criminal, Teifling?
Fighter - Sage, Gnome?
Monk - Noble, Elf?
Paladin - Merchant, Halfling?
Ranger - Entertainer, Dwarf?
Rogue - Acolyte, Dragonborn?
Sorcerer - Artsan, Orc?
Warlock - Soldier, Human?
Wizard - Farmer, Goliath?
Would any of these 'work'?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah I know, I use it at my table too, but that that doesn’t change that RAW feats were all designed to come on line at level 4 so many are over powered at level 1
Sailors can be wizards. Will they be as good a wizard as a sage? Perhaps not. But that is to be expected. I don't expect a lawyer to be the best mechanic, i don't expect a warehouse worker to be a great doctor, and so on. They start a bit behind, but bring in things others would not have. And that is the great part about the backgrounds. A fighter that was a farmer makes a great frontliner, but a fighter that was a sage bring in the utility of magic.
I doubt it, for the simple reason that the percentage of DMs who will take offense at a custom background is much lower than the percentage who will take offense at a custom race.
I am almost 100% positive that I'll allow anyone who wants to in my campaigns to take “chef” as an origin feat and just drop the +1 ASI from it.
It really *feels* like an origin feat to me and I'm honestly shocked it's not one.
We can only become a true chef dungeon meshi style - by eating our enemies! Haha 😅
I saw the book wording for Savage Attacker is way different than in the article- you can roll your weapon attack dice twice once per turn.
According to Treantmonk's review of the origin feats, Savage Attacker only applies to the weapon's damage (as worded in the book), not the entire damage.
My Homebrew: Magic Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | My house rules
Currently playing: Fai'zal - CN Githyanki Rogue (Candlekeep Mysteries, Forgotten Realms) ; Zeena - LN Elf Sorcerer (Dragonlance)
Playing D&D since 1st edition. DMs Guild Author: B.A. Morrier (4-5⭐products! Please check them out.) Twitter: @benmorrier he/him
Chef definitely felt like it should be a Origin feat.
That's exactly what I said when I read it. They exchanged racism for classism. All monks will be sailors, making them - sea monkeys.
Savage Attacker is now the worst one.
That's really disingenuous, as those are two different professions that you are comparing. Wizard is not a profession. Why should a Wizard who threw in with a thieves guild (Criminal background) be a worse Wizard than one who studied books?
In fact, fantasy and actual criminal organizations have/had lots of people with different skills: pickpockets, bruisers, illusionists (fantasy), and con men (i.e. bards). Why should they all have the same ASI and same feat? Or take the Sailor background: in a world of magic, would it not be common for a ship to have a mage on board to help tame the winds (Gust of Wind) or tell the weather (Druidcraft)? Why on earth would that particular Sailor be good at throwing hands?
It has now become, "If you grew up in this background or had this job, you are good at doing this and only this!" Now, some might lean more heavily toward that (Soldier using weapons, Guide knowing some nature magic), but now you will never ever have a Soldier Wizard who slung spells in battle and has a great bond of camaraderie.
You are conflating "criminals, as in anyone who does shady stuff" with the criminal archetype. Backgrounds are archetypes. Sailors are the archetypical, rough around the edges, tavern brawling archetype of many sailor and pirate fiction. They are not "the captain that uses intelligence and charisma to keep the crew in check and navigate the oceans" which would fall more in line with the noble background, they are not the "quartermaster that uses their intelligence to keep the cargo used optimally" which would be the merchant background. Criminals are the archetypical, "i steal your stuff and outsmart you, while i avoid the guards". Sages are the archetypical "i sit in my remote tower and practice magic", Farmers are the archetypical farmboy, wrangling with the pigs and doing hard labor work.
Backgrounds are NOT your backstory. If you have a mage that sails aboard a ship and uses magic to guide the ship, well, that's not a sailor, that fits a guide. And guess what, guide has Magic Initiate Druid, Survival and Cartography. Huh, perfect fit for a person sailing on a ship that has the archetype of guide, and not sailor.
I think it is not unreasonable to say that the emphasis of Backgrounds being essentially fluffy details to help round out your characters (as in 2014) has been replaced with mechanical details to be optimised in combos.
Individual players may wish to forgo optimisation for less usual combos - like combining Wizards and Sailors - but that is the sacrifice you choose.
Another gripe I have have is that some Classes just don’t seem to have good Background choices to make in terms of the fluffy stuff. The optimal choice for a Barbarian would seem to be a Soldier or a Farmer Background. However, both these Backgrounds seem particularly civilised - and not really what a Barbarian is about. Previously, you might choose an Outlander to be well suited - what is the best pick now?
I think it’s better not to feel too constrained by the titles of the Backgrounds. “Soldier” might make us think of a paid, uniformed member of a formal military service, but is applicable to anyone who has dedicated substantial time and effort in either active fighting or training for combat. So a Barbarian with the Soldier background could have been one of their tribe’s warriors or champions.
Historically, many of the peoples that the Barbarian archetype was based on, particularly the Vikings, spent much of their time farming (raiding and pillaging being only seasonal employment), so the Farmer background could be very appropriate.
Also, don’t be afraid to rebrand a Background. If you want your Monk to have been trained in martial arts in a monastery, then they might well have gained the Skill proficiencies, ability improvements and “Tavern Brawler”-like tricks that the Sailor background provides. Navigator’s Tools? Their education included mathematics and astronomy, mapping the stars from their mountaintop monastery. Just rename the Background to something that fits appropriately.
I hate the new Ritual Castor feat.
Now its little more than slightly modified Magic Initiate.
You can only get as many ritual spells as you have proficiency bonuses. 5 at best?
I guess the idea of spell books has been thrown out.
Oh but that is fine. You can now use a spell slot and if your lucky you can cast it in the normal amount of time and not the old 10 minute time.
Now its a combat ritual caster.
They threw away the ability to get all the ritual spells for their utility and replaced that with the ability to cast a few in combat. As long as you have a spell slot.
They should have just left it alone..
As an origin feat (with no ASI) it would be fine. The problem is that the characters gaining PB rituals for would be most useful are non-spellcasters, and most of them don't highly value Int/Wis/Cha.
People played suboptimal builds before the 2024 rules, they will continue to do so with the 2024 rules. Probably more so now actually, since the swing between the worst build and the best has been depressed some, according to many who have had a chance to review the books.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
Oh, it makes it objectively worse, the standards for origin feats are lower.
Generally I like the backgrounds, though I do have a small personal gripe with Acolyte having the Cleric Initiate feat because it doubles down on the "everyone associated with a faith/deity is magical" idea, which I think gets overused. Not a huge problem and I've already got a concept for an Acolyte Wizard who has to keep explaining to people that no, he's not a Cleric even though he can Cure Wounds, but I kinda wish it wasn't reinforcing the idea that all members of a faith's clergy get magic powers.
Probably worth noting that Humans get bonus Skills and Feats - so in that sense you could still get half of the seemingly proscribed, optimal Background choice if you choose to pick something more unusual.
What are the most weird combinations that you could get from Class-Background (and Species)? Let's try a list:
Would any of these 'work'?