Yeah, the premade ones are just some quickie templates; for all practical purposes there's no such thing as truly discreet and defined backgrounds going forward, just combinations of stats, profs, feat, and starting gear.
That was true in the playtest, but apparently not in the final product.
I haven't been able to keep up with what they've been saying in the recent releases, but I'll be really surprise if they go back and say that your character creation ASI's need to be chosen from a pool of fixed combinations rather than being wildcards; and that's before we consider starter feats as well. Even if they write up a bunch of examples I expect it to also pretty prominently give the parameters for designing your own in the PHB as a "variant" option.
Late to the party but yes, JC said each background will list 3 stats. And you can increase one by +2 and another one by +1 or increase all three by +1. So no more playtest “custom is the new normal, and these are just samples”
Late to the party but yes, JC said each background will list 3 stats. And you can increase one by +2 and another one by +1 or increase all three by +1. So no more playtest “custom is the new normal, and these are just samples”
While Custom has been moved to the DMG, we don't yet know how it's going to be promoted/presented, nor whether it's allowed in AL.
Late to the party but yes, JC said each background will list 3 stats. And you can increase one by +2 and another one by +1 or increase all three by +1. So no more playtest “custom is the new normal, and these are just samples”
While Custom has been moved to the DMG, we don't yet know how it's going to be promoted/presented, nor whether it's allowed in AL.
I think given the contents of most AL games you shouldn't feel the need for custom backgrounds. Even if it would be nice to have.
Late to the party but yes, JC said each background will list 3 stats. And you can increase one by +2 and another one by +1 or increase all three by +1. So no more playtest “custom is the new normal, and these are just samples”
While Custom has been moved to the DMG, we don't yet know how it's going to be promoted/presented, nor whether it's allowed in AL.
I’m a little disappointed in this change. I liked the UA idea of custom backgrounds being the default. They said they wanted to get away from “so you want to play a monk, go wood elf for the Dex/wis boost. But now it’s “wanna play a monk, go with the <insert backgrounds> with Dex and Wis as two of the three stats. Custom should at least be an option in the PHB
Just noticed in playtest 7, the warlock smite is everything the paladin DS should have been. Limited to once per turn and not a bonus action spell cast.... If both go live as is the inconsistency in smites alone is going to be mid boggling switching editions.
While Custom has been moved to the DMG, we don't yet know how it's going to be promoted/presented, nor whether it's allowed in AL.
I’m a little disappointed in this change. I liked the UA idea of custom backgrounds being the default. They said they wanted to get away from “so you want to play a monk, go wood elf for the Dex/wis boost. But now it’s “wanna play a monk, go with the <insert backgrounds> with Dex and Wis as two of the three stats. Custom should at least be an option in the PHB
I'm honestly with you - and cynically, I'm willing to bet someone told them "psst, we can sell more backgrounds with different ASI/feat/skill combinations in the future this way."
But to play devil's advocate, clearly fixed stats are a thing some people want, if the reaction to MPMM stripping them out of races was anything to go off of. if I'm given the choice between fixed ASIs on species and fixed ASIs in backgrounds, I'll take the latter every time.
While Custom has been moved to the DMG, we don't yet know how it's going to be promoted/presented, nor whether it's allowed in AL.
I’m a little disappointed in this change. I liked the UA idea of custom backgrounds being the default. They said they wanted to get away from “so you want to play a monk, go wood elf for the Dex/wis boost. But now it’s “wanna play a monk, go with the <insert backgrounds> with Dex and Wis as two of the three stats. Custom should at least be an option in the PHB
I'm honestly with you - and cynically, I'm willing to bet someone told them "psst, we can sell more backgrounds with different ASI/feat/skill combinations in the future this way."
But to play devil's advocate, clearly fixed stats are a thing some people want, if the reaction to MPMM stripping them out of races was anything to go off of. if I'm given the choice between fixed ASIs on species and fixed ASIs in backgrounds, I'll take the latter every time.
I think given the contents of most AL games you shouldn't feel the need for custom backgrounds. Even if it would be nice to have.
Sure, I won't need to optimize in AL... but it's fun.
For me, the fun of optimization is optimization within constraints. This still allows for optimization just with some constraints and that makes the challenge more fun to me. What my characters backstory is matters less in an adventure league than in a long form campaign which is where we definitely need the custom rules.
For me, the fun of optimization is optimization within constraints. This still allows for optimization just with some constraints and that makes the challenge more fun to me. What my characters backstory is matters less in an adventure league than in a long form campaign which is where we definitely need the custom rules.
I'm fine with constraints too - but what I'm less jazzed about is inequity. There's going to be classes and subclasses in that book that have absolutely perfect backgrounds for them both thematically and mechanically, like a Life Cleric Pilgrim (thematic, UA: Con, Wis, Religion, Healer feat) or an Assassin Rogue Criminal (thematic, UA: Dex, Int, Alert feat, Stealth, Sleight of Hand). Then there's going to be others that are less of a slam dunk, like maybe I want the Soldier background for my Fighter but kinda wish I had Alert or Crafter instead of Savage Attacker, or maybe I want a background that gives Tavern Brawler and Dex+Wis for my monk but I didn't really envision them as a Sailor since they're supposed to have been cloistered in a monastery. That kind of thing. Sure, my DM is probably going to say yes to the swap, but I don't know whether I can do the same at a convention yet.
For me, the fun of optimization is optimization within constraints. This still allows for optimization just with some constraints and that makes the challenge more fun to me. What my characters backstory is matters less in an adventure league than in a long form campaign which is where we definitely need the custom rules.
I'm fine with constraints too - but what I'm less jazzed about is inequity. There's going to be classes and subclasses in that book that have absolutely perfect backgrounds for them both thematically and mechanically, like a Life Cleric Pilgrim (thematic, UA: Con, Wis, Religion, Healer feat) or an Assassin Rogue Criminal (thematic, UA: Dex, Int, Alert feat, Stealth, Sleight of Hand). Then there's going to be others that are less of a slam dunk, like maybe I want the Soldier background for my Fighter but kinda wish I had Alert or Crafter instead of Savage Attacker, or maybe I want a background that gives Tavern Brawler and Dex+Wis for my monk but I didn't really envision them as a Sailor since they're supposed to have been cloistered in a monastery. That kind of thing. Sure, my DM is probably going to say yes to the swap, but I don't know whether I can do the same at a convention yet.
I think this is still a wait and see on some of the backgrounds. In general I see and agree with your points. I think in AL the monk being a sailor is going to be less of an issue than in normal home games where the back story and background will matter more. In general I am having a hard time believing there wont be a good background for every subclass in the players handbook, they even specified that the book would come with suggested backgrounds for these classes. There are 48 subclasses and I don't know how many backgrounds we have yet or how much overlap they will have.
For example the fighter could take the guard background for the alert feat and probably still get the bonuses they are looking for and still get athletics. But in general. i do think you are right there is going to be some feat cost to backgrounds. This is where a Human will still be a fantastic starting race because being able to start with an origin feat that normally you wouldn't have access to is pretty solid from a racial feature, especially with so many other races getting such big boons. Knowing me I will probably still find a way to fit halfling and street urchins or the new wayfarers background and enjoy all the lucky dice.
For sure, I'm willing to wait and see. I can only go off of the UA for the combinations and those only have two scores instead of three, so I'm operating off incomplete information. But I just have a rotten feeling that the better origin feats like Alert and Lucky are going to be tied to some very specific backgrounds in there.
No word on if the DMG will have Evil classes so far. IMO they really need it since the prebuilt blocks suck for recurring casters anymore.
I hope they have actual guidance for when a paladin breaks their oath. Too many times I’ve seen DMs force their player to become an oathbreaker for breaking their oath. It doesn’t make sense for a devotion paladin who lied to a tyrannical king about the whearabouts of refugees. The paladin broke their oath but they did so to protect innocent people, so why are they forcibly made evil? At least BG3 doesn’t have alignment
but I’m worried that wotc won’t have better guidance because so far they’ve shown their focused on wargaming and not narrative and roleplay
You mean like:
A paladin who has broken a vow typically seeks absolution from a cleric who shares his or her faith or from another paladin of the same order. The paladin might spend an all-night vigil in prayer as a sign of penitence, or undertake a fast or similar act of self-denial. After a rite of confession and forgiveness, the paladin starts fresh.
If a paladin willfully violates his or her oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences can be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent paladin might be forced to abandon this class and adopt another, or perhaps to take the Oathbreaker paladin option that appears in the Dungeon Master’s Guide.
The basic guidance on the difference between "whoops, turns out mortals aren't perfect axiomatic beings" and "I reject these worthless ideals" is spelled out plainly. DM's failing to understand the distinction is just that: a DM failure.
No word on if the DMG will have Evil classes so far. IMO they really need it since the prebuilt blocks suck for recurring casters anymore.
I hope they have actual guidance for when a paladin breaks their oath. Too many times I’ve seen DMs force their player to become an oathbreaker for breaking their oath. It doesn’t make sense for a devotion paladin who lied to a tyrannical king about the whearabouts of refugees. The paladin broke their oath but they did so to protect innocent people, so why are they forcibly made evil? At least BG3 doesn’t have alignment
I think they should ditch oathbreaker entirely. Put the paladin's oath entirely into the world of roleplay. (Or simply make it explicitly the player's choice.)
Giving GMs the option to take player powers away has consistently led to it being used as a cudgel to control player choices since at least 1e.
smite needed to be nerfed, not ruined. Why couldn’t they have just made smite once per round only and left it at that? it didn’t need to be turned into a spell or made into a bonus action
Smites already were a bonus action spell.
Except for one.
By having that one weird smite sitting outside of the spell rules, you end up with:
Double-dipping, where you can smite twice on the same hit
People forgetting they have the basic smite or the spell smites
Inconsistent rule interactions (For instance: some smites can be countered, some can't)
probably other weirdnesses
To fix this rule inconsistency, you either need all smites to be spells, or no smites to be spells. Since they're powered by spell slots, it's simpler, easier, and more consistent to make it all.
They don't even really lose smite damage output over the long run, just burstiness.
Then all smites should be non-spells. Let it be secondary options like how warlocks have invocations.
That's a much larger rewrite of the class than seems to have been in their scope.
An ability powered by spell slots that's not magic is a weird inconsistency. (And not powering it by spell slots gives the paladin way more juice.)
yes, paladins needed a nerf. But BA spells were not the right approach. Simply saying that paladins can only smite once per turn was enough of a nerf.
I seriously doubt this was done as a nerf. It was done for mechanical consistency. That it's also a very minor nerf isn't bad, but not the point.
I mean, the Oath is pretty much roleplay already; the whole "consequences of breaking an oath" bit is just described in a sidebar in loose terms, it's not a hard mechanic like in past editions. I doubt the concept is going anywhere; it's too much a part of the Paladin's roleplay class identity for people to be happy with it being dropped altogether. Again, examples of "oh, X player did a really minor thing that went against the letter of their oath and their DM jumped all over it and told them they're an oathbreaker now" aren't examples of bad game mechanics, they're examples of a DM being hamfisted with roleplay consequences.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No word on if the DMG will have Evil classes so far. IMO they really need it since the prebuilt blocks suck for recurring casters anymore.
I was willing to bank on Assassin being part of the DMG "evil cycle," so that they could keep Swashbuckler in the PHB. But alas.
I like Oathbreaker mechanically (especially now that Lay on Hands works on your undead minions) but I hate, hate, hate the name.
Pretty sure the philosophy they have is "class levels are for PCs, if you want to use them for NPCs go delving through the monster creation rules".
My favorite part of Oathbreaker is that aura of hate does not specify friendly fiends and undead.
just change it to "Oath of Yabadabadee" or something, you can customize anything, just do it.
2014 5E mostly
3.5 maybe.
I have been (Oath of Corruption), but if they're going to bring it back then they should too. If they don't bring it back, well, *shrug*
I'd be very surprised if they kept "friendly fire" features like that in the game, kinda like when they updated the Aasimar in MPMM to remove theirs.
Late to the party but yes, JC said each background will list 3 stats. And you can increase one by +2 and another one by +1 or increase all three by +1. So no more playtest “custom is the new normal, and these are just samples”
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
While Custom has been moved to the DMG, we don't yet know how it's going to be promoted/presented, nor whether it's allowed in AL.
I think given the contents of most AL games you shouldn't feel the need for custom backgrounds. Even if it would be nice to have.
I’m a little disappointed in this change. I liked the UA idea of custom backgrounds being the default. They said they wanted to get away from “so you want to play a monk, go wood elf for the Dex/wis boost. But now it’s “wanna play a monk, go with the <insert backgrounds> with Dex and Wis as two of the three stats.
Custom should at least be an option in the PHB
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Just noticed in playtest 7, the warlock smite is everything the paladin DS should have been. Limited to once per turn and not a bonus action spell cast.... If both go live as is the inconsistency in smites alone is going to be mid boggling switching editions.
I'm honestly with you - and cynically, I'm willing to bet someone told them "psst, we can sell more backgrounds with different ASI/feat/skill combinations in the future this way."
But to play devil's advocate, clearly fixed stats are a thing some people want, if the reaction to MPMM stripping them out of races was anything to go off of. if I'm given the choice between fixed ASIs on species and fixed ASIs in backgrounds, I'll take the latter every time.
Sure, I won't need to optimize in AL... but it's fun.
For me, the fun of optimization is optimization within constraints. This still allows for optimization just with some constraints and that makes the challenge more fun to me. What my characters backstory is matters less in an adventure league than in a long form campaign which is where we definitely need the custom rules.
I'm fine with constraints too - but what I'm less jazzed about is inequity. There's going to be classes and subclasses in that book that have absolutely perfect backgrounds for them both thematically and mechanically, like a Life Cleric Pilgrim (thematic, UA: Con, Wis, Religion, Healer feat) or an Assassin Rogue Criminal (thematic, UA: Dex, Int, Alert feat, Stealth, Sleight of Hand). Then there's going to be others that are less of a slam dunk, like maybe I want the Soldier background for my Fighter but kinda wish I had Alert or Crafter instead of Savage Attacker, or maybe I want a background that gives Tavern Brawler and Dex+Wis for my monk but I didn't really envision them as a Sailor since they're supposed to have been cloistered in a monastery. That kind of thing. Sure, my DM is probably going to say yes to the swap, but I don't know whether I can do the same at a convention yet.
I think this is still a wait and see on some of the backgrounds. In general I see and agree with your points. I think in AL the monk being a sailor is going to be less of an issue than in normal home games where the back story and background will matter more. In general I am having a hard time believing there wont be a good background for every subclass in the players handbook, they even specified that the book would come with suggested backgrounds for these classes. There are 48 subclasses and I don't know how many backgrounds we have yet or how much overlap they will have.
For example the fighter could take the guard background for the alert feat and probably still get the bonuses they are looking for and still get athletics. But in general. i do think you are right there is going to be some feat cost to backgrounds. This is where a Human will still be a fantastic starting race because being able to start with an origin feat that normally you wouldn't have access to is pretty solid from a racial feature, especially with so many other races getting such big boons. Knowing me I will probably still find a way to fit halfling and street urchins or the new wayfarers background and enjoy all the lucky dice.
For sure, I'm willing to wait and see. I can only go off of the UA for the combinations and those only have two scores instead of three, so I'm operating off incomplete information. But I just have a rotten feeling that the better origin feats like Alert and Lucky are going to be tied to some very specific backgrounds in there.
You mean like:
The basic guidance on the difference between "whoops, turns out mortals aren't perfect axiomatic beings" and "I reject these worthless ideals" is spelled out plainly. DM's failing to understand the distinction is just that: a DM failure.
Relax, I didn't mean capital-E "Evil" in the alignment sense; just darker in theme/tone.
And It's a moot point anyway, since we know that Assassin is absolutely in the PHB and Swashbuckler got ousted.
I think they should ditch oathbreaker entirely. Put the paladin's oath entirely into the world of roleplay. (Or simply make it explicitly the player's choice.)
Giving GMs the option to take player powers away has consistently led to it being used as a cudgel to control player choices since at least 1e.
That's a much larger rewrite of the class than seems to have been in their scope.
An ability powered by spell slots that's not magic is a weird inconsistency. (And not powering it by spell slots gives the paladin way more juice.)
I seriously doubt this was done as a nerf. It was done for mechanical consistency. That it's also a very minor nerf isn't bad, but not the point.
I mean, the Oath is pretty much roleplay already; the whole "consequences of breaking an oath" bit is just described in a sidebar in loose terms, it's not a hard mechanic like in past editions. I doubt the concept is going anywhere; it's too much a part of the Paladin's roleplay class identity for people to be happy with it being dropped altogether. Again, examples of "oh, X player did a really minor thing that went against the letter of their oath and their DM jumped all over it and told them they're an oathbreaker now" aren't examples of bad game mechanics, they're examples of a DM being hamfisted with roleplay consequences.
Was the Paladin Divine Smite a spell in the UAs?
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.