First of all, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write a review. I’m always looking for ways of improving my writing.

But to respond directly to your comments…

Ironically enough you’ve hit the nail on the head. These backgrounds, the class ideas, the magic systems I propose in my articles, the dangers for players to face — both on here and anywhere else I am posting them… these aren’t ideas meant to be used as is and put into someone’s game, without playtesting, without figuring out how it fits into their gaming world, without figuring out if X rule will unbalance the game to the point of unplayability. In fact nothing in gaming should be like that, IMHO. And the owner of this website acknowledged that last article.That’s not my intent. The purpose for my ideas are to simply give GMs a starting point, a springboard as it were from which to use the ideas contained therein to develop their own worlds. I lampshaded it in my previous article: I play fast and loose with the rules. Why? 1) it’s more fun that way. 2) it gives me more creative leeway with how I do things, how I present ideas.I do that on purpose because I’m not the type of GM who’s super concerned about the fact that there’s no skill that does X, I’ll make up a skill if it suits me. I’ll playtest it as I go along (and encourage any GM who looks at my ideas and thinks that they’re good enough to implement), and if it doesn’t quite work the way that I think it should, I’ll tweak it.

Having said that, please keep in mind that I’m still learning 5th edition, its rules, its nuances, its quirks as compared to previous editions. As I get better at this, these types of errors will lessen.

Please feel free to continue reading my articles, and when you see room for improvement, let me know and I’ll try better next time!

First, you keep referring to knowledge checks. Those aren’t a thing in 5E. I would replace it with either performance or acrobatics. Sleight of hand fits excellently and is a good skill to top though.

You need to name an actual number of tool proficiencies. Even if it is just “all gaming sets”. Personally, I’d throw in a musical instrument too.

Secondly, I really, /really/ don’t like the idea of the “Military Stratagem” language because that’s something I’d allow /anyone/ to do after about 5 minutes of table talk – if that. It’s both weak and these kinds of abilities either stop the other party members doing it (obviously BOO) or achieve nothing at all and make the player upset a feature of his is useless. I don’t think this background needs a language at all but that’s me.

Alternate features:
– “Change the rules”. No, just no. A chess grandmaster cannot change the fundamental rules of chess.
– “Cheat with impunity.” I like this actually, having such an intimate knowledge of rules combined with your confidence allowing you to get away with cheating. I despise how it forces NPCs to be fine with it though. That noble doesn’t care how smooth you are, he’ll still have you executed for trying to rob him.
– “Pattern Master.” “100% accuracy”. Every time a feature other than magic missile has that or something similar a puppy gets terminally ill. It’s a gotcha ability and gotcha abilities suck.
– “Luck of the devil himself.” No.

Background features are supposed to be plot hooks rather than raw abilities. Your past backgrounds have had actual, mechanical benefits which is completely counter to the point but this one doesn’t so it’s a moot point. I like the ideal of loophole abuse but I hate the wording.RAW it’s “hah, I win, suck it DM”. I’d phrase it more like you have an extremely intimate knowledge of rules and you’re good at picking up new rules. Game theory is commonly applied to a lot of other things like businesses and military tactics so maybe try and incorporate that.

The personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws are okay though theres some odd overlap. Personality trait 2 is more a flaw than a personality trait.