To clarify, Kotath: you do not allow your players to have anything if they can't point to a relevant background feature that allows them to have it?
If there's no Acolyte in the party, the party cannot even enter temples save illegally, and/or with a hefty bribe? If there's no Sailor in the party, the party cannot negotiate passage on an oceangoing vessel? If there's no Folk Hero in the party, all commoners will be hostile and completely unwilling to even speak to the party? If there's no Noble in the party, all men of standing and status will have the party banished/arrested/attacked on sight?
Is that what we're looking at here? because as far as I can tell that's the argument you seem to be making - that in order to do a basic job function you are REQUIRED to have the "permission" of a restrictive background feature, and if you do not have that background feature than all possible avenues of non-combat interaction will be closed off to you forever. Is that about right?
A bit hyperbolic? I did not say those things.
If there is no Acolyte, the party can enter Temples. But that does not mean they can literally live there free of charge. It certainly does not mean that the clergy will treat them as one of their own, i.e. fellow clergy, even if just lay clergy. It is true that a Cleric of that faith would presumably have these privileges too, mind. I will grant you that.
If there is no Sailor, the party has to negotiate, rather than simply get passage. And it is free passage at that.
If there is no Folk Hero, the locals will treat them as the strangers they are. This might mean they will not talk with the party or that the party has to earn their trust before they will talk with the party. Some communities are like that. Or it might be a relative friendly community. However even a friendly community is not likely to be willing to simply take them in, let alone be willing to hide them from authorities if need be.
If there is no Noble in the party, the party might well have greater difficulty getting in to certain places. That is a long ways from being 'banished or arrested on sight.'
Does that make a little more sense now?
And to the extent any seem weak, you can work out with your DM something more. An acolyte become cleric may well have access to deeper secrets of the faith, due to having paid their dues (in a service to the church sense), for example. DDB does not handle custom descriptions (or features) well, but that does not mean you and your DM cannot work things out and put them in notes or some completely separate file. Again, if you cannot trust your DM....
I'm going to agree with everyone else in that those are all things that your background should do for you anyways, and that you shouldn't need mechanics to spell it out for you.
Again: why are we supposed to assume the DM is too stupid to know how to work within and around a character's backstory without a low-quality text blurb spelling it out and spoonfeeding it to them?
Why are we assuming that a DM who is too stupid to run a game for characters that do not have Background Features is somehow also smart enough to work up the extensive homebrew being suggested as the 'solution' to the fact that background features, as written in R5e, suck giant donkey hindus?
Why are we assuming that players are going to use the OPT rules to try and maliciously end-run their DM and find ways to jank their table and be a bad-faith ******wurst at the earliest opportunity?
To clarify, Kotath: you do not allow your players to have anything if they can't point to a relevant background feature that allows them to have it?
If there's no Acolyte in the party, the party cannot even enter temples save illegally, and/or with a hefty bribe? If there's no Sailor in the party, the party cannot negotiate passage on an oceangoing vessel? If there's no Folk Hero in the party, all commoners will be hostile and completely unwilling to even speak to the party? If there's no Noble in the party, all men of standing and status will have the party banished/arrested/attacked on sight?
Is that what we're looking at here? because as far as I can tell that's the argument you seem to be making - that in order to do a basic job function you are REQUIRED to have the "permission" of a restrictive background feature, and if you do not have that background feature than all possible avenues of non-combat interaction will be closed off to you forever. Is that about right?
A bit hyperbolic? I did not say those things.
If there is no Acolyte, the party can enter Temples. But that does not mean they can literally live there free of charge. It certainly does not mean that the clergy will treat them as one of their own, i.e. fellow clergy, even if just lay clergy. It is true that a Cleric of that faith would presumably have these privileges too, mind. I will grant you that.
If there is no Sailor, the party has to negotiate, rather than simply get passage. And it is free passage at that.
If there is no Folk Hero, the locals will treat them as the strangers they are. This might mean they will not talk with the party or that the party has to earn their trust before they will talk with the party. Some communities are like that. Or it might be a relative friendly community. However even a friendly community is not likely to be willing to simply take them in, let alone be willing to hide them from authorities if need be.
If there is no Noble in the party, the party might well have greater difficulty getting in to certain places. That is a long ways from being 'banished or arrested on sight.'
Does that make a little more sense now?
And to the extent any seem weak, you can work out with your DM something more. An acolyte become cleric may well have access to deeper secrets of the faith, due to having paid their dues (in a service to the church sense), for example. DDB does not handle custom descriptions (or features) well, but that does not mean you and your DM cannot work things out and put them in notes or some completely separate file. Again, if you cannot trust your DM....
I'm going to agree with everyone else in that those are all things that your background should do for you anyways, and that you shouldn't need mechanics to spell it out for you.
So... everything else in the rules where someone thinks 'it would be logical if it did this too,' applies? Doesn't that conflict with the concept that any given ability, spell, effect, etc, does what it does and nothing more? Plus, if there are balancing issues with the current features, which is one of the accusations against them, how would leaving them assumed improve that at all? And if there are issues with trusting the DM with the current features, wouldn't that be even moreso when they are not spelled out, but merely assumed?
When it comes to roleplay considerations and not hard mechanics? Yeah. Because that's all the features are. Roleplay considerations. I don't need a spell to tell me that I can talk to people. I don't need a feat to tell me that I can stay at my families inn. I don't need a class feature to tell me that my soldier should know the basic military structure of the kingdom whose army he served in. This is basic shit that any halfway competent DM should be able to infer just from me telling them my background is X. Like, jesus, I don't need a game mechanic to wipe my ass, I shouldn't need to a game mechanic for all this other basic functionality.
... Again I have to wonder how many writing off the current features have actually read them or thought about them. ...
Read them. Tried to use them, in my first game. Read the new ones that come around. See no reason for most of them to exist.
Why in the name of whichever god you like the most would "my family owns an inn" have to be a Super Special Exotic Custom Feature that precludes you from having a job? especially since you might stay at your family's in once in the entirety of a D&D game before moving on?
"My family were inkeepers, but I was the third daughter and had no hope of inheriting the inn, so I studied with the village apothecary and learned the basics of medicine instead before deciding to travel and broaden my knowledge" is a perfectly valid character seed that, according to you, is impossible to play in D&D. There is no 'Apothecary' background and DMs are too stupid to invent one, so you can't actually have knowledge of medicinal herbs and plants, and since there is no custom background feature for "my family owns an inn I can stay at for free so long as I don't disrupt business or cause too much trouble", that trait of someone's history cannot actually be included in a character. Because there's no "Son/Daughter of Innkeepers" Special Background Feature, it therefore becomes impossible for a player to play the son or daughter of an innkeeper.
In what bloody world does that make any damn sense?
To clarify, Kotath: you do not allow your players to have anything if they can't point to a relevant background feature that allows them to have it?
If there's no Acolyte in the party, the party cannot even enter temples save illegally, and/or with a hefty bribe? If there's no Sailor in the party, the party cannot negotiate passage on an oceangoing vessel? If there's no Folk Hero in the party, all commoners will be hostile and completely unwilling to even speak to the party? If there's no Noble in the party, all men of standing and status will have the party banished/arrested/attacked on sight?
Is that what we're looking at here? because as far as I can tell that's the argument you seem to be making - that in order to do a basic job function you are REQUIRED to have the "permission" of a restrictive background feature, and if you do not have that background feature than all possible avenues of non-combat interaction will be closed off to you forever. Is that about right?
A bit hyperbolic? I did not say those things.
If there is no Acolyte, the party can enter Temples. But that does not mean they can literally live there free of charge. It certainly does not mean that the clergy will treat them as one of their own, i.e. fellow clergy, even if just lay clergy. It is true that a Cleric of that faith would presumably have these privileges too, mind. I will grant you that.
If there is no Sailor, the party has to negotiate, rather than simply get passage. And it is free passage at that.
If there is no Folk Hero, the locals will treat them as the strangers they are. This might mean they will not talk with the party or that the party has to earn their trust before they will talk with the party. Some communities are like that. Or it might be a relative friendly community. However even a friendly community is not likely to be willing to simply take them in, let alone be willing to hide them from authorities if need be.
If there is no Noble in the party, the party might well have greater difficulty getting in to certain places. That is a long ways from being 'banished or arrested on sight.'
Does that make a little more sense now?
And to the extent any seem weak, you can work out with your DM something more. An acolyte become cleric may well have access to deeper secrets of the faith, due to having paid their dues (in a service to the church sense), for example. DDB does not handle custom descriptions (or features) well, but that does not mean you and your DM cannot work things out and put them in notes or some completely separate file. Again, if you cannot trust your DM....
I'm going to agree with everyone else in that those are all things that your background should do for you anyways, and that you shouldn't need mechanics to spell it out for you.
So... everything else in the rules where someone thinks 'it would be logical if it did this too,' applies? Doesn't that conflict with the concept that any given ability, spell, effect, etc, does what it does and nothing more? Plus, if there are balancing issues with the current features, which is one of the accusations against them, how would leaving them assumed improve that at all? And if there are issues with trusting the DM with the current features, wouldn't that be even moreso when they are not spelled out, but merely assumed?
When it comes to roleplay considerations and not hard mechanics? Yeah. Because that's all the features are. Roleplay considerations. I don't need a spell to tell me that I can talk to people. I don't need a feat to tell me that I can stay at my families inn. I don't need a class feature to tell me that my soldier should know the basic military structure of the kingdom whose army he served in. This is basic shit that any halfway competent DM should be able to infer just from me telling them my background is X. Like, jesus, I don't need a game mechanic to wipe my ass, I shouldn't need to a game mechanic for all this other basic functionality.
Again, you do not need the feature to 'talk to people.' You need the feature to get certain expected results from doing so, without skill use.
You are assuming there that your family has an inn. That is something I would consider a custom 'feature'
The feature associated with being a soldier goes beyond merely knowing the military structure but still having contacts with in it and access to otherwise normally restricted bases. You can go talk with the local military without having to convince the guards you aren't a security risk, can wander about the compound without being questioned about doing so.... That is more than just 'basic knowledge' level. Again I have to wonder how many writing off the current features have actually read them or thought about them.
And not every DM starts out fully competent. In my case, I can write entire new rather elabourate backgrounds from scratch. Despite that, or, I would argue because of it, I see the value in these. And looking back to when I was starting out, I would have really appreciated them to help guide me on my way that much more.
And, even if your DM is good enough that the DM gives the equivalent for that table anyway, what, exactly, does it hurt to have them in the rules? According to you, they are part of the backgrounds anyway, so at worst, spelling them out is redundant. It still is not telling you precisely how or when you, or your DM, use them. If they are redundant for your table, your table need never look at them.
Everything you're saying is just a roleplaying consideration that a good DM would implement anyways. And the reason to not have them as a mechanic is super simple and came up a lot during 3.5. If you make something a mechanic, you imply that if you have to use that mechanic for that basic benefit to apply. If you make knowing basic things about whatever tied to a throwaway background benefit, you imply that unless you take that one specific background you don't know that super basic thing. If there was, lets say, an outdoorsman background with a feature that said you know how to tie knots, and you tried to make that a hard game mechanic, that implies that unless you take that one background, your character can't tie knots. Which is stupid, because that's something that anyone with any sort of relevant life experience should be able to do.
And yes, I know you're going to get nitpicky, but I think I'm done trying to convince you of how stupid the features mechanic is and just fill out the survey so they change it, and not have to worry about it anymore. You can do the same and we'll see how the community feels about what the best way of handling it is.
And again, you seem to be downplaying the features as all 'basic,' completely ignoring counter-arguments showing that not to be true. And by downplaying them as basic, you furthermore seem to imply that every PC knows local military structure, even without being a soldier.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!!
Nobody is saying that "every PC knows every background feature". Not one soul is saying that. Not. One. Soul.
What Inverse and I have been trying to say for the last twenty pages of this thread and half a dozen others is YOU DO NOT NEED THE "MILITARY RANK" BACKGROUND FEATURE TO BE A SOLDIER!
You can say to your DM "my character served in the border war a few years back; he has a military service record and may end up with connections to the Kingdom's military, if they come up" and receive 100% of the benefit of "Military Rank" by working with the DM for ten god damn minutes to establish your character's background without the need of a Background Feature that serves no actual f@#$ing purpose save to say "you served in the military once and military people may like you better for it." Your soldier can take Savage Attacker to represent their rigorous combat training and their time spent fighting if they were a frontline trooper, or they can take something else to represent their military talents if they served another way, but they are still a soldier.
THAT is what I am saying. I do not f@#$ing need my players to spoonfeed me their backgrounds from an official book, and I do not f@#$ing need my DM to ignore every last thing about my character save their 'Military Rank' background feature because that's the one thing a bad DM considers important from a background. Building a character is a two-way street between player and DM; by the time you've done it properly for a game you intend to play over the long term the DM will know what connections make sense for you and what connections do not, and if it's a one-shot piece of nonsense your connections don't matter anyways.
Everything you're saying is just a roleplaying consideration that a good DM would implement anyways. And the reason to not have them as a mechanic is super simple and came up a lot during 3.5. If you make something a mechanic, you imply that if you have to use that mechanic for that basic benefit to apply. If you make knowing basic things about whatever tied to a throwaway background benefit, you imply that unless you take that one specific background you don't know that super basic thing. If there was, lets say, an outdoorsman background with a feature that said you know how to tie knots, and you tried to make that a hard game mechanic, that implies that unless you take that one background, your character can't tie knots. Which is stupid, because that's something that anyone with any sort of relevant life experience should be able to do.
And yes, I know you're going to get nitpicky, but I think I'm done trying to convince you of how stupid the features mechanic is and just fill out the survey so they change it, and not have to worry about it anymore. You can do the same and we'll see how the community feels about what the best way of handling it is.
And again, you seem to be downplaying the features as all 'basic,' completely ignoring counter-arguments showing that not to be true. And by downplaying them as basic, you furthermore seem to imply that every PC knows local military structure, even without being a soldier.
Your outdoorsman knowing how to tie knots would manifest by them choosing survival as one of their background skills. By saying that is something anyone with any 'relevant' life experience should be able to do, well yes, people proficient in survival skill should be able to do survival skill tasks better. 15 years of scouting, I can assure you knot work (and rope work) is a taught and learned skill, not something you simply 'know' from living outdoors. Are you now going to suggest that the skill system should be tossed out since everyone can sneak, everyone can see and hear.... etc?
You have literally not provided any sort of reasonable counterargument.
If tying knots is survival then entertainers feature is covered by performance, acolytes feature is covered by persuasion, charlatans feature is covered by forgery kit, etc. Every 'feature' is just something that you can do through a skill/tool.
Again, we'll see how things pan out and see what people think is more reasonable.
Ya at this point this is just circle talk. Just have the player write. A. Backstory. The stuff they put in their backstory is basically the feature thing. If the DM is not stupid (experience unrequired) then things like I am an acolyte of this church, and I am asking to stay for a night doesn't need to be spelled out in the rules. You dont spell out every possible use of the survival skill or sleight of hand. The dm asks for the roll he thinks is appropriate and responds to backstories in ways that are appropriate given the backstory. We really do not need a rule for this very basic role play thing. I will go a step further making a rule for it is limiting and generic. Even when the features WERE used, they werent the ONLY thing in the persons backstory that got used unique to other characters.
Man, I am spending so much of my time lately pissing out forum fires...
I've seen A LOT of confusion surrounding Backgrounds in the new playtest document, most of which revolves around a single hang-up I've seen repeated dozens of times since discussion of this document started up yesterday. Namely, the idea that the named sample backgrounds in the list are intended to be what you use, with only minor tweaks using the 'Customize Your Background' rules immediately preceding them. That much like current/modern 5e, backgrounds are supposed to come pre-packaged from Wizards of the Coast and you're intended to select a background, but if you don't like any of those you can tweak one or even create a whole new one.
This is false.
The intent of the new system is for every single player in D&D 5e 2024 RED to create their own background from scratch. The sample backgrounds given are examples of what players can create with the new rules. They are not truly intended to be generic, everyman things. A common complaint I've seen is "All guards speak Dwarvish now? Bullshit!", which misses the point. The 'Guard' background in the document does not reference every guard. It references your guard. That's why the background blurb is there - it speaks to the specific story of the specific Guard who assembled this background. That Guard knows Dwarvish because dwarves maintained their equipment and they wanted to be able to talk to them in their native tongue.
This same logic applies to every Sample background in the document. They're not describing a class of people, they're describing a specific person. Your background is no longer choosing a generic class of person that you are counted as a member of. Your background is specific to you and your circumstances, tuned to your individual character. Sample backgrounds are provided in the same way that DMs sometimes use pregenerated characters - to get someone into the game more quickly, or for people who can't be assed to think that hard and just want to play already.
Put it this way. The official way in D&D 2024 RED/One D&D to create your character's background is to assign a +2 to a score of your choice and a +1 to another score of your choice, or +1 to three separate scores of your choice. After that, select two skills and gain proficiency in them. Choose a tool to gain proficiency in, and then choose a language you know. Choose your first-level feat, and then acquire equipment up to 50gp in value, retaining any coin you don't spend. This process is supposed to be part of thinking through where your character came from and establishing their story, which in turn helps define Q/I/B/F and what they can call on in terms of pre-existing connections and resources.
Alternatively, as an optional variant rule, you can select one of the provided Sample backgrounds for your character in lieu of stepping through the process yourself.
Whether or not this is what any given player prefers is up to them. There's a legitimate argument to be made for the power of specific backgrounds to inspire stories, and Wizards would be foolish to abandon them entirely. That said, it's also very common for players to create characters that do not fit neatly into one of the game's pre-established generic backgrounds, and a current Custom Background character is often at a disadvantage since they do not gain any gear from their background the way someone else does. Existing Background Features can speak strongly to a given character's story, or they can be absolutely worthless, meaningless nonsense that any reasonable DM would simply give you.
However, in neither case are the Sample backgrounds as given supposed to be utterly inflexible, take-it-or-leave-it etched-in-steel Package Deals. Want to play a guard but have no idea whay your Guard knows Dwarvish? Change your language. Want to play a Laborer who worked in a shipyard instead of being a stonemason? Change your tool proficiency (and probably your language). It's all at your fingertips. Customize, tweak, rejigger, fidget - the system wants you to. Using a completely unmodified sample background should be the exception, not the rule.
An interesting point........ and something I could see as being a remedy to my issues with the way they do half-breed characters. Create a background that actually helps reflect the dual heritage better.
The sea is a cruel and fickle mistress. None know this better than the fisher folk who ply their trade among the treacherous waters of the archipelago known as The Dragon's Teeth. This is why along with net weavers and shipwrights, one of the traditional roles among your tribe was that of the Speaker to the Echoes. As it was the Chieftan's duty to negotiate with other tribes, so it was your duty as the Speaker to intercede on the behalf of your people with the denizens of the invisible world. You learned at the feet of the old Speaker how to mix the herbs that would give you prophetic dreams. Now when the Goddess of Storms sends omens demanding sacrifices it is you who interprets them. When the tides run backwards and the moon burns red, it is you who knows of the blockages in the flow of the land's mana and how to clear them with rituals. When the demons of the deep come boiling out of the tides, it is you who warn them back and threaten them with Names that even they fear.
This character is familiar with nets and boats, even if they don't have mechanical Skills to prove it. Which is easily remedied, to be sure, just by making them Human and giving them another Skill and Feat. Maybe Survival and Crafter? Point is, when a feature is mainly just lore ... lore itself will do, won't it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So I feel like a lot of you are forgetting one very simple thing, some people are new to ttrpgs. I feel like the old background features were meant to help them, because lets say a new player chooses the acolyte background, it may not even occur to them that by choosing it there are things they can do that other players cant. And these background features just give new players a little nudge in that direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Animefreak, that is why the process mentions - several times - that the player and DM both should work together to think through the character's origin and how it might fit into the game.
Siiiigh Yurei did you not read the part where I said new players, do I need to go and edit to say new DMs as well. Not everyone is an expert at this game as you seem to think, some people come into with their only experience with role playing being games like skyrim or the witcher. Some experienced DMs can be very stubborn as well only allowing players to do exactly what their character sheet says they can. And finally with all the things I keep seeing that say some variation of "just talk to your DM" session 0's are going to start getting real long.
And out of curiosity is there a reason you seem to think(or at least you act like you do) that anyone that has a different opinion than you is somehow missing something, because your opinion is obviously the only correct one. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh but man you can be real condescending when people have different opinions than yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Siiiigh Yurei did you not read the part where I said new players, do I need to go and edit to say new DMs as well. Not everyone is an expert at this game as you seem to think, some people come into with their only experience with role playing being games like skyrim or the witcher. Some experienced DMs can be very stubborn as well only allowing players to do exactly what their character sheet says they can. And finally with all the things I keep seeing that say some variation of "just talk to your DM" session 0's are going to start getting real long.
And out of curiosity is there a reason you seem to think(or at least you act like you do) that anyone that has a different opinion than you is somehow missing something, because your opinion is obviously the only correct one. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh but man you can be real condescending when people have different opinions than yours.
So what you're actually asking is what do you do if your DM is bad. You're adding some reasons why they might be bad, newness, stubbornness, etc., but what to do if they're bad is what lies at the heart of this argument. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but little fluff features isn't going to fix a bad DM.
Siiiigh Yurei did you not read the part where I said new players, do I need to go and edit to say new DMs as well. Not everyone is an expert at this game as you seem to think, some people come into with their only experience with role playing being games like skyrim or the witcher. Some experienced DMs can be very stubborn as well only allowing players to do exactly what their character sheet says they can. And finally with all the things I keep seeing that say some variation of "just talk to your DM" session 0's are going to start getting real long.
And out of curiosity is there a reason you seem to think(or at least you act like you do) that anyone that has a different opinion than you is somehow missing something, because your opinion is obviously the only correct one. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh but man you can be real condescending when people have different opinions than yours.
So what you're actually asking is what do you do if your DM is bad. You're adding some reasons why they might be bad, newness, stubbornness, etc., but what to do if they're bad is what lies at the heart of this argument. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but little fluff features isn't going to fix a bad DM.
No I'm saying background features are helpful for unimaginative players and DMs, and can help when you have a shit DM. What you and Yurei seem to be arguing for is more feature bloat that doesn't actually improver the game, at least in my opinion, see I like role play it's my favorite part of D&D so having features that directly benefit it is great. What's also great is being able to make the vast majority of my character with out having to ask the DM is it ok if I can do x because of y. And I just want to hammer this in one last time, this is my opinion you have your own opinion neither one of them is objectively better, one of the great things about D&D is if we don't like something we can change it or remove it wholesale, as I and presumably Kotath will do with the new background mechanic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
We have very different definitions of 'do things,' that is clear. Most of the things 'done,' you claim the PC should get in addition to other things you think that they should get. Or that backgrounds should all or even mostly be there to give you tactical advantages or something rather than to drive plot.
Again, based on your argument, rogues should all have free stealth proficiency, on top of everything else, and their stealth should likely be automatic, too, since everyone expects the rogue to be good at that. Barbarians should perhaps not be allowed written languages, because of that cliche.
Let's look at your list though....
Acolyte (what self-respecting temple is going to turn you away just because you didn't grow up there? Shelter of the Faithful is so piss-miserable it's almost offensive.)
- You are in a strange land where you are not known and expect the church to just shelter and feed you, simply because you have the same faith as they? How many are they taking in? Do they provide free food and lodging to all parishioners? What is this campaign you have been in where churches are like that?
Athlete (You have a 50% chance of being famous enough to earn extremely basic information or shelter by being a famous athlete? No. Bad. Try again.)
- Again, just as a regular person, you expect people to let you live in their home, without even compensating them? If this is true, how and why in blazes do inns exist?
Archaeologist (Oh wow, I don't need to roll a history check to know basic f@#$ing history of a place! By Ogden's hammer what value!)
- You are in an area you are not from but expect to know all local myths and legends? And let us look at what it actually says: "correctly ascertain its original purpose and determine its builders, whether those were dwarves, elves, humans, yuan-ti, or some other known race. In addition, you can determine the monetary value of art objects more than a century old." Original purpose, no matter how ancient the structure, counts as basic knowledge for you? Plus market knowledge over antiques and artefacts has no value?
Celebrity Adventurer's Scion (this is LITERALLY saying "the DM might let you use your connections to get minor boons, or they might not". It's not even an actual feature!)
- And the DM might say those who have no connections get no boons. This is a game with a DM. If you do not trust your DM, you are going to have a bad time no matter what the rules say.
Charlatan ("You have disguises and forged papers letting you pretend to be someone else!" ...I have Disguise and Forgery kit proficiency with this background, I should f@#$ing hope my CHARLATAN can pretend to be someone else.)
- You already have a pre-established alter ego that you can fall back on. And, rather than normal forgery, where you are directly copying from an example in your possession, you are good enough at it that you only have to have seen (i.e. some time in the past) an example of the document or of the handwriting you are imitating. That is no minor thing.
City Watch/Investigator ("You know where lawmen and criminals both like to hang out." NOOO! Something I could get through one day's casing the town with a DC 10 at most Investigation check?! Incredible! Such feature! Much value! Wow!)
- DC 10 at most, no matter how well the criminals are hidden? In a city you are unfamiliar with, or better yet, a countryside you are unfamiliar with, where there is a lot more ground to cover?
Clan Crafter (Another in the long, long, long list of background 'features' that say "people who know and like you will know and like you and may possibly help you!" THAT IS NOT A FEATURE THAT'S JUST D&D)
- You are respected as a crafter. If that is how your character sees themselves, how is that of no value? Professional reputation has no value? It is not 'People who know you and like you' but 'people who recognize your value by way of the status you hold.'
Cloistered Scholar (name me one single time a DM has not allowed players access to a library. One. One time. Nothing? Yeah, me either. Even Mercer let total rubes into the Cobalt Archives, if with supervision.)
- Again, based on that logic, characters do not need any skills whatsoever, nor any combat abilities, since for the plot to move forward, the DM has to provide the necessary path information and a way to defeat any opposition.
Courtier (Another "this 'feature' simply describes what the DM should allow someone to do simply for being this thing" feature. Lovely.)
- Yes, again, the DM should allow someone with this background to have the benefits of having this background. The DM should allow the wizard to have the benefits of being a wizard too. Lovely indeed.
Criminal ("My criminal knows other criminals and can occasionally talk to them if the DM lets me!" Thrilling. Such feature. Much value. Wow.)
- And again, everything in the game is dependant on DM cooperation. If the DM never provides you anything to fight, you will have no use for your combat abilities.
Entertainer (the epitome of "why can't I just do this?" Hell, this 'feature' TAKES AWAY from the player because it removes their ability to describe/declare how they perform! They just get minor room and board without getting to actually perform!)
- I'll grant you this one only in that it is something that is a direct function of the Performance skill specifically. And is completely pointless to bards. However there is nothing that prohibits describing your performance.
Faction Agent (this should never have even been a background in the first place.)
- Because no one could have been politically aligned before becoming an adventurer?
Failed Merchant (Acq Inq. is good for a laugh, but bad for providing backgrounds with neaingful 'features'. This is just another "you know people it would make sense for you to know and can occasionally talk to them and maybe get stuff" feature. That's just playing D&D, it doesn't need a goddamn feature)
- Another complaint on your part on there being a DM
Far Traveler ("You're a weirdo and people might occasionally think enough of your novelty to throw you a dog biscuit." No. Bad. Try again.)
- Can build an entire campaign around this background.
Feylost (AGAIN, this is something that should just happen if it makes sense for the Feylost character in question.)
- If someone has a Feylost background they should have a Feylost background? Ok...
Fisher (Almost want to give this one a pass because it at least tries. But it's still "you can do the thing your background says you can do". Fishermen can fish? No! It can't be!)
- Fishermen can fish better. Anyone with survival skill can fish.
Folk Hero (Toss a coin to your Witcher, O valley of plenty, O valley of plenty, whooOOooaah!)
- Folk Hero is a LOT older than Witcher. Traditional folklore....
Gladiator (Entertainer in a Fight Club guise. Still easily the worst background "feature" in D&D)
- Other than not being reliant on performance skill and having no injury risk from your fighting as entertainment...
Grinner (Sorry Mercer, you don't get a pass for Faction Agent Exandria Style any more than the Sword Coast does)
- See Faction Agent
Guild Artisan/Merchant (holy ****, a background you have to PAY FOR in order to gain the privlege of ****-all! 5gp a month plus the compulsory donation of sums of coin and magical items so the guild can say "sorry, we can't help because the DM wants you to actually play D&D, go adventure now please". This is a pretty damn close contender to Entertainer for Worst Background Feature in D&D, and frankly it might even eclipse it. What an absolutely godawful feature.)
- Yes, because the concept of there being actual guilds and guild structures is blasphemy, right? Why not scrap all societal structure?
Haunted One (Toss a coin to your Witcher, a friend of humanityyyyy!!)
- The only thing I have against this one is people thinking it means being literally haunted
Investigator (oh wow, your background feature lets you investigate crime?! Who would have EVER guessed?!)
- A free pass to get access to places you are investigating has no value? Pardon????
Knight of the Order (another 'people who like you might offer minor, modest help based on liking you!' feature. F@#$ING STOP IT, WIZARDS)
- And again, the hand-waving of 'people who like you' as if everyone likes you and would offer you these things with or without background....
Mercenary Veteran (Mercenaries know mercenary things? Noo! Mercenaries can do mercenary work? YOU'RE AN ADVENTURER, YOU'RE ALREADY DOING MERCENARY WORK)
- You are not necessarily doing mercenary work as an adventurer. You certainly are not likely part of any formal mercenary unit in any historical sense.
Noble (Another "I'm an [X], I can do [X] things" background that shouldn't require stating. This is ridiculous.)
- Yes, another 'if you have this background, you get the advantages of having this background background.
Pirate (this one is just not f@#$ing true. DMs will find a way to make you pay for your crimes and actively ignore your background feature telling you they shouldn't, because that's how D&D works.)
- MINOR criminal offences. And again, if you do not trust your DM, you need a new DM.
Plaintiff ("You can roll Deception checks to try and screw with people." Gee, I'm so glad I picked the one background in all of D&D that allows me to roll Deception checks!)
- "Even when the law is not on your side" reveals that you know the right arguments to make when the law is on your side, too. But I guess all RL lawyers should find new work because their knowledge is deemed useless...
Rival Intern (Man, Acq. Inq is very bad at this.)
- At giving abilities that require trusting the DM, just like the rest of the game requires....?
Sage ("You can roll History checks to know things, and if you fail the check you might know where to go to get another chance to roll." Cool. So glad I picked the one background in all of D&D that lets me roll History checks!)
- You need to reread that. When you fail a roll, i.e. "if you do not know that information," then you still know where to look to find the information. That is very NOT trivial.
Sailor (I can get on boats and travel? HOLY CRAP, IT'S ALMOST LIKE I SPENT MY WHOLE LIFE DOING THAT AND SHOULD KNOW HOW IT WORKS!)
- Yes, you have it as a background so have the advantages of having it as a background like someone who has it as a background. Your paladin knows how to be a paladin from being a paladin.
Soldier (can we PLEASE STOP with the "I'm an [X], I can do [X] things" background features? They're awful, PLEASE.)
- Clearly. Soldiers should not know soldier things, So what should they know? Should they be the best dancers anywhere, perhaps?
Urban Bounty Hunter ("You can talk to people who're related to your profession and they might aid you if you roll well enough or can convince the DM." Well thanks for the permission to play D&D there, Mr. Pointless Background Feature.)
- And again, by virtue of having that background, you have those contacts.
Urchin (at what point does travel time in a city matter, and even when it does, at what point is a DM going to allow a background feature to spoil their fancy Race Through The Streets or whatever else makes travel time through a city actually matter?)
- And again, if you cannot trust your DM....
Uthgardt Tribe member ("I'm a member of the Uthgardt Tribes and they will treat me like one." yes...yes, Background Feature, that is indeed what is implied by the name 'Uthgardt Tribe Member'...)
- And again
Waterdhavion Noble (Your nobleman can live like a nobleman? HOLY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, BATMAN!)
- So you feel nobles should live like peasants? Or that living like noblemen is not enough?
Wicthlight Hand ("You joined the circus and have made friends in it while spending your life working there." Well I should bloody well hope so.)
Tell me, Kotath. Why would anyone ever want one of these backgrounds when there's five or six that actually do things? I've played a number of them for story purposes, but man - it's really just super obnoxious to see my Super Special Unique background Feature be "you can do the thing everybody expects you to be able to do and you will receive the expected compensation for it." That is not, and will never be, a "Feature."
Again, our definitions of 'doing things' are different.
Thing is, if a background feature makes you special with something only you can do, then it means you can't do things that belong to other backgrounds. So, if you're, say, an investigator, then you can't search archives for information, as you're not a sage or cloistered scholar. Can't have criminal contacts, because you're no criminal. Can't count on hospitality of basically any group or organization - these privileges are for acolytes, folk heroes, entertainers, etc (D&D is a cold, harsh world). Can't join a faction, because then you'd be a faction agent, multi-background. And the most fun of all, mercenary work is for mercenaries, so no jobs on the side to make coin. If anything, it's shackles for roleplay.
I read the first 2 pages and stopped because of the heat my screen was giving off and the fact I need to apply Aloe Vera to my face for the burns (Joke)
In general:
To OP: Thanks for pointing that out, I have read the rules 3 times and noticed that section but still upon reading it thought that all PC with the solders background knew dwarfish. If I remember correctly there was a thread like this a couple of years ago in which upon reading the doc I assumed the same thing. Fix: Maybe say examples created for Authors game world might be more descriptive and help out others.
Language: I and others I play with often ask what is it they are trying to say here, because the language is not clear or it seems space might be an issue or the author does not want to spend a lot of text explaining something that could have a huge impact on a game setting. Note: I have high hopes that 1DD (5Ev2) will clear up those language issues.
General Feeling about Backgrounds in 1DD: In general I do like them but I would also like to see some of the things presented in 5e backgrounds as options for GM's to include in custom backgrounds. For example church's of XXXXX in county Z will provide you with limited shelter and food is an good benefit for a background if playing in that country and fits with the GM's game. So providing a list of optional things a GM could or might include in their game would expand the game.
Point buy systems: In general when I think of point buy systems I do not put them in the same group as 5e, I think 5e's foundations of simple rules, simple math and not a lot of rule expansions (as in a new 238.5 page rule book every 6 months that has new PC options). The rules of 5e are fairly compact which is it strength but it can be a weakness when trying to add more detail and or expand a lot of things. Complex games tend to require more time to level up and can have more rules books in which players may need to recreate their PC based on new rules (some players like that some do not).
I need to see more 1DD to get a full picture on the direction of the game and just what I and others I have played with might or will have an issue with. So in general I am reserving judgment until the end.
In another thread a long time ago I posted that not all tools and languages are equal so in some cases I would give 2 tools instead of 1 or an game and an instrument vs alchemist.
I didn't need a feature to tell me that a sage with years of researching experience will know someone or someplace they can go to get more information. Especially when that is written into the character's backstory. That is what it comes down to. Features are ribbon features that may or may not come into play and are inferred by the characters backstory. And since custom backgrounds and alterations to the backgrounds necessitate a change to any of those features anyway they aren't really hard and fast rules either. Which is already what flavor and roleplay text really is anyway. If my backstory is I have worked in many places of learning and am a scholar and know other scholars of various disciplines than I don't need a feature that tells me that I know of other places of learning and other scholars. This is simple basic stuff that a person of a background can do what a person with that background should be able to do. The person of a background has connection to things related to that background who would have thought.
I didn't need a feature to tell me that a sage with years of researching experience will know someone or someplace they can go to get more information. Especially when that is written into the character's backstory. That is what it comes down to. Features are ribbon features that may or may not come into play and are inferred by the characters backstory. And since custom backgrounds and alterations to the backgrounds necessitate a change to any of those features anyway they aren't really hard and fast rules either. Which is already what flavor and roleplay text really is anyway. If my backstory is I have worked in many places of learning and am a scholar and know other scholars of various disciplines than I don't need a feature that tells me that I know of other places of learning and other scholars. This is simple basic stuff that a person of a background can do what a person with that background should be able to do. The person of a background has connection to things related to that background who would have thought.
The key thing here is that you didn't need to be told some people do need that for example when you read sage you automatically think researcher, when I read sage I automatically think old hermit meditating at the top of a mountain. And yes the background description points out the differences of our automatic assumptions. But and I can't believe I have to say this some people are idiots that don't read. And my final point which I'm pretty sure has nothing to do with your post is that the work it out with your DM that a few people are suggesting, to me is just another sign of wizards of the Coast being lazy and pushing more work off onto the DM which I disagree with in principle
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
I didn't need a feature to tell me that a sage with years of researching experience will know someone or someplace they can go to get more information. Especially when that is written into the character's backstory. That is what it comes down to. Features are ribbon features that may or may not come into play and are inferred by the characters backstory. And since custom backgrounds and alterations to the backgrounds necessitate a change to any of those features anyway they aren't really hard and fast rules either. Which is already what flavor and roleplay text really is anyway. If my backstory is I have worked in many places of learning and am a scholar and know other scholars of various disciplines than I don't need a feature that tells me that I know of other places of learning and other scholars. This is simple basic stuff that a person of a background can do what a person with that background should be able to do. The person of a background has connection to things related to that background who would have thought.
The key thing here is that you didn't need to be told some people do need that for example when you read sage you automatically think researcher, when I read sage I automatically think old hermit meditating at the top of a mountain. And yes the background description points out the differences of our automatic assumptions. But and I can't believe I have to say this some people are idiots that don't read. And my final point which I'm pretty sure has nothing to do with your post is that the work it out with your DM that a few people are suggesting, to me is just another sign of wizards of the Coast being lazy and pushing more work off onto the DM which I disagree with in principle
Well if they are an idiot that isn't going to read, why would they bother reading the background ribbon features? I don't believe it is a case of Wizards being Lazy, but rather Wizards recognizing that this is kind of how people currently play anyway. Very few people read or care about the features, those that do are also the same people that read and care about peoples backstories so don't NEED the features to tell them these things. So tables that were ignoring the features get something more useful AND more mechanically defining that lets them stand out with Feats on their characters, and those that weren't ignoring the features and reading people backstories get the feat AND now get to interpret the backstories the way they would want to without needing to be told it with a feature, which again, is kind of how people play it now anyway. I promise you when I read a players backstory I do not care what the title of their background is nor do I entirely care what the feature is, their backstory is going to tell me more specifics about who the character is and the connections they have than a generic feature ever could.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm going to agree with everyone else in that those are all things that your background should do for you anyways, and that you shouldn't need mechanics to spell it out for you.
Again: why are we supposed to assume the DM is too stupid to know how to work within and around a character's backstory without a low-quality text blurb spelling it out and spoonfeeding it to them?
Why are we assuming that a DM who is too stupid to run a game for characters that do not have Background Features is somehow also smart enough to work up the extensive homebrew being suggested as the 'solution' to the fact that background features, as written in R5e, suck giant donkey hindus?
Why are we assuming that players are going to use the OPT rules to try and maliciously end-run their DM and find ways to jank their table and be a bad-faith ******wurst at the earliest opportunity?
Why is anyone assuming these things?
Please do not contact or message me.
When it comes to roleplay considerations and not hard mechanics? Yeah. Because that's all the features are. Roleplay considerations. I don't need a spell to tell me that I can talk to people. I don't need a feat to tell me that I can stay at my families inn. I don't need a class feature to tell me that my soldier should know the basic military structure of the kingdom whose army he served in. This is basic shit that any halfway competent DM should be able to infer just from me telling them my background is X. Like, jesus, I don't need a game mechanic to wipe my ass, I shouldn't need to a game mechanic for all this other basic functionality.
Read them. Tried to use them, in my first game. Read the new ones that come around. See no reason for most of them to exist.
Why in the name of whichever god you like the most would "my family owns an inn" have to be a Super Special Exotic Custom Feature that precludes you from having a job? especially since you might stay at your family's in once in the entirety of a D&D game before moving on?
"My family were inkeepers, but I was the third daughter and had no hope of inheriting the inn, so I studied with the village apothecary and learned the basics of medicine instead before deciding to travel and broaden my knowledge" is a perfectly valid character seed that, according to you, is impossible to play in D&D. There is no 'Apothecary' background and DMs are too stupid to invent one, so you can't actually have knowledge of medicinal herbs and plants, and since there is no custom background feature for "my family owns an inn I can stay at for free so long as I don't disrupt business or cause too much trouble", that trait of someone's history cannot actually be included in a character. Because there's no "Son/Daughter of Innkeepers" Special Background Feature, it therefore becomes impossible for a player to play the son or daughter of an innkeeper.
In what bloody world does that make any damn sense?
Please do not contact or message me.
Everything you're saying is just a roleplaying consideration that a good DM would implement anyways. And the reason to not have them as a mechanic is super simple and came up a lot during 3.5. If you make something a mechanic, you imply that if you have to use that mechanic for that basic benefit to apply. If you make knowing basic things about whatever tied to a throwaway background benefit, you imply that unless you take that one specific background you don't know that super basic thing. If there was, lets say, an outdoorsman background with a feature that said you know how to tie knots, and you tried to make that a hard game mechanic, that implies that unless you take that one background, your character can't tie knots. Which is stupid, because that's something that anyone with any sort of relevant life experience should be able to do.
And yes, I know you're going to get nitpicky, but I think I'm done trying to convince you of how stupid the features mechanic is and just fill out the survey so they change it, and not have to worry about it anymore. You can do the same and we'll see how the community feels about what the best way of handling it is.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
LISTEN TO ME!!!!!!!
Nobody is saying that "every PC knows every background feature". Not one soul is saying that. Not. One. Soul.
What Inverse and I have been trying to say for the last twenty pages of this thread and half a dozen others is YOU DO NOT NEED THE "MILITARY RANK" BACKGROUND FEATURE TO BE A SOLDIER!
You can say to your DM "my character served in the border war a few years back; he has a military service record and may end up with connections to the Kingdom's military, if they come up" and receive 100% of the benefit of "Military Rank" by working with the DM for ten god damn minutes to establish your character's background without the need of a Background Feature that serves no actual f@#$ing purpose save to say "you served in the military once and military people may like you better for it." Your soldier can take Savage Attacker to represent their rigorous combat training and their time spent fighting if they were a frontline trooper, or they can take something else to represent their military talents if they served another way, but they are still a soldier.
THAT is what I am saying. I do not f@#$ing need my players to spoonfeed me their backgrounds from an official book, and I do not f@#$ing need my DM to ignore every last thing about my character save their 'Military Rank' background feature because that's the one thing a bad DM considers important from a background. Building a character is a two-way street between player and DM; by the time you've done it properly for a game you intend to play over the long term the DM will know what connections make sense for you and what connections do not, and if it's a one-shot piece of nonsense your connections don't matter anyways.
Please do not contact or message me.
You have literally not provided any sort of reasonable counterargument.
If tying knots is survival then entertainers feature is covered by performance, acolytes feature is covered by persuasion, charlatans feature is covered by forgery kit, etc. Every 'feature' is just something that you can do through a skill/tool.
Again, we'll see how things pan out and see what people think is more reasonable.
Ya at this point this is just circle talk. Just have the player write. A. Backstory. The stuff they put in their backstory is basically the feature thing. If the DM is not stupid (experience unrequired) then things like I am an acolyte of this church, and I am asking to stay for a night doesn't need to be spelled out in the rules. You dont spell out every possible use of the survival skill or sleight of hand. The dm asks for the roll he thinks is appropriate and responds to backstories in ways that are appropriate given the backstory. We really do not need a rule for this very basic role play thing. I will go a step further making a rule for it is limiting and generic. Even when the features WERE used, they werent the ONLY thing in the persons backstory that got used unique to other characters.
An interesting point........ and something I could see as being a remedy to my issues with the way they do half-breed characters. Create a background that actually helps reflect the dual heritage better.
Kotath. The story based Background Feature you want? In the playtest it's that section where the player writes their history in. It's right there.
The sea is a cruel and fickle mistress. None know this better than the fisher folk who ply their trade among the treacherous waters of the archipelago known as The Dragon's Teeth. This is why along with net weavers and shipwrights, one of the traditional roles among your tribe was that of the Speaker to the Echoes. As it was the Chieftan's duty to negotiate with other tribes, so it was your duty as the Speaker to intercede on the behalf of your people with the denizens of the invisible world. You learned at the feet of the old Speaker how to mix the herbs that would give you prophetic dreams. Now when the Goddess of Storms sends omens demanding sacrifices it is you who interprets them. When the tides run backwards and the moon burns red, it is you who knows of the blockages in the flow of the land's mana and how to clear them with rituals. When the demons of the deep come boiling out of the tides, it is you who warn them back and threaten them with Names that even they fear.
This character is familiar with nets and boats, even if they don't have mechanical Skills to prove it. Which is easily remedied, to be sure, just by making them Human and giving them another Skill and Feat. Maybe Survival and Crafter? Point is, when a feature is mainly just lore ... lore itself will do, won't it?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
So I feel like a lot of you are forgetting one very simple thing, some people are new to ttrpgs. I feel like the old background features were meant to help them, because lets say a new player chooses the acolyte background, it may not even occur to them that by choosing it there are things they can do that other players cant. And these background features just give new players a little nudge in that direction.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Siiiiiigh
OTL
Animefreak, that is why the process mentions - several times - that the player and DM both should work together to think through the character's origin and how it might fit into the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
Siiiigh Yurei did you not read the part where I said new players, do I need to go and edit to say new DMs as well. Not everyone is an expert at this game as you seem to think, some people come into with their only experience with role playing being games like skyrim or the witcher. Some experienced DMs can be very stubborn as well only allowing players to do exactly what their character sheet says they can. And finally with all the things I keep seeing that say some variation of "just talk to your DM" session 0's are going to start getting real long.
And out of curiosity is there a reason you seem to think(or at least you act like you do) that anyone that has a different opinion than you is somehow missing something, because your opinion is obviously the only correct one. Sorry if that seems a bit harsh but man you can be real condescending when people have different opinions than yours.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
So what you're actually asking is what do you do if your DM is bad. You're adding some reasons why they might be bad, newness, stubbornness, etc., but what to do if they're bad is what lies at the heart of this argument. I'm sorry to inform you of this, but little fluff features isn't going to fix a bad DM.
No I'm saying background features are helpful for unimaginative players and DMs, and can help when you have a shit DM. What you and Yurei seem to be arguing for is more feature bloat that doesn't actually improver the game, at least in my opinion, see I like role play it's my favorite part of D&D so having features that directly benefit it is great. What's also great is being able to make the vast majority of my character with out having to ask the DM is it ok if I can do x because of y. And I just want to hammer this in one last time, this is my opinion you have your own opinion neither one of them is objectively better, one of the great things about D&D is if we don't like something we can change it or remove it wholesale, as I and presumably Kotath will do with the new background mechanic.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Thing is, if a background feature makes you special with something only you can do, then it means you can't do things that belong to other backgrounds. So, if you're, say, an investigator, then you can't search archives for information, as you're not a sage or cloistered scholar. Can't have criminal contacts, because you're no criminal. Can't count on hospitality of basically any group or organization - these privileges are for acolytes, folk heroes, entertainers, etc (D&D is a cold, harsh world). Can't join a faction, because then you'd be a faction agent, multi-background. And the most fun of all, mercenary work is for mercenaries, so no jobs on the side to make coin. If anything, it's shackles for roleplay.
I read the first 2 pages and stopped because of the heat my screen was giving off and the fact I need to apply Aloe Vera to my face for the burns (Joke)
In general:
To OP: Thanks for pointing that out, I have read the rules 3 times and noticed that section but still upon reading it thought that all PC with the solders background knew dwarfish. If I remember correctly there was a thread like this a couple of years ago in which upon reading the doc I assumed the same thing. Fix: Maybe say examples created for Authors game world might be more descriptive and help out others.
Language: I and others I play with often ask what is it they are trying to say here, because the language is not clear or it seems space might be an issue or the author does not want to spend a lot of text explaining something that could have a huge impact on a game setting. Note: I have high hopes that 1DD (5Ev2) will clear up those language issues.
General Feeling about Backgrounds in 1DD: In general I do like them but I would also like to see some of the things presented in 5e backgrounds as options for GM's to include in custom backgrounds. For example church's of XXXXX in county Z will provide you with limited shelter and food is an good benefit for a background if playing in that country and fits with the GM's game. So providing a list of optional things a GM could or might include in their game would expand the game.
Point buy systems: In general when I think of point buy systems I do not put them in the same group as 5e, I think 5e's foundations of simple rules, simple math and not a lot of rule expansions (as in a new 238.5 page rule book every 6 months that has new PC options). The rules of 5e are fairly compact which is it strength but it can be a weakness when trying to add more detail and or expand a lot of things. Complex games tend to require more time to level up and can have more rules books in which players may need to recreate their PC based on new rules (some players like that some do not).
I need to see more 1DD to get a full picture on the direction of the game and just what I and others I have played with might or will have an issue with. So in general I am reserving judgment until the end.
In another thread a long time ago I posted that not all tools and languages are equal so in some cases I would give 2 tools instead of 1 or an game and an instrument vs alchemist.
I didn't need a feature to tell me that a sage with years of researching experience will know someone or someplace they can go to get more information. Especially when that is written into the character's backstory. That is what it comes down to. Features are ribbon features that may or may not come into play and are inferred by the characters backstory. And since custom backgrounds and alterations to the backgrounds necessitate a change to any of those features anyway they aren't really hard and fast rules either. Which is already what flavor and roleplay text really is anyway. If my backstory is I have worked in many places of learning and am a scholar and know other scholars of various disciplines than I don't need a feature that tells me that I know of other places of learning and other scholars. This is simple basic stuff that a person of a background can do what a person with that background should be able to do. The person of a background has connection to things related to that background who would have thought.
The key thing here is that you didn't need to be told some people do need that for example when you read sage you automatically think researcher, when I read sage I automatically think old hermit meditating at the top of a mountain. And yes the background description points out the differences of our automatic assumptions. But and I can't believe I have to say this some people are idiots that don't read. And my final point which I'm pretty sure has nothing to do with your post is that the work it out with your DM that a few people are suggesting, to me is just another sign of wizards of the Coast being lazy and pushing more work off onto the DM which I disagree with in principle
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Well if they are an idiot that isn't going to read, why would they bother reading the background ribbon features? I don't believe it is a case of Wizards being Lazy, but rather Wizards recognizing that this is kind of how people currently play anyway. Very few people read or care about the features, those that do are also the same people that read and care about peoples backstories so don't NEED the features to tell them these things. So tables that were ignoring the features get something more useful AND more mechanically defining that lets them stand out with Feats on their characters, and those that weren't ignoring the features and reading people backstories get the feat AND now get to interpret the backstories the way they would want to without needing to be told it with a feature, which again, is kind of how people play it now anyway. I promise you when I read a players backstory I do not care what the title of their background is nor do I entirely care what the feature is, their backstory is going to tell me more specifics about who the character is and the connections they have than a generic feature ever could.