So, the one area of common criticism in the new Player’s Handbook has mainly centred on the way in which Backgrounds now work. That is, some players feel that the mechanical constraints of Backgrounds now determining Ability Score bonuses, Origin Feats and Proficiency choices are restrictive.
It is worth noting that Species (previously Race) are more open now by contrast, that Origin Feats weren’t even previously available for new characters (unless you played a Variant Human) and that the impact of most Ability score bonuses usually amounts to just a 5% swing in practical play in any case.
However, there is some tension between gamers who like to optimise their character builds and those gamers who look to roleplay certain archetypes. The latter are also grumbling about the removal of randomised tables for personality choices, perhaps.
The real problem, for me, is the sense that the 16 Background choices is too short and they missed out some thematic Backgrounds for some characters.
If we look at the Basic 2024 Rules, the ‘core four’ Classes of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard are immediately linked to some thematic and optimal Backgrounds.
Clerics are given Acolyte Backgrounds. Fighters are Soldiers, Rogues are Criminals and Wizards are Sages. It helps that these Classes are all quite straightforward in terms of their Ability prerequisites (Wisdom, Strength or Dexterity, Dexterity and Intelligence, respectively) which are all provided for and the Origin Feats and proficiencies are all complimentary to their core specialities.
It gets more interesting with other Classes. Some, especially those centred on Charisma I find, seem to be pretty well catered for. However, some Classes seem to be left with Background choices that create some tension between thematic choices and optimisation.
Barbarians, especially, have a problem for me because the optimal choices seem to be Farmer and Soldier (because they allow for bonuses to Str and Con) - both of which are very civilised backgrounds that don’t seem to fit the decidedly uncivilised theme of being a Barbarian. Whatever happened to the Outlander Background (or Tribesman or Nomad, perhaps)? There doesn’t seem to be any other option that really fits well.
Similarly, Monks who would ideally like to have bonuses to Dex and Wis, seem to be given the main choices of Sailor and Scribe or maybe Wayfarer. Of these, only Scribes seem to fit thematically for an archetypal character. Of course, you could always be seeking to undercut stereotyped characters with unusual builds but..... Sailor Monks? Really?!
For me, the provided list seems like it got cut down for editing purposes. Of course, you could just build a Sailor Monk or Barbarian Farmers with the provided mechanical choices and just change the name accordingly but doesn’t this just undermine the notion of them being ‘Backgrounds' at all.
First, I do agree that the choices are a little light. But I’ll bet we’ll be seeing more soon, wether in the DMG with custom rules, or with future publications.
Besides that, I think you’re taking a narrow view of which characters could benefit from which backgrounds. For example, a barbarian gets a lot of use from dex, in addition to str and con. A monk (really anyone) can use con quite well, in addition to dex and wis. That alone, considering the benefits of other scores to classes opens lots more options.
As you mention at the end, re-skinning is a viable option. Take the package of abilities and call it something else. And in some cases, it’s not even much. Take artisan. With a str and dex bonus, quite good for a barbarian. But instead of working at a shop in town making things, you were an apprentice to a woodworker in a barbarian tribe. Yes, this ignores the flavor text in the description, but flavor is always optional. And that’s not even really re-skinning, it’s just putting a slight twist on what’s there.
First, I do agree that the choices are a little light. But I’ll bet we’ll be seeing more soon, wether in the DMG with custom rules, or with future publications.
I think this will become a big thing going forward, each new campaign or setting book coming with a selection of backgrounds specific to that setting in the same way we saw with the more recent releases like Glory of the Giants, Spelljammer and Planescape. I suspect it's part of why the generalist ones in the PHB are so light, they're intended not as an end but only a beginning
While I agree that the options are limited, it is just the PHB, so that's to be expected.
However, looking at just level 1 ignores a huge part of the design changes. All feats now give a +1 to an ability score which changes the meta for builds.
Let's take a Monk with the Acolyte background since it fits thematically even if there is no bonus to Dex. For the record, I don't think Acolyte is very good for Clerics, but that's another discussion entirely. Sure, if you're not rolling for stats, you can only have a 15 Dex until level 4, but that's really not a huge deal plus you have access to a ranged Cleric cantrip in exchange. At level 4, you can pick up Speedy and really lean into the highly mobile skirmisher with the option for hitting up close or falling back to your cantrip when you either can't get to an enemy or really need to stay clear of them.
I'm not saying it is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. What I am saying is that there are meaningful options now that allow for more flexible builds. Optimizers tend to not care about the flavor text, so they will go with whatever is best. Roleplayers, however, now have choices that don't horribly weaken their characters.
Don’t get trapped by overly narrow interpretations of the backgrounds. Many of them are very broad archetypes. A farmer could be a Mid-West grain baron or someone tending their rolling acres in the English shires, but they might also be a Neolithic farmer breaking land in virgin forest, a hill shepherd, a reindeer herder or a Viking working on their croft between raiding seasons.
Similarly, Monks who would ideally like to have bonuses to Dex and Wis, seem to be given the main choices of Sailor and Scribe or maybe Wayfarer. Of these, only Scribes seem to fit thematically for an archetypal character. Of course, you could always be seeking to undercut stereotyped characters with unusual builds but..... Sailor Monks? Really?!
For me, the provided list seems like it got cut down for editing purposes. Of course, you could just build a Sailor Monk or Barbarian Farmers with the provided mechanical choices and just change the name accordingly but doesn’t this just undermine the notion of them being ‘Backgrounds' at all.
Thoughts?
In theory I would prefer Custom Backgrounds to be the default like they originally said would happen during the playtest. But if I'm honest, part of me also enjoys the challenge of making character builds whose backgrounds mesh with them both mechanically and thematically. In my home games, my DM is almost certainly going to let me use custom backgrounds, but being able to have a set of builds in my back pocket ready to go for strict tables or AL is going to actually help me narrow down what I want to play in that campaign (e.g. "I guess this is the time to use that Noble Paladin I've been sitting on!")
It's all a bit moot anyway - the system is what it is at this point so all we can really do is either convince our DMs to allow custom backgrounds, use unupdated backgrounds as a workaround (again, as long as the DM is on board - should be a lighter lift), or use a background as printed and wait for WotC to print more.
Some additional thoughts though since you asked for them:
1) A good alternative to custom backgrounds being the default would have been to put two feats (choose one) into each Background instead of one. Some of the origin feats are definitely stronger for certain builds than others; having one and only one way of picking up, say, Tavern Brawler or each Magic Initiate makes the system feel even more restrictive than it is.
2) One thing I actually like about the current system is that it makes Humans even more of an attractive option. For example, at a table where only printed 2024 PHB backgrounds are allowed and you want Tavern Brawler for your monk but find Sailor incongruous, just be human.
3) As others have said, don't be overly restrictive with your concepts. Yeah a sailing monk might feel like a mismatch if you only view monks as Shaolin, but a character based on a Hawaiian Kapu Kuilau master or a Brazilian Capoeira fisherman would be a much better thematic fit imo, especially in a seafaring campaign. Other cultures use martial arts and focus.
I think that the biggest draw back for the backgrounds isn't about the stat bonuses and more about everything else. It is easy enough to ignore the fluffy writing and insert your own, but mechanically tying you down to a single background to get Tavern Brawler (for example) also shackles you to having Acrobatics and Perception (not bad skills, but not every tavern brawling character wants them) and Navigator's Tools, which not every one skilled at punching people has trained for a life at sea or navigation in general (in fact I would guess most have not).
It is extremely disappointing when the UA seemed so amazing, but for some reason they were like, "Nope, this is just too good! We need to make it suck more."
I don't disagree that there's barely enough backgrounds to have a decent number of Origin Feat/Ability Score/Skill combinations, but I think decoupling Species from ASIs is worth the temporary dearth of options. I really think it'll free players to go wild with their character concepts. And because the rules explicitly allow taking an old background and then doing whatever you want with your ASIs and Origin Feat, I suspect in practice this'll only be a serious concern for Adventuer's League players.
I guess my other 2 cents is that I don't really have a problem with interpreting backgrounds broadly. Nothing in the Farmer description really necessitates being part of a full-blown agricultural society, for example. Likewise, Guard and Soldier could still be applied to nomadic cultures.
I would suggest that not every player is going to buy into more books, and so their given selection of Backgrounds will be all they get. My feeling is they could have come up with about four more or so to round out choices. Some other Ability scores could be useful but optimised characters would still want to choose certain options and, of course you could simply re-skin different Backgrounds but, as I say it kinda defeats the original purpose of Backgrounds (that is, giving each character some interesting fluff to aid roleplaying) when this is seen as the best way forward.
Anyway, partially from what my brain computes, based on the suggestions made in 2014, and also attempting to assign discrete Backgrounds to each Class the archetypal Backgrounds for each Class is maybe this:
Barbarian - Farmer
Bard - Entertainer
Cleric - Acolyte
Druid - Hermit
Fighter - Soldier
Monk - Scribe
Paladin - Noble
Ranger - Guide
Rogue - Criminal
Sorcerer - Wayfarer
Warlock - Charlatan
Wizard - Sage
This leaves the Artisan, Guard, Merchant, Sailor although, you could say any of these could be archetypal for certain Classes instead.
Incidentally, the Backgrounds not used from 2014 include the Outlander, the Folk Hero and the Urchin. The Urchin has basically been replaced by the Wayfarer, while the (Guild) Merchant was seen as an alternative to the (Guild) Artisan in 2014. For me, the main one I think is missing the most is the Outlander for the Barbarian, primarily.
Honestly, the game doesn't need backgrounds. I mean I find myself choosing the background that gives me the things I want more so than anything related to my character. I either completely ignore the background during game, or its something my PC did that one time 10 years ago. They maybe should have had background ideas that maybe gave you a tool proficiency and a skill, but that is it. When selecting your race you should also select your ability scores. The origin feat could have been tied to class and then restricted for multiclass characters.
I think going forward I'm just going to house rule away backgrounds. I prefer PCs having more organic backgrounds anyway.
I would suggest that not every player is going to buy into more books, and so thier given selection of Backgrounds will be all they get. My feeling is they could have come up with about four more or so to roundabout choices. Some other Ability scores could be useful but optimised characters would still want to choose certain options and, of course you could simply re-skin different Backgrounds but, as I say it kinda defeats the original purpose of Backgrounds (that is, giving each character some interesting fluff to aid roleplaying) when this is seen as the best way forward.
Anyway, partially from what my brain computes, based on the suggestions made in 2014, and also attempting to assign discrete Backgrounds to each Class the archetypal Backgrounds for each Class is maybe this:
Barbarian - Farmer
Bard - Entertainer
Cleric - Acolyte
Druid - Hermit
Fighter - Soldier
Monk - Scribe
Paladin - Noble
Ranger - Guide
Rogue - Criminal
Sorcerer - Wayfarer
Warlock - Charlatan
Wizard - Sage
This leaves the Artisan, Guard, Merchant, Sailor although, you could say any of these could be archetypal for certain Classes instead.
Incidentally, the Backgrounds not used from 2014 include the Outlander, the Folk Hero and the Urchin. The Urchin has basically been replaced by the Wayfarer, while the (Guild) Merchant was seen as an alternative to the (Guild) Artisan in 2014. For me, the main one I think is missing the most is the Outlander for the Barbarian, primarily.
Tough is an okay feat for a Barbarian and given the limited choices in the PHB, I'll say that one is pretty good.
Entertainer is good for a bard. This does mean no one else in the party should chose Musician as a feat choice, unless you have like 7-8 players.
I feel like Magic Initiate (Cleric) is just a waste for a cleric. If it was any Magic Initiate, I would think better. I think Hermit and Healer would be more beneficial to you.
For Druid, I think Healer isn't the best feat especially if you are a moon druid. Just take whatever gives you tough, lucky or alert.
Soldier works fine for a fighter. Though Lucky is probably the better feat. A fighter using a two handed weapon will probably benefit more from lucky than from rerolling damage.
Under no circumstance should anyone ever take skilled. If it was a single person game, it might make sense. But between 4+ players someone is probably going to have a skill and have proficiency in it, so you don't need it. Crafter is debatable as well, depending on the type of games you play.
Honestly, the game doesn't need backgrounds. I mean I find myself choosing the background that gives me the things I want more so than anything related to my character. I either completely ignore the background during game, or its something my PC did that one time 10 years ago. They maybe should have had background ideas that maybe gave you a tool proficiency and a skill, but that is it. When selecting your race you should also select your ability scores. The origin feat could have been tied to class and then restricted for multiclass characters.
I think going forward I'm just going to house rule away backgrounds. I prefer PCs having more organic backgrounds anyway.
I am not entirely against the idea of backgrounds. (Nor against attribute bonuses or penalties being dependent on them. Because these were the sorts of things I remember being negotiated at tables decades ago.) I think backgrounds that are more like careers the characters had before adventuring are a good idea as these can ground the characters a little more in the world. They don't start life as basically already heroes that way. Both myth and lit are filled with figures who started as ordinary folk before they had to pick up a weapon or enroll in a school of magic. I think it would be nice if 1st-level characters weren't already so powerful to better reflect that however.
You're right to suggest most just choose the backgrounds that will afford them what they want. This is just one of several things that makes the game feel more video game-y now than ever. It's like going through menus of options and choosing those that will make you "better" at doing things and not necessarily make you a more interesting character. That character is so often lost in a game that is really about characters is depressing. I remember fondly games in which friends and I would happily play underpowered characters because those characters were inspired somewhat by our favorites from books or movies. We didn't even care about advancing at the same rate as one another! To this day I make choices when it comes to arming a character for instance that are more about the character's personality or history than what will grant him or her the most advantage in combat. Builds. And balance. This is how most approach the game now. And it kills drama.
Honestly, the game doesn't need backgrounds. I mean I find myself choosing the background that gives me the things I want more so than anything related to my character. I either completely ignore the background during game, or its something my PC did that one time 10 years ago. They maybe should have had background ideas that maybe gave you a tool proficiency and a skill, but that is it. When selecting your race you should also select your ability scores. The origin feat could have been tied to class and then restricted for multiclass characters.
I think going forward I'm just going to house rule away backgrounds. I prefer PCs having more organic backgrounds anyway.
I am not entirely against the idea of backgrounds. (Nor against attribute bonuses or penalties being dependent on them. Because these were the sorts of things I remember being negotiated at tables decades ago.) I think backgrounds that are more like careers the characters had before adventuring are a good idea as these can ground the characters a little more in the world. They don't start life as basically already heroes that way. Both myth and lit are filled with figures who started as ordinary folk before they had to pick up a weapon or enroll in a school of magic. I think it would be nice if 1st-level characters weren't already so powerful to better reflect that however.
You're right to suggest most just choose the backgrounds that will afford them what they want. This is just one of several things that makes the game feel more video game-y now than ever. It's like going through menus of options and choosing those that will make you "better" at doing things and not necessarily make you a more interesting character. That character is so often lost in a game that is really about characters is depressing. I remember fondly games in which friends and I would happily play underpowered characters because those characters were inspired somewhat by our favorites from books or movies. We didn't even care about advancing at the same rate as one another! To this day I make choices when it comes to arming a character for instance that are more about the character's personality or history than what will grant him or her the most advantage in combat. Builds. And balance. This is how most approach the game now. And it kills drama.
It's not so much underpowered it's just skilled is worthless. Crafting is game specific (and I think silly. Why does a shop keep who never met you give you a 20% discount? And what does a 20% discount do you if the DM is just making up prices to begin with.)
Only one player needs Musician... Multiple PCs having it is useless unless you have a very large group.
Magic initiate is okay, but if you don't want to play a magical character it's not an option. And if you are already playing a magical character, it's okay. You at least get a free use of a spell.
Alert, tough, Musician, lucky are really the only decent feats that are going to be useful in game for most people. Selecting the other feats are like basically not chosing a feat. Although magic initiate could be useful early levels and if you don't have magic. It will quickly get replaced with higher level spells/attacks.
Crafting is game specific (and I think silly. Why does a shop keep who never met you give you a 20% discount? And what does a 20% discount do you if the DM is just making up prices to begin with.)
Has anybody done the maths on taking the GC cash option of the Background and then just buying the listed equipment at 20% discount? Do you save cash this way?
Also, if you sell the goods at standard trade value can you then just buy them again at a discount and make an ever escalating profit?
Do you know, I think the Artisan makes a better Merchant than the Merchant!
I would suggest that not every player is going to buy into more books, and so their given selection of Backgrounds will be all they get. My feeling is they could have come up with about four more or so to round out choices. Some other Ability scores could be useful but optimised characters would still want to choose certain options and, of course you could simply re-skin different Backgrounds but, as I say it kinda defeats the original purpose of Backgrounds (that is, giving each character some interesting fluff to aid roleplaying) when this is seen as the best way forward.
Well, if you’re going to take a narrow view of the definition of optimized, you’re going to have a small number of choices. Forget background, there’s going to be limited correct choices for species, for your stat spread and for which feats you take in which order. That’s all something the optimizer is doing to themselves, not something the game is forcing them to do.
Also, as I’m looking, every background seems to have a mix of mental and physical boosts, so really it can work with most any character. Play a barbarian with the sage background, you get a con boost, and you can add in wisdom to boost a number of barbarian skills and help you pass wisdom saves. Yes, your str will only be a 15, but you’ll have a couple spells to help you have things to do out of combat, in exchange, your str modifier is 1 point behind the person who optimized. You’ve made a trade off which is what character building is all about. (Backstory, in their studies they came upon an ancient secret that allows them to tap into the power of the world tree. I just made that up as I was writing it, and now I kind of want to play one.)
If people are only going to buy the PHB, that’s cool, between 16 backgrounds and 12 classes, that’s a lot of characters they can make. And if they want more options, you get what you pay for. Or homebrew.
I’m not sure the purpose of background is giving people story fluff. They are new to 5e, before this there wasn’t really much to speak of in terms of a mechanical impact of your pre-adventuring days. But, this edition has many fewer decision points in character building than 3.x or 4e so backgrounds are a way to add back in a bit of mechanical choices to character generation to allow for a bit more customization.
And the flavor seems about right to me. It’s a loose paragraph that will give new players enough ideas to work with. It doesn’t take long before people just start making their own stuff, and see the background as just a shorthand label hung on a package of game mechanics — same as a class or species.
Honestly, the game doesn't need backgrounds. I mean I find myself choosing the background that gives me the things I want more so than anything related to my character. I either completely ignore the background during game, or its something my PC did that one time 10 years ago. They maybe should have had background ideas that maybe gave you a tool proficiency and a skill, but that is it.
The game, particularly for new players, does need backgrounds. If you want people to think of their character as a person with a past, and not just somebody who sprang into existence in order to Do Adventures, you need to do something to get them in the habit. Backgrounds are a reasonable minimum.
By firmly tying feats and specific stat bumps to the backgrounds, they've undermined this, but it still exists to a degree, and if one can bear to not take the background that gives the most plusses, it still works. Fortunately for new players, they don't necessarily understand how to get the most plusses.
The origin feat could have been tied to class and then restricted for multiclass characters.
The point of feats ought to be that they're not class features. They provide a small amount of differentiation in the otherwise very cookie-cutter game model that is D&D. Players should be encouraged to take the feats they want. Maybe skilled isn't optimal, but if it fits the character, they should take it.
I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
Yeah. The playtest version was good. If it tested poorly with new players, they could've done what they did, with custom backgrounds as an "advanced player" rule.
IIRC, they've said custom backgrounds will be in the DMG, but they should've been in the PHB.
I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
I would push back on the notion that they were removed from species "in order to free up character customization." It was done, unless I am mistaken, because tying ASIs to species kept around the idea that some species were more intelligent, wiser, etc. than others, which carries quite a bit of baggage.
That whole argument has been had, however.
I would like to put forward that if you decoupled ASIs from anything (either species or background), then you are simply trading constraints for conformity veiled in freedom of choice. Characters that don't get much from species or backgrounds are certainly free to choose whatever species or background they want, then... and the RP part of it can thrive. But mechanically what will happen is that every character of a certain class/subclass will end up with the exact same stats (unless you roll) every time.
The problem is that a lot of the game, as I see it played, is played mechanically, and the story is only somewhat influenced by those RP character choices. This makes the background little more than a footnote. Making the suboptimal the default (choosing a background with ASI and origin feats that might not necessarily align with the "best" choice for a given class), makes characters more interesting by default. And if you want to run an optimized game, the only person you have to convince to go for full customization is your DM.
As I write this, I find I'm only halfway invested in this line of argument. Don't be surprised if I'm easily persuaded :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, the one area of common criticism in the new Player’s Handbook has mainly centred on the way in which Backgrounds now work. That is, some players feel that the mechanical constraints of Backgrounds now determining Ability Score bonuses, Origin Feats and Proficiency choices are restrictive.
It is worth noting that Species (previously Race) are more open now by contrast, that Origin Feats weren’t even previously available for new characters (unless you played a Variant Human) and that the impact of most Ability score bonuses usually amounts to just a 5% swing in practical play in any case.
However, there is some tension between gamers who like to optimise their character builds and those gamers who look to roleplay certain archetypes. The latter are also grumbling about the removal of randomised tables for personality choices, perhaps.
The real problem, for me, is the sense that the 16 Background choices is too short and they missed out some thematic Backgrounds for some characters.
If we look at the Basic 2024 Rules, the ‘core four’ Classes of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard are immediately linked to some thematic and optimal Backgrounds.
Clerics are given Acolyte Backgrounds. Fighters are Soldiers, Rogues are Criminals and Wizards are Sages. It helps that these Classes are all quite straightforward in terms of their Ability prerequisites (Wisdom, Strength or Dexterity, Dexterity and Intelligence, respectively) which are all provided for and the Origin Feats and proficiencies are all complimentary to their core specialities.
It gets more interesting with other Classes. Some, especially those centred on Charisma I find, seem to be pretty well catered for. However, some Classes seem to be left with Background choices that create some tension between thematic choices and optimisation.
Barbarians, especially, have a problem for me because the optimal choices seem to be Farmer and Soldier (because they allow for bonuses to Str and Con) - both of which are very civilised backgrounds that don’t seem to fit the decidedly uncivilised theme of being a Barbarian. Whatever happened to the Outlander Background (or Tribesman or Nomad, perhaps)? There doesn’t seem to be any other option that really fits well.
Similarly, Monks who would ideally like to have bonuses to Dex and Wis, seem to be given the main choices of Sailor and Scribe or maybe Wayfarer. Of these, only Scribes seem to fit thematically for an archetypal character. Of course, you could always be seeking to undercut stereotyped characters with unusual builds but..... Sailor Monks? Really?!
For me, the provided list seems like it got cut down for editing purposes. Of course, you could just build a Sailor Monk or Barbarian Farmers with the provided mechanical choices and just change the name accordingly but doesn’t this just undermine the notion of them being ‘Backgrounds' at all.
Thoughts?
First, I do agree that the choices are a little light. But I’ll bet we’ll be seeing more soon, wether in the DMG with custom rules, or with future publications.
Besides that, I think you’re taking a narrow view of which characters could benefit from which backgrounds. For example, a barbarian gets a lot of use from dex, in addition to str and con. A monk (really anyone) can use con quite well, in addition to dex and wis. That alone, considering the benefits of other scores to classes opens lots more options.
As you mention at the end, re-skinning is a viable option. Take the package of abilities and call it something else. And in some cases, it’s not even much. Take artisan. With a str and dex bonus, quite good for a barbarian. But instead of working at a shop in town making things, you were an apprentice to a woodworker in a barbarian tribe. Yes, this ignores the flavor text in the description, but flavor is always optional. And that’s not even really re-skinning, it’s just putting a slight twist on what’s there.
I think this will become a big thing going forward, each new campaign or setting book coming with a selection of backgrounds specific to that setting in the same way we saw with the more recent releases like Glory of the Giants, Spelljammer and Planescape. I suspect it's part of why the generalist ones in the PHB are so light, they're intended not as an end but only a beginning
While I agree that the options are limited, it is just the PHB, so that's to be expected.
However, looking at just level 1 ignores a huge part of the design changes. All feats now give a +1 to an ability score which changes the meta for builds.
Let's take a Monk with the Acolyte background since it fits thematically even if there is no bonus to Dex. For the record, I don't think Acolyte is very good for Clerics, but that's another discussion entirely. Sure, if you're not rolling for stats, you can only have a 15 Dex until level 4, but that's really not a huge deal plus you have access to a ranged Cleric cantrip in exchange. At level 4, you can pick up Speedy and really lean into the highly mobile skirmisher with the option for hitting up close or falling back to your cantrip when you either can't get to an enemy or really need to stay clear of them.
I'm not saying it is perfect by any stretch of the imagination. What I am saying is that there are meaningful options now that allow for more flexible builds. Optimizers tend to not care about the flavor text, so they will go with whatever is best. Roleplayers, however, now have choices that don't horribly weaken their characters.
Don’t get trapped by overly narrow interpretations of the backgrounds. Many of them are very broad archetypes. A farmer could be a Mid-West grain baron or someone tending their rolling acres in the English shires, but they might also be a Neolithic farmer breaking land in virgin forest, a hill shepherd, a reindeer herder or a Viking working on their croft between raiding seasons.
In theory I would prefer Custom Backgrounds to be the default like they originally said would happen during the playtest. But if I'm honest, part of me also enjoys the challenge of making character builds whose backgrounds mesh with them both mechanically and thematically. In my home games, my DM is almost certainly going to let me use custom backgrounds, but being able to have a set of builds in my back pocket ready to go for strict tables or AL is going to actually help me narrow down what I want to play in that campaign (e.g. "I guess this is the time to use that Noble Paladin I've been sitting on!")
It's all a bit moot anyway - the system is what it is at this point so all we can really do is either convince our DMs to allow custom backgrounds, use unupdated backgrounds as a workaround (again, as long as the DM is on board - should be a lighter lift), or use a background as printed and wait for WotC to print more.
Some additional thoughts though since you asked for them:
1) A good alternative to custom backgrounds being the default would have been to put two feats (choose one) into each Background instead of one. Some of the origin feats are definitely stronger for certain builds than others; having one and only one way of picking up, say, Tavern Brawler or each Magic Initiate makes the system feel even more restrictive than it is.
2) One thing I actually like about the current system is that it makes Humans even more of an attractive option. For example, at a table where only printed 2024 PHB backgrounds are allowed and you want Tavern Brawler for your monk but find Sailor incongruous, just be human.
3) As others have said, don't be overly restrictive with your concepts. Yeah a sailing monk might feel like a mismatch if you only view monks as Shaolin, but a character based on a Hawaiian Kapu Kuilau master or a Brazilian Capoeira fisherman would be a much better thematic fit imo, especially in a seafaring campaign. Other cultures use martial arts and focus.
I think that the biggest draw back for the backgrounds isn't about the stat bonuses and more about everything else. It is easy enough to ignore the fluffy writing and insert your own, but mechanically tying you down to a single background to get Tavern Brawler (for example) also shackles you to having Acrobatics and Perception (not bad skills, but not every tavern brawling character wants them) and Navigator's Tools, which not every one skilled at punching people has trained for a life at sea or navigation in general (in fact I would guess most have not).
It is extremely disappointing when the UA seemed so amazing, but for some reason they were like, "Nope, this is just too good! We need to make it suck more."
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't disagree that there's barely enough backgrounds to have a decent number of Origin Feat/Ability Score/Skill combinations, but I think decoupling Species from ASIs is worth the temporary dearth of options. I really think it'll free players to go wild with their character concepts. And because the rules explicitly allow taking an old background and then doing whatever you want with your ASIs and Origin Feat, I suspect in practice this'll only be a serious concern for Adventuer's League players.
I guess my other 2 cents is that I don't really have a problem with interpreting backgrounds broadly. Nothing in the Farmer description really necessitates being part of a full-blown agricultural society, for example. Likewise, Guard and Soldier could still be applied to nomadic cultures.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Thanks for the responses.
I would suggest that not every player is going to buy into more books, and so their given selection of Backgrounds will be all they get. My feeling is they could have come up with about four more or so to round out choices. Some other Ability scores could be useful but optimised characters would still want to choose certain options and, of course you could simply re-skin different Backgrounds but, as I say it kinda defeats the original purpose of Backgrounds (that is, giving each character some interesting fluff to aid roleplaying) when this is seen as the best way forward.
Anyway, partially from what my brain computes, based on the suggestions made in 2014, and also attempting to assign discrete Backgrounds to each Class the archetypal Backgrounds for each Class is maybe this:
This leaves the Artisan, Guard, Merchant, Sailor although, you could say any of these could be archetypal for certain Classes instead.
Incidentally, the Backgrounds not used from 2014 include the Outlander, the Folk Hero and the Urchin. The Urchin has basically been replaced by the Wayfarer, while the (Guild) Merchant was seen as an alternative to the (Guild) Artisan in 2014. For me, the main one I think is missing the most is the Outlander for the Barbarian, primarily.
I think Outlander maps decently well to Guide. The one that didn't really translate imo was Folk Hero.
Honestly, the game doesn't need backgrounds. I mean I find myself choosing the background that gives me the things I want more so than anything related to my character. I either completely ignore the background during game, or its something my PC did that one time 10 years ago. They maybe should have had background ideas that maybe gave you a tool proficiency and a skill, but that is it. When selecting your race you should also select your ability scores. The origin feat could have been tied to class and then restricted for multiclass characters.
I think going forward I'm just going to house rule away backgrounds. I prefer PCs having more organic backgrounds anyway.
Tough is an okay feat for a Barbarian and given the limited choices in the PHB, I'll say that one is pretty good.
Entertainer is good for a bard. This does mean no one else in the party should chose Musician as a feat choice, unless you have like 7-8 players.
I feel like Magic Initiate (Cleric) is just a waste for a cleric. If it was any Magic Initiate, I would think better. I think Hermit and Healer would be more beneficial to you.
For Druid, I think Healer isn't the best feat especially if you are a moon druid. Just take whatever gives you tough, lucky or alert.
Soldier works fine for a fighter. Though Lucky is probably the better feat. A fighter using a two handed weapon will probably benefit more from lucky than from rerolling damage.
Under no circumstance should anyone ever take skilled. If it was a single person game, it might make sense. But between 4+ players someone is probably going to have a skill and have proficiency in it, so you don't need it. Crafter is debatable as well, depending on the type of games you play.
I am not entirely against the idea of backgrounds. (Nor against attribute bonuses or penalties being dependent on them. Because these were the sorts of things I remember being negotiated at tables decades ago.) I think backgrounds that are more like careers the characters had before adventuring are a good idea as these can ground the characters a little more in the world. They don't start life as basically already heroes that way. Both myth and lit are filled with figures who started as ordinary folk before they had to pick up a weapon or enroll in a school of magic. I think it would be nice if 1st-level characters weren't already so powerful to better reflect that however.
You're right to suggest most just choose the backgrounds that will afford them what they want. This is just one of several things that makes the game feel more video game-y now than ever. It's like going through menus of options and choosing those that will make you "better" at doing things and not necessarily make you a more interesting character. That character is so often lost in a game that is really about characters is depressing. I remember fondly games in which friends and I would happily play underpowered characters because those characters were inspired somewhat by our favorites from books or movies. We didn't even care about advancing at the same rate as one another! To this day I make choices when it comes to arming a character for instance that are more about the character's personality or history than what will grant him or her the most advantage in combat. Builds. And balance. This is how most approach the game now. And it kills drama.
It's not so much underpowered it's just skilled is worthless. Crafting is game specific (and I think silly. Why does a shop keep who never met you give you a 20% discount? And what does a 20% discount do you if the DM is just making up prices to begin with.)
Only one player needs Musician... Multiple PCs having it is useless unless you have a very large group.
Magic initiate is okay, but if you don't want to play a magical character it's not an option. And if you are already playing a magical character, it's okay. You at least get a free use of a spell.
Alert, tough, Musician, lucky are really the only decent feats that are going to be useful in game for most people. Selecting the other feats are like basically not chosing a feat. Although magic initiate could be useful early levels and if you don't have magic. It will quickly get replaced with higher level spells/attacks.
Has anybody done the maths on taking the GC cash option of the Background and then just buying the listed equipment at 20% discount? Do you save cash this way?
Also, if you sell the goods at standard trade value can you then just buy them again at a discount and make an ever escalating profit?
Do you know, I think the Artisan makes a better Merchant than the Merchant!
Well, if you’re going to take a narrow view of the definition of optimized, you’re going to have a small number of choices. Forget background, there’s going to be limited correct choices for species, for your stat spread and for which feats you take in which order. That’s all something the optimizer is doing to themselves, not something the game is forcing them to do.
Also, as I’m looking, every background seems to have a mix of mental and physical boosts, so really it can work with most any character. Play a barbarian with the sage background, you get a con boost, and you can add in wisdom to boost a number of barbarian skills and help you pass wisdom saves. Yes, your str will only be a 15, but you’ll have a couple spells to help you have things to do out of combat, in exchange, your str modifier is 1 point behind the person who optimized. You’ve made a trade off which is what character building is all about. (Backstory, in their studies they came upon an ancient secret that allows them to tap into the power of the world tree. I just made that up as I was writing it, and now I kind of want to play one.)
If people are only going to buy the PHB, that’s cool, between 16 backgrounds and 12 classes, that’s a lot of characters they can make. And if they want more options, you get what you pay for. Or homebrew.
I’m not sure the purpose of background is giving people story fluff. They are new to 5e, before this there wasn’t really much to speak of in terms of a mechanical impact of your pre-adventuring days. But, this edition has many fewer decision points in character building than 3.x or 4e so backgrounds are a way to add back in a bit of mechanical choices to character generation to allow for a bit more customization.
And the flavor seems about right to me. It’s a loose paragraph that will give new players enough ideas to work with. It doesn’t take long before people just start making their own stuff, and see the background as just a shorthand label hung on a package of game mechanics — same as a class or species.
The game, particularly for new players, does need backgrounds. If you want people to think of their character as a person with a past, and not just somebody who sprang into existence in order to Do Adventures, you need to do something to get them in the habit. Backgrounds are a reasonable minimum.
By firmly tying feats and specific stat bumps to the backgrounds, they've undermined this, but it still exists to a degree, and if one can bear to not take the background that gives the most plusses, it still works. Fortunately for new players, they don't necessarily understand how to get the most plusses.
The point of feats ought to be that they're not class features. They provide a small amount of differentiation in the otherwise very cookie-cutter game model that is D&D. Players should be encouraged to take the feats they want. Maybe skilled isn't optimal, but if it fits the character, they should take it.
I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
Yeah. The playtest version was good. If it tested poorly with new players, they could've done what they did, with custom backgrounds as an "advanced player" rule.
IIRC, they've said custom backgrounds will be in the DMG, but they should've been in the PHB.
I would push back on the notion that they were removed from species "in order to free up character customization." It was done, unless I am mistaken, because tying ASIs to species kept around the idea that some species were more intelligent, wiser, etc. than others, which carries quite a bit of baggage.
That whole argument has been had, however.
I would like to put forward that if you decoupled ASIs from anything (either species or background), then you are simply trading constraints for conformity veiled in freedom of choice. Characters that don't get much from species or backgrounds are certainly free to choose whatever species or background they want, then... and the RP part of it can thrive. But mechanically what will happen is that every character of a certain class/subclass will end up with the exact same stats (unless you roll) every time.
The problem is that a lot of the game, as I see it played, is played mechanically, and the story is only somewhat influenced by those RP character choices. This makes the background little more than a footnote. Making the suboptimal the default (choosing a background with ASI and origin feats that might not necessarily align with the "best" choice for a given class), makes characters more interesting by default. And if you want to run an optimized game, the only person you have to convince to go for full customization is your DM.
As I write this, I find I'm only halfway invested in this line of argument. Don't be surprised if I'm easily persuaded :)