Backgrounds, traits, ideals bonds...

[Invader]

Am I the only person who really dislikes having all this personality stuff included with the crunch on my character sheet? Granted I haven't really got into the game yet but it all feels unnecessary to me. Is there some benefit im missing outside of its good for people that can't manage a backstory?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Am I the only person who really dislikes having all this personality stuff included with the crunch on my character sheet? Granted I haven't really got into the game yet but it all feels unnecessary to me. Is there some benefit im missing outside of its good for people that can't manage a backstory?

Yes. Yes you are.

Seriously, I like it. While I can make my own backstories, the system lets me get the character down in bullet points, which are all you really need to roleplay. In addition, they are closer to guidelines than anything else, and I have made characters with bits of several backgrounds in 5E. Best example: A Paladin with the Guild Artisan background. He comes from a very hierarchical nation, and was born into the crafting class (a brewer actually). However, he uses several of the Soldier and Hermit personality features because he left to fight in a war, and then went on a solo religious pilgrimage to atone for his crimes. I think one of his flaws is outright not in the book, but rather something my DM came up with.

So yes. There is a good reason for the Backgrounds. Actually play the game before rushing to judgement.

[Giant2005]

Yes. Yes you are.
Nope, he isn't alone in noticing the flaws of that particular system.
It basically boils down to one of two different issues:
1. You make a character with a fully fleshed out backstory and then have to spend an hour pointlessly sifting through the options in the book to find the listed backgrounds/traits etc that best fit the concept you have already established OR
2. You use the system in place to quickly choose your character's quirks and forgo the standard, fully fleshed out character that you would ordinarily have.

The first outcome pointlessly wastes your time and the second results in faster character gen but a character so sparse in detail that you probably wasted your time generating that character in the first place. Neither outcome is good.

[Invader]

Yes. Yes you are.

Seriously, I like it. While I can make my own backstories, the system lets me get the character down in bullet points, which are all you really need to roleplay. In addition, they are closer to guidelines than anything else, and I have made characters with bits of several backgrounds in 5E. Best example: A Paladin with the Guild Artisan background. He comes from a very hierarchical nation, and was born into the crafting class (a brewer actually). However, he uses several of the Soldier and Hermit personality features because he left to fight in a war, and then went on a solo religious pilgrimage to atone for his crimes. I think one of his flaws is outright not in the book, but rather something my DM came up with.

So yes. There is a good reason for the Backgrounds. Actually play the game before rushing to judgement.

But you didn't answer my question, what good are they for if I'm capable of fleshing out my own character and don't need the bland guides given in the book? It just feels like rules are trying to dictate personality.

I can see the benefit to people who can't come up with a story on their own or who don't want to spend the time but for the options it gives you it doesn't really add anything very flavorful imo.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Nope, he isn't alone in noticing the flaws of that particular system.
It basically boils down to one of two different issues:
1. You make a character with a fully fleshed out backstory and then have to spend an hour pointlessly sifting through the options in the book to find the listed backgrounds/traits etc that best fit the concept you have already established OR

There's, like, 9? 11? How hard is it to just pick what's closest? As for the Traits/Flaws, why can't you make your own? The ones in the PHB cover a good swath of options, but you could also make them up whole cloth, alongside your DM.


2. You use the system in place to quickly choose your character's quirks and forgo the standard, fully fleshed out character that you would ordinarily have.

The first outcome pointlessly wastes your time and the second results in faster character gen but a character so sparse in detail that you probably wasted your time generating that character in the first place. Neither outcome is good.

"Fully Fleshed Out Character"? "Sparse in Detail"? I...:smallfurious:

Okay, rage has subsided. If you can't roleplay, don't blame the system. Sparse in Detail is the blank page you are supposed to fill in as you play. The Background system isn't meant to create some sort of super-detailed backstory. It provides bullet points for you to base the broad strokes on. I could make a Rogue - Soldier whose Personality is Resents Authority, and Haunted by memories, whose Flaws could be cannot admit fault (ala "I was just following orders") or unreasonable hatred for enemies.

And then once I have those, I am free to ask "Why"? Why is this character this way? What happened in their history to make them the character they are today? Did a bad order lead to a tragic ambush or horrific slaughter (Charge of the Light Brigade, anyone?)? Is that why he dislikes authority figures? Is that the memory that wakes him in the middle of the night in a cold sweat? Is he in denial about this? Is that why he cannot admit to what happened? Maybe he was an officer and felt responsible? Maybe he carried out a massacre on faulty information? If he's in denial, does he blame others for this failure? Does he blame the enemy? Perhaps too much so?

Answering those questions gets me an interesting, fleshed out character it might be fun to play. And since it doesn't take too long I can create it alongside my DM, making sure when I don't have access to a world setting I can still create a character that fits in the world and plays well.


But you didn't answer my question, what good are they for if I'm capable of fleshing out my own character and don't need the bland guides given in the book? It just feels like rules are trying to dictate personality.

I can see the benefit to people who can't come up with a story on their own or who don't want to spend the time but for the options it gives you it doesn't really add anything very flavorful imo.

It provides a solid base from which you may expand a flat character into one with depth and character. If you can already make a fully fleshed out character, just pick the closest thing to it for mechanics, and then make up some bullet points so your DM can reward you for playing your character either living up to their ideals, living down to their faults, or rising above them.

[Madfellow]

Nope, he isn't alone in noticing the flaws of that particular system.
It basically boils down to one of two different issues:
1. You make a character with a fully fleshed out backstory and then have to spend an hour pointlessly sifting through the options in the book to find the listed backgrounds/traits etc that best fit the concept you have already established OR
2. You use the system in place to quickly choose your character's quirks and forgo the standard, fully fleshed out character that you would ordinarily have.

The first outcome pointlessly wastes your time and the second results in faster character gen but a character so sparse in detail that you probably wasted your time generating that character in the first place. Neither outcome is good.

You don't have to use the traits provided in the book. Those are only examples.


But you didn't answer my question, what good are they for if I'm capable of fleshing out my own character and don't need the bland guides given in the book? It just feels like rules are trying to dictate personality.

I can see the benefit to people who can't come up with a story on their own or who don't want to spend the time but for the options it gives you it doesn't really add anything very flavorful imo.

Having them on the first page is helpful if you're running a game with pre-gen characters. It can help spark some RP ideas and serve as a jumping-off point, without being binding about it. They can also help the GM decide when to award Inspiration to a player.

[Giant2005]

And then once I have those, I am free to ask "Why"? Why is this character this way? What happened in their history to make them the character they are today? Did a bad order lead to a tragic ambush or horrific slaughter (Charge of the Light Brigade, anyone?)? Is that why he dislikes authority figures? Is that the memory that wakes him in the middle of the night in a cold sweat? Is he in denial about this? Is that why he cannot admit to what happened? Maybe he was an officer and felt responsible? Maybe he carried out a massacre on faulty information? If he's in denial, does he blame others for this failure? Does he blame the enemy? Perhaps too much so?

I hadn't considered this which would be a third option that I haven't experienced before.
If a player isn't imaginative enough to be able to create an in-depth character on his own, then those bullet points could very well be of assistance to him.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I hadn't considered this which would be a third option that I haven't experienced before.
If a player isn't imaginative enough to be able to create an in-depth character on his own, then those bullet points could very well be of assistance to him.

It's also helpful as a seed of inspiration for more experienced players. I've found myself in some games having no idea what to play (fluff-wise) simply because I had too many ideas. The bullet points really help narrow down what you want to play.

[Invader]

Thats the thing though. I'm playing a druid and there's nothing in any of those lists that I'd pick for my character, especially the backgrounds. They're especially limiting as far as creativity and when you're adding mechanical bonuses I don't think how they combined the two works well. It's not just a case of just changing stuff so it fits your story either. If they wanted to do that they should have just had a big list of mechanical benefits and said pick X amount to go with your character.

[eastmabl]

You don't have to use the traits provided in the book. Those are only examples.


And you don't have to stop at the traits either. As a DM, I have my players write a background - having a background and some traits to start with makes the whole process easier.

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Thats the thing though. I'm playing a druid and there's nothing in any of those lists that I'd pick for my character, especially the backgrounds. They're especially limiting as far as creativity and when you're adding mechanical bonuses I don't think how they combined the two works well. It's not just a case of just changing stuff so it fits your story either. If they wanted to do that they should have just had a big list of mechanical benefits and said pick X amount to go with your character.

Well, what is your character's background? I mean the one you wrote yourself? Maybe we can help? It'd be fun for everyone.


And you don't have to stop at the traits either. As a DM, I have my players write a background - having a background and some traits to start with makes the whole process easier.

How much of the original Backgrounds do you keep while doing that? I'm curious because I like to DM, and anything that helps get the players invested is always welcome at my table.

[Cyan Wisp]

Thats the thing though. I'm playing a druid and there's nothing in any of those lists that I'd pick for my character, especially the backgrounds. They're especially limiting as far as creativity and when you're adding mechanical bonuses I don't think how they combined the two works well. It's not just a case of just changing stuff so it fits your story either. If they wanted to do that they should have just had a big list of mechanical benefits and said pick X amount to go with your character.

You might be super-creative and be brimming with character back stories and traits that would make people weep at their beauty. If so, please share, because I love to get inspiration from all sorts of places!

I'm a fan of backgrounds, ideals, flaws and bonds. By combining several, they give me ideas I might never have had. The possibilities are vast, even with the er, "bland guides", as you call them. Can you give us an example of what would not be "bland", just so we understand each other? :smallsmile:

My first 5e character was just cobbled together from the Basic Rules as an exercise (high elf, rogue, acolyte, church toadie, zealot tendencies) and I was very excited at how quickly ideas began to flow after this: his history unfolded, scenes from his life flashed in my mind. I dearly want to play this guy now, and he was just a character-building exercise to become familiar with the rules. That is thanks to the Background, ideals, bonds and flaws section.

Why don't you share your concept and we can help find/adapt a good fit. I am fascinated. :smallcool:

[Hytheter]

Ideals, Bonds and Flaws don't have any mechanical impact whatsoever. They are just things that people (and characters) generally have. They're included in the character creation section to give players a scaffold to build their characters upon. If you're fine with that then there's nothing lost from skipping that section.

The backgrounds are similar. They give ideas and guidelines on how to build your character fluff. The mechanical stuff might conflict with what you want, but that can be easily customised - it's not just me saying that either, it's right there in the PHB.

[hymer]

Ideals, Bonds and Flaws don't have any mechanical impact whatsoever.

They're supposed to be the way to communicate to your DM when you should get Inspiration, though. That's mechanical.

[Mandrake]

Thats the thing though. I'm playing a druid and there's nothing in any of those lists that I'd pick for my character, especially the backgrounds. They're especially limiting as far as creativity and when you're adding mechanical bonuses I don't think how they combined the two works well. It's not just a case of just changing stuff so it fits your story either. If they wanted to do that they should have just had a big list of mechanical benefits and said pick X amount to go with your character.

I am also really interested in what you have in mind that cannot be covered by any of these backgrounds, even if you refluff the crunch and just take the benefits. Just call your Hermit an institutionalized lunatic, it works just as fine. Also, I am of opinion that many DMs would allow background changes and replacements with sensible ideas. Finally, maybe we will have background generation rules in DMG.

I cannot be against something that:
1 Helps new players get into the game and shows them that there is more than class description and abilities to their characters.
2 Allows your background story and character ideas influence your character in a special way.
3 Is, finally, customizable and optional, up to a great digree (even if we only allow flaws and ideals and bonds to be chnagable, as they are).
4 Helps any player keep his compas with who his character is (or what is becoming of him) through the course of play or after long pauses in sessions.

EDIT: Just to add on it - your background is not necessarily everything your character is or ever was. It's just one aspect of him. You are encouraged to go beyond what is described (sometimes even by questions in the background description you yourself are to answer about your character).

[Mandrake]

They're supposed to be the way to communicate to your DM when you should get Inspiration, though. That's mechanical.

I don't think that any DM really writes down what your exact ideal is and only gives inspiration out when you exactly match that one sentence. During game, we all learn who each of our characters is, and anyone can see beyond that one basic description. It is only a start, the same way skills don't cover all you can do.

[hymer]

I don't think that any DM really writes down what your exact ideal is and only gives inspiration out when you exactly match that one sentence.

Neither do I, nor did I say so (though I'd make sure to have a copy of the PCs sheets, for this and many other uses; and I'd probably be a tad miffed if the DM did not interest himself in my PC's personality). However, the text on Gaining Inspiration explicitly mention these things:


Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way.

[Mandrake]

Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way.

But I can see we agree on it. :smallwink:

[Invader]

I guess my point is if I have to refuff everything to get my desired result anyway what's the point of having the suggestions in the first place aside from those who are to lazy or unimaginative to come up with their own story. The entire set of rules/mechanics whatever you want to call it seems like it should be a foot note in the dmg and not part of necessary character creation.

[Madfellow]

I guess my point is if I have to refuff everything to get my desired result anyway what's the point of having the suggestions in the first place aside from those who are to lazy or unimaginative to come up with their own story. The entire set of rules/mechanics whatever you want to call it seems like it should be a foot note in the dmg and not part of necessary character creation.

I don't understand why this seems to bother you so much. People who may need or want the backgrounds are not lazy or unimaginative. People who don't need or want them are not diligent or inspired. If you are in the latter category, that's great for you. You can do whatever you want. You can ignore that corner of the sheet entirely. If someone else happens to like it, don't act like someone is taking something from you (like space on your character sheet) or insulting your RP skills (by suggesting that you need them).

The background shows up on the front of the sheet in order to help people and to reinforce the importance of RP. That's it.

[MaxWilson]

I guess my point is if I have to refuff everything to get my desired result anyway what's the point of having the suggestions in the first place aside from those who are to lazy or unimaginative to come up with their own story. The entire set of rules/mechanics whatever you want to call it seems like it should be a foot note in the dmg and not part of necessary character creation.

Feel free to write up your personality without using the PIBF framework. I frequently just write a paragraph-long personality sketch.

[Tenmujiin]

The background shows up on the front of the sheet in order to help people and to reinforce the importance of RP. That's it.

Basically this. Backgrounds are not only completely customisable (there are guidelines to creating new ones IN THE PHB) they also help those who may otherwise have only vague ideas about what they want to play AND they encourage players that may tend towards murder-hoboism to actually think about what type of person their character is even if just for the mechanical benefits.

Given what you say of your character I'm sure you can use the extremely easy guidelines on creating your background from scratch. Paraphrased strait from the PHB:

Chose 2 skills and 2 tools or languages, use the equipment given by one of the backgrounds or buy your equipment with the starting gold variant. Write a background feature based on your back-story or just use one the the pre-made ones.

Optionally, write 5ish sentences that summarise your character's personality (2 for personality traits, 1 for each of the others). You don't even have to use the same numbers, my current character has 3 flaws written down.

The other benefit of having the backgrounds section is that it can help to refine a broad character concept, my current character started as 'Dwarf Pirate Tempest Cleric' and ended up as an easily and relatively quickly fleshed out character thanks to the inspiration the section gave me. It didn't really help flesh out my character any more than normal but it did speed up the process immensely.

The biggest benefit mechanically though is allowing 1/2 of the average character's skills to be based on back-story rather than being restricted to the class skill list, while still sticking to RAW.

[Daishain]

Some people choose to use the framework, others might use it as a source of inspiration (for what they do or do not want their character to be associated with), others are likely to ignore it completely.

I'm inclined to think that the people in the first category are probably limiting themselves, but there's nothing really wrong with any of these approaches, and the backgrounds do no harm to those who want to go their own way.

[Joe the Rat]

I just use the one on p.125. It covers most concepts well. And if you're putting that much nuance into backstory, cooking up features shouldn't be a burden. Mind you, this is a better exercise for both player and DM, as this is where you can work on tying the character into the world... or the world into the character.

These things are only a limiter if you do not let your self go beyond what is presented.

[Slipperychicken]

Thats the thing though. I'm playing a druid and there's nothing in any of those lists that I'd pick for my character, especially the backgrounds.

The suggested personal characteristics are "roleplaying suggestions", not hard rules. This is on page 125, under "Suggested Characteristics". You are not required to use any of the suggested characteristics.



I can see the benefit to people who can't come up with a story on their own or who don't want to spend the time but for the options it gives you it doesn't really add anything very flavorful imo.

You aren't restricted to existing backgrounds. If none of them fit, PHB 125 explicitly allows you to tweak existing ones or create a new one, and it even gives you guidelines for doing so.

[Galen]

At least it's better than the backstories you see in 3.5 games. As anyone who ever played 3.5 can attest, in that system a backstory is more often than not nothing more than a laundry list for all your character's classes and abilities.

"So, he was an apprentice mage who was always fascinated by Beholder magic and obsessed with gaining their power. Using a cunning trick, he asked his master to polymorph him into an Elan ..." , and it quickly deteriorates from here.

[Slipperychicken]

At least it's better than the backstories you see in 3.5 games. As anyone who ever played 3.5 can attest, in that system a backstory is more often than not nothing more than a laundry list for all your character's classes and abilities.


That's not fair at all.

Sometimes we had templates too :smalltongue:

[Galen]

That's not fair at all.

Sometimes we had templates too :smalltongue:

... but his master turned out to be a vampiric werebear and bit him instead?

[MadGrady]

... but his master turned out to be a vampiric werebear and bit him instead?

I'd allow this. Best backstory ever.

In 5e turns I guess this would just be a variant acolyte background

[Magic Myrmidon]

I haven't played 5e yet. Nor looked at the rules, so... this is just a comment on similar situations in RPGs.

I'm always wary of mechanics that are too closely tied into fluff. In fact, almost any mechanics that are intrinsically tied to fluff. I hate that class skills in 3.5 are so strict, for instance. Many concepts for a sorcerer could include so many skills. It doesn't make sense that being born with magic in their blood would make it impossible (or at least more difficult) to study religion (indeed, they might turn to that to try to find why they have magic).

That being said, if a game is created specifically to match a setting (such as Legend of the 5 Rings) it can be a bit better, since that's the goal in the first place.

The problem might be that strictly fluff-based mechanics are kinda strange for D&D, since the rules are often used for any fantasy setting. In the end, it's really a common point that players disagree on. Some players love mechanics to be intrinsically tied to fluff, which leads to intuitive rules that should make sense immediately. Some players, on the other hand, enjoy rules that can be bent to fit anything, which allows for more creative interpretations of the framework, but cause some rules to be wonky in practice.

[Madfellow]

I haven't played 5e yet. Nor looked at the rules, so... this is just a comment on similar situations in RPGs.

I'm always wary of mechanics that are too closely tied into fluff. In fact, almost any mechanics that are intrinsically tied to fluff. I hate that class skills in 3.5 are so strict, for instance. Many concepts for a sorcerer could include so many skills. It doesn't make sense that being born with magic in their blood would make it impossible (or at least more difficult) to study religion (indeed, they might turn to that to try to find why they have magic).

That being said, if a game is created specifically to match a setting (such as Legend of the 5 Rings) it can be a bit better, since that's the goal in the first place.

The problem might be that strictly fluff-based mechanics are kinda strange for D&D, since the rules are often used for any fantasy setting. In the end, it's really a common point that players disagree on. Some players love mechanics to be intrinsically tied to fluff, which leads to intuitive rules that should make sense immediately. Some players, on the other hand, enjoy rules that can be bent to fit anything, which allows for more creative interpretations of the framework, but cause some rules to be wonky in practice.

What Backgrounds do is they give you skills and languages/tools that specifically aren't tied to your class. The personality traits they come with are only suggestions.

[Slipperychicken]

... but his master turned out to be a vampiric werebear and bit him instead?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Br8f7qaIcAEClzd.png

Before you ask, the source is a webcomic called Axecop

[Daishain]

At least it's better than the backstories you see in 3.5 games. As anyone who ever played 3.5 can attest, in that system a backstory is more often than not nothing more than a laundry list for all your character's classes and abilities.

That has not remotely been my experience. Of course, I was also careful to avoid players that were more interested in power-gaming than role-playing.

I understand the appeal of the ridiculous combinations you could manage with 3.5. I've rolled up enough of such characters and had a blast doing so. But so far as I'm concerned, if you can't make a background for it that doesn't sound like bad fan fiction, it doesn't get played in a serious game.

[Galen]

that doesn't sound like bad fan fictionThat's the crux of the issue though - what's "bad". I actually had someone try to convince me the above-mentioned Beholder Mage story was very creative, and was "proof that you can play a powerful class and still have a good backstory". In reality, this backstory didn't even reach the benchmark of bad fan fiction. It wasn't in fact fiction at all, it was just a retelling of the mechanical steps needed to make a Beholder Mage

After several such experiences, forgive me if I'm a bit jaded at people's ability to judge what exactly constitutes bad fan fiction. I think D&D 5E did this exactly right - your backstory is tied to the way you RP your character, not to a laundry list of its powers. The couple of skills are a nice bonus.

[Likantropos]

Funny thing... The best character I had in 5e so far had a randomly rolled background. It was an improvised one-shot, so no one bothered with writing any backstories, we just rolled for it. My char was a guild artisan with greed as his ideal, "I would kill to have a noble title" as a flaw. "That's cool" I thought, and by the end of the game performed two face-heel turns in a row and took over a dragon cult we were trying to destroy.

[AugustNights]

As a player that likes to write cumbersome character backgrounds and fill up pages with history, quirks, and motivations I responded very similarly to the fluffy bits of backgrounds, the mechanics side of being able to have a criminal fighter with stealth and things is nice. But I thought I'd never use the traits/quirks/flaws.
Then I realized how handy they are to quickly sum up a character's baggage and potential actions. They make great points of reference.

[Daishain]

After several such experiences, forgive me if I'm a bit jaded at people's ability to judge what exactly constitutes bad fan fiction. I think D&D 5E did this exactly right - your backstory is tied to the way you RP your character, not to a laundry list of its powers. The couple of skills are a nice bonus.
I'm not sure what differences you expect this edition's approach to make. No matter what version of D&D you play, who your character is now is bound up in their past. Details of how they learned/gained prominent features are likely to be particularly defining moments.

The people who made the mistake of treating their backstory as a laundry list are liable to either make the same exact mistake in this edition, and/or have a character devoid of critical details in their history. I have a hard time deciding between the two as to which is worse.

The only advantage 5E has in this context is the relative lack of weird origin possibilities. (mom's a nymph, dad's a dracolich with a bit of frost giant mixed in, and I got bitten by a vampiric wereferret in my crib) But that just tends to make bad story-writing less obvious, it doesn't fix the issue.

[Sartharina]

Nope, he isn't alone in noticing the flaws of that particular system.
It basically boils down to one of two different issues:
1. You make a character with a fully fleshed out backstory and then have to spend an hour pointlessly sifting through the options in the book to find the listed backgrounds/traits etc that best fit the concept you have already established OR
2. You use the system in place to quickly choose your character's quirks and forgo the standard, fully fleshed out character that you would ordinarily have.

The first outcome pointlessly wastes your time and the second results in faster character gen but a character so sparse in detail that you probably wasted your time generating that character in the first place. Neither outcome is good.
Or 3:
1. You make a character with a fully fleshed-out backstory then quickly jot down the defining personality options and traits to make the character you want because the book's list is explicitly not exhaustive.

Seriously - it's not hard. And, it gives an excellent way to make awesome builds you come up with into characters when you start drawing blanks.

[Magic Myrmidon]

What Backgrounds do is they give you skills and languages/tools that specifically aren't tied to your class. The personality traits they come with are only suggestions.

That's not too bad, but again, it's a preference thing. I'd rather be told "Here's all the skills. Every character gets 6 of them (or varying numbers based on class). Choose whatever works for your character" As opposed to "Here is this list of skill packages. Each one fits a skillset that common archetypes should have."

I get numerous reasons why people would like the second option. It lets a more cohesive skillset come together more easily without some strange outcast skills, and it allows for an easier way to balance skill access. But, in my experience and opinion, the tradeoff is freedom of character concept. Sure, you can refluff that "criminal" background to be "secret agent", but what if that criminal background doesn't have Knowledge (nobility), when your assassin of political figures should really know who his target is?

Yes, I know that cooperation between the DM and player could let a player trade a skill or something, but relying on that is very risky. I know I've had my share of stingy or old school DMs who don't want to touch the rules for various reasons.

[MaxWilson]

That's not too bad, but again, it's a preference thing. I'd rather be told "Here's all the skills. Every character gets 6 of them (or varying numbers based on class). Choose whatever works for your character" As opposed to "Here is this list of skill packages. Each one fits a skillset that common archetypes should have."

Great! Because that's what 5E tells you. See the section on "Customizing backgrounds", just before it gives you the ten example backgrounds. You can mix and match skills and features from any background in the book, or make up a new one.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Great! Because that's what 5E tells you. See the section on "Customizing backgrounds", just before it gives you the ten example backgrounds. You can mix and match skills and features from any background in the book, or make up a new one.

Oh. Well, awesome. Teaches me for talking about something without actually reading the thing, huh? Thanks for explaining that.

I need to actually pick up a copy sometime soon. >.>

[Madfellow]

I need to actually pick up a copy sometime soon. >.>

One of us! One of us!

[Galen]

Oh. Well, awesome. Teaches me for talking about something without actually reading the thing, huh? Thanks for explaining that.

I need to actually pick up a copy sometime soon. >.>
As an aside note, this forum for some reason has a lot of complaints about 5E from people who never played 5E nor read the books. I wonder why that is so.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Probably because of the problem I know I have: Being used to how you've been playing the game already, and being overly critical of anything that doesn't immediately seem to match what you want out of a game. I know that I immediately begin to form a negative opinion of a game when I hear one small thing that MIGHT be something I could be irritated with.

It's a problem, I know, I'm working on it. :p

[Slipperychicken]

Funny thing... The best character I had in 5e so far had a randomly rolled background. It was an improvised one-shot, so no one bothered with writing any backstories, we just rolled for it. My char was a guild artisan with greed as his ideal, "I would kill to have a noble title" as a flaw. "That's cool" I thought, and by the end of the game performed two face-heel turns in a row and took over a dragon cult we were trying to destroy.

I have had similar experiences. My best characters (that is, those most satisfying to play) tend to be made for one-shots. I think it's easier (for me at least) to add depth and meaningful character-flaws when I'm not taking things so seriously.

[Giant2005]

As an aside note, this forum for some reason has a lot of complaints about 5E from people who never played 5E nor read the books. I wonder why that is so.

It is just a perception thing.
Your brain focuses more on the people that say they haven't played the game and yet are still posting about it so it seems like a significant number but in reality, you likely only see about 1 of those posts for every 50 or so posters.

[Slipperychicken]

As an aside note, this forum for some reason has a lot of complaints about 5E from people who never played 5E nor read the books. I wonder why that is so.

Complaining about the content of books (and other media) which one has never read is a time-honored human tradition, dating all the way back to antiquity. So I wouldn't blame this forum in particular for carrying on this truly ubiquitous practice.

[Kaeso]

Am I the only person who really dislikes having all this personality stuff included with the crunch on my character sheet? Granted I haven't really got into the game yet but it all feels unnecessary to me. Is there some benefit im missing outside of its good for people that can't manage a backstory?

I love it. I love it.
I'll compare it to 3.5e. Imagine wanting to make some kind of assasin. You were practically forced to play a rogue for an effective assassin. Now, EVERY class can be an assassin. Just pick the criminal background, get stealth as a skillset you're proficient in and boom! You can have a Rogue-Assassin who's the classical assassin as meant to be played, you can have a fighter assassin who sneaks around and hit things with his massive sword, a wizard-assassin etc. etc. It gives you extra skills and proficiencies to show that not everything you can do has to be related to your class. You can have a sneaky paladin who believes in minimizing casualties when he brings down justice (perhaps a former thief who atoned and now uses his sneaky skills for good?), you can have a monk with an academic twist (maybe he considers the martial arts to be something scientific rather than mystical, and studies his art like a scientist would study nature?) etc. etc.

It just adds a whole new element to your characters and affects the crunch, but not enough to the point where it's overpowering. You'll never hear anyone say "the noble background is OP" because it isn't. It's just another layer you add to your character.

EDIT: As for the ones who feel they are limited by the backgrounds, I think the PHB explicitly states that you can make up your own backgrounds and the skills/proficiencies that come with it in agreement with your DM. So if none of the backgrounds fit what you had in mind, just create a new one with your DM. Or don't pick one at all, if you want to go that route.