book of many things background feats

[da newt]

Is it just me or are the new background feat options just terrible power creep? Free LUCKY or ALERT at player creation (with very good proficiencies) is silly.

The options of magic initiate, skilled, or tough were bad enough, but this is borderline egregious.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it just me or are the new background feat options just terrible power creep?

Yes. The book is banned at my table.

[Mastikator]

Yeah I don't like it, and ban backgrounds that give feats. I'd rather just give everyone a free feat at level 1 if that's something players want (and is appropriate for my campaign). IMO the temptation of a free feat is too strong and has a corrosive effect on roleplay since it effectively removes most backgrounds (and player choices) from available options.

[Amnestic]

I would assume/hope that any games in which feats give benefits (whether that's spell lists or feats) would be universally available/applicable to all characters, so even if it's 'power creep' everyone is crept equally.

[da newt]

"I would assume/hope that any games in which feats give benefits (whether that's spell lists or feats) would be universally available/applicable to all characters, so even if it's 'power creep' everyone is crept equally."

If I understand what you're getting at, no only some backgrounds grant feats and their benefits (much like only VHuman and Custom Lineage grant 'free' feats), but also yeah every Player has the option to choose the juiced-up backgrounds or races in order to gain 'extra' feats so I guess that makes it fair?



I can't speak for every table/group but Adventurer's League allows Players to choose the new backgrounds with ALERT and LUCKY or other non-feat granting backgrounds also get to add magic initiate / tough / skilled, and all Players can choose VHuman or CL in order to have 2 feats at level 1 for minimal cost. Personally, I don't like the power creep, but that's just my personal preference. There isn't enough of a cost for these added benefits to balance with the other races and backgrounds IMO. It's almost uncommon to see PCs that don't start w/ CL and a half feat for 18 in their primary STAT and a second bonus feat too. The grumpy old dude in me doesn't like that ...

[Skrum]

I can't speak for every table/group but Adventurer's League allows Players to choose the new backgrounds with ALERT and LUCKY or other non-feat granting backgrounds also get to add magic initiate / tough / skilled, and all Players can choose VHuman or CL in order to have 2 feats at level 1 for minimal cost. Personally, I don't like the power creep, but that's just my personal preference. There isn't enough of a cost for these added benefits to balance with the other races and backgrounds IMO. It's almost uncommon to see PCs that don't start w/ CL and a half feat for 18 in their primary STAT and a second bonus feat too. The grumpy old dude in me doesn't like that ...

I agree; I really hate TCL - and I think a feat at first level should be a universal rule! I just hate that it gets attached to a particular race option. Especially as bland and uninspired as "Custom Lineage."

If I were to run my own game/table, banning vhuman and TCL and giving everyone a bonus feat at first would be literally the first rule I'd implement.

I'm not a fan of backgrounds giving feats. Feats are so significant and of varying value to each class, I just feel like it's gonna end up like "all barbarians are pirates" and "all wizards are merchants," just to pick up the mechanically optimized feat.

[Psyren]

Is it just me or are the new background feat options just terrible power creep? Free LUCKY or ALERT at player creation (with very good proficiencies) is silly.

The options of magic initiate, skilled, or tough were bad enough, but this is borderline egregious.


Yes. The book is banned at my table.

Not only will all of these be level 1 feats in the new PHB, but Lucky, Alert, and Magic Initiate all got buffed relative to 2014.

[Blatant Beast]

Why are there Background options in this product?

I saw the higher priced alt cover package in a local game store, and I thought it was more a Goodman game style product, in which one receives a physical Deck of Many Things with a new expansion, and a book that detailed the history of the Book of Many Things.

The impression I received was the ‘history’ being talked about was the actual design history similar to the Goodman Game series….
…..but apparently there are creature statblocks and PC Backgrounds, as well?

What is this product? (I am confused, and now a little intrigued)

[Dr.Samurai]

Not only will all of these be level 1 feats in the new PHB, but Lucky, Alert, and Magic Initiate all got buffed relative to 2014.
2014 Level 1 Alert: +5 Initiative, Can't be Surprised, Unseen enemies don't have Advantage against you
1D&D Level 1 Alert: +2 Initiative, You can swap Initiative with an ally

How is this a buff??? You have to be level 13 in 1D&D to match the Initiative bonus the 2014 Alert gives you at level 1. And you're not immune to Surprise, and don't gain the benefit against Invisible enemies.

Same with Lucky. It's only a buff once you reach level 9, but also it never gives you Super-Advantage, so is it even a buff?

Seems EXTREMELY generous to call these "buffs".

[lall]

In 5.5, the background feature is replaced with a first level feat, so this appears to be in line with that. For 5.5, I’ll just go customized background and take whatever first level feat I want. But yeah, I suppose if you’re sticking with 5.0, one could consider these two backgrounds OP’d.

[DarknessEternal]

2014 Level 1 Alert: +5 Initiative, Can't be Surprised, Unseen enemies don't have Advantage against you
1D&D Level 1 Alert: +2 Initiative, You can swap Initiative with an ally

How is this a buff???.

Because it makes you go first every time. It could be -100 Initiative and you'd still go first every time.

It is never a penalty to have your team decide who gets to go first even if it makes someone on your team go last. It is only an advantage, an enormous one.

This is one of the strongest feats ever printed. I say this with decades of experience in RPGs that already had this mechanic.

[diplomancer]

The ship has sailed. With Strickhaven I believe, though one could make the argument that it started leaving port with Ravnica. Either ban all recent backgrounds, or let people who choose PHB backgrounds to choose from a curated list of feats. When you're curating your list, take it into account that, so far, from most of the feats that have been given, though some of them are quite powerful, none is "build-defining", and none are half-feats. I'd still leave those to V. Human and Custom Lineage.

[Mastikator]

Because it makes you go first every time. It could be -100 Initiative and you'd still go first every time.

It is never a penalty to have your team decide who gets to go first even if it makes someone on your team go last. It is only an advantage, an enormous one.

This is one of the strongest feats ever printed. I say this with decades of experience in RPGs that already had this mechanic.

First among allies. And only if they agree. If an enemy rolls 2 higher than anyone in the group then they go first and if they are attacking from stealth then you are surprised. In 2014 you might still go first if they ambush you from a hidden position. That is some spiderman level stuff.

[Psyren]

What DarknessEternal said.

As for Lucky, it's on par as early as 5, before pulling ahead at 9.

[Dr.Samurai]

Because it makes you go first every time.
If an ally agrees.

So you lose more than double the bonus to Initiative, and now it requires that you delegate an ally to take a lower spot to make sure you're high up on the order (assuming someone rolls high).

And you can still be surprised.

If you get to the be the star every time and others agree to move down the Initiative order for you, more power to you.

It is never a penalty to have your team decide who gets to go first even if it makes someone on your team go last. It is only an advantage, an enormous one.
No one put forth it was a penalty.

You could do this kind of stuff without a feat in previous editions. Gutting the feat and adding this feature in is shrug-inducing.

This is one of the strongest feats ever printed. I say this with decades of experience in RPGs that already had this mechanic.
Seems like it would be annoying to have someone plead to swap places every time.

You want to use your feat for a +5 bonus to Initiative? Awesome. You want to use your feat to harass everyone else to go lower on Initiative so you can move up in Initiative? Not so awesome.

@Psyren: Lucky just grants Advantage, so it can't be on a par with the old version.

[GooeyChewie]

Seems like it would be annoying to have someone plead to swap places every time.

At our table, when we playtested this feat, we had a discussion at the start of the adventure about who needed to go early in the order and who needed to go late. It made the conversations a lot easier when it came time to roll initiative.

[DarknessEternal]

At our table, when we playtested this feat, we had a discussion at the start of the adventure about who needed to go early in the order and who needed to go late. It made the conversations a lot easier when it came time to roll initiative.

Yes, you pick the perfect order every time. It's busted.

[GooeyChewie]

Yes, you pick the perfect order every time. It's busted.

I won't deny that swapping initiative is very handy. But I wouldn't call it picking the perfect order every time, nor would I say it is busted. I suppose if enough members of your party take the feat, you can choose the order within your own party. But that's a fairly significant investment, and it doesn't let you bypass the enemy initiative.

[Amnestic]

Yes, you pick the perfect order every time. It's busted.

Just wait until the DM starts deploying NPCs who have it :)

[Dr.Samurai]

At our table, when we playtested this feat, we had a discussion at the start of the adventure about who needed to go early in the order and who needed to go late. It made the conversations a lot easier when it came time to roll initiative.
Yeah that makes sense. But given all of the opinions on the best way to approach combat, I can see this being an issue at some tables.

Yes, you pick the perfect order every time. It's busted.
Are you assuming that everyone grabs this feat?

[Dork_Forge]

Yeah backgrounds have been disgusting powercreep ever since Ravnica, they made a huge mistake adding mechanical power outside of skills into them.

As for the whole new Alert thing:

It's not an upgrade at all. It's a complete downgrade and considering that they made it a 1st level feat, I'd assume their intention was to nerf it. likewise, if something is based off prof bonus and you need to be 9th or higher for it to even be equal to the original, it isn't better. Higher level D&D isn't common enough to make that matter regardless of what the duration per level is on paper.

As for the whole Alert thing:

Saying it let's you always go first or choose the initiative is like when folks say that the Peace Cleric let's everyone share one big HP pool, it just isn't true. The new Alert gives you flexibility with initiative, but you aren't going first unless you have an ally who wins initiative and wants to let you take their place. Heck, you can't even say you can choose your own team's initiative unless multiple party members take the feat.

It just isn't as good as being claimed here and it certainly isn't better than the existing Alert.

[lall]

Won’t be taking 5.5 Alert. Avoiding surprise was the main draw.

[Kane0]

Yeah nah, I cant say i'm a fan of free feats at level 1 either tied to background or no. I'm totally in favor of everyone being able to trade their +2 for a feat though.

[Amnestic]

Yeah backgrounds have been disgusting powercreep ever since Ravnica, they made a huge mistake adding mechanical power outside of skills into them.

Serious question but aside from the 'tradition' of "what we already had from 2014", what's the difference between
"This background gives you two skills of your choice"
and
"This background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list"

Either way they're tying power to your background.

I can understand wanting backgrounds to not have anything save for your chosen feature (even if Outlander is typically better than all the rest of them), but I don't see the argument for "Two skills from background GOOD, two skills and feat from background BAD".

Ravnica's background spell lists were bad because they benefited spellcasters but not non-spellcasters, causing an inherent imbalance in it, unless everyone in the game was a caster (which, granted, probably not hard to do in 5e). The feats? Eh.

[P. G. Macer]

Serious question but aside from the 'tradition' of "what we already had from 2014", what's the difference between
"This background gives you two skills of your choice"
and
"This background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list"

Either way they're tying power to your background.

I can understand wanting backgrounds to not have anything save for your chosen feature (even if Outlander is typically better than all the rest of them), but I don't see the argument for "Two skills from background GOOD, two skills and feat from background BAD".

Ravnica's background spell lists were bad because they benefited spellcasters but not non-spellcasters, causing an inherent imbalance in it, unless everyone in the game was a caster (which, granted, probably not hard to do in 5e). The feats? Eh.

I suspect it’s that while all books with feat-granting backgrounds tell the DM to allow PCs with non-feat backgrounds a free 1st-level feat, in practice those books usually limit said bonus feat for the OG backgrounds to Skilled and Tough, two of the most mediocre feats in the game, so even if the playing field is nominally leveled, in practice the background-granted feats are the superior choice.

Fun Fact: the BoMT’s Ruined background is particularly egregious in that in can grant Alert at 1st level, even the Dragonlance module, which grants bonus feats, limits that particular feat to 4th level at the earliest.

[GooeyChewie]

Serious question but aside from the 'tradition' of "what we already had from 2014", what's the difference between
"This background gives you two skills of your choice"
and
"This background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list"

Either way they're tying power to your background.

I can understand wanting backgrounds to not have anything save for your chosen feature (even if Outlander is typically better than all the rest of them), but I don't see the argument for "Two skills from background GOOD, two skills and feat from background BAD".

Ravnica's background spell lists were bad because they benefited spellcasters but not non-spellcasters, causing an inherent imbalance in it, unless everyone in the game was a caster (which, granted, probably not hard to do in 5e). The feats? Eh.
"This background gives you two skills of your choice" isn't inherently bad. "This background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list" isn't inherently bad. But when you have both "this background gives you two skills of your choice" and "this background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list," the latter is clearly more powerful. Thus, power creep.

[Rukelnikov]

I consider 2014 Alert and 5.5 Alert to be more or less equal in power, Lucky though? that's been nerfed hard.

[Psyren]

Won’t be taking 5.5 Alert. Avoiding surprise was the main draw.

5.5 Surprise is very different; it's just advantage/disadvantage on the initiative roll, no more inability to take actions or reactions on your first turn. 2014 Alert's surprise immunity is thus no longer necessary.

[lall]

Ah, thanks Psyren. So the 5.0 trick of elf (trance) + Alert to avoid surprise in 5.5 is just elf. I didn’t see Aspect of the Moon in any of the 5.5 stuff.

[tokek]

Is it just me or are the new background feat options just terrible power creep? Free LUCKY or ALERT at player creation (with very good proficiencies) is silly.

The options of magic initiate, skilled, or tough were bad enough, but this is borderline egregious.

It’s pretty clearly designed with the new edition in mind and balanced to that.

It’s a bit strong for most 5e games

[Amnestic]

I suspect it’s that while all books with feat-granting backgrounds tell the DM to allow PCs with non-feat backgrounds a free 1st-level feat, in practice those books usually limit said bonus feat for the OG backgrounds to Skilled and Tough, two of the most mediocre feats in the game, so even if the playing field is nominally leveled, in practice the background-granted feats are the superior choice.

Fun Fact: the BoMT’s Ruined background is particularly egregious in that in can grant Alert at 1st level, even the Dragonlance module, which grants bonus feats, limits that particular feat to 4th level at the earliest.

I guess it's pretty stupid to have some backgrounds give better feat options than others.

You'd think they'd just go "this background gives these skills and this feat" with a list of alternative feats elsewhere in the section, encompassing all options - since customising your background is a baseline rule.


"This background gives you two skills of your choice" isn't inherently bad. "This background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list" isn't inherently bad. But when you have both "this background gives you two skills of your choice" and "this background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list," the latter is clearly more powerful. Thus, power creep.

Well, yeah, but power creep isn't inherently bad so long as it's equal and healthy. Is a character more fun with a bonus feat at 1st than one that isn't? The prevalence of the houserule existing - and the changes the designers have made - suggests it's a change that the playerbase is generally favourable on.

Power creep is inevitable as more options get added to the game. Outside of scrapping everything post-PHB, it's all power creep, so while I do get the criticism of how this seems to have been implemented precisely, background feats existing? Not inherently bad.

[Blatant Beast]

I guess it's pretty stupid to have some backgrounds give better feat options than others. .

We do not have to guess….we know this from D&D’s own history.
What is happening now with Backgrounds is what happened with 2e’s Kits, the Kits that offered the most or best advantages were the Kits that were selected.

Eventually the fan base assumed the power floor was those favored Kits.

The first massive benefit Kits gave was broadening the availability of Weapon Specializations beyond Single Classed Fighters. Bye Bye Single Classed Fighters…you have been power crept out.

After that, ridiculously powerful Kits are developed, along side comparatively pathetic Kits. To sell more books…TSR keeps adding more power…until we get to the Skills and Power books at the end of 2e.

The Bladesinger, entered D&D as a Kit, of course. It was overpowered in 2e, and some feel the subclass is overpowered today.

Plus ca change….

[Dork_Forge]

Serious question but aside from the 'tradition' of "what we already had from 2014", what's the difference between
"This background gives you two skills of your choice"
and
"This background gives you two skills of your choice plus one feat from this list"

Either way they're tying power to your background.

You seem to be equating feats with two skills as the same, which is baffling to me.

I have two issues with this, maybe technically three:

1) Then changed the design part-way through the edition. So most(?) backgrounds just give you the skills and feature, then you have a chunk that also give feats. Given the cost and relative scarcity of feats in 5e, it makes it hard to justify not taking a background with a feat and is basically punishing those that choose a background that actually fits their character. (Yes, I know often the books those backgrounds come in include 'offer these feats at first!' but they're typically a narrow list of PHB feats that are just lower in power, or at least flashy power.

2) Backgrounds should be who you were before you were an adventurer. Having some skills to represent that fits and is a nice 'explanation' why you have some skills that may be atypical for your class. In contrast, a lot of the time the feats are often more who you are now, shoe-horning into design space it had no place to be in. Playing Dragonlance and you're a member of a knight's order? Well that should be your past, but the intended feat tree associated clearly says otherwise.

3) It will always lopsidedly benefit spellcasters because they threw their hands in the air and not only made pretty much everything spells, but added them to the spell list if you're a caster.


I can understand wanting backgrounds to not have anything save for your chosen feature (even if Outlander is typically better than all the rest of them), but I don't see the argument for "Two skills from background GOOD, two skills and feat from background BAD".

The core of the issue is that they felt the need to attach setting-specific buffs to an existing part of character creation for some moronic reason and so created asymmetrical options.

They should have just had a setting specific rule for whatever feats they wanted, same with the added spells. That way the power creep stays setting specific, like the added systems for the greek setting and the Dark Gifts, and doesn't bleed into general character creation like it has done.

Because there will always be tables that just allow all player options, either not caring or not prepared for the result, but ime rarely do they just allow DM-facing rewards from the settings to just be player chosen outside of those settings.


Ravnica's background spell lists were bad because they benefited spellcasters but not non-spellcasters, causing an inherent imbalance in it, unless everyone in the game was a caster (which, granted, probably not hard to do in 5e). The feats? Eh.

The issue wasn't just asymmetrical benefit, it also eroded what class identity and balance there was within spell lists too. Shield obviously wasn't designed to be taken easily by characters with good AC, in the PHB only the Eldritch Knight can really do that unless a Sorc/Wizard spends a lot of investment into armor feats. Class/subclass features obviously aren't designed to interact with spells they shouldn't even have access to, it's the whole point of needing to know something as a spell for that feature's class, but they undermined that with Ravnica backgrounds.

Oh and new options does not need to mean power creep, defaulting to that thinking is just giving designers a free pass to not care about their own balance.

[Psyren]

Look, if you want to ban feats in backgrounds do so, and if you want to allow them do so. Just be consistent about it - don't let some players get free Magic Initiate or Lucky while others are stuck with jank like Rustic Hospitality or extremely vague things like Discovery. (You got... something. Work with your DM to figure out what.)

For me, the modern design of not only allowing feats in backgrounds but actual rebalancing background feats so they're reasonably aligned in power at 1st-level, is the way to go.

[Dork_Forge]

Look, if you want to ban feats in backgrounds do so, and if you want to allow them do so. Just be consistent about it - don't let some players get free Magic Initiate or Lucky while others are stuck with jank like Rustic Hospitality or extremely vague things like Discovery. (You got... something. Work with your DM to figure out what.)

For me, the modern design of not only allowing feats in backgrounds but actual rebalancing background feats so they're reasonably aligned in power at 1st-level, is the way to go.

I think a feat at first is great, I just don't see why WotC has to attach it to backgrounds instead of just adding a build rule, that's all.

Though, personally, I think feats should be divided into two categories. Major and minor. Major are the power feats, minor are stuff like Linguist and the non stat part of Keen Mind, whenever you get an ASI, you also get a minor feat. This would mean people would actually get to build out their character mechanically more in the not as crunchy ways, whilst still getting to take stat bumps and power feats.

[Rukelnikov]

I think a feat at first is great, I just don't see why WotC has to attach it to backgrounds instead of just adding a build rule, that's all.

I agree.


Though, personally, I think feats should be divided into two categories. Major and minor. Major are the power feats, minor are stuff like Linguist and the non stat part of Keen Mind, whenever you get an ASI, you also get a minor feat. This would mean people would actually get to build out their character mechanically more in the not as crunchy ways, whilst still getting to take stat bumps and power feats.

Then call that something else, like in 2e, there were weapon proficiencies and non-weapon proficiencies, with the idea originally being the former help you in combat, the latter help you outside of combat, as the edition evolved they all ended up helping in combat though... But originally at least, there was a clear division of intent.

[Psyren]

I think a feat at first is great, I just don't see why WotC has to attach it to backgrounds instead of just adding a build rule, that's all.

Strictly speaking they didn't - but if doing so makes more people think about the narrative/backstory implications of their starting feat than simply giving a naked starting feat would have, I personally consider it a worthwhile approach.

[Amechra]

Oh and new options does not need to mean power creep, defaulting to that thinking is just giving designers a free pass to not care about their own balance.

The thing is that power creep is inevitable because of a fun little quirk, where the average power level of all the options in the game is lower than the average power level of the options people actually take. As a result, if you're a designer who wants people to play with the cool new stuff you made (or, more cynically, your livelihood depends on people buying whatever new book you made), you're going to start designing new stuff that targets that higher power average... which inevitably pushes that average up, because you're not perfect and you're always going to overshoot or undershoot the mark.

Now, there are tools that fight this process... but none of them are really available to the design team because of how RPGs work. They can't do balance patches (because any nerfs are strictly opt-in on the part of the player base) and they can't ban options or rotate older material out outside of narrow cases like "you're playing Adventurers' League" or "they put out a whole new edition". And remember that the designers really need to sell those books, because reduced sales threaten their continued employment...