Am I The Only One Who Cares About This Sort Of Thing?

[Polyphemus]

The new Spelljammer books came out, and neither of the two new backgrounds published in them have tables for suggested personality traits, ideals, bonds, or flaws. And that bugs the hell out of me.

This is the nadir of a trend through the last few books with published backgrounds:

The Wild Beyond the Witchlight's two backgrounds didn't have individualized lists of traits, ideals, bonds or flaws, but rather had a consolidated list of them appropriate for any Feywild-themed characters, including those two backgrounds in particular.
Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft did it much the same way; neither the Haunted One or Investigator got an individual list, but one consolidated list for Horror-Themed Characters (although the Haunted One was originally from Curse of Strahd, where it did have its own list, and strangely it doesn't seem to have any overlap with any of the traits/ideals/bonds/flaws in the Horror Character lists; go figure).
Strixhaven is where it started to really get on my nerves. Five backgrounds, one for each college, each gets their own (shorter than standard) list of personality traits, even a (very short) trinket list, but that was it. Not even a token "uh, use the Sage background for everything else" line, that I could find.

And then here they just don't have them at all.
A lot of people seem much more concerned that these new backgrounds give you a feat (Magic Initiate (Cleric) for the Astral Drifter, Tough for the Wildspacer), but I've been keeping up with the UA, this really seems to be their intended game design parameters going forward for backgrounds, I'm fine with that, I even think it could make backgrounds feel more unique or more tangible from a gameplay perspective.

But it really rubs me the wrong way to not have these tables of suggestions.
And I know I can just come up with my own traits, ideals, bonds and flaws to put in those boxes, the problem is that I could always do that; I nevertheless found the suggestion tables helpful as a starting point, an inspiration, that sort of thing. And what's worse is I think they would be especially helpful with these backgrounds, where the experiences implied (especially for the Astral Drifter) are so fantastical and alien I could see where it could be difficult to get into such a different frame of mind.

...Am I alone in my frustration with this?

[JNAProductions]

I'm not with you, mostly because I didn't read those yet.

Listening to you talk about it, though, I agree. Myself, I don't need the background snippets to help define a character-but I've also been playing D&D for over a decade. But for players who DO like having those little ideas, whether to take entirely or just to springboard off of, they're hecking useful. So they should stay, in my opinion.

[JackPhoenix]

No, you're not alone. It's no secret the content and it's quality has been doing downhill for a while now.

[Greywander]

No, you're not alone. It's no secret the content and it's quality has been doing downhill for a while now.
An entirely new writing team took over a while back, and they seem to have completely different design goals. I think that's the major issue. I know some people like the new direction; many do not.

The fact is that 5e now is not the same as 5e then. The people who wrote the PHB are long gone, and the new team thinks different things are important. Things they don't think are important are falling by the wayside, as it wasn't their idea to implement them in the first place. Meanwhile, things that few people cared about before now (the people who did would likely have moved to a different system) are now the focus of attention.

It is, perhaps, overly harsh to call the new writers bad at their job. I think the changes they've made have generally been detrimental, but some people do like them, and not every new thing has been bad. What I think can be said is that they've hijacked the existing system to build a superficially similar but fundamentally different system. It's just not the same game. It's like how, say, DOTA was originally a mod for Warcraft 3, and despite running within Warcraft 3 the gameplay was fundamentally different. Now imagine the DOTA team gets hired to make the next expansion pack/DLC for Warcraft 3, and it's all DOTA style gameplay.

Also, something that just occurred to me is that the push to give feats from backgrounds might be their way of implementing the free feat at 1st level, which is a common house rule (which I like using). Locking you into a specific feat instead of a free pick might be an attempt to prevent some of the more broken feat picks at 1st level, things like PAM, HAM, CE, and the like.

[NRSASD]

Not just you! Even though I never use the tables for building player characters, or their combo of personality/bond/flaw, they’re always fun to read and be inspired by.

One of my all-time favorites was from the Ghosts of Saltmarsh book, in the Marine background: “The worse the weather, the better my mood.” Personally, I think that’s delightfully evocative.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't buy the setting or adventure books, so I hadn't noticed this. But having seen it, it irks me. Just Friday I had a player use the ones in the PHB and Xanathar's as a touchpoint for making a character. It's a great crutch for those who need help. Which is the main reason to have printed backgrounds at all, despite "custom" being the actual default here. At least in my mind.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

When 5e came out your character's features where in order of importance Class, Race, Background

I would speculate that 5.5e will have the order of importance being Class, Background, Race.

[nickl_2000]

I will be perfectly honest, I could care less about what the books suggest for Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws. I have come up with my own with the DM for every single character I've made, but being a home game with regular players it lends itself to that. I could definitely see it being a problem for AL style players.


I am WAY more ticked about giving away spell casting and feats as a background feature.

[Luccan]

I didn't know that was happening as I haven't gotten a new book in a while, but I don't like that they've stopped giving those suggestions. Suggested Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws act as a great guide to first time roleplayers and I don't think there's a benefit to dumping it entirely

[animorte]

I will be perfectly honest, I could care less about what the books suggest for Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws. I have come up with my own with the DM for every single character I've made, but being a home game with regular players it lends itself to that. I could definitely see it being a problem for AL style players.


I am WAY more ticked about giving away spell casting and feats as a background feature.

I agree. I’ve never cared for them very much, but I certainly understand it’s usefulness for some. I like taking the opportunity to get creative with a new theme all on my imagination. Though I will say we have rolled some obscene stuff before on one-shots though for the entire group.

This here thing I’ve been telling people about, power creep. I actually started to implement a class-less design style in some testing that strictly uses backgrounds as a starting point. Initially did this with Strixhaven, which is one of the worst about this exact thing.

[P. G. Macer]

Finally, someone else who gets it! I’ve been lamenting this change ever since Strixhaven came out, and I struggle to find a reason WotC is doing this which doesn’t boil down to laziness on their part. Considering backgrounds from Strizhaven onward have feats attached to them, it feels like they’re kind of asking players to sacrifice RP assistance for mechanical power, which needlessly puts roleplaying and mechanics in opposition to each other.

[Polyphemus]

An entirely new writing team took over a while back, and they seem to have completely different design goals. I think that's the major issue. I know some people like the new direction; many do not. [. . . .]

It is, perhaps, overly harsh to call the new writers bad at their job. I think the changes they've made have generally been detrimental, but some people do like them, and not every new thing has been bad.


See the thing is, when it comes to like, actual gameplay mechanics I've mostly been neutral-to-positive on them, myself?
Tasha's giving everyone floating ASIs, I like that; most of those subclasses, liked that. Strixhaven backgrounds and feats were wild, but my table's the sort where it's generally understood those would be used only for a Strixhaven (or other magical school type campaign) game anyway, but those spells were pretty neat.
Now, I do have some gripes with how some races were changed in Monsters of the Multiverse, mostly niggling things like Svirfneblin no longer having advantage on magic INT/WIS/CHA saves, only with spell INT/WIS/CHA saves, which is flatly worse than other gnomes, now, and I don't think was gamebreaking in the slightest the way it used to be, or how Duergar no longer have the dwarves' niche "your speed isn't reduced by heavy armor" rule, which, again, was admittedly niche, but provided great flavor, for me.

Y'know I think that might be the crux of it, in fact; the reason why I care about this so much is it's detracting from the flavor of things. Even if I'm not using them myself, it's always nice inspiration material, and sometimes it's just genuinely funny.


Not just you! Even though I never use the tables for building player characters, or their combo of personality/bond/flaw, they’re always fun to read and be inspired by.

One of my all-time favorites was from the Ghosts of Saltmarsh book, in the Marine background: “The worse the weather, the better my mood.” Personally, I think that’s delightfully evocative.

My favorites are the much-maligned Ravnican backgrounds. Again, it's about the flavor for me, and those are some of the most flavorful and thematically tight backgrounds in the game; my favorite being the Gruul Anarch one, which has one option in each table that's just a primal rage-scream with a parenthetical explanation of what was meant. And one of the flaws was also a gem, especially if you picked it alongside the primal rage scream ones, a flaw of "I'm not actually all that angry."


Also, something that just occurred to me is that the push to give feats from backgrounds might be their way of implementing the free feat at 1st level, which is a common house rule (which I like using). Locking you into a specific feat instead of a free pick might be an attempt to prevent some of the more broken feat picks at 1st level, things like PAM, HAM, CE, and the like.

And again I actually like this, after some thought, because then you could give backgrounds feats that are thematically compatible and only add to the flavor of the background. Like the Soldier background, sure you could give it Tough, that's fine, but maybe you could instead have that one feat nearly nobody otherwise picks that just gives you some Martial weapon proficiencies. Could make it seem less like your Wizard Soldier didn't learn a single thing in boot camp, weapons-wise. ;P

I guess what it is, is that to me, without the trait/ideal/bond/flaw table, the backgrounds just seem outright unfinished, even if they have increased mechanical importance compared to the old ones.

[Polyphemus]

Finally, someone else who gets it! I’ve been lamenting this change ever since Strixhaven came out, and I struggle to find a reason WotC is doing this which doesn’t boil down to laziness on their part. Considering backgrounds from Strizhaven onward have feats attached to them, it feels like they’re kind of asking players to sacrifice RP assistance for mechanical power, which needlessly puts roleplaying and mechanics in opposition to each other.

Apologies for double-posting, but this. I agree with all of this.

[Sigreid]

I've not been shy about voicing my complaints about the new team's direction for the game. It's why I've stopped buying WoTC's books.

Edit to add: Come to think about it, I'm not convinced anyone on the current writing team actually likes D&D.

[loki_ragnarock]

I've not been shy about voicing my complaints about the new team's direction for the game. It's why I've stopped buying WoTC's books.

Edit to add: Come to think about it, I'm not convinced anyone on the current writing team actually likes D&D.

Woof. That's a heck of an edit.

I'll buy that they don't like it as it is, or that they don't like the design goals of the edition, but D&D writ large? They aren't completely dumping everything like the 4e design team.

That said... I don't like the direction they're headed, either.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am WAY more ticked about giving away spell casting and feats as a background feature. Agreed, in spades.

Finally, someone else who gets it! I’ve been lamenting this change ever since Strixhaven came out, and I struggle to find a reason WotC is doing this which doesn’t boil down to laziness on their part. Considering backgrounds from Strizhaven onward have feats attached to them, it feels like they’re kind of asking players to sacrifice RP assistance for mechanical power, which needlessly puts roleplaying and mechanics in opposition to each other. And the stupid Krynn backgrounds.

Edit to add: Come to think about it, I'm not convinced anyone on the current writing team actually likes D&D. Crawford was on 4e team, the edition that turned a lot of people away from D&D. They are doing it again.

[Sigreid]

Woof. That's a heck of an edit.

I'll buy that they don't like it as it is, or that they don't like the design goals of the edition, but D&D writ large? They aren't completely dumping everything like the 4e design team.

That said... I don't like the direction they're headed, either.

They don't seem to like anything about it. The rules as released at release to the lore that was released 40+ years ago.

[animorte]

I'm all for the game taking alternate experimental paths, within reason. You can't make improvements if you're afraid to go in a different direction in the first place. But they also really, quite desperately need to find better ways to listen to the community.

[elyktsorb]

I've never liked the suggested, Ideals and Bonds stuff because it all feels like it's designed to direct people in a certain way, as well as discourage opposite lines of thought.

You read them and are inclined to think a character of that background should have those qualities, which I feel like you don't need. I don't think anyone needs to be told the sort of things a Soldier values for example, and by doing so you mainly just end up with people picking them and not really regarding them at all. Like, people only pick them because it says to, but then never act on those traits they picked.


Furthermore, I'm the sort of person who can't really develop a character until I've started playing them. Yes, I can give my character some sense of identity in backstory and such, but until I sit down with all the other people and interact with their characters in the world, I don't feel like defining specific ideals and such helps at all and more often hinders someone creatively.

I do eventually write in my own things for all of those as the game progresses, as my character develops, and sometimes I change them as I think is appropriate for the character. Because ideals can change, bonds can be broken, and flaws can be worked on.


I will admit it does feel quite inconsistent to not include such things though. Even if I don't care for them, it seems a bit unprofessional? It's a poor design choice for sure, regardless of what the writing team thinks of it specifically.

[NCat]

Yeah, I feel like, I don't mind if the devs feel the need to make changes or shake things up here and there, as long as its well communicated.

Like, feats in background? I think thats pretty decent, if thats the design going forward, as a way to get an extra feat from level 1. Hell, I wont be surprised if PHB 5.5 or revised or whatever it is they might release (assuming that vague statement from that livestream a while back was talking of a 5.5), says something like "At level, 1, you get a feat, 2 proficiencies, and a mix of languages or tools. If you'd like, you can choose from one of these pre-built 'Background' packages!". But, them not telling us if they are or not doing something like that isn't helpful.

I don't like the fact that it feels like the devs have been trending towards giving us less and less content per release. 5e already had a bit of a struggle I feel in terms of how slowly it released new material (at least in my mind), which was a well intended overcorrection from the mass amount of content from 3e.

Yeah, I don't like the fact that it feels like the devs are testing with each new book how much less content they can put in per release. Its already sort of become a meme to say that each new book just says "Make it up yourself", for a bunch of DM stuff, them further trending into that meme isn't something I want to see.



Because, I feel if 5e's been going this long, they should be making each thing a little bigger, a little grander. Imagine if, say, they released a new UA that said "This is how each background is designed here forth, heres how to adapt old backgrounds to this new method, and heres a sampling of some of those backgrounds updated", and then backgrounds included, from that UA forth: The new revised model, the old background flavor feature, and the tables. That'd make these ''revised'' backgrounds a much more well played out thing, an expansion, a growth on the concept, rather than a simplification that looks like them cutting corners to have to do less work to make releases.

Sorta feels lazy, like, its quicker for them to cut the tables, so they remove the tables. Easier for them to put a feat in rather than a new background feature, so just shove a feat in. Easier to say "Just make it up yourself", than provide something, or even just the tools to make it ourselves properly.

[JackPhoenix]

And again I actually like this, after some thought, because then you could give backgrounds feats that are thematically compatible and only add to the flavor of the background. Like the Soldier background, sure you could give it Tough, that's fine, but maybe you could instead have that one feat nearly nobody otherwise picks that just gives you some Martial weapon proficiencies. Could make it seem less like your Wizard Soldier didn't learn a single thing in boot camp, weapons-wise. ;P

Problem is that that way, more thematic combination (like fighter soldier) would do better to pick a different background, because extra weapon proficiencies don't matter to a fighter.

SW5e (Star Wars themed overhaul of 5e ruleset) lets you a pick one of 8 feats themed for every background. Not really combat-focused feats either.

[Cheesegear]

But it really rubs me the wrong way to not have these tables of suggestions.
And I know I can just come up with my own traits, ideals, bonds and flaws to put in those boxes, the problem is that I could always do that; I nevertheless found the suggestion tables helpful as a starting point, an inspiration, that sort of thing. And what's worse is I think they would be especially helpful with these backgrounds, where the experiences implied (especially for the Astral Drifter) are so fantastical and alien I could see where it could be difficult to get into such a different frame of mind.

...Am I alone in my frustration with this?

I like the suggestions. I am disappointed that the writing team isn't creative enough anymore. Maybe Fizban's was the last good book? ...JokingNotJoking.

I loved rolling dice on those tables, and being like 'Yep, that's my character, make it work.' and then writing a 200-400 word backstory just to make whatever I'd randomly rolled, make sense. I also liked showing new players the differences in what your character is. 'Why would an Acolyte adventure, compare to an Outlander?' ...Well, see these things?

Alternatively, the writing team might be taking 'Nobody can teach/tell you how to roleplay' a step too far, because they're including themselves in the group of people who can't teach you how to roleplay...But they're the writers...They're the creative team. If anybody could teach you how to roleplay - or at least guide you in the right direction - it should be creative, writers, who designed the concepts that they're talking about.

EDIT: For the record, I consider the most important part of your character, your Background, because your Background should inform your backstory...And your backstory is going to inform most - if not all - the choices you make when you don't know what to do.

'What should I do?'
Anything you want. What's your Background? What would that person do?
'Uhh...Soldier...Oh! I wanna find some Guards and ask questions.'
There we go.
- Oooh. I'm an Urchin. Can I find some beggers to see if they know what's going on in the street?

Aww...We're roleplaying...We're doing it!!!

[Chronos]

I'm not familiar firsthand with any of these books. But I think that the whole background/trait/bond/flaw/ideal system is the best idea in all of fifth edition, and so if they're de-emphasizing that, that's a bad thing. And for that matter, part of what made the concept of backgrounds good was that they had very little (but not quite none) mechanical relevance, which the new backgrounds are also moving away from.

And yeah, the tables of suggested traits etc. for the backgrounds were just a shortcut suggestion. But then, traits etc. are already a shortcut suggestion, to make it easier for players to put together a personality (which is the real goal). Those shortcuts are useful, for most players.

[DarknessEternal]

Those are completely meaningless. I've never even read any of them and it's a waste of materials to print them.

[Sigreid]

Those are completely meaningless. I've never even read any of them and it's a waste of materials to print them.

IMO the ideals and such are there solely to give new players who are struggling with who there character is beyond a fighter or wizard. I think it's good to have those little things there to help a new player that is having trouble getting into the role playing side of the game.

[Psyren]

I'm excited about feats in backgrounds. What worries me is they don't have the "if your background doesn't contain a feat..." language from UA, so hopefully DMs using the old backgrounds let people get one.


I will be perfectly honest, I could care less about what the books suggest for Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws. I have come up with my own with the DM for every single character I've made, but being a home game with regular players it lends itself to that.

This - and I've found that just directing people towards the larger Ideals/Bonds/Flaws list(s) in the PHB if they're truly stuck works fine anyway.

I think this could be squared by simply saying something like - "Suggested Characteristics: If you're unsure which ideal/bond/flaw to select, work with your DM to find a general background from the Player's Handbook that's similar in theme to this one, and utilize the list of ideals/bonds/flaws associated with that background."

For example, Astral Drifter works fine with the Acolyte or Hermit lists, and Wildspacer works fine with Outlander or Folk Hero.

[Corsair14]

Im with Chronos, the flaws, traits and whatever system was one of the few things I liked about 5e. I was already mad they got rid of racial negatives and Tasha's taking the race out of races and giving floating ASIs was the final nail in the coffin. Last book I bought was the Tales for the Yawning Portal and thats because of nostalgia for some of the adventures in it from 3rd. The insane power creep this new design team seems to want, marvel super-heroes as characters that have only gotten worse and so on have effectively driven me away from 5th. I will play but not run 5th and even then I dont use many of the new stupid options and go with classic designs and wont play with optimized characters or other players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This - and I've found that just directing people towards the larger Ideals/Bonds/Flaws list(s) in the PHB if they're truly stuck works fine anyway.

I think this could be squared by simply saying something like - "Suggested Characteristics: If you're unsure which ideal/bond/flaw to select, work with your DM to find a general background from the Player's Handbook that's similar in theme to this one, and utilize the list of ideals/bonds/flaws associated with that background."

For example, Astral Drifter works fine with the Acolyte or Hermit lists, and Wildspacer works fine with Outlander or Folk Hero.

But when they redo the PHB, it's a fair bet (not a certainty, but...) that they'll redo the existing backgrounds to match the new style.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO the ideals and such are there solely to give new players who are struggling with who there character is beyond a fighter or wizard. I think it's good to have those little things there to help a new player that is having trouble getting into the role playing side of the game. Oh yes, very much yes. And I use them as a point of departure for fleshing out my back story, even as a grizzled veteran.

Those are completely meaningless. I've never even read any of them and it's a waste of materials to print them. As above, for new players and old, it's a nice tool but it doesn't constrain a player; I have a lot of players write in their own stuff.

I'm excited about feats in backgrounds. We hates it forever, precious! :smallfurious:
What worries me is they don't have the "if your background doesn't contain a feat..." language from UA, so hopefully DMs using the old backgrounds let people get one. The Devs' and authors need to be thorough, and give every background a feat, going back to the original backgrounds. They are being {censored} lazy in not doing so, just as they were so lazy in not adding the ranger spells (like in Xans) to the Hunter and Beast Master. (long rant about sloppiness is now excised)


This - and I've found that just directing people towards the larger Ideals/Bonds/Flaws list(s) in the PHB if they're truly stuck works fine anyway. Yes.

[nickl_2000]

We hates it forever, precious! :smallfurious:

I don't hate the idea of a feat as part of a background, that idea is fine with me. I hate the some backgrounds have feat, some backgrounds have spells, and other have a small RP based feature that may never come up. I just want consistency.

[Psyren]

We hates it forever, precious! :smallfurious:

May I ask why? This seems like a great way of giving feats at first level. Even a feat-less game might be okay with you getting one this way. (Or at the very least, treating the feat as a background feature whose text just happens to be elsewhere in the book.)


The Devs' and authors need to be thorough, and give every background a feat, going back to the original backgrounds. They are being {censored} lazy in not doing so, just as they were so lazy in not adding the ranger spells (like in Xans) to the Hunter and Beast Master. (long rant about sloppiness is now excised)

I want every background to have one too, as PP said this is highly likely to happen in 5.5. They'll revise the PHB when they revise it.

[Sigreid]

I don't hate the idea of a feat as part of a background, that idea is fine with me. I hate the some backgrounds have feat, some backgrounds have spells, and other have a small RP based feature that may never come up. I just want consistency.

Does kind of mess things up for people who don't want to include the feats optional rule. They do exist.

[Psyren]

Does kind of mess things up for people who don't want to include the feats optional rule. They do exist.

Just think of it as a background feature that you can also pick up via feat in a game with those.

[Sigreid]

Just think of it as a background feature that you can also pick up via feat in a game with those.

I play with feats. I was thinking of Tinarii

[nickl_2000]

Does kind of mess things up for people who don't want to include the feats optional rule. They do exist.

That's a fair criticism :)

[Psyren]

I play with feats. I was thinking of Tinarii

The "you" was meant to be generic ("someone in a featless game") rather than "Sigreid."

[Sigreid]

The "you" was meant to be generic ("someone in a featless game") rather than "Sigreid."

I did know that. But I still think if someone doesn't want feats, they don't want feats. It's not that they want feats to be called something else.

[JNAProductions]

I did know that. But I still think if someone doesn't want feats, they don't want feats. It's not that they want feats to be called something else.

As someone who's always used feats, I'm curious as to why the people who don't like them or don't use them for some games choose not to.

For some people, a singular background feat might be perfectly fine in an otherwise featless game.
For others, it'd be too much.

But I'm wondering if there's a general consensus about which is which.

[diplomancer]

I did know that. But I still think if someone doesn't want feats, they don't want feats. It's not that they want feats to be called something else.

Not necessarily; they might not want the extra complexity Feats bring. This change does not increase the complexity of the game at all, as you're still only choosing one thing (your background).

As to the OP: I agree with you; taking away Traits, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws is a horrible idea. Sure, not everyone needs them. I wouldn't say I need them. But I do find them very useful to create my character's story.

I did like adding Feats to backgrounds- I believe, specially with the way feats are wildly unbalanced and how unfrequent your chances of taking Feats are, that many feats are idle rules. They exist, but no one uses them. Giving them for free in a background is a nice way to showcase these feats more.

[JNAProductions]

Not necessarily; they might not want the extra complexity Feats bring. This change does not increase the complexity of the game at all, as you're still only choosing one thing (your background).

As to the OP: I agree with you; taking away Traits, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws is a horrible idea. Sure, not everyone needs them. I wouldn't say I need them. But I do find them very useful to create my character's story.

I did like adding Feats to backgrounds- I believe, specially with the way feats are wildly unbalanced and how unfrequent your chances of taking Feats are, that many feats are idle rules. They exist, but no one uses them. Giving them for free in a background is a nice way to showcase these feats more.

I could see some basic feats (Tough, Resilient, and Skilled/Skill Expert come to mind) being fine for those who want to avoid complexity. They're just +Numbers feats, but are still impactful. You'd only ever really need to look them up when leveling, if then-it'd be easy as heck to add the proficiency marker to the save or skills, or a note on your sheet that you gain an extra 2 HP per level.

[Psyren]

I did know that. But I still think if someone doesn't want feats, they don't want feats. It's not that they want feats to be called something else.


Not necessarily; they might not want the extra complexity Feats bring. This change does not increase the complexity of the game at all, as you're still only choosing one thing (your background).

What diplomancer said.



As to the OP: I agree with you; taking away Traits, Bonds, Ideals and Flaws is a horrible idea. Sure, not everyone needs them. I wouldn't say I need them. But I do find them very useful to create my character's story.

On the one hand I wouldn't mind if they kept them there. On the other, I think there's only so many ways you can write things like "I have a family, but I have no idea where they are." (in spaaaaaace!) New backgrounds would quickly get repetitive.

As I mentioned, a good middle ground rather than dropping the tables entirely, they should just associate each new background with a couple of PHB backgrounds they take inspiration from and direct you there for bonds/flaws/ideals. Or even just a generic line about how "if you're stuck, consult the Player's Handbook." (Though realistically, everyone should be doing that anyway.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

I could see some basic feats (Tough, Resilient, and Skilled/Skill Expert come to mind) being fine for those who want to avoid complexity. They're just +Numbers feats, but are still impactful. You'd only ever really need to look them up when leveling, if then-it'd be easy as heck to add the proficiency marker to the save or skills, or a note on your sheet that you gain an extra 2 HP per level.

Personally, I think that "numbers only" feats are a design smell all told. But a small one. If we have to go down the route of sticking feats into backgrounds, I'd prefer it be limited to specific feats and I think that those are good candidates for that list.

[JNAProductions]

Personally, I think that "numbers only" feats are a design smell all told. But a small one. If we have to go down the route of sticking feats into backgrounds, I'd prefer it be limited to specific feats and I think that those are good candidates for that list.

Yee. I prefer feats that do more than just +Numbers, but they’re already there. Might as well use them.

[Phhase]

It does seem a bit....incomplete.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't hate the idea of a feat as part of a background, that idea is fine with me. I hate the some backgrounds have feat, some backgrounds have spells, and other have a small RP based feature that may never come up. I just want consistency. And along with consistency, I'd like to see the backwards compatibility, not the current case of "render PHB material moot" in their careless throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I haven't read it, but from what you say it seems to follow the the 5e trend of pretending to develop unique realms, but really everything is just a 'samey' continuum of resources where one flows into another, so in their view there is no need to fully develop a stand alone set of resources. Unfortunate.

[windgate]

Perhaps, I am the minority in this. Maybe I'm not.


for me, most backgrounds in the current game are laregly trivial and irrelevant. A character can have a significant life experience before becoming an adventurer. Yet in game, that entire experience gets boiled down to 2 skill proficiency, a few languages (or tools) and a feature that is often extremely niche and will rarely be used. The bonds, ideals and flaws are great for building a personality but it doesn't really help with demonstrating the characters prior life experience.

When I've run home campaigns Ive struggled with trying to create impactful non-violent custom NPC's. You don't have much to go on until you choose a PC class. The PC's might choose to explore around a setting looking for NPC's to help solve an issue, but outside of pre-exiting knowledge, at later levels they are unlikely to be any better (mechanically) than the players. I have a buddy who wants to find a crafting focused class but you need to turn to homebrew for that. Crafting could be a background feature but it generally isn't (excluding cook). Heck they could devote an entire chapter to background professions.

A character can have an entire childhood of being taught by his family how to hunt for food (nature and survival skills). It almost feel like that entire lifetime of experience and knowledge is matched the moment a character picks up a bow and declares themselves a ranger.

I wish the original backgrounds went a bit further and applied some of the weaker feats instead of just a list of proficiencies. Something along the lines of the prodigy feat (or a single cast if one specific spell once a day under specific conditions). Expertise doesn't often break much in combat (exceptions being things like grappling). but it helps showcase your background when roleplaying.

A person who was raised by a family of hunters and was later trained as a ranger should be slight more gifted in a relevant skills than someone who only received the class training. A person who has a hobby or interest should be able to be really good at that hobby regardless of their class and ability scores. The +6 (max) proficiency bonus applied to a d20 is not really impactful.

Case in point, when I first read the acolyte background I was surprised that you weren't granted a cleric cantrip. I would think a devotion to the church would get you at least a partial 1st level feature from a divine magic class.

People come up with interesting origin ideas for their characters all the time but it feel that they are often forced to multiclass to express them. It seems like a missed game design space.

[nickl_2000]

And along with consistency, I'd like to see the backwards compatibility, not the current case of "render PHB material moot" in their careless throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Yup, I don't care if consistency means no feats/spells or all get feats/spells, but they should all be the same. Frankly, I'm all for an optional rule to give previous backgrounds feats or a power spike of some sort, just don't make it so I don't want to choose a hermit because it sucks compared to other options.

[Polyphemus]

I don't like the fact that it feels like the devs have been trending towards giving us less and less content per release. 5e already had a bit of a struggle I feel in terms of how slowly it released new material (at least in my mind), which was a well intended overcorrection from the mass amount of content from 3e.

Yeah, I don't like the fact that it feels like the devs are testing with each new book how much less content they can put in per release. Its already sort of become a meme to say that each new book just says "Make it up yourself", for a bunch of DM stuff, them further trending into that meme isn't something I want to see.
(Emphasis mine)
This! This is my recurring frustration with things in the last two or three books; I'll like a lot, even most of it, but then in a few crucial areas, they throw me an "I dunno, you make the call" at me and it's frustrating. Like, yeah, I could do that, I can always do that; but I bought this book to see what you would say about it!
Like the Radiant Citadel book that came out a couple months ago, I actually really, really like some of the settings of those adventures, I thoroughly enjoyed the Gazetteer sections; but then with the Written in Blood adventure, the Gazetteer describing its setting, Godsbreath, went on at several points about the importance of the local pantheon of five gods that banded together to protect and guide this population of people, emphasized how important these five gods were to this culture and its people. And naturally, I was curious to learn more about these five gods. I love getting to know that good, good Lore.
And then it told me, "This local pantheon is for you to define and might include gods appropriate to your campaign's setting or deities unique to Godsbreath."
And that was perhaps the least helpful answer possible, outside of referencing them vaguely and then not even giving me that sentence of non-answer! Yeah, obviously I'm gonna tweak it to fit my setting if I'm incorporating this adventure into my own setting, but if I'm just having Godsbreath be its own thing, what are your five gods of this covenant?!
And that's not even touching the whole "this is another culture I'd be portraying and I don't want to do it poorly by picking or coming up with gods that are inauthentic to that cultural setting" aspect of it, which I shan't go into further because that's a hot potato of a subject on its own

Like I liked it when Eberron did this sort of thing, but I think it's because Keith Baker and company would have some event happen, like the Mourning, and be like "Wow, who do you think did this, and why? How?" Whereas asking me to come up with the pantheon which is the keystone of a culture is a much bigger ask, to me. It feels like Eberron's handing me questions in search of an answer, whereas this is more like trying to play Mad Libs, but the other guy, instead of asking me for adjectives or nouns, just hands me the pad and pencil and tells me to just outright read it and fill it out myself as I please. Or, instead of a Mad Libs pad, hands me a blank notebook and tells me to come up with a Mad Lib, but also fill in the spaces as I go.
I dunno, clumsy analogy, sorry. :smalltongue:


Because, I feel if 5e's been going this long, they should be making each thing a little bigger, a little grander. Imagine if, say, they released a new UA that said "This is how each background is designed here forth, heres how to adapt old backgrounds to this new method, and heres a sampling of some of those backgrounds updated", and then backgrounds included, from that UA forth: The new revised model, the old background flavor feature, and the tables. That'd make these ''revised'' backgrounds a much more well played out thing, an expansion, a growth on the concept, rather than a simplification that looks like them cutting corners to have to do less work to make releases.

Sorta feels lazy, like, its quicker for them to cut the tables, so they remove the tables. Easier for them to put a feat in rather than a new background feature, so just shove a feat in. Easier to say "Just make it up yourself", than provide something, or even just the tools to make it ourselves properly.
That hypothetical UA sounds like a gift from on high. Complete transparency with their game design philosophy, with at least as much if not more content. Goodness.


Problem is that that way, more thematic combination (like fighter soldier) would do better to pick a different background, because extra weapon proficiencies don't matter to a fighter.

SW5e (Star Wars themed overhaul of 5e ruleset) lets you a pick one of 8 feats themed for every background. Not really combat-focused feats either.
Ah, see, with my hypothetical solution there it would be a choice; don't get Martial Weapons but you want at least a few you're proficient with? Grab that one; if you already have it, grab Tough instead.
Or be like a post-Tasha's Mountain Dwarf Fighter and pick up like a bunch of extra Tool proficiencies with it, I guess?
But then I guess you get into the trouble of "Well, why do the old backgrounds get a choice of a couple feats, when the Wildspacer only ever gets Tough?!"
C'est la vie, I guess.

[Fralex]

Oh, there's a new writing team? I wonder if this explains why the Ideals, Flaws, and Bonds they were giving adventure NPCs suddenly started feeling like they were being written by someone who'd forgotten how those things were defined in the PHB. I'd look at the descriptions and find myself thinking, that's not an Ideal, that's a Bond! But the thing they put down as a "Flaw" actually IS an Ideal! What's going on here?

[DeadMech]

I've always hated the suggested traits included in backgrounds. Bland and generic. And while they might be useful to someone who's never ever heard of roleplaying before you kinda sort of have to read the players handbook to get started and it already goes over this stuff. I have faith the average person jumping in can figure it out themselves. This late into the game's life cycle existing players buying new supplemental should be well familiar with the whole deal and well beyond needing that sort of crutch.

[Azuresun]

Perhaps, I am the minority in this. Maybe I'm not.


for me, most backgrounds in the current game are laregly trivial and irrelevant. A character can have a significant life experience before becoming an adventurer. Yet in game, that entire experience gets boiled down to 2 skill proficiency, a few languages (or tools) and a feature that is often extremely niche and will rarely be used. The bonds, ideals and flaws are great for building a personality but it doesn't really help with demonstrating the characters prior life experience.

That's actually what I like about it.

The more mechanical impact a background has, the more there will be a Best option for any given character, that chokes out the sort of unusual combinations that are great for building character. You had a cool idea for an Urchin Fighter? OK, but your character is objectively weaker than if you'd picked Soldier or Sailor or whatever.

[Chronos]

Yeah, a lot of players want some way to represent on their character sheet "I used to be a _____ before I became an adventurer". In previous editions, a lot of folks did that by giving their character a one-level dip before they started their "real" class, but that carried very steep opportunity costs with it, and almost always made your character worse. Backgrounds were great: Everyone gets one, so you're not choosing a background instead of something else, but they had little enough impact on the rest of your build that it didn't matter if you picked the "wrong" one (unless, of course, a Guild Artisan situation, or whatever, came up in your game, but if something like that comes up, it's usually because you chose to make it come up, to capitalize on your background).

Now, though, we're back to the same situation when folks took one-level dips, except that we call the first level of wizard "Strixhaven student", or whatever. You either take the "right" background, or you pay a mechanical penalty for choosing to be outside of the usual mold.

[Polyphemus]

On the one hand I wouldn't mind if they kept them there. On the other, I think there's only so many ways you can write things like "I have a family, but I have no idea where they are." (in spaaaaaace!) New backgrounds would quickly get repetitive.

As I mentioned, a good middle ground rather than dropping the tables entirely, they should just associate each new background with a couple of PHB backgrounds they take inspiration from and direct you there for bonds/flaws/ideals. Or even just a generic line about how "if you're stuck, consult the Player's Handbook." (Though realistically, everyone should be doing that anyway.)
Alright for the Wildspacer, that's more than fair enough to point out, a lot of the entries on the tables that should be there would probably read as a blend of the Sailor and/or Marine backgrounds with an in spaaaaaace! coat of paint. Though as I've said elsewhere in the thread, a lot of the time the tables were just fun and funny to read in and of themselves, or when you find a fun little pop culture reference hidden in one of them.
Hell, if I was going to make my own table set for these backgrounds, one of the Traits for the Wildspacer would probably be "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe."

What I think is less excusable is the Astral Drifter. Sure, the Acolyte and Hermit backgrounds are probably a good starting point, but what sticks out so much more to me is how much time you've potentially lost adrift in the Astral Plane. Up to 120 years, so if you're a human you may well have spent more time in the Astral Plane than you ever did in the Prime Material. So on top of having high-fived God that one time, your sense of time and existence in the Prime Material could be entirely warped, and I think the hypothetical Personality Traits table, at least, should've reflected that, on top of a possible "man out of time" angle and the socio-cultural shifts that could've happened while your character was away.
Things like, "I often forget I have to eat again, now," or "I get offended by people complimenting my 'retro' fashion choices", that sort of thing. It doesn't take much, honestly.
Makes me wonder why the creative writing team apparently found it so difficult!
And again, I know it's a small thing to get tied up about, but it just bugs me, y'know? Like if they didn't bother to make the full array of tables, it almost feels like they didn't give the background their full amount of effort, at least flavor-wise.
That's what's killing me, is that I'm in the group here that's open to, perhaps outright supportive of, the a-thematically-appropriate-feat-as-part-of-your-background thing, I just don't like that the enhanced mechanical rigor has seemingly made the flavor less of an apparent priority.
Though having said that, a common theme over in the thread discussing the Spelljammer books as a whole seems to be that these books are surprisingly lacking in Lore, in general? Is this just part of that wider trend?