I've been wondering. How much y'all see players trying to pull the "power growth" (lack of better wording in my brain) that is trying to convince the dm let them have feature because of something in their backstory, instead of accounting for it themselves a way character creation already allows, like (I feel like)they should.
More importantly, how would you handle a players desire of this sort? Would you support their supposed roleplay creativity (which is probably really just being a munchkin) with the desired buffs to their character, just say "no" and move on with their character having whatever RAW allowed choiced they'd made, or try to encourage them to change their RAW character creation choices to match their backstory instead of asking for an extra feature?
Example: I have a character in a campaign I'm in where the gist of the backstory is that they are from an organization obsessed with knowledge. Learning and recording everything. So, to go with that, I used the "Faction Agent" background and selected "History" as the proficiency to get from it. Seemed very cut, dried, and obvious to me. I basically made a historian so naturally the background proficiency slot is filled with the choice of History.
But I remembered some stories I've heard and the idea got in my head earlier that (some) other players may have taken a different proficiency out of character-detached mechanical desires, and tried to convince the dm to just give them advantage on history checks because of the organization their from. Or doubled down by taking the proficiency and also asking for advantage.
I've seen it occasionally, generally with less mature players. If the boon is already accounted for with character creation, then that is where it needs to be implemented. However, I'm perfectly happy giving a player a boost for very niche backstory elements. For example, giving a player advantage on checks to interact with or navigate their own hometown. Things that could canonically be freebies, but aren't.
If a player asks for a generic boon, like an extra magic item, or a free skill proficiency, then I will usually just say "no" on the basis that rewards need to be earned, but provide a route for them to gain that boon. In the case of a magic item, the player can investigate to find a seller, and in the case of a skill proficiency, they player could spend time "training" during downtime over several sessions. If the player really wants something, then it is an opportunity to get them invested in the story.
I don't mind making custom backgrounds ... that are balanced with, you know, backgrounds. I'l show them how background works, how broadly there's s consistent symmetry to them, etc. If a player is doing a "gimme" for some boon beyond the parameters I've laid out for chargen (which for me is usually just "by the books"), I simply say "I'm sorry, in my game no character is mechanically more special than any other character. If you got certain goals that can't be reached in your first level build we can talk about your back story and maybe put you on a path to get your character where you want to be, in pace with the rest of the party."
That said, I play to their backgrounds similar to Memnosyne and go a bit further. If a PC is literally on their home turf I don't really do local knowledge checks. "Since you're from here you know this," for basic orientation stuff. I don't like getting tied down making rolls for what's basically exposition. If they're investigating on their hone turf, I'll give them hometown connections that may hook them into the clues they're after.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd never give a "free" buff, but if the player is willing to exchange another ability for the new one I'd give it some thought. Not an automatic yes, but not an automatic no either.
Just at quick glance using the Faction Agent background, if the player had a good argument as to why they should get both proficiency and advantage on history checks, then they would have to drop the Insight proficiency as well.
It depends. If they're trying to use it for every little thing, then more often than not I'd say no, roll normally, but if it's something directly related to their backstory, like a Vistani recalling information about Strahd, then I probably would let them have advantage on the check or just let them have the information straight off the bat.
I've had a few times where a player has said, "Do I have advantage on this because of ____", and usually the answer is, "actually, you're only being allowed to make this attempt because of ____"
I think that it is fair to do sometimes. If there is an option already in your "tool belt" to get that proficiency, then yeah, you should take it rather than something else and asking the DM for a handout. However, I do think some backgrounds warrant an extra little boost. Like mentioned above, getting around your hometown, trading a proficiency that doesn't fit their background for something that does, or maybe just something more niche like "you used to be a farmer, so you only have an advantage on animal handling checks if they are classic farm animals."
For further example: Right now I'm in a campaign where I am a Yuan-Ti, and her people worship the God of murder, poison, and traps. Religion is so apart of their lives that they even have traps scattered throughout their homes. So I asked my DM if my character could have proficiency in non-magical trap saves; he said yes. To me, this makes sense. It's an experience her background would have given her, so although it does not reflect in any official D&D capacity, it makes logical sense that she would know what traps looked like and how to avoid them. if she didn't, she would be dead by now, and that fact should be reflected in my rolls throughout the campaign. So if this campaign ever goes on a ship, I would hope my DM would let the Pirate player have an advantage on ship-related checks.
Allowing players to an advantage or bonus in small, specific cases makes it/me feel like the elements of the backstory that I came up with (rather than just picked out of the official list) actually matters. It's not just something I came up with that will never influence the plot. The Yuan-Ti is good with traps because I chose to make my character loyally worship the God of traps. A barbarian gets to be good with cows and chickens despite his low wisdom because he has the Folk Hero background and the player decided that he was a farmer in that town. Not unbalanced or nonsense when A-The DM is fair all around and B- you aren't playing with jerks who will take advantage of it.
If it would unbalance the PC compared to another PC of the same level, then hard no. I'm really sensitive to this, having had my past RPG experience ruined by a power gamer.
If they'll trade out some other ability, I'd consider it. Likewise if it's a custom background. The DNDB character creator has options for custom backgrounds - you choose either
2 skills, and 2 tools,
2 skills and 2 languages, or
2 skills, 1 tool, and 1 language
This is a pretty good way of keeping background skills balanced.
I haven't had anyone try to do this, but... I don't think I would allow a consistent benefit like a free proficiency or free advantage on rolls based *just* on the verbal writing of a character backstory. That only encourages a certain sort of player to "game" their backstory.
Also, I am opposed to the idea that player A gets a bunch of buffs that player B doesn't, just because player A "wrote a better backstory." Sorry, no... everyone has to be on an equal footing, at least to start out with.
I'm happy to go with a little bit of flavor such as letting someone have advantage for knowledge checks related to their home-town (as suggested above) but this is something every character could theoretically have access to (if the party went to their home town), and not something that only one character gets. But doing something like, "I take proficiency with arcana but then ask for advantage on history checks because my background says I studied history..." no. If you studied it that much, and want to represent it in-game, take proficiency. If you didn't, then I guess your studies must not have amount to much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think you would need to explain to the player that they are creating a character with different abilities. Just being a member of an organization which studied history won't automatically give you expertise in the skill or even proficiency with the skill. Your character could have been lazy, they didn't study, they preferred the pub to reading late into the evenings.
If a player wants to build a character that instead studied they then make sure to take proficiency in the history skill as part of their background showing that they actually followed the tenets of the organization to which they belong.
However, maybe they wanted to be a great historian. The prodigy and skilled feats offer expertise as an option. A variant human or a custom race could possibly start with one of these. Alternatively, the character could have sequestered themselves in study, with the wisdom needed to keep themselves at the task, and effectively start as a Knowledge cleric which has expertise in two knowledge related skills. Alternatively, they could start as a rogue and also have expertise in two skills. In either case, the character could choose history for expertise building on their backstory by combining mechanical elements that enhance it.
So ... no, just being a member of some knowledgeable organization would never make the character knowledgeable. They don't have proficiency with a skill unless they take it and they don't get expertise in a skill unless they build the character to have focused on that particular skill. However, the DM is free to run their game in whatever fashion they like.
Personally, I might rarely give a character advantage on a check if some element of their background was particularly relevant to the specific check but it would not be something that happened all the time or would it be guaranteed.
I haven't run into this kind of thing too often at all and usually it is in the context of figuring out how character creation works and not trying to get bonus effects from the background. I just explain that being a member of an organization wouldn't help if the character didn't pay attention and study ... while the result of that attention and study is proficiency in the skill.
Another angle, the character may be "studied" or may not be. At first level, sure they could have been cloistered among books, or maybe they're new to this order and are basically the equivalent of undergraduate research assistants doing field work, an intentional development step among the organization for its rookie members. In other words, they may be initiated into a venerable organization noted for its knowledge of the world, but the PC can't take the library with them so basically knows squat with aspirations to become a sage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Nobody gets Expertise from a backstory when I DM. None have even tried such nonsense. Though I had an 18 year old kid (everyone thought he was 30) try to convince me his Necro Wizard had spent his formative Elven years (100) just reading every book in an Elven library, therefore knew every stat block for Undead. That was also a very hard NO.
I'm a big advocate of make your character sheet first then write your back story to fit your created character. I know doing it the other way around is the "popular way" of doing it but when you write your back story first, you will find almost all players will not be able to create that character as a 1st level character. If you have a 1st level character in front of you, you know what your limits are narratively and so you create a back story that fits what you can actually do.
100% agree on this. I had a concept for an awesome character but I held back on writing their backstory until after I had rolled their stats. Long story short, through a combination of poor rolls and the DM giving me more lore on the world, I had to drastically adapt my characters story. It went from me being a tiefling from a backward tribe well versed in nature and combat, set out on a path as a paladin to save the village from logging, to having been petrified and later revived, causing permanent stiffness in one leg (low dexterity) and the world having changed so much that the nature I was trained in is no longer around, thus average intelligence and wisdom instead of high intelligence for nature rolls. I have decent strength and constitution and very high Charisma, showing my combat skills and battle-hardening are still of use, and my personality and intimidation techniques continue to work as they did before, but an expert in rainforest survival is as useful as a city-boy when they are both dropped in the desert!
Anyway, the point I'm making is that I could have asked the DM "I was raised in a forest full of animals and stuff, can I have proficiency in survival", but instead I adapted my story to explain my stats. That's how it's supposed to work - you make the stats, then you explain them with your backstory. I didn't set out to make a character with a gammy leg and no real-world experience in a hostile, post apocalyptic word, but that's what I've had to explain and I'm so looking forward to when the campaign runs!
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
The whole "your designing a level 1 character" aspect can be difficult for some people to rightly understand, I've noticed.
I remember having designed a character, which I didn't get to actually play, for a campaign starting at level 1, where their main personal goal was going to be *creating* an organization. The sort that could hypothetically cause later adventurers to have the "faction agent" background, while mine would have had some other background since the order didn't exist yet. The DM was telling me I should just say I had already created it before we started and take Faction Agent. But we're talking about somethign I'd be the leader of, not a member of. To have created it already well only being level 1?
The whole "your designing a level 1 character" aspect can be difficult for some people to rightly understand, I've noticed.
Yes, for some reason people have a hard time realizing that Level 1 is the start, not the end, of a character. Should go without saying but it often does not.
In Champions you'd get players wanting to start the game with 375 points in their character instead of the default 250. Same problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling. It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class. As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice. Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling. It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class. As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice. Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
You just said that this char has half-orc stats and abilities. What, precisely, is left that defines it as a Tiefling? Outside of how it looks, how is it different than a true Half-Orc? This is not a rhetorical question.
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling. It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class. As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice. Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
You just said that this char has half-orc stats and abilities. What, precisely, is left that defines it as a Tiefling? Outside of how it looks, how is it different than a true Half-Orc? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well firstly it wasn't me you replied to the first time. But anyhow it's the lore that defines the tiefling. Not just skin color and "has horns", and certainly not it's mechanical traits. The player wants to play as the race with an infernal bloodline.
They want to play as the race that gets this description: "To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus—overlord of the Nine Hells—into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable. Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect. Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life."
They want to play as that race, while playing the Barbarian class, and get the +2 str that goes with being a barbarian instead of having a +2 cha that is useless for their class. The same applies for any abilities that were changed. You ask what's left to define tiefling besides appearance but appearance is the 2nd most important part of selecting a race, right after lore. Stats and abilities are tertiary, also phrasable as "least important". They want to play as a Barbarian and not automatically be worse than other barbarians just because the didn't choose the race most predefined as barbarian style.
This is literally the point of the changes in Tasha's, to let players be whatever race/class combo they want without feeling like they hindered themselves instead of having to specifically match certain races and classes to have a "properly" designed character.
In short, the race selection is just flavor text, existing only for backstory and roleplay. Players shouldn't be mechanically limited by it. So if a player says to a DM "I want to play as this race, but use that race's mechanics." There's really no reason to say no.
I've been wondering.
How much y'all see players trying to pull the "power growth" (lack of better wording in my brain) that is trying to convince the dm let them have feature because of something in their backstory, instead of accounting for it themselves a way character creation already allows, like (I feel like)they should.
More importantly, how would you handle a players desire of this sort? Would you support their supposed roleplay creativity (which is probably really just being a munchkin) with the desired buffs to their character, just say "no" and move on with their character having whatever RAW allowed choiced they'd made, or try to encourage them to change their RAW character creation choices to match their backstory instead of asking for an extra feature?
Example:
I have a character in a campaign I'm in where the gist of the backstory is that they are from an organization obsessed with knowledge. Learning and recording everything. So, to go with that, I used the "Faction Agent" background and selected "History" as the proficiency to get from it. Seemed very cut, dried, and obvious to me. I basically made a historian so naturally the background proficiency slot is filled with the choice of History.
But I remembered some stories I've heard and the idea got in my head earlier that (some) other players may have taken a different proficiency out of character-detached mechanical desires, and tried to convince the dm to just give them advantage on history checks because of the organization their from. Or doubled down by taking the proficiency and also asking for advantage.
I've seen it occasionally, generally with less mature players. If the boon is already accounted for with character creation, then that is where it needs to be implemented. However, I'm perfectly happy giving a player a boost for very niche backstory elements. For example, giving a player advantage on checks to interact with or navigate their own hometown. Things that could canonically be freebies, but aren't.
If a player asks for a generic boon, like an extra magic item, or a free skill proficiency, then I will usually just say "no" on the basis that rewards need to be earned, but provide a route for them to gain that boon. In the case of a magic item, the player can investigate to find a seller, and in the case of a skill proficiency, they player could spend time "training" during downtime over several sessions. If the player really wants something, then it is an opportunity to get them invested in the story.
I don't mind making custom backgrounds ... that are balanced with, you know, backgrounds. I'l show them how background works, how broadly there's s consistent symmetry to them, etc. If a player is doing a "gimme" for some boon beyond the parameters I've laid out for chargen (which for me is usually just "by the books"), I simply say "I'm sorry, in my game no character is mechanically more special than any other character. If you got certain goals that can't be reached in your first level build we can talk about your back story and maybe put you on a path to get your character where you want to be, in pace with the rest of the party."
That said, I play to their backgrounds similar to Memnosyne and go a bit further. If a PC is literally on their home turf I don't really do local knowledge checks. "Since you're from here you know this," for basic orientation stuff. I don't like getting tied down making rolls for what's basically exposition. If they're investigating on their hone turf, I'll give them hometown connections that may hook them into the clues they're after.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd never give a "free" buff, but if the player is willing to exchange another ability for the new one I'd give it some thought. Not an automatic yes, but not an automatic no either.
Just at quick glance using the Faction Agent background, if the player had a good argument as to why they should get both proficiency and advantage on history checks, then they would have to drop the Insight proficiency as well.
It depends. If they're trying to use it for every little thing, then more often than not I'd say no, roll normally, but if it's something directly related to their backstory, like a Vistani recalling information about Strahd, then I probably would let them have advantage on the check or just let them have the information straight off the bat.
I've had a few times where a player has said, "Do I have advantage on this because of ____", and usually the answer is, "actually, you're only being allowed to make this attempt because of ____"
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I think that it is fair to do sometimes. If there is an option already in your "tool belt" to get that proficiency, then yeah, you should take it rather than something else and asking the DM for a handout. However, I do think some backgrounds warrant an extra little boost. Like mentioned above, getting around your hometown, trading a proficiency that doesn't fit their background for something that does, or maybe just something more niche like "you used to be a farmer, so you only have an advantage on animal handling checks if they are classic farm animals."
For further example: Right now I'm in a campaign where I am a Yuan-Ti, and her people worship the God of murder, poison, and traps. Religion is so apart of their lives that they even have traps scattered throughout their homes. So I asked my DM if my character could have proficiency in non-magical trap saves; he said yes. To me, this makes sense. It's an experience her background would have given her, so although it does not reflect in any official D&D capacity, it makes logical sense that she would know what traps looked like and how to avoid them. if she didn't, she would be dead by now, and that fact should be reflected in my rolls throughout the campaign. So if this campaign ever goes on a ship, I would hope my DM would let the Pirate player have an advantage on ship-related checks.
Allowing players to an advantage or bonus in small, specific cases makes it/me feel like the elements of the backstory that I came up with (rather than just picked out of the official list) actually matters. It's not just something I came up with that will never influence the plot. The Yuan-Ti is good with traps because I chose to make my character loyally worship the God of traps. A barbarian gets to be good with cows and chickens despite his low wisdom because he has the Folk Hero background and the player decided that he was a farmer in that town. Not unbalanced or nonsense when A-The DM is fair all around and B- you aren't playing with jerks who will take advantage of it.
If it would unbalance the PC compared to another PC of the same level, then hard no. I'm really sensitive to this, having had my past RPG experience ruined by a power gamer.
If they'll trade out some other ability, I'd consider it. Likewise if it's a custom background. The DNDB character creator has options for custom backgrounds - you choose either
This is a pretty good way of keeping background skills balanced.
I haven't had anyone try to do this, but... I don't think I would allow a consistent benefit like a free proficiency or free advantage on rolls based *just* on the verbal writing of a character backstory. That only encourages a certain sort of player to "game" their backstory.
Also, I am opposed to the idea that player A gets a bunch of buffs that player B doesn't, just because player A "wrote a better backstory." Sorry, no... everyone has to be on an equal footing, at least to start out with.
I'm happy to go with a little bit of flavor such as letting someone have advantage for knowledge checks related to their home-town (as suggested above) but this is something every character could theoretically have access to (if the party went to their home town), and not something that only one character gets. But doing something like, "I take proficiency with arcana but then ask for advantage on history checks because my background says I studied history..." no. If you studied it that much, and want to represent it in-game, take proficiency. If you didn't, then I guess your studies must not have amount to much.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think you would need to explain to the player that they are creating a character with different abilities. Just being a member of an organization which studied history won't automatically give you expertise in the skill or even proficiency with the skill. Your character could have been lazy, they didn't study, they preferred the pub to reading late into the evenings.
If a player wants to build a character that instead studied they then make sure to take proficiency in the history skill as part of their background showing that they actually followed the tenets of the organization to which they belong.
However, maybe they wanted to be a great historian. The prodigy and skilled feats offer expertise as an option. A variant human or a custom race could possibly start with one of these. Alternatively, the character could have sequestered themselves in study, with the wisdom needed to keep themselves at the task, and effectively start as a Knowledge cleric which has expertise in two knowledge related skills. Alternatively, they could start as a rogue and also have expertise in two skills. In either case, the character could choose history for expertise building on their backstory by combining mechanical elements that enhance it.
So ... no, just being a member of some knowledgeable organization would never make the character knowledgeable. They don't have proficiency with a skill unless they take it and they don't get expertise in a skill unless they build the character to have focused on that particular skill. However, the DM is free to run their game in whatever fashion they like.
Personally, I might rarely give a character advantage on a check if some element of their background was particularly relevant to the specific check but it would not be something that happened all the time or would it be guaranteed.
I haven't run into this kind of thing too often at all and usually it is in the context of figuring out how character creation works and not trying to get bonus effects from the background. I just explain that being a member of an organization wouldn't help if the character didn't pay attention and study ... while the result of that attention and study is proficiency in the skill.
Another angle, the character may be "studied" or may not be. At first level, sure they could have been cloistered among books, or maybe they're new to this order and are basically the equivalent of undergraduate research assistants doing field work, an intentional development step among the organization for its rookie members. In other words, they may be initiated into a venerable organization noted for its knowledge of the world, but the PC can't take the library with them so basically knows squat with aspirations to become a sage.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Nobody gets Expertise from a backstory when I DM. None have even tried such nonsense. Though I had an 18 year old kid (everyone thought he was 30) try to convince me his Necro Wizard had spent his formative Elven years (100) just reading every book in an Elven library, therefore knew every stat block for Undead. That was also a very hard NO.
100% agree on this. I had a concept for an awesome character but I held back on writing their backstory until after I had rolled their stats. Long story short, through a combination of poor rolls and the DM giving me more lore on the world, I had to drastically adapt my characters story. It went from me being a tiefling from a backward tribe well versed in nature and combat, set out on a path as a paladin to save the village from logging, to having been petrified and later revived, causing permanent stiffness in one leg (low dexterity) and the world having changed so much that the nature I was trained in is no longer around, thus average intelligence and wisdom instead of high intelligence for nature rolls. I have decent strength and constitution and very high Charisma, showing my combat skills and battle-hardening are still of use, and my personality and intimidation techniques continue to work as they did before, but an expert in rainforest survival is as useful as a city-boy when they are both dropped in the desert!
Anyway, the point I'm making is that I could have asked the DM "I was raised in a forest full of animals and stuff, can I have proficiency in survival", but instead I adapted my story to explain my stats. That's how it's supposed to work - you make the stats, then you explain them with your backstory. I didn't set out to make a character with a gammy leg and no real-world experience in a hostile, post apocalyptic word, but that's what I've had to explain and I'm so looking forward to when the campaign runs!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Tashas Cauldron now includes full rules for full character customization so a lot of this is possible but, comes ata cost.
In summary the rules are now that whatever racial and I think profession bonus you get you can then swap out for a different thing. So +1 charisma can be swapped for +1 int, star dex etc. proficiency in history could become arcana, or nature or deception.
If you get +2 you may swap it for +2 in one or +1 in 2. So now your player can be a tiefling barbarian, or a Goliath wizard and not be at a disadvantage.
I take this a step further so if a character has a racial ability then talk with them about swapping it out for something that fits background. I have just had a player effectively build a tiefling with half orc stats and abilities.
The whole "your designing a level 1 character" aspect can be difficult for some people to rightly understand, I've noticed.
I remember having designed a character, which I didn't get to actually play, for a campaign starting at level 1, where their main personal goal was going to be *creating* an organization. The sort that could hypothetically cause later adventurers to have the "faction agent" background, while mine would have had some other background since the order didn't exist yet. The DM was telling me I should just say I had already created it before we started and take Faction Agent. But we're talking about somethign I'd be the leader of, not a member of. To have created it already well only being level 1?
Yes, for some reason people have a hard time realizing that Level 1 is the start, not the end, of a character. Should go without saying but it often does not.
In Champions you'd get players wanting to start the game with 375 points in their character instead of the default 250. Same problem.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If it is a tiefling with half-orc stats and abilities, why not play a half-orc in the first place?
Because they want to be a tiefling.
It's not about having half-orc stats, it's about having stats that go with their class.
As opposed to feeling forced to play a certain race only because it has the +2 that matches your class choice.
Just because they want to be a barbarian shouldn't mean they have to be a half-orc to get that +2 str
You just said that this char has half-orc stats and abilities. What, precisely, is left that defines it as a Tiefling? Outside of how it looks, how is it different than a true Half-Orc? This is not a rhetorical question.
Well firstly it wasn't me you replied to the first time.
But anyhow it's the lore that defines the tiefling. Not just skin color and "has horns", and certainly not it's mechanical traits.
The player wants to play as the race with an infernal bloodline.
They want to play as the race that gets this description:
"To be greeted with stares and whispers, to suffer violence and insult on the street, to see mistrust and fear in every eye: this is the lot of the tiefling. And to twist the knife, tieflings know that this is because a pact struck generations ago infused the essence of Asmodeus—overlord of the Nine Hells—into their bloodline. Their appearance and their nature are not their fault but the result of an ancient sin, for which they and their children and their children’s children will always be held accountable.
Tieflings subsist in small minorities found mostly in human cities or towns, often in the roughest quarters of those places, where they grow up to be swindlers, thieves, or crime lords. Sometimes they live among other minority populations in enclaves where they are treated with more respect.
Lacking a homeland, tieflings know that they have to make their own way in the world and that they have to be strong to survive. They are not quick to trust anyone who claims to be a friend, but when a tiefling’s companions demonstrate that they trust him or her, the tiefling learns to extend the same trust to them. And once a tiefling gives someone loyalty, the tiefling is a firm friend or ally for life."
They want to play as that race, while playing the Barbarian class, and get the +2 str that goes with being a barbarian instead of having a +2 cha that is useless for their class. The same applies for any abilities that were changed. You ask what's left to define tiefling besides appearance but appearance is the 2nd most important part of selecting a race, right after lore. Stats and abilities are tertiary, also phrasable as "least important". They want to play as a Barbarian and not automatically be worse than other barbarians just because the didn't choose the race most predefined as barbarian style.
This is literally the point of the changes in Tasha's, to let players be whatever race/class combo they want without feeling like they hindered themselves instead of having to specifically match certain races and classes to have a "properly" designed character.
In short, the race selection is just flavor text, existing only for backstory and roleplay. Players shouldn't be mechanically limited by it.
So if a player says to a DM "I want to play as this race, but use that race's mechanics." There's really no reason to say no.