That excessive flexibility ends being in nothing matters as all are just numbers to distribute, no need to put then names, unnecessary as we can just put those “role” things as text in the sheet. I didn’t like the Tasha version of those things, and IMO is dangerous to put them in books because then all players seems want to use them, if I as DM negate then they are annoyed because hey it’s in the book so why not using it.
Respectfully disagree. It only doesn't matter if you decide background information is pure fluff and unnecessary.
Could be, but I think in a role-play game being a bit more at the realistic side is not bad, and the characters are “only numbers” thing maybe more for a tactical strategy game or other kinds.
Then, for the role-play game, use this approach, and complement it with homebrew for those who want just numbers as the only necessary, but let the base rules to be more at the realistic side as they are characters with a baggage that matters in the own character and etc.
It's my impression that a lot of people posting online want exactly that. Just assigning points and feats in the way that maximizes their "build".
The thing is, while there are some egregiously poorly designed backgrounds, for the most part you already can optimize your build. The problem is that you then get locked into a background that doesn't fit your concept for the character.
Please reread my posts. Nowhere did I say that every new character should have an 18+ score in their primary ability. All I said was that it's not unreasonable to want your primary ability score to be as high as possible. Apparently, it was foolish of me to not qualify that with a detailed breakdown of assumptions and contingencies.
"As high as possible" could be 20....or it could be 15. It all depends on what your base ability score rolls are, what your DM allows in terms of generation method, and so on.
This is the interesting thing, IMO, if you roll for stats then one player character in the group might have a 15 as their highest stat, another might have a 20, does the +1 and +2 difference from a perfectly aligned background vs a different background really matter if the randomness of dice are handing out +5 differences between characters?
In one of my games, we had a Tiefling wizard get reincarnated as an Orc, sure this meant their intelligence went down by 1, and they lost access to some spells and gained features designed for running headlong into combat. But did it ruin their character? Nope, they actually discovered that they like occasionally running into combat to perfectly position an AoE spell.
It is entirely reasonable to want to have the highest INT you can on a wizard. But it isn't entirely reasonable for any character with any backstory to be able to achieve it. Specifically, if we look at a Wizard with a Soldier background, doesn't it make sense for such a Wizard to have learned different spells and use magic in a different way (e.g. spells that rely less of your spell save DC) than a wizard that spent their whole life in wizard school?
It is entirely reasonable to want to have the highest INT you can on a wizard. But it isn't entirely reasonable for any character with any backstory to be able to achieve it. Specifically, if we look at a Wizard with a Soldier background, doesn't it make sense for such a Wizard to have learned different spells and use magic in a different way (e.g. spells that rely less of your spell save DC) than a wizard that spent their whole life in wizard school?
Who's to say soldiers can't be very intelligent? "Realistically" spellcasting is powerful (useful to soldiers and war), and wars are won by logistics instead of brute strength.
"Soldiers can't make good wizards" is just a narrow stereotype, coming from particular story tropes, that themselves come from very particular fantasy stories. This is all just a "tradition vs novelty" argument.
It is entirely reasonable to want to have the highest INT you can on a wizard. But it isn't entirely reasonable for any character with any backstory to be able to achieve it. Specifically, if we look at a Wizard with a Soldier background, doesn't it make sense for such a Wizard to have learned different spells and use magic in a different way (e.g. spells that rely less of your spell save DC) than a wizard that spent their whole life in wizard school?
Who's to say soldiers can't be very intelligent? "Realistically" spellcasting is powerful (useful to soldiers and war), and wars are won by logistics instead of brute strength.
"Soldiers can't make good wizards" is just a narrow stereotype, coming from particular story tropes, that themselves come from very particular fantasy stories. This is all just a "tradition vs novelty" argument.
I think Soldier means front line low-grade combatants. Probably those you mention would be generals and others high-grade that correspond to the Noble background. Others related with logistics could be Merchant. Don’t confuse Soldier with Military as in an army there are many profiles, think that the king is the top leader of the army and probably is not precisely a Soldier (but could depending how became a king).
It is entirely reasonable to want to have the highest INT you can on a wizard. But it isn't entirely reasonable for any character with any backstory to be able to achieve it. Specifically, if we look at a Wizard with a Soldier background, doesn't it make sense for such a Wizard to have learned different spells and use magic in a different way (e.g. spells that rely less of your spell save DC) than a wizard that spent their whole life in wizard school?
Who's to say soldiers can't be very intelligent? "Realistically" spellcasting is powerful (useful to soldiers and war), and wars are won by logistics instead of brute strength.
"Soldiers can't make good wizards" is just a narrow stereotype, coming from particular story tropes, that themselves come from very particular fantasy stories. This is all just a "tradition vs novelty" argument.
I think Soldier means front line low-grade combatants. Probably those you mention would be generals and others high-grade that correspond to the Noble background. Others related with logistics could be Merchant. Don’t confuse Soldier with Military as in an army there are many profiles, think that the king is the top leader of the army and probably is not precisely a Soldier (but could depending how became a king).
All the background Soldier means is you have an organized military background. There's plenty of room between "grunt" and "high-ranking officer". Many roles in an army require intelligence. For instance: intelligence. But also supply, low-ranking officer, low-level wizard, etc, etc.
For an example of fantasy military, Glen Cook's novel The Black Company follows a mercenary company. The narrator is their physician and chronicler (Int). They have no fewer than four low-power wizards among them at the start (Int). They do quite a bit of guerrilla and dirty tricks operations. Etc.
Frankly, the 'soldier' background does not appear to mean "general military background", it's really only suited for the grunts (officers will probably use noble, though arguably entertainer is the best warleader background...).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Could be, but I think in a role-play game being a bit more at the realistic side is not bad, and the characters are “only numbers” thing maybe more for a tactical strategy game or other kinds.
Then, for the role-play game, use this approach, and complement it with homebrew for those who want just numbers as the only necessary, but let the base rules to be more at the realistic side as they are characters with a baggage that matters in the own character and etc.
The thing is, while there are some egregiously poorly designed backgrounds, for the most part you already can optimize your build. The problem is that you then get locked into a background that doesn't fit your concept for the character.
This is the interesting thing, IMO, if you roll for stats then one player character in the group might have a 15 as their highest stat, another might have a 20, does the +1 and +2 difference from a perfectly aligned background vs a different background really matter if the randomness of dice are handing out +5 differences between characters?
In one of my games, we had a Tiefling wizard get reincarnated as an Orc, sure this meant their intelligence went down by 1, and they lost access to some spells and gained features designed for running headlong into combat. But did it ruin their character? Nope, they actually discovered that they like occasionally running into combat to perfectly position an AoE spell.
It is entirely reasonable to want to have the highest INT you can on a wizard. But it isn't entirely reasonable for any character with any backstory to be able to achieve it. Specifically, if we look at a Wizard with a Soldier background, doesn't it make sense for such a Wizard to have learned different spells and use magic in a different way (e.g. spells that rely less of your spell save DC) than a wizard that spent their whole life in wizard school?
Who's to say soldiers can't be very intelligent? "Realistically" spellcasting is powerful (useful to soldiers and war), and wars are won by logistics instead of brute strength.
"Soldiers can't make good wizards" is just a narrow stereotype, coming from particular story tropes, that themselves come from very particular fantasy stories. This is all just a "tradition vs novelty" argument.
I think Soldier means front line low-grade combatants. Probably those you mention would be generals and others high-grade that correspond to the Noble background. Others related with logistics could be Merchant. Don’t confuse Soldier with Military as in an army there are many profiles, think that the king is the top leader of the army and probably is not precisely a Soldier (but could depending how became a king).
All the background Soldier means is you have an organized military background. There's plenty of room between "grunt" and "high-ranking officer". Many roles in an army require intelligence. For instance: intelligence. But also supply, low-ranking officer, low-level wizard, etc, etc.
For an example of fantasy military, Glen Cook's novel The Black Company follows a mercenary company. The narrator is their physician and chronicler (Int). They have no fewer than four low-power wizards among them at the start (Int). They do quite a bit of guerrilla and dirty tricks operations. Etc.
Frankly, the 'soldier' background does not appear to mean "general military background", it's really only suited for the grunts (officers will probably use noble, though arguably entertainer is the best warleader background...).