While I appreciate the idea of empowering backgrounds to make them more reasonable, I am not so happy with the short list of available options and more over the bundling of certain feats with certain backgrounds. All farmers are tough. All hermits are healer. All nobles are skilled. And so on. This makes some backgrounds natural choices (if not, then only choices) for certain classes, resulting in most fighters being farmers (hail Jason Statham ;-)) or sailors. In addition, I rarely can imagine a would-be wizard coming from a sailor background, as tavern brawler would bring little advantage to a wizard beside some roleplay fashion. Why is that so? And why does a background not provide access to a choice of feats (like it was done in the DL:SotDQ module)? e.g. a farmer could well be tough, or a tavern brawler, or skilled, or a crafter, or something else. The "all farmers are tough" determination seems very dull to me.
Yeah, a lot of people aren't happy with this change. Especially because everyone was fine with the playtest version of it.
I get that they wanted to make backgrounds more relevant, but this was a really bad way to do it. They fixed the problem they had with races in Tasha's, only to go back to the same problem in the 2024 PHB. The issue with backgrounds was that the features they granted were almost always too situational, and rarely came up, if at all. They could have tried to get creative and design more interesting and useful background features. That would have been great. Instead, they took the lazy option of completely removing background features, and simply shoving Ability Score increases and Feats into them, implemented in a very poor way, too.
The DMG will have the details on how to customize a background, and you can always work around it by choosing an older background. The book basically lets you customize it if it's not in the PHB, so you might as well just pick one of those and that's it.
Backgrounds are the one thing I definitively dislike about the 2024 rules. Having gone to great lengths with the 2014 backgrounds, Tasha's character options etc to allow almost free range with how you build your character, the 2024 rules do a massive 180 and say "You will have these ability increases, these skills, this feat and this tool, whether you like it or not".
They also removed the background features, such as "Shelter of the Faithful" and "By Popular Demand". These were fantastic storytelling aids, and I loved them.
In fact, despite being longer overall, the 2024 PHB removed flavor and roleplaying suggestions in a lot of places, which disappointed me a bit. I think that's part of the reason people are stuck on the new stealth rules too. Of course you can still be stealthy without taking the Hide action, but hiding is the only concrete example given, so new players might miss that. The 2014 book had an entire section of examples under "Using Each Ability".
I appreciate simplicity and concision, but I think some of it may have come at the cost of flavor and inspiration.
They also removed the background features, such as "Shelter of the Faithful" and "By Popular Demand". These were fantastic storytelling aids, and I loved them.
In fact, despite being longer overall, the 2024 PHB removed flavor and roleplaying suggestions in a lot of places, which disappointed me a bit. I think that's part of the reason people are stuck on the new stealth rules too. Of course you can still be stealthy without taking the Hide action, but hiding is the only concrete example given, so new players might miss that. The 2014 book had an entire section of examples under "Using Each Ability".
I appreciate simplicity and concision, but I think some of it may have come at the cost of flavor and inspiration.
This! This hurt a lot. I LOVED the background features. And if you think about it, WotC wanting to make backgrounds relevant super backfired. Back then at least you got the feature, which was a cute little thing you could do sometimes. You couldn't get those features anywhere else. But now, as long as a DM allows the players to customize their backgrounds (and I assume most will), then the backgrounds are basically nonexistent. It's just a "You guys start the campaign with two skill proficiencies, one tool proficiency, one feat", etc., and the background itself is meaningless.
They also removed the background features, such as "Shelter of the Faithful" and "By Popular Demand". These were fantastic storytelling aids, and I loved them.
In fact, despite being longer overall, the 2024 PHB removed flavor and roleplaying suggestions in a lot of places, which disappointed me a bit. I think that's part of the reason people are stuck on the new stealth rules too. Of course you can still be stealthy without taking the Hide action, but hiding is the only concrete example given, so new players might miss that. The 2014 book had an entire section of examples under "Using Each Ability".
I appreciate simplicity and concision, but I think some of it may have come at the cost of flavor and inspiration.
When I started reading the new 2024 PHB, I noticed, in general, there are fewer descriptions for species, classes, and subclasses. While descriptions, lore, or background aren't rules, they enhance the quality of the book and provide context. Species have those traits because of the history that surrounds them.
And even though descriptions aren't rules, examples can be, and they help us understand how to apply those rules. What I miss most are those examples in the rules related to Abilities and Skills.
Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores in the 2014 PHB is valuable from start to finish. It's much better than the corresponding rules in the 2024 PHB, and I would have kept that level of detail and examples in the new book.
I expect more detailed coverage of those topics in the 2024 DMG, but I still believe their place is mainly in the PHB.
I am fine with the new backgrounds in principle. It makes sense that if a guard decides to be an adventurer their skills will be much more suited to those of a fighter than a wizard.
Some areas they have done very well, as the obvious option isn't necessarily the best from an adventuring point of view. Acolyte is the obvious background for a cleric but a cleric wants dex and con more than int or charisma and a little bit more cleric magic is better for something like a caster who wants access to healing spells.
What I think is an issue is if one only uses the 2024 PHB there are not enough backgrounds and some of them are unbalanced, essentially reducing the options even more. Also because the backgrounds from sources other than 2024PHB can still be used and can choose any ability scores and feat there are inherantly more optimal, the DMG may however provide more guidance on using older backgrounds which might fix this.
Why not just take all the background feats and options, put them in a big list or pile, and have players select:
1 background feat;
+2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to any ability;
1 tool proficiency;
2 skill proficiencies;
1 language; and
50 gold pieces
And let players flavor the rest themselves?
I'm definitely all for adding a custom background option.
I'm not for sacrificing all existing background options to get it, though. The provided backgrounds give guidance, examples, and flavor inspiration. (More so in the 2014 PHB)
Getting rid of the listed options is a step in the wrong direction, in my option, much like removing the background features was. I don't want even more of the flavor and unique options removed!
What I really don't understand is why the designers feel that the initial ability score increase needs to be tied to anything. Just make it its own feature. "A first level character gets an ability score increase of +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1." Poof, no more bioessentialism, classism, whatever. Now classes and backgrounds can be different thanks to unique features instead of restrictions placed on base features.
Why not just take all the background feats and options, put them in a big list or pile, and have players select:
1 background feat;
+2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to any ability;
1 tool proficiency;
2 skill proficiencies;
1 language; and
50 gold pieces
And let players flavor the rest themselves?
I'm definitely all for adding a custom background option.
I'm not for sacrificing all existing background options to get it, though. The provided backgrounds give guidance, examples, and flavor inspiration. (More so in the 2014 PHB)
Getting rid of the listed options is a step in the wrong direction, in my option, much like removing the background features was. I don't want even more of the flavor and unique options removed!
What I really don't understand is why the designers feel that the initial ability score increase needs to be tied to anything. Just make it its own feature. "A first level character gets an ability score increase of +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1." Poof, no more bioessentialism, classism, whatever. Now classes and backgrounds can be different thanks to unique features instead of restrictions placed on base features.
I think it makes more sense to tie an ASI to species, but I know that's problematic for some people. In the absence of that, I agree-- just give it to a character.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I appreciate the idea of empowering backgrounds to make them more reasonable, I am not so happy with the short list of available options and more over the bundling of certain feats with certain backgrounds. All farmers are tough. All hermits are healer. All nobles are skilled. And so on.
This makes some backgrounds natural choices (if not, then only choices) for certain classes, resulting in most fighters being farmers (hail Jason Statham ;-)) or sailors. In addition, I rarely can imagine a would-be wizard coming from a sailor background, as tavern brawler would bring little advantage to a wizard beside some roleplay fashion.
Why is that so?
And why does a background not provide access to a choice of feats (like it was done in the DL:SotDQ module)? e.g. a farmer could well be tough, or a tavern brawler, or skilled, or a crafter, or something else. The "all farmers are tough" determination seems very dull to me.
Yeah, a lot of people aren't happy with this change. Especially because everyone was fine with the playtest version of it.
I get that they wanted to make backgrounds more relevant, but this was a really bad way to do it. They fixed the problem they had with races in Tasha's, only to go back to the same problem in the 2024 PHB. The issue with backgrounds was that the features they granted were almost always too situational, and rarely came up, if at all. They could have tried to get creative and design more interesting and useful background features. That would have been great. Instead, they took the lazy option of completely removing background features, and simply shoving Ability Score increases and Feats into them, implemented in a very poor way, too.
The DMG will have the details on how to customize a background, and you can always work around it by choosing an older background. The book basically lets you customize it if it's not in the PHB, so you might as well just pick one of those and that's it.
I was surprised they removed Urchin which they could have reworked for 2024. Or created an Orphan option too.
The problem I have with backgrounds is that I never seem to have the right one, they're all slightly wrong in some way :/
Idk what I want to put here.
Why don’t dragons like to eat paladins?
Because they taste lawful.
Hahaha... so funny yeah...
Backgrounds are the one thing I definitively dislike about the 2024 rules. Having gone to great lengths with the 2014 backgrounds, Tasha's character options etc to allow almost free range with how you build your character, the 2024 rules do a massive 180 and say "You will have these ability increases, these skills, this feat and this tool, whether you like it or not".
They also removed the background features, such as "Shelter of the Faithful" and "By Popular Demand". These were fantastic storytelling aids, and I loved them.
In fact, despite being longer overall, the 2024 PHB removed flavor and roleplaying suggestions in a lot of places, which disappointed me a bit. I think that's part of the reason people are stuck on the new stealth rules too. Of course you can still be stealthy without taking the Hide action, but hiding is the only concrete example given, so new players might miss that. The 2014 book had an entire section of examples under "Using Each Ability".
I appreciate simplicity and concision, but I think some of it may have come at the cost of flavor and inspiration.
This! This hurt a lot. I LOVED the background features. And if you think about it, WotC wanting to make backgrounds relevant super backfired. Back then at least you got the feature, which was a cute little thing you could do sometimes. You couldn't get those features anywhere else. But now, as long as a DM allows the players to customize their backgrounds (and I assume most will), then the backgrounds are basically nonexistent. It's just a "You guys start the campaign with two skill proficiencies, one tool proficiency, one feat", etc., and the background itself is meaningless.
When I started reading the new 2024 PHB, I noticed, in general, there are fewer descriptions for species, classes, and subclasses. While descriptions, lore, or background aren't rules, they enhance the quality of the book and provide context. Species have those traits because of the history that surrounds them.
And even though descriptions aren't rules, examples can be, and they help us understand how to apply those rules. What I miss most are those examples in the rules related to Abilities and Skills.
Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores in the 2014 PHB is valuable from start to finish. It's much better than the corresponding rules in the 2024 PHB, and I would have kept that level of detail and examples in the new book.
I expect more detailed coverage of those topics in the 2024 DMG, but I still believe their place is mainly in the PHB.
I am fine with the new backgrounds in principle. It makes sense that if a guard decides to be an adventurer their skills will be much more suited to those of a fighter than a wizard.
Some areas they have done very well, as the obvious option isn't necessarily the best from an adventuring point of view. Acolyte is the obvious background for a cleric but a cleric wants dex and con more than int or charisma and a little bit more cleric magic is better for something like a caster who wants access to healing spells.
What I think is an issue is if one only uses the 2024 PHB there are not enough backgrounds and some of them are unbalanced, essentially reducing the options even more. Also because the backgrounds from sources other than 2024PHB can still be used and can choose any ability scores and feat there are inherantly more optimal, the DMG may however provide more guidance on using older backgrounds which might fix this.
Why not just take all the background feats and options, put them in a big list or pile, and have players select:
1 background feat;
+2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to any ability;
1 tool proficiency;
2 skill proficiencies;
1 language; and
50 gold pieces
And let players flavor the rest themselves?
You can do that with backgrounds that aren't in the 2024 PHB. And it's very likely it'll be like that in the DMG as a variant rule.
Isn't the 2024 Wayfarer background basically the same thing?
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I'm definitely all for adding a custom background option.
I'm not for sacrificing all existing background options to get it, though. The provided backgrounds give guidance, examples, and flavor inspiration. (More so in the 2014 PHB)
Getting rid of the listed options is a step in the wrong direction, in my option, much like removing the background features was. I don't want even more of the flavor and unique options removed!
What I really don't understand is why the designers feel that the initial ability score increase needs to be tied to anything. Just make it its own feature. "A first level character gets an ability score increase of +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1." Poof, no more bioessentialism, classism, whatever. Now classes and backgrounds can be different thanks to unique features instead of restrictions placed on base features.
I honestly thought this was a misprint at first. The 2024 Wayfarer description is a near match to the 2014 Urchin.
The word "Wayfarer" definitely evokes the image of one far traveled by foot, not one street-born and destitute.
I think it makes more sense to tie an ASI to species, but I know that's problematic for some people. In the absence of that, I agree-- just give it to a character.