Why I Don't Ban Backgrounds (But I Might Start…) | Worldbreaking 

How do you handle the change to backgrounds in your 5e games? Thanks so much to WorldAnvil for sponsoring this video! Visit www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK to get 40% off any annual membership! www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike

It should be noted for 11:43 the Dragonlance book specifically states for campaigns that no matter the background you pick you get a feat, so even if you pick a PHB background you get a free feat.

Our group started doing 1st level feats because we ran into "Guys, this setting has all sorts of cool races and interactions, can we please get a party that isn't entirely Variant Human?"

I think people need to stop caring so much about tying a background to mechanics. It's super easy to shift features and titles around.

So my solution to the background problem was to make what I called an “origin system” in addition to a background you choose what region of my campaign setting you are from and gain bonuses based on that nation’s specialty so if you were from an industrialized country you would get a feat like gunner or artificer initiate as opposed to a magic focused region. It gives each character an immediate tie to your setting and adds an additional layer that makes each character unique in addition to race, class and subclass

I also hope they don't delete traits from backgrounds. I really like choosing those midway through character creation and they often add really fun perks to my characters. There was one time I even wrote the majority of the backstory based on a prompt I picked up from the background traits.

Adventurer's League implemented a rule that if your background doesn't come with a feat, the player may choose from a selection of feats based on setting. For Forgotten Realms, the selection is Magic Initiate, Skilled or Tough. This eliminates the FOMO of choosing a non-feat background while also keeping it from becoming overpowered early on.

Regarding Dragonlance, if you dont pick the Mage of High Sorcery or Knight of Solamnia backgrounds, your character is allowed to pick from a couple of specific feats to balance the power level. They get another at 4th.

I love backgrounds mostly for their ability to help further deepen a character’s… well, character. They really inspire me when coming up with backstory and personality ideas

I would recommend the “An Elf and an Orc Had A Little Baby” approach on lineage as well as upbringing.

They have to keep the traits in backgrounds. Not only do they help define the character, the DM can use them to personalize the campaign around the characters.

I tend to take the hermit background so I can be the party healing potion maker. Sure I could be a Druid, but I mostly play ranger so this is how I still use the role mechanically I want for the group. Oh! But I should mention I always come up with a unique backstory to flesh out with despite using three hermit background quite often.

I personally love the little fluff trait you get from backgrounds, and Im saddened that it seems new backgrounds and OneDND backgrounds seem to be going in the "Just give a level 1 feat" route. Dont get me wrong, I love getting power early, so getting a feat that may help me make a build that requires feats without needing to go Custom Origin/Vuman is amazing, but that little fluff feature that lets your character do particular things in roleplay was always so fun to me. I wish the OneDND backgrounds came with a set of fluff features that you can slot in alongside with the free feat. Edit: Just read through the background modifications for the recently released Baldur's Gate Gazetteer and holy shit they look so cool and they're all roleplay features. It makes me even more sad at the potential removal of these features in the future.

I'm writing a campaign set after a fantasy apocalypse. In it I banned half of the standard classes in 5e, but to make up for it and add more variety to the remaining classes, I removed and wrote brand new backgrounds. Each background gets two proficiencies as normal and a different ability closer to a feat or class ability. They range from being able to craft weapons more effectively to gaining cleric cantrips (one of the banned classes). Because of the limited classes I felt there might be too much overlap in character idea so I tried to make the backgrounds easily differentiate every player's ideas. Each of the players I approached sounded keen to play with this style of character creation. The campaign still needs a lot of time in the oven so we won't be playing for a long while. I've been watching your videos for a while, they're always so well put together and you offer great advice! May God bless you!

The big issue with 5e's Backgrounds is that the published Backgrounds are training wheels for a potentially much more interesting character building process . . . which doesn't exist in the rulebooks. Every player who starts with the PHB will make a character or a few using existing Backgrounds, and they'll all get a feel for what the rules really are: character details every character gets. every character starts with two non-Class skills, two choices from the tools or languages, and a Background feature. It's incredibly easy to custom-build a Background, up to a point. Then you hit the two missing elements. One is that there is no hard rule for how much equipment a Background gives you -- ask your DM to make a ruling. The other is that there should be a detailed list somewhere of Background features, probably as many as the list of Feats in the PHB. There isn't such a thing, though, and it hamstrings the process. Because the Background features have all been designed for specific published Backgrounds, it's harder to find a good model to base a new Background feature on if you're making a custom Background. A Feats-style list of more generalized Backgrounds is needed to actually complete the rules.

Wow, I’ve always generated backgrounds, not to get benefits, but to help define my character, how and why they react in a particular way. A non-human that likes among humans and was treated poorly. I didn’t get feats, but my background explained the feats that I later chose.

Holy shit you are such a thoughtful, empathetic person. I like how you frame all of your thoughts. It gives some takes and important information to think about, while not shaming... basically anyone. I have never played dnd, and found your channel from your analysis of Vox Machina. You are making DnD seem much more interesting and less scary. Now if only i had a way to start playing- I have no friends who would play- and don't know how ro find people who do.

Personally I really like Backgrounds in 5e as they are, as choosing/making the background is something I always look forward too during character creation. And for me at least whenever I got a free Feat with my character's background it never felt better or worse then when I was using a character background that didn't come with one.(This is coming from someone who almost always uses the Custom Background option mind you.)

I've always treated backgrounds as just a way to get additional skill proficienies for things I want my character to be good at, with just ancestry and class you generally dont get enough to get the bonuses for every skill that the version of the character in your head would be good at.

One thing about the level 1 playtest stuff - I really want them to do more to support the bonds and flaws, and I want those feats/features at level 1 be curated to not being a mix of optimized and ribbon powers. One good developer guideline would be that the feats must be reflective of that "pre-heroic" element, and that would make it about downtime, factions, etc. For example, toying with the idea that you need something like Magic Initiate before dipping into a spellcasting class (representing that present but undeveloped trait)

I quite liked the idea of giving a feat to the players at first level so long as it's tied to their background in someway. I see it as skills/abilities learned in their old life so a doctor would get the Healer Feat or a Gambler would get the lucky feat. It adds flavour and can help give your character some options that make their backgrounds feel a bit more significant. I haven't had a chance t try out the rule for myself but next time I start a campaign, it's definitely something I'm planning to try.

I have complicated feelings about the feat system. I generally like giving players/getting more feats, but I also find the swing in power among them to be wild. I love a lot of the less mechanical feats like Chef or whatever, and I want players to play with them more because I think they make characters much more unique, but the bland, flavorless ones tend to be much more mechanically powerful, so problem tend to take them and it seems to be where the backgrounds are headed too

I'll put out that if you don't get a background w/ a feat you can always take tough or skilled. That's what it says in the dragonlance sourcebook and makes more sense for balance reasons

I'm with you on backgrounds. And they're so easy to make! While building my drow cleric, I had trouble finding the right fit, and noticed drow for some reason don't know undercommon. I created a background called Drow Apostate for drow who left behind the worship of Lolth. They get undercommon as a language and their feat is a reskin of the criminal's called Retinue of Eilistraae, where they might find refuge from other good drow. Instantly got the vibe I was needing. For my changling, I questioned the lore of "changlings hide their nature all the time" and decided what about changelings who revel in their natures? I created the Child of Jes background granting them proficiency in 1 language and 1 tool or weapon tied to a specific identity they fashioned for themselves as one of the Children of Jes. Their feat, One of the One Hundred, offers the ability to attain discounted training from other members of the CoJ or aid, but they are expected to return this favor if/when asked both to balance the feature and create potential for DM plot hooks. Backgrounds are just so much fun to create and customize!

I've always been frustrated by even the PHB backgrounds, especially for new players. Just the fact that they appear in the book after ancestry and class. It really makes them feel like an afterthought. After sitting down and explaining the character sheet, pitching classes and having my new player make all these choices they want to be done with the homework part by the time backgrounds come up. Also, your background can give you a skill you already selected from your class skill choices. So then you have to go back and pick a different one? Or I could have the player pick their class, then stop and flip to backgrounds, then back to the class to make their class choices? I'd be really interested to know Mike's take on which of his 'Many Ways to Build a Character' works best for brand new roleplayers.

I agree that I hope One D&D keeps traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, but I’m perfectly ok with divorcing them from backgrounds. Make them a separate part of character creation. Give them even more emphasis. And don’t restrict me to a list of these 6 options just because I grew up poor, or whatever.

I am interested in what they released in the first "One D&D" UA, where the background is basically you get: ASI (which was moved to your background from your ancestry/species option, you basically get 3 +1s to apply to any combination of ability scores, but you can't give 1 ability score more than a +2) 1 feat (basically limited to feats that do not have an ASI increase), 2 Skill Proficiencies, 1 Tool Proficiency, 1 Common Language, 1 Rare language 50 GP of starting gold, which you can convert to equipment Then all of their listed backgrounds were example selections you could make via those options. The UA was focused on the mechanics of backgrounds, and did not list anything for the roleplay side side of backgrounds, like the Bonds, Flaws, and Ideals.

For a while, the only backgrounds that were banned at the tables I played at were the ones that just added an extra feat...and the variant noble "Retainers" feature. There's the custom background option that's in the book anyway. The 2 skill proficiencies, and 2 tool or languages (which, in the book, also seems to point towards there also being a single weapon proficiency due to some of the options for other backgrounds). Adding a feat option to the backgrounds without them is something that helps there and opens up a lot more. I had played around with a background option that might add a resistance but only goes with 1 skill and 1 other proficiency in addition to it (I wanted to try having a plague survivor background for a setting...essentially adding disease resistance and medicine along with a choice of language).

I actually dont mind some backgrounds having feats and others not, even among the same party, but it depends on the play style. I also see it as a representation of your life before, which as a writer is a concept that exists in my real life. Writers other skills, hobbies, and professions can influence their writing in a lot of ways. So my rpg characters background will influence their life as an adventurer- maybe in a different way of fighting or understanding magic, and maybe because they speak more languages or understand certain industries. Basically, having mechanical and role play benefits as options in backgrounds really works for me, as long as there are enough options for the group and communication in the party to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Another reason to grants feats at 1st level is that so few are worth taking at higher levels - if you survived 12 levels without the feat, you may as well take an ASI which impacts far more die rolls by that level. So most feats never get taken, which is a pity because they provide an extra touch of individuality and creativity.

In the current ruleset of D&D Adventurers League, players get to assign a feat to their character upon creation regardless of background. They can pick from a few options listed in the player guide.

brand new DnD player here: Personality and backstory was the hardest part of making a character by far. Even though i've had tons of fictional and tropey personalities experienced in life, minor theatre experience etc. Bonds and Flaws in particular were hard. I'm already coming up with my main character and now i need to come up with ideas for other characters they are bonded to? 1 char was hard enough on its own! Background was a great starting point rather than having to brainstorm or narrow down ideas into a clearer picture myself. The mechanical impact was pretty secondary for me, since i knew my class and race would be the vast majority impact on their own regardless.

I would like to see backgrounds have more mechanical impact, because what I am really looking for in creating a character is great flavour and thematics *with mechanical support*.

The first thing to understand, the thing I tell everybody who plays at my games is that "Character creation doesn't end with session zero". And then of course, I sometimes have to explain what session zero is. The gist of it is this, I work with each player individually before the campaign proper starts. I ask them if they have something in mind they want to play, and then we build it together. I ask them leading questions, and then unless they really caught me off guard I run them through their first solo adventure. Over the years I've collected ones that worked and didn't work. Sometimes when I get the hair up the backside that just won't calm down, I go back and work on one or another. A recent example being a character who was press ganged into the "Defense force" during a siege, he fought back. Took a few lumps along the way, but ultimately got out of it and is now among the lists of those lost in that battle. There's an inbuilt tension when and if he interacts with people from either side of that conflict, he's decided his character wouldn't like or trust anyone from either military as a result. He got lots of ideas, I got lots of ideas. And when appropriate, we had some good stuff to work with at the table later on. That's how he got the modified version of the Soldier background, though in this case it's the Deserter background.

I like the backgrounds introduced with the PHB; I have even customized/modified a couple backgrounds (in accordance with the rules) to better suit certain characters. The traits, goals, et al are what I especially like as they can help provide the cornerstones of a character if I haven't nailed that down yet. I make a point to discuss with players during session Zero whether or not they want to do a free feat at first level. Thankfully, I have had my players ask about background suitability for the campaign.

Current Adventurer's League now gives any character that does not gain a Feat through background the option of choosing either Skilled or Tough feat to compensate

In the campaign I use my Wizard in my background actually changed as the backstory got worked out. He started as a sage, but when him being a banished Wizard from Menzoberanzan was put in, Noble fit better so I talked that over with the DM. Now being a noble, I don't have a background feature that works that well since Drow are kinda hated, and the only place my noble birth has any meaning is the place that wants me dead more than the other cities. But I do like it like this. It fits the character very well since he wouldn't throw his noble name around to get ahead anyway.

My group is pretty heavy rp so we don't generally rely on backgrounds for flavour/nuance, but that doesn't mean they should only be there for mechanical reasons! They're definitely a great resource, especially ideals bonds & flaws, even if they're not really for our table. As for early level feats, I love them for the sake of horizontal progression (ignoring the ones that just. add numbers to things). My players requested them for a campaign I wasn't going to include them in, mostly for the sake of feeling distinct mechanically (probably because experienced players love mechanical depth and can get bored). Great video!

Only speaking as a player, first level "free" feats help expand the background feature to flesh out the character's story. Maybe that's because backgrounds not always come up and it sucks picking a background that never comes into play. A free feat can add a skillset that corresponds with the character story and background, and is more likely to come into play during the campaign.

The thing I like the least about the 2024 playtest backgrounds was that they include the ability score increases thus making certain backgrounds almost mandatory for some classes. eg . You want to be a Strength fighter? you need to be a soldier or sailor . They made the change in Tasha's where you could customise the mechanical benefits (eg ability scores, proficiencies) while keeping whatever aesthetic flavour you wanted was a good change. I'm not sure why they went back on this with One D&D/2024/ 6e / whatever.

As others have said, it's pretty standard in games I've played that backgrounds that give a feat are only available if everyone is getting a feat at level 1. Seems really odd to me that a group would be like "oh well, you didn't pick the new shiny thing, your character is worse!" I really love the current backgrounds for fleshing out a character, it's like multiple choice options for helping develop a personality for your character. Often times I find the options from the background might not match up with the character in my head, so I'll think about other aspects of their life and mix and match flaws/bonds from other backgrounds. As a GM, it's usually pretty obvious when someone hasn't done their flaws/bonds/etc because their character personality wise is either a) just the player b) the same as all the other characters they've played.

As someone who has ran a game (very luckily) for a few inconsistent years now, I started each of my characters with a bonus feat to stop only having Variant Humans and honestly have never looked back. A Feat at Character Creation is sometimes enough to help someone differentiate their character and really hone in on their specific look or feel they're going for. For example, I have a few players that enjoy making the same classes with very different vibes. This approach allows much more customization without just forcing them to play something they wouldn't enjoy. Now I could ban Variant Humans, Backgrounds that give Feats, and anything else if I wanted to. But I've learned no matter how strong a player thinks they are, they almost always get in way over their head and I give them as much rope as they need. My balancing tends to answer the players power with power, they fight stronger foes rather than me tell them that they can't use a background.

Our group plays free feat at level 1 with the caveat that you cant stack level 1 feats from different sources, usually my go to for backgrounds are finding something with an expanded spell list so I dont have to multiclass for 1 spell. Funny enough the only background I did feel like I should ask my DMs permission for was noble, I wanted to be sure he was ok running 3 npc retainers that were tied directly to me. Personally I also mix and match personality traits flaws and bonds from different backgrounds to flesh out my character (why are all guild artisan flaws so obsessed with money?)

In Adventurer's league, they allow characters that have a background without a feat take either tough or magic initiate. I do agree that I like the personality traits as part of the background.

I like that level one feat list from the OneDND test. They are a curated subset of all the feats that exclude those that are particularly powerful (ie. anything with "expert" or "master" in the name).

I like how PF2e backgrounds work - They almost all give one feat (I think pretty much always a skill feat relating to the skill they give you), one skill proficiency, one lore skill proficiency, and two attribute increases one free choice and one choice of two. ...And I haven't played D&D since 3.5e so I don't really have any opinion on how they work in 5e.

Hold on now, I'll have you know my Urchin background Warlock holds the record for the Trans-Barovia Corpse Carry. Ain't no one moved a corpse across City of Barovia faster thanks to her knowledge of the city streets. Did have to take a shortcut through a family's lawn but that's the price of success bay-be!

I haven't run enough/ the type of games to ever consider this before (I've only run pickup one shots at the library for teens) but definitely worth considering if I find enough people for a campaign! Thanks for your thoughts and analysis!

My groups typically do a free feat (including myself for my own game). we like this because in general we enjoy overpowered games but also we find it helps flesh out the characters more. Some of the DM's have no limits on what can be taken, some do - like myself. First level free feats are limited to the more flavor-centric, where there might be some mechanical advantage (learning languages, etc.) but no major like combat-advantage. So feats like tough, observant, etc. are the more common in the group i DM; though after that beyond asking they try to keep things at least vaguely narrative-supporting, I don't limit feats. Backgrounds are really fun to play around with imho. And I know people complain about the 'oh you did all this stuff but are starting a level 1 adventurer' but even the official backgrounds kind of support that. With backgrounds (feats included or not), it's ultimately the DM's job to either adjust the campaign or talking to their players about tuning it to something that works more realistically within the setting. I know a lot of DM's started doing the free feats at first level to also help encourage players not to just play variant humans each time just so they can get a feat. It lets folks play other types of characters without having to play a specific race/ancestry just to accomplish that; so they're no longer sacrificing flavor/narrative over mechanics.

I think level 1 feats are a must. I think having so few feats is really restrictive. I love giving my characters level 1 feats and extra feats peppered through the campaign as rewards when a level up isn’t appropriate yet but they do something really big (I use milestone leveling)

I usually use backgounds as story material, given that players are most likely to want to play something that their character already cares about. So there is a main arc and there are character arcs. More they supplament each other, the better. Plus, it gives players a chance to cowrite the story.

As a GM I've always included feats at level 1 in 5e, and it never had to do with balance in my mind. I first started playing during 4E when I was like 11, and only started playing 5e when I was around 20, and I missed the sheer variety of difference between every player character. For me, including 1st-level feats was a way to help encourage that difference by providing an opportunity for players to choose something that makes their character feel a little bit more distinct from the get-go without having to wait until 4th level AND sacrifice an ASI. I especially encourage more mundane or backstory-oriented feats, like linguist for a character specializing in languages. Was never about game balance and more about making every character feel more distinct, which is something 5e can struggle with RAW imo!

So, the Spelljammer book in the Background section states "If a character takes a background from elsewhere and doesn’t get a feat from that background, the character gains one of the following feats of the player’s choice: Magic Initiate, Skilled, or Tough." - so much like Dragonlance, in a Spelljammer campaign all backgrounds are designed with the intent everyone gets a free feat and i think 'everyone gets one' is the way to go so I'm fine allowing the 'with feat' ones with the proviso anyone who picks another will get a free feat too Tho when I DM'ing my current spelljammer campaign I houseruled it that everyone got a free lvl1 feat anyways - with the proviso it wasn't one that included a stat increase - this was like someone else said to discourage everyone using variant human and to pick from the weird and wonderful races available, and it's also made the lower level game more interesting as players all picked feats that they maybe wouldn't have usually picked but also had ones tied into their backgrounds (the player from a knightly house took tough, the monk trained in healing arts took Healer, the swashbuckling bard took defensive duellist etc) and they seem to be having fun with it For backgrounds before I always ended up taking one that that a 'ribbon' feature that I could use in-game, mostly as I admit I didn't play in a lot of RP heavy games, but now I do i find i still go for the option with a mechanical use as hey I can always RP the other stuff - so I'm all in favour of the inclusion of feats as a starting feature going forward in the 2024 handbook :)

Hi Mike. I actually give my players two feats at first level. One is custom and is based on their concept for their character in my setting. I have them talk me through their character and I create a feat based on that. They also can pick a second feat without ASI that helps provide character identity. I provide feats because I feel 5e lacks character customization and I want to encourage players to think of how their character is unique. Its pretty cool, because I have a cleric of the moon who can cast hold person on Lycanthropes and a fighter who can use a bonus action with a greatsword to whirl around and deal an extra 1d6+dex to an additional creature. I have a bard who wanted to be able to sing to woodland creatures. Absolutely! I create a feat that says you can make a performance check and neutral beasts that can hear you may treat you as a friend, potentially leading you to spots of interest, or simply staying by your side for company. Lateral customization, so to speak.

I love backgrounds because of the skills and tools, I like tools because I like being creative with them like with my Ranger I took the outlander background and replaced the language and instrument with the Herbalism kit and the Woodcarvers tools so she could make her own arrows and potions/herbal remedies because it worked for the character that's lived in the woods with her two older siblings who were going in and out since she was really little and she learned to live with nature and eventually became the one to keep the forest base by herself once she was old enough to be left alone her brother was a fighter who would go out and often come back injured and her older sister who was a cleric (with an Urchin/Acolyte combo background) started spending more and more time at temples and away from camp so she had to start learning to look after the injuries herself she basically taught herself to use a bow and work with nature because she had so much free time we also started at 5th or 6th level so she had a single rogue level and I so I said she'd learnt the thieves tools from one of her siblings leaving them behind and her just practicing because she'd gotten bored, same with all the ranger/half elf languages, left with lots of books and lots of time to learn

Ask me how new I am to the game when I first thought the video title referred to Zoom backgrounds for online games.

I like the new background proposals with free feats included. I've been allowing a free lvl 1 feat for a long time, but I only allow a curated list of official feats or homebrewed feats. The goal of all my lvl 1 feats is to add skills or abilities that highlight the background or the PC's uniqueness. None of the features are powerful, its more RP focused. My players like choices for unique characters so it seems to work real well.

For strixhaven In my opinion it does give you more narrative flexibility because you can always say you went to it in the past as a multiverse thing or reflavor it's choices as another magical institution which fits better in setting

Backgrounds, bonds, flaws, etc. I love them, but... there is another way to play, where you characters are more of a blank slate, and their personalities and motivations develop as a consequence of the things that happen on the table. In this sense, they might feel more real to the others who experience the character develop at the table. Neither approach needs to be right or wrong. Just different nuances on how to have fun.

I think that first of all, the 5E rules are clearly based around the idea that each PC will have a background, so you sort of have to choose one, but the original 5E rules also did not contemplate backgrounds granting feats. I prefer players to build unique characters, so while the backgrounds as presented in the PHB are a good start, I make it clear that all backgrounds should be considered customizable, so long as there is a "one for one" replacement, and I think this rule is workable even for other DMs, if I am playing a PC. For instance, I really love the Sorceror/Favored Soul subclass (I use a mish-mash of the UA rules along with my own homebrew) with the Acolyte background. I'm thinking of a PC who started off in her youth as a acolyte to the priesthood of the goddess of Magic, but who ultimately decided not to enter the clergy, even though she is relatively devout. Perhaps she decides to use her awakened talents in Magic, which she sees as divine in origin (being as she is a follower of the goddess of Magic, after all), to travel the world as an adventurer in search of lost mysteries of Magic. The Acolyte background offers Insight and Religion proficiencies, but those are also both class proficiencies for the Sorceror, so let's go with Arcana from the Sorceror Class, Insight and Religion can come from either the class or the background, and that leaves one customizable proficiency slot, so let's take History. I have another character, YUÈLIÀNG Jìngzi 月亮鏡子, who is a Chinese wuxia-inspired Order of the Immortal Mystic (again with the UA rules)/Celestial Pact of the Blade Warlock dual-class with the Hermit background (as a former Taoist "nun"), who follows two twin sister goddesses (based on Xihe and Changxi, goddesses of the Sun and Moon, who are continually vying with each other for her attention), and she is a hoot to play. Her main weapons are a Chinese jian sword breaker (her Pact weapon) and gudao heavy cooking cleaver.

It's worth noting, the Dragonlance campaign stipulates that every player gets a feat, either one from the background or one from a list.

I do wish backgrounds did more as my DM doesn't use them all that much in the campaign and when we try and use them ourselves 1 character tends to go off in a chaos skit and stops us. I don't think a feat at level 1 is always the answer but maybe a passive and active trait that fits might work. The noble for example could get extra starting gold as they come from a well off family as a passive feature. And they can get advanced on persuasion, deception, insight and investigation with nobles and a noble's manor. So it's less "I'm the 4th son of the noble family such-and-such let me in" to knowing what to say, what to get, what looks out of place and what is the noble's intentions. Still situational but still more useful in more campaigns like in the video the current noble background is basically useless in strad but this active feature gives you something in that campaign.

Curious if you’ve talked about the this is your life tables from xanathar’s in context of background creation

I agree that level one feat could be kind of difficult to control, but I'm curious if you think more customization being built into backgrounds as default would be better or just more complicated for new players to learn/use? For example if backgrounds came with a list of the background features and you were just supposed to pick one rather than having that feature tied to a particular set of equipment, traits, flaws, bonds, and ideals. I also wonder about giving limited access to feats, having a level requirement like eldritch invocations currently do, allowing for more balanced choices to start out with.

i mean we talk about "writer's creativity rights being protected, with the writer's strike in Hollywood and these people saying, "my creative works shouldn't be stolen and should be mine because I wrote this....." and so on. so what's different about J.K Rowlings books?! she wrote her books her way and if you don't like it, don't buy it?! it's not rocket science people! if YOU can't handle HER opinions, then don't read HER book. like if someone doesn't like something I have to say, they don't have to read it or respond to it. taking away people free speech is never right and I personally wish Mike would stop siding with the people who are never happy about anything ever. You shouldn't have to alter your feelings because someone else CAN'T HANDLE THEIR OWN.

I think everyone should get a few HP from their background. In the short term it makes a significant difference, and in the long term, doesn't have a huge impact. It also allows zero-level play, if you want to run a 'funnel' or 'gauntlet' session.

I've seen people ban Strixhaven backgrounds. One guy literally said, "Because I hate that book." Honestly, I think people are too literal with those backgrounds. My bard has the Silverquill background but she never went to Strixhaven. In-game she just had an ecclectic magical education and even she doesn't know why she can cast Sacred Flame.

Honestly... a gigantic rollable list of all of these traits, bonds and ideals would perfectly fine. Or, work together with the GM to figure those out.

I think a lot of GMs, especially those who started playing with earlier editions, forget that a major purpose of Backgrounds is to act as sources of Inspiration. I always see inspiration used too infrequently, its an easy mechanic to forget about.

The first one that comes to mind would be the strixhaven ones but that's mainly cause it gives you spells and such. But that would fall clearly in the not fitting the setting example you gave 😅

I know that there are people who see the mechanics as the most important part and the creative process as secondary (or lower) and I'm not saying they're wrong, but I start all my process creating a character and then adding all the numbers, so erasing the traits and other stuff from backgrounds is bad, they're a helpful way to make a more believable character.

I've generally found backgrounds to be a little lackadaisical in their use across campaigns; either unused or they bypass challenges altogether (notoriously, the mentioned Outlander feature). The skills and tools, as well as equipment are all handy in their own right, but background features don't see much use, and lead to some peculiar situations in-game; if a pair of siblings are both nobles narratively but only one has the background, you're left in an awkward space (provided of course, the noble side got dropped for one). I think due to their limited scope at most tables I've seen, perhaps it could be like personality traits: pick two. It could give some good backing for concepts like a scholarly noble versus a more militarily driven one, or things like a Far Traveller / Mercenary Veteran combo. Or a craftsman acolyte. As far as feats go, I have given feats at lv1 and banned variant human as a result, and that's generally worked pretty well: standard humans having +1 to every stat can come handy. That being said, my table is a little maximalist as I generally run my own form of Gestalt, so it's personal preference to just double down on things.

Tbh I'm all in for making shit up and picking skills/proficiencies for written backstory instead of looking through ready-made backgrounds for the one that loosely fits, and background abilities is just a way to justify giving DM a headache with HEY DM IT'S WRITTEN RULES GIVE ME EVERYTHING. IMO ready-made ones are exist for new players who's not comfortable yet to make something original.

I love backgrounds, but I really need to up my game in making campaign-specific ones (like what Paizo does for their adventure paths, but for my own setting)

I don't understand the discussion, because I don't have power players in the sense of the expression. I have LARPer on my table. And those are so invested in their backstory that choosing a Background for perks is kind of insulting to them. And if they don't find a fit, it's mostly because of wording. For example I had a noble woman with amnesia and had to survive on the street. So we decided to go with the Urchin Background.

before I watch the video, I wil lsay I ban setting-specific backgrounds that break the rules on how backgrounds work. Generall speaking I ban setting specific conceits that break the rules on how things work... Dragonmarks, and Ravnica Backgrounds both qualify for this. and im sure there are others.

My favorite 3rd party example of backgrounds are the epic paths from odyssey of the dragonlords

i dont ban anything but i have a massive grudge against the strixhaven ones. Specifically the witherbloom one, which essentialy makes the wizard the everything caster. Hey remember when Wizards couldnt heal efficiently and were not designed to do that ?

I have mixed feelings about the world specific backgrounds. I think they’re simple enough to fix if you can find a way to rename them and fix with an organization in your own homebrew setting with some minor lore tweaks. They really open up a lot of interesting and exciting new build paths for PCs and I really like that part of them. However they also just don’t fit unless you put a lot of work into them without becoming derivative.

To be fair: the word "Feat" is doing a lot of lifting here, and there are two things that are implied by that name. Are the feats provided by these backgrounds actually things you would take at level up, or are they just things that make sense at level 1? If they are, yeah. I agree, those are a bit dodgy balance wise. We can all imagine how insane a background that gave you Crossbow Expert or Sharpshooter would be. If not, technically all that's happening here is this background has options, much in the same way all the different variations of "Elf" are options, but those options are called a "feat", and our brain shortcuts that to "it's more powerful than other backgrounds". It's DEFFINITLY a frustrating use of language, but it wouldn't be 5e's first encounter with that.

Backgrounds can be fun. I don't play D&D anymore but our GM has brought up my characters background a few times. Having her called a liability by wizards and an abomination by elves just shows how much thought he puts into our characters backstories. Another players character got drunk on his first adventure and the Nickname of "Drunk Guy" follows him to this day.

I prefer the ability score increase to be tied to your background over race because it shows the specific effort you put in to gain those increases rather than an innate racial thing. Decoupling asi from race also allows for more race class variations. Having multiple backgrounds that work for classes or for a few classes gives variations as well. Level 1 feats seem fine in the play test, but I'd be fine without them.

PRO: I love the Lifepath character creation process in Mongoose Traveller for a lot of reasons, so I LOVE how Xanathar's Guide added more narrative guidance to Backgrounds. I think, if I get back into DMing campaigns, I would also add the Traveller crew creation rule, linking backgrounds between PCs for an extra skill or tool proficiency (MAYBE a feat???). CON: The Soldier background. I don't have a recent or ongoing war in my mind for my homebrew world, so what army or unit or company do we go with? And I don't have any experience or understanding with military chain of command (nor do my players, usually), so how does that background's feature really work in game? And yet, it is one of the more utilitarian backgrounds, so it gets picked. Sigh. [Great video, love the conversation!]

It's already been said, but Dragonlance specifically calls out "other backgrounds" still getting feats. As does Bigby's Glory of the Giants and I imagine Planescape will as well. The list of feats is a lot larger in Dragonlance (and includes ANOTHER bonus feat at character level four, regardless of if you get an ASI or not), but in Bigby's includes tough and skilled, which are the default in the 5.5e UA for humans. I thought Spelljammer did as well, but I guess not which is weird. Following the logic of Dragonlance and Bigby's and the Multiversal UA, you should have gotten Skilled as a PHB background. Which your DM should totally add. Also, just FYI, the Squire of Solamnia feat is actually not just about being on a horse. The benefits are regardless of mounted combat. It's actually pretty solid for any martial class, and you don't have to "stick" with the knighthood. It's PBTPD advantage on attacks, and if you hit you get bonus damage. Pretty nice little boost.

No background should be banned. I'd ban spell lists as an addition to backgrounds (like the Ravnica stuff), but only ban those with feats if not everybody else gets a feat. Even then, I'd just disallow the feats and not the backgrounds their attached to, because the features might have a flavor more appropriate for a character than anything in the PHB or SCAG.

Backgrounds work soooo much better with the playtest

I'll disagree on one thing, ideals are alignment, a bit more refined and tailored by the background, but nevertheless falls into the alignment grid.

There's really no reason to ban the Ravnica backgrounds outright! It's more like the inverse of "will this DM's campaign provide a place to use your background feature" - the question is "will this DM's campaign provide an organization that would grant this background feature". The guilds often have pretty generic concepts, with general applicability, but which are distinctly flavorful. Boros makes you a soldier, and you can get rest and healing when you can find a garrison to stop at - but also, you can requisition weapons and equipment to borrow, to some DM-determined extent. Selesnya, a sort of order of spiritual animists, will also give you shelter and healing - but they'll also hide you from law enforcement, as long as it doesn't put your hosts in danger. Azorius makes you a government functionary, with the privilege of enforcing laws - though the background cautions you that you can easily get in big trouble for abusing your authority. There's a feature that lets you get the guild to provide a messenger or transportation for your party, There's one that lets you navigate ruined or abandoned urban areas and hide there, one that makes you infamous enough that people won't report your minor crimes, one that lets you know how to find information about any magical or scientific subject (though the DM determines how hard it will be to locate it or get access). It's all about whether another campaign setting has an organization that has a similar purpose and could provide one of these benefits. For instance, I was in an urban campaign, in a sort of 19th century retro-scifi setting, with a lot of the magical stuff treated like half-understood pseudoscience (though with a lot of goofy steampunk aesthetics for the more mundane elements). My suggestion was, as a character who studied technology in a university and then worked for one of the huge companies that basically run the city, I could take the Izzet background feature - based on the guild of alchemists, magical physicists, and artificers, it gives you a knowledge of the city's architecture and how to pass through and around buildings in ways that others wouldn't notice. It didn't come into play often, but it was the most fun in one particular situation, when a gangster we were trying to make a deal with was leading us to a hideout through subterranean utility tunnels - I said that because of my background feature, I should be able to easily duck around pipes and slip through narrow passages, because I have experience with these places. So this was an easy way to impress our guide, at least a tiny little bit, and the player with a warforged character was like "yeah, I'm not doing that, my character's head is clanking into pipes all the time," which is a pretty funny image alongside the characters who are deftly slipping through. By the way, I don't think it always makes sense for all the characters on Ravnica to belong to one guild, unless they're meant to always be working for a notable guild official from their guild. Each guild has a pretty narrow area of interest, and if someone from Orzhov (the uh, vampire church / bank?) needs a bodyguard, they could easily decide that a Boros soldier is the best option to scare off any threats. The Dimir pretty much always work in the shadows and behind the scenes, so if they need to intimidate someone, they could hire someone from Rakdos, who are notoriously violent and unpredictable. If a Ravnica party is initially gathered together for a specific task, I think it's great material for drama if they all come from different cults. Imagine your Boros or Selesnya PC rolling up to one of their guild's bases for shelter, and having to explain that the assassin, ruin-dwelling anarchist, and murder clown are accompanying them on an important mission and not there to cause trouble.

I see playing 5e as it has two aspects: mechanics and narrative. In my mind backgrounds make a significant contribution to the narrative aspect of playing and little mechanical impact. I also see that the vast majority of players put a significant effort into the mechanical aspect and neglect the narrative. I’m not that type of player. I prefer the narrative and use the PC’s background, alignment, etc., to inform my roleplaying and let the mechanical aspects look after themselves. I use backgrounds as guides in character creation and play. I often combine aspects of multiple backgrounds so they tie into the PC’s backstory. Connect feats to background or not, I could care less. If my PC’s backstory says that a child was raised by a Druid in a farming community, it may be reasonable to give them the animal handling feat, perhaps limited to domestic animals. I could care less about any +1 to anything because it’s a step away from the narrative. I believe most other players have the opposite opinion.

This is a good channel. I like Mike.

I dislike ideals, flaws, and bonds. I generally avoid them, but if a player wants them I don't begrudge them. In my experience, players come up with those so much easier on their own. I know I looked through the tables when I first started in 5e (having been playing D&D for almost 20 years already) and just got annoyed that they were "mandatory." But I *do* love first level feats, and the backgrounds since Strixhaven haven been much stronger and more interesting. I do, however, prefer to allow my players to make their own and this includes a "feat that makes sense", whether a "racial feat" or other. I've basically wholesale gone to the 5.5e model: Background gives you your attribute bonuses, two skills, a language and tool (I rarely allow two languages or two tools), a feat that makes sense, and 50gp of equipment. I use published backgrounds with 1st level feats when I am the player and its allowed, but if a DM doesn't allow a 1st level feat these days I am very side-eye of why. I do think adding attributes back to species with the Tasha's generic pick, and then just adding a first level feat and two skill profs to all PCs at first level (but not the class at first level because oh gods multiclass) would be "simpler" just less flavorful.

I don't expect any of the RP stuff to reappear in the 2024 and beyond backgrounds. WotC has taken the admirable goal of "don't put everyone into a box, particularly in a way that reflects real world bigotry" and used it as an excuse to provide less material overall, particularly for roleplay. The way backgrounds worked in the 2014 version of the PHB is dead and it's not coming back

I’m the opposite of you. I don’t care about bonds and flaws. For me that’s all up to me to decide so I don’t need the help. But I do love a first level feat. Give me all the feats because I think at a base we get too little. 😅

Never before have I agreed with Mike so much

If you find a DM that bans backgrounds you just know that it's going to be shit. Straight up. Lol

Recent books are 100% focused on players rather than DMs. More power, more options, more more. But less RP opportunity. No wonder this game has a "DM Crisis". Why would you want to DM a game that makes it feel like a job?

So if I got here with 1 view, am I the first view or the second view? 👀🤔

The Outlander background illustrates why some features are problematic: you can automatically "find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth." If you are playing in a campaign where wilderness survival is meant to be important, then the challenge has been undermined. If you are playing in a campaign where wilderness travel won't occur or is incidental, then the GM is likely to handwave such details anyway, so this feature is a waste. This feature is really only useful and fun if you very rarely find yourself in a wilderness survival situation AND the GM is being strict about rations and foraging. Then you get to say "aha! I can take care of this!" But how many times in a campaign will that actually happen? Something like "you have advantage on Survival checks to forage for food and water" or "when making Survival checks to forage for food and water you can find twice as many resources as normal, allowing you to feed more people, or to go longer before making another Survival check." Of course, it would help if there were more solid exploration and survival rules. Other oddities include Hermit: "The quiet seclusion of your extended hermitage gave you access to a unique and powerful discovery. The exact nature of this revelation depends on the nature of your seclusion." But if a player asked me as GM if their character could be the holder of a important secret, I'd say "that's great," not "that's great, but you'll have to take the Hermit background." And backrounds like Noble, Folk Hero, Criminal, etc., that depend on reputation or local knowledge are fine if the campaign is confined to a particular region, but become less credible if you end up half way around the world.

I hate how these changed backgrounds. Like, it was the only mechanical part of dnd that was there to influence/help with roleplay. Like, people sleep on background feats, they are very good and all can be useful in any campaign. Half of them help you get free room and board. Some provde access to free information. Pirate literally let's you steel from people and not have to worry cause the guards are too afraid of you. Backgrounds suffer from the biggest problem in DnD... NO OME READS THE FREAKING BOOKS.

My problem with the Backgrounds in 2014 is that they barely offer any rules, and are mainly just sample roleplaying prompts. I'm excited that Feats are being incorporated into Backgrounds because I want every element of character creation to offer a foundational rule, but I understand if some people think that is too much for a level 1 character. I think all of the existing roleplay elements of backgrounds should be rewritten as examples of what it means to have a specific history. If the rules didn't include any structure for Backgrounds, and my DM didn't give my former Sailor a bonus when talking to other people at a city's docks, I would be annoyed. A background should act like a keyword that connects your character to the world around you, not just a narrowly prescriptive paragraph about social interactions. And separately, I really hope they don't entirely remove the Ideals, Bonds, & Flaws from character creation in 2024. I think it should be a dedicated part of the character creation process, especially for new players who might not have a strong idea about how their character interacts with the world.