Again, they are a starting point that the DM can work with you on. DM's can do that.
And moreover, if you do not trust your DM, then you need a new DM. Or if you trust no DM, you need to stick to MMO's or solo games.
Edit: And working with your DM includes asking them if any given feature is useful in their campaign. In my current campaign I advised players up front that the Sailor background makes no sense, since there are no large enough bodies of water in their area for there to be any sailors. That is not even any sort of play balance decision but simply an aspect of the setting.
Thing is, the mere names of sample new backgrounds provide enough information for DMs to work with, with much more mechanical and creative freedom. What's in the old social traits that makes them valuable as they are?
BTW in your example, you discourage players from picking a sailor. And what if my character is a former sailor who grew sick and tired of seafaring, but has a whole bunch of mannerisms and barely believable stories to tell when he's drunk (including a bone-chilling story explaining why he'd never go out into the sea again), thus combining skillset of a sailor with being able to easily mingle with tavernfolk and occasionally impress people with bits of exotic knowledge. The old social trait would be useless, but there's a lot more stuff that could come from this background... Which is discouraged because there's no water for Ship's Passage trait.
You're literally fighting against freedom and flexibility.
I agree with @kamchatmonk, if anyone doesn't like the backgrounds being build-your-own, they can always use the sample ones. It's not like the build-your-owns are super complicated on there own anyway, so without adding more confusing elements to them, most players would be able to build-their-own-backgrounds without it being too hard anyway.
No matter what, when is having more good options bad? It just gives you a bunch of nice ways to pick or build background. And you can pick the way that you enjoy/like best.
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
The text states that you can cannibalize other backgrounds to create a composite made from the pieces of other backgrounds. you can obtain the standard gear for a standard background (but you're not allowed to change it), or you can use your class's rolled gold to buy stuff instead (which just means you're out equipment period). There is one sentence stating that if you want to go beyond the fifteen-odd Background Features listed in the PHB, you will have to homebrew - and as we all know, homebrew is a cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs.
[REDACTED] Once you have one, that feature describes the sum totality of what your character is capable of. That innkeeper's daughter I mentioned a few pages back would be, according to the rules, a Folk Hero. She is not a wandering apothecary and cannot in fact use her herbalism kit, nor can she travel on seagoing ships or attempt to find knowledge in a library, and she cannot enter temples. Those are all the provinces of other Background Features, and this girl cannot possibly encroach on them because "Rustic Hospitality" is in fact the only piece of text on her entire sheet that has any narrative point, meaning, or weight.
I may or may not feel some kind of way about that.
Notes: Users are not to engage in personal attacks or harassment
I do not necessarily think the idea is bad or good (need more of the game rules to see how it fits in with other things) but I do think how the info is presented is problematic (just like I said 2 years ago or so on this forum). I think the info could/can be easily rewritten by the same author or another author or editor and be much clearer in nature (ie the samples use the above rules in the doc to make background for the authors game and that they may or may not work for your game.)
I do agree that some aspects can be very game and or setting specific, if you want to provide generic examples then in the slots for choice say <pick> or say in the background that pick from the list of options based on the background description.
I do think again that having optional rules that allowed some of the things in 5e's backgrounds to be included but in a much more limited/focused form would also be beneficial. So being an Outlander in Saltmarsh would allow you to gather food around Saltmarsh with out a survival check. Because that is where you grew up and spent your time but when you go to other places the PC would have to use the skill based method. So options are more limited in scope and or are more descriptive where they can be used and thus not used.
What I like about the 1dnd backgrounds is that the primary option is full custom, but there are also the options of taking a pre made background or “fiddling” with a pre made. The full custom almost allows you to create a reasonable facsimile of a real person. Even the equipment is not really a problem as all (background) equipment packages run 50GP so as long as you stick with that you can take any equipment you want. That guy in my sig is a real person and this is the first time in decades I could actually put together a decent version of his real background following the rules. I’m waiting to see what they do with the ranger and monk classes to see how it all fits together but the backgrounds and races I can work with without significant problems.
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
The text states that you can cannibalize other backgrounds to create a composite made from the pieces of other backgrounds. you can obtain the standard gear for a standard background (but you're not allowed to change it), or you can use your class's rolled gold to buy stuff instead (which just means you're out equipment period). There is one sentence stating that if you want to go beyond the fifteen-odd Background Features listed in the PHB, you will have to homebrew - and as we all know, homebrew is a cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs.
Kotath has been arguing for a dozen pages now that Wizards AND ONLY WIZARDS can write Background Features, and everyone needs one of these standardized Background Features. Once you have one, that feature describes the sum totality of what your character is capable of. That innkeeper's daughter I mentioned a few pages back would be, according to the rules, a Folk Hero. She is not a wandering apothecary and cannot in fact use her herbalism kit, nor can she travel on seagoing ships or attempt to find knowledge in a library, and she cannot enter temples. Those are all the provinces of other Background Features, and this girl cannot possibly encroach on them because "Rustic Hospitality" is in fact the only piece of text on her entire sheet that has any narrative point, meaning, or weight.
I may or may not feel some kind of way about that.
A dozen pages in a thread that's only on page eight? Either you and I have different ideas on what constitutes a dozen, or I missed something. Did a previous thread get locked for toxic behavior?
Since it's been linked to several times, and I don't know your permissions, I'm going to share the relevant text here. There's clearly been a breakdown.
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
As you can plainly see, the only time this rule suggests consulting with the DM is when creating a custom feature. If I want to, for example, swap something out, like replace one of the language proficiencies granted by the Sage background with proficiency with calligrapher's supplies, I don't need permission. I can just do it. Any of us can. And if the DM doesn't like it, that's their problem. It isn't overpowered. The background still doesn't come with the requisite tools. That requires either another change or expending starting gold. So now I'm either down some gold or I can't use the proficiency. And either way, I'm down a language.
To reiterate, nothing above actually discourages players from customizing their background. Nor do the rules require the player to have the DM's permission ahead of time. I don't know if you simply didn't know that, or if you did and were lying to score points. I've read this thread. And what I see from a great many participants, yourself included, is people shouting past one another with DEBATE ME rhetoric instead of actually reading and paying attention.
You have repeated demonstrably false statements. There's no honest discourse to be had with someone who does this.
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
The text states that you can cannibalize other backgrounds to create a composite made from the pieces of other backgrounds. you can obtain the standard gear for a standard background (but you're not allowed to change it), or you can use your class's rolled gold to buy stuff instead (which just means you're out equipment period). There is one sentence stating that if you want to go beyond the fifteen-odd Background Features listed in the PHB, you will have to homebrew - and as we all know, homebrew is a cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs.
Kotath has been arguing for a dozen pages now that Wizards AND ONLY WIZARDS can write Background Features, and everyone needs one of these standardized Background Features. Once you have one, that feature describes the sum totality of what your character is capable of. That innkeeper's daughter I mentioned a few pages back would be, according to the rules, a Folk Hero. She is not a wandering apothecary and cannot in fact use her herbalism kit, nor can she travel on seagoing ships or attempt to find knowledge in a library, and she cannot enter temples. Those are all the provinces of other Background Features, and this girl cannot possibly encroach on them because "Rustic Hospitality" is in fact the only piece of text on her entire sheet that has any narrative point, meaning, or weight.
I may or may not feel some kind of way about that.
A dozen pages in a thread that's only on page eight? Either you and I have different ideas on what constitutes a dozen, or I missed something. Did a previous thread get locked for toxic behavior?
Since it's been linked to several times, and I don't know your permissions, I'm going to share the relevant text here. There's clearly been a breakdown.
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
As you can plainly see, the only time this rule suggests consulting with the DM is when creating a custom feature. If I want to, for example, swap something out, like replace one of the language proficiencies granted by the Sage background with proficiency with calligrapher's supplies, I don't need permission. I can just do it. Any of us can. And if the DM doesn't like it, that's their problem. It isn't overpowered. The background still doesn't come with the requisite tools. That requires either another change or expending starting gold. So now I'm either down some gold or I can't use the proficiency. And either way, I'm down a language.
To reiterate, nothing above actually discourages players from customizing their background. Nor do the rules require the player to have the DM's permission ahead of time. I don't know if you simply didn't know that, or if you did and were lying to score points. I've read this thread. And what I see from a great many participants, yourself included, is people shouting past one another with DEBATE ME rhetoric instead of actually reading and paying attention.
You have repeated demonstrably false statements. There's no honest discourse to be had with someone who does this.
My biggest issue is WITH the creation of a new feature. The existing features are mostly harmless and fluff. I could take or leave them. They could exist or not exist and I would lose no sleep either way. The new feat thing, to me, is super impactful as it gives players another way to make a mechanical decision about their character at level 1 and I am big into mechanical decisions being put along side purely narrative mechanics so I definitely do not want to lose the new feat thing at level 1 to help further distinguish characters, but the main crux of my issue is when a feature doesn't fit with the custom background and you need to talk to your DM to figure out another one. There aren't any rules for creating a feature, and just giving a player ANOTHER feat seems unfair. This is why I would rather do away with features, as most of the written ones are largely implied by the characters background and given history, in combination with their being no rules for creating one to fit a new character and that puts a lot of onus on the GM to come up with one without having anything to direct them in how to do so.
The fortune teller is a good example that I gave earlier. If we keep the feat thing, great magic initiate, but now what is the feature? We can't just give it ANOTHER feat. The DM might try to but now you have the problem of other players going "hey why do they get 2 feats and I only get 1". They could say hey you get this once per long rest ability, but that misses the mark by comparison to other features and, again, becomes more like a feat than a feature. Now a GM COULD figure out a good solve, but the problem is without rules for creating a feature the DM could wind up anywhere on the power spectrum for designing custom features. By simply doing away with features the GM no longer needs to define those custom features at level 1, nor does the player have to stick with an established feature that doesn't quite work with their character concept while also still being the thing they said they were. Instead, these things evolve and exist naturally through gameplay as players ask to do things rather than having to be established all at once.
Edit: Oh and just a note, yes there is a second thread. It is called first level feats.
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
The text states that you can cannibalize other backgrounds to create a composite made from the pieces of other backgrounds. you can obtain the standard gear for a standard background (but you're not allowed to change it), or you can use your class's rolled gold to buy stuff instead (which just means you're out equipment period). There is one sentence stating that if you want to go beyond the fifteen-odd Background Features listed in the PHB, you will have to homebrew - and as we all know, homebrew is a cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs.
Kotath has been arguing for a dozen pages now that Wizards AND ONLY WIZARDS can write Background Features, and everyone needs one of these standardized Background Features. Once you have one, that feature describes the sum totality of what your character is capable of. That innkeeper's daughter I mentioned a few pages back would be, according to the rules, a Folk Hero. She is not a wandering apothecary and cannot in fact use her herbalism kit, nor can she travel on seagoing ships or attempt to find knowledge in a library, and she cannot enter temples. Those are all the provinces of other Background Features, and this girl cannot possibly encroach on them because "Rustic Hospitality" is in fact the only piece of text on her entire sheet that has any narrative point, meaning, or weight.
I may or may not feel some kind of way about that.
A dozen pages in a thread that's only on page eight? Either you and I have different ideas on what constitutes a dozen, or I missed something. Did a previous thread get locked for toxic behavior?
Since it's been linked to several times, and I don't know your permissions, I'm going to share the relevant text here. There's clearly been a breakdown.
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
As you can plainly see, the only time this rule suggests consulting with the DM is when creating a custom feature. If I want to, for example, swap something out, like replace one of the language proficiencies granted by the Sage background with proficiency with calligrapher's supplies, I don't need permission. I can just do it. Any of us can. And if the DM doesn't like it, that's their problem. It isn't overpowered. The background still doesn't come with the requisite tools. That requires either another change or expending starting gold. So now I'm either down some gold or I can't use the proficiency. And either way, I'm down a language.
To reiterate, nothing above actually discourages players from customizing their background. Nor do the rules require the player to have the DM's permission ahead of time. I don't know if you simply didn't know that, or if you did and were lying to score points. I've read this thread. And what I see from a great many participants, yourself included, is people shouting past one another with DEBATE ME rhetoric instead of actually reading and paying attention.
You have repeated demonstrably false statements. There's no honest discourse to be had with someone who does this.
My biggest issue is WITH the creation of a new feature. The existing features are mostly harmless and fluff. I could take or leave them. They could exist or not exist and I would lose no sleep either way. The new feat thing, to me, is super impactful as it gives players another way to make a mechanical decision about their character at level 1 and I am big into mechanical decisions being put along side purely narrative mechanics so I definitely do not want to lose the new feat thing at level 1 to help further distinguish characters, but the main crux of my issue is when a feature doesn't fit with the custom background and you need to talk to your DM to figure out another one. There aren't any rules for creating a feature, and just giving a player ANOTHER feat seems unfair. This is why I would rather do away with features, as most of the written ones are largely implied by the characters background and given history, in combination with their being no rules for creating one to fit a new character and that puts a lot of onus on the GM to come up with one without having anything to direct them in how to do so.
The fortune teller is a good example that I gave earlier. If we keep the feat thing, great magic initiate, but now what is the feature? We can't just give it ANOTHER feat. The DM might try to but now you have the problem of other players going "hey why do they get 2 feats and I only get 1". They could say hey you get this once per long rest ability, but that misses the mark by comparison to other features and, again, becomes more like a feat than a feature. Now a GM COULD figure out a good solve, but the problem is without rules for creating a feature the DM could wind up anywhere on the power spectrum for designing custom features. By simply doing away with features the GM no longer needs to define those custom features at level 1, nor does the player have to stick with an established feature that doesn't quite work with their character concept while also still being the thing they said they were. Instead, these things evolve and exist naturally through gameplay as players ask to do things rather than having to be established all at once.
A lot of different existing features that could work for a fortune teller. It really depends on where you, as a player, want to go with it.
You could be have been an acolyte to an oracle or to a god of divination or an astral drifter who met such an entity directly and were gifted/cursed with your magical powers (the feat)
You could be the child of a famous adventurer, and your powers of divination come genetically, along with the notoriety of your heritage.
You could have been a member of the city watch, helping them solve crimes or a criminal syndicate, helping them avoid being caught or a member of some house or faction, lending your predictive talents to them, or for the military as a solder or sailor.
Could be an artisan, crafting and selling tarot cards or other such divinatory tools or even part of a formal 'Seers Guild,' fully recognized and accredited for your abilities by society.
Absolutely classic would be hermit, a lonely oracle, who had been driven to seclusion by all the possible and destined futures that you have forseen. The feature even covers having such visions and knowledge.
You could well be a sage, with that 'even on failure, knows where to look next' aspect of the feature being literal mystical foresight.
If your DM allows Stryxhaven backgrounds, then you could go with Quandrix Student, which includes the Quandrix Initiate feat, so Druidcraft (which gives weather prediction), Guidance, and one 1st level druid or Wizard spell. Fits pretty well without needing any additional level 1 feat, methinks?
Any of the listed backgrounds could work, really, given a bonus level 1 feat covering the actual magical fortune telling. What is your idea of what it would mean to have a background as a fortune teller, above and beyond the skills and level 1 feat?
And right here you might as well have admitted that you do not have a method for coming up with a brand new feature. The best is cannibalize an existing one. You are too focused on the specific example of the background rather than the point being made. If you are making a unique enough custom background that no currently existing feature exists that satisfies it the DM now needs to come up with one and there are no guidelines to do so. Without the existing features however, nothing is really lost from a mechanical or roleplay standpoint. These are ribbon features that are basically suggestions for roleplay and are, for the most part, largely inferred by the character's backstory. When you play a game without these features then your past experience is woven in as needed, nothing more nothing less. When you define it right out the gate it is too specific and does a poor job of encapsulating the characters specific back story over their generic background. These features, in many cases, have to be forced in rather than occurring naturally.
And right here you might as well have admitted that you do not have a method for coming up with a brand new feature. The best is cannibalize an existing one. You are too focused on the specific example of the background rather than the point being made. If you are making a unique enough custom background that no currently existing feature exists that satisfies it the DM now needs to come up with one and there are no guidelines to do so. Without the existing features however, nothing is really lost from a mechanical or roleplay standpoint. These are ribbon features that are basically suggestions for roleplay and are, for the most part, largely inferred by the character's backstory. When you play a game without these features then your past experience is woven in as needed, nothing more nothing less. When you define it right out the gate it is too specific and does a poor job of encapsulating the characters specific back story over their generic background. These features, in many cases, have to be forced in rather than occurring naturally.
I have not admitted any such thing. What I have said is that I need more than just 'This character is a fortune teller' to work with if I am going to suggest something specific. It is your hypothetical character, not mine.
You are not even explaining why none of the listed backgrounds fit, but, with no specific justification other than an apparent complaint that you might be being subjected to rules, insisting that none of them do.
I know you haven't, but you might as well have, because you are ignoring the point of the argument to focus on the insignificant rhetoric of the argument. Fortune teller is one of a million theoretical backgrounds. You can not know, and neither can I, every background someone will come up with. That is why the "talk to your GM" part is there. It is specifically there because Wizards understands that not every background or backstory is going to fit an existing feature. The problem is they didn't give the GM's tools to create a feature. And again, the features themselves aren't really meaningful in game anyway. Argue the point not the literary device and example used to illustrate the point.
And right here you might as well have admitted that you do not have a method for coming up with a brand new feature. The best is cannibalize an existing one. You are too focused on the specific example of the background rather than the point being made. If you are making a unique enough custom background that no currently existing feature exists that satisfies it the DM now needs to come up with one and there are no guidelines to do so. Without the existing features however, nothing is really lost from a mechanical or roleplay standpoint. These are ribbon features that are basically suggestions for roleplay and are, for the most part, largely inferred by the character's backstory. When you play a game without these features then your past experience is woven in as needed, nothing more nothing less. When you define it right out the gate it is too specific and does a poor job of encapsulating the characters specific back story over their generic background. These features, in many cases, have to be forced in rather than occurring naturally.
I have not admitted any such thing. What I have said is that I need more than just 'This character is a fortune teller' to work with if I am going to suggest something specific. It is your hypothetical character, not mine.
You are not even explaining why none of the listed backgrounds fit, but, with no specific justification other than an apparent complaint that you might be being subjected to rules, insisting that none of them do.
I know you haven't, but you might as well have, because you are ignoring the point of the argument to focus on the insignificant rhetoric of the argument. Fortune teller is one of a million theoretical backgrounds. You can not know, and neither can I, every background someone will come up with. That is why the "talk to your GM" part is there. It is specifically there because Wizards understands that not every background or backstory is going to fit an existing feature. The problem is they didn't give the GM's tools to create a feature. And again, the features themselves aren't really meaningful in game anyway. Argue the point not the literary device and example used to illustrate the point.
So... your complaint is that there is no guidance for creating a feature from scratch and the solution to this is to not mention such features in the rules at all, so that characters are even less likely to be granted such background perks by DM's?
And if and when they are granted such perks using the UA version, there is still no guidance regarding such things, but it is somehow different by way of not being mentioned in the rules at all?
Its called playing a role playing game. You nix the rules for it and then you role play based on your backstory and your DM reacts to it rather than having to come up with some universal feature before the game even begins to be played. You seem to be hung up that because it isn't written down at the start of the game that it doesn't exist. Or that you need to have this hard fast rule about your backstory on session 0 for your back story to matter at session 15.
You don't.
Saying "I am Maximus decimus maridius a beloved general of the factions of the north" is all you need to say in session 0 to know that in session 15 when you run into some soldiers from the north that they may have heard of you and be in awe of your great deeds and help you out. You don't need a feature at session 0 to tell you that. And HAVING a feature tell you that means that when a weirder background comes up you now have to figure out a feature for it too. This feature could be meaningless and never come up, which would suck. This feature could be way too powerful, which would also suck. There are no guidelines and the character is in the conceptual stage rather than the realized stage at session 0 when you are being asked to come up with one. But 15 sessions later when something comes up that may pertain to your backstory if you guys decided on the wrong style for the feature and the concept has evolved past into a more realized character it doesn't matter that this moment came up you can't do anything with it because you don't have a feature for it. OR if no features exist than the GM can just make what ever logical thing happen now 5, 10, 15, 17, 21 sessions into the game. You just role play.
And right here you might as well have admitted that you do not have a method for coming up with a brand new feature. The best is cannibalize an existing one. You are too focused on the specific example of the background rather than the point being made. If you are making a unique enough custom background that no currently existing feature exists that satisfies it the DM now needs to come up with one and there are no guidelines to do so. Without the existing features however, nothing is really lost from a mechanical or roleplay standpoint. These are ribbon features that are basically suggestions for roleplay and are, for the most part, largely inferred by the character's backstory. When you play a game without these features then your past experience is woven in as needed, nothing more nothing less. When you define it right out the gate it is too specific and does a poor job of encapsulating the characters specific back story over their generic background. These features, in many cases, have to be forced in rather than occurring naturally.
I have not admitted any such thing. What I have said is that I need more than just 'This character is a fortune teller' to work with if I am going to suggest something specific. It is your hypothetical character, not mine.
You are not even explaining why none of the listed backgrounds fit, but, with no specific justification other than an apparent complaint that you might be being subjected to rules, insisting that none of them do.
I know you haven't, but you might as well have, because you are ignoring the point of the argument to focus on the insignificant rhetoric of the argument. Fortune teller is one of a million theoretical backgrounds. You can not know, and neither can I, every background someone will come up with. That is why the "talk to your GM" part is there. It is specifically there because Wizards understands that not every background or backstory is going to fit an existing feature. The problem is they didn't give the GM's tools to create a feature. And again, the features themselves aren't really meaningful in game anyway. Argue the point not the literary device and example used to illustrate the point.
So... your complaint is that there is no guidance for creating a feature from scratch and the solution to this is to not mention such features in the rules at all, so that characters are even less likely to be granted such background perks by DM's?
And if and when they are granted such perks using the UA version, there is still no guidance regarding such things, but it is somehow different by way of not being mentioned in the rules at all?
Its called playing a role playing game. You nix the rules for it and then you role play based on your backstory and your DM reacts to it rather than having to come up with some universal feature before the game even begins to be played. You seem to be hung up that because it isn't written down at the start of the game that it doesn't exist. Or that you need to have this hard fast rule about your backstory on session 0 for your back story to matter at session 15.
You don't.
Saying "I am Maximus decimus maridius a beloved general of the factions of the north" is all you need to say in session 0 to know that in session 15 when you run into some soldiers from the north that they may have heard of you and be in awe of your great deeds and help you out. You don't need a feature at session 0 to tell you that. And HAVING a feature tell you that means that when a weirder background comes up you now have to figure out a feature for it too. This feature could be meaningless and never come up, which would suck. This feature could be way too powerful, which would also suck. There are no guidelines and the character is in the conceptual stage rather than the realized stage at session 0 when you are being asked to come up with one. But 15 sessions later when something comes up that may pertain to your backstory if you guys decided on the wrong style for the feature and the concept has evolved past into a more realized character it doesn't matter that this moment came up you can't do anything with it because you don't have a feature for it. OR if no features exist than the GM can just make what ever logical thing happen now 5, 10, 15, 17, 21 sessions into the game. You just role play.
This is a level 1 character? Starting off with the rank of General? If they are higher than 1st, then all bets are off, since they have everything that happened between their pre-adventuring background (which is what we are talking about) and session 0.
But you are giving them a feature there, regardless. Your complaint seems to be that if there is any description of such a feature in the rules, that it is somehow tightly binding, which simply is not true. Furthermore that is covered by the existing soldier background, which, in theory does allow you to have been a general (although again, formally written feature or no, would be the kind of thing most DM's would question).
Then you dive into whataboutism, saying 'but what about a stranger background not well covered by any of the existing features?' Such as?
You give no examples, only this unspecified allegedly impossible background. You completely ignore the point that balancing is an issue whether the 'General's' background benefits are formally written out or not. "You just roleplay." Well the DM still has to decide what you can get away with, what works and what does not. None of the background features are so tightly restricting as you keep painting them. They all allow plenty of room for exactly that 'playing out the details' that you are talking about.
Ok so I am not even going to dignify this with a full response. Go back and read my main point and address the actual point. Thank you.
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
The text states that you can cannibalize other backgrounds to create a composite made from the pieces of other backgrounds. you can obtain the standard gear for a standard background (but you're not allowed to change it), or you can use your class's rolled gold to buy stuff instead (which just means you're out equipment period). There is one sentence stating that if you want to go beyond the fifteen-odd Background Features listed in the PHB, you will have to homebrew - and as we all know, homebrew is a cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs.
Kotath has been arguing for a dozen pages now that Wizards AND ONLY WIZARDS can write Background Features, and everyone needs one of these standardized Background Features. Once you have one, that feature describes the sum totality of what your character is capable of. That innkeeper's daughter I mentioned a few pages back would be, according to the rules, a Folk Hero. She is not a wandering apothecary and cannot in fact use her herbalism kit, nor can she travel on seagoing ships or attempt to find knowledge in a library, and she cannot enter temples. Those are all the provinces of other Background Features, and this girl cannot possibly encroach on them because "Rustic Hospitality" is in fact the only piece of text on her entire sheet that has any narrative point, meaning, or weight.
I may or may not feel some kind of way about that.
A dozen pages in a thread that's only on page eight? Either you and I have different ideas on what constitutes a dozen, or I missed something. Did a previous thread get locked for toxic behavior?
Since it's been linked to several times, and I don't know your permissions, I'm going to share the relevant text here. There's clearly been a breakdown.
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
As you can plainly see, the only time this rule suggests consulting with the DM is when creating a custom feature. If I want to, for example, swap something out, like replace one of the language proficiencies granted by the Sage background with proficiency with calligrapher's supplies, I don't need permission. I can just do it. Any of us can. And if the DM doesn't like it, that's their problem. It isn't overpowered. The background still doesn't come with the requisite tools. That requires either another change or expending starting gold. So now I'm either down some gold or I can't use the proficiency. And either way, I'm down a language.
To reiterate, nothing above actually discourages players from customizing their background. Nor do the rules require the player to have the DM's permission ahead of time. I don't know if you simply didn't know that, or if you did and were lying to score points. I've read this thread. And what I see from a great many participants, yourself included, is people shouting past one another with DEBATE ME rhetoric instead of actually reading and paying attention.
You have repeated demonstrably false statements. There's no honest discourse to be had with someone who does this.
My biggest issue is WITH the creation of a new feature. The existing features are mostly harmless and fluff. I could take or leave them. They could exist or not exist and I would lose no sleep either way. The new feat thing, to me, is super impactful as it gives players another way to make a mechanical decision about their character at level 1 and I am big into mechanical decisions being put along side purely narrative mechanics so I definitely do not want to lose the new feat thing at level 1 to help further distinguish characters, but the main crux of my issue is when a feature doesn't fit with the custom background and you need to talk to your DM to figure out another one. There aren't any rules for creating a feature, and just giving a player ANOTHER feat seems unfair. This is why I would rather do away with features, as most of the written ones are largely implied by the characters background and given history, in combination with their being no rules for creating one to fit a new character and that puts a lot of onus on the GM to come up with one without having anything to direct them in how to do so.
The fortune teller is a good example that I gave earlier. If we keep the feat thing, great magic initiate, but now what is the feature? We can't just give it ANOTHER feat. The DM might try to but now you have the problem of other players going "hey why do they get 2 feats and I only get 1". They could say hey you get this once per long rest ability, but that misses the mark by comparison to other features and, again, becomes more like a feat than a feature. Now a GM COULD figure out a good solve, but the problem is without rules for creating a feature the DM could wind up anywhere on the power spectrum for designing custom features. By simply doing away with features the GM no longer needs to define those custom features at level 1, nor does the player have to stick with an established feature that doesn't quite work with their character concept while also still being the thing they said they were. Instead, these things evolve and exist naturally through gameplay as players ask to do things rather than having to be established all at once.
A lot of different existing features that could work for a fortune teller. It really depends on where you, as a player, want to go with it.
You could be have been an acolyte to an oracle or to a god of divination or an astral drifter who met such an entity directly and were gifted/cursed with your magical powers (the feat)
You could be the child of a famous adventurer, and your powers of divination come genetically, along with the notoriety of your heritage.
You could have been a member of the city watch, helping them solve crimes or a criminal syndicate, helping them avoid being caught or a member of some house or faction, lending your predictive talents to them, or for the military as a solder or sailor.
Could be an artisan, crafting and selling tarot cards or other such divinatory tools or even part of a formal 'Seers Guild,' fully recognized and accredited for your abilities by society.
Absolutely classic would be hermit, a lonely oracle, who had been driven to seclusion by all the possible and destined futures that you have forseen. The feature even covers having such visions and knowledge.
You could well be a sage, with that 'even on failure, knows where to look next' aspect of the feature being literal mystical foresight.
If your DM allows Stryxhaven backgrounds, then you could go with Quandrix Student, which includes the Quandrix Initiate feat, so Druidcraft (which gives weather prediction), Guidance, and one 1st level druid or Wizard spell. Fits pretty well without needing any additional level 1 feat, methinks?
Any of the listed backgrounds could work, really, given a bonus level 1 feat covering the actual magical fortune telling. What is your idea of what it would mean to have a background as a fortune teller, above and beyond the skills and level 1 feat?
And right here you might as well have admitted that you do not have a method for coming up with a brand new feature. The best is cannibalize an existing one. You are too focused on the specific example of the background rather than the point being made. If you are making a unique enough custom background that no currently existing feature exists that satisfies it the DM now needs to come up with one and there are no guidelines to do so. Without the existing features however, nothing is really lost from a mechanical or roleplay standpoint. These are ribbon features that are basically suggestions for roleplay and are, for the most part, largely inferred by the character's backstory. When you play a game without these features then your past experience is woven in as needed, nothing more nothing less. When you define it right out the gate it is too specific and does a poor job of encapsulating the characters specific back story over their generic background. These features, in many cases, have to be forced in rather than occurring naturally.
So you're complaining because there's no hard and fast rule for what this ribbon feature should look like? No precise formula for what they need? That's literally it? Heavens forbid, someone who wants to customize something in a game should engage in a little game design.
You think nothing is lost if those ribbons are gone. I disagree. They say something about how the world sees your character. A folk hero or pirate is someone whose reputation precedes them. A gladiator probably could, too, or at the very least someone might approach them and ask if they want to compete in the local fighting pit. "Hey, you look like a tough S.O.B., want to make some quick coin?"
An acolyte belongs to a faith and can get favors from other followers. A sage has a letter with a mystery they're trying to solve and always knows where to go to answer questions. A noble has a title with the possibilities of land, money, and political enemies. You can gain an audience with another noble or other high-ranking member of society as early as 1st-level; without having to make a name for yourself as an adventurer.
If you think these are minor or inconsequential, that speaks to the quality of the game you play in. I don't mean your games are bad; I'm sure you have a lot of fun doing whatever it is you do. They're tools to be used, but nobody can make you use them. Doesn't mean they're bad or should be excised.
EDIT: To be fair, I don't think you ever had a point.
Let's look at the fortune-teller again. What archetype are we looking to emulate? There's Fortune-Teller Baba from Dragon Ball, whose basically a Hermit. Or you could be like Aunt Wu from Avatar: The Last Airbender. She might be a Folk Hero or Noble, but honestly I think she's better represented with actual spellcasting and some wizard levels. (She learned cloud reading from a book and studied other forms of divination.)
Or maybe it isn't real at all. Maybe the fortune-teller is a Charlatan whose just good at sussing out what people want to hear.
Personally, I don't think "fortune-teller" is unique enough for a background. Background like Folk Hero, Guild Artisan, and even Soldier cover dozens of professions. I think it's a bad example, but you do you. And it hasn't stopped people from trying.
The war that preceded the campaign lasted over 3,000 years. The continent was sealed off about a thousand years in as a result of strategic battle rituals literally tearing holes in reality. There was a need to contain the damage. There are some lakes and rivers, but not anywhere that would warrant maintaining navies and for that matter, not anywhere near the campaign setting. The last sailors died out literal millennia ago.
Furthermore, there are no tavern folk. There are no taverns. Imagine the magical equivalent of nuclear war, in a high enough magic setting to make such a thing possible. 'Knowledge bombs' literally destroyed even the knowledge of the methods they were using against each other. The two empires literally fought until they had essentially nothing left to fight with. After the war finally ended, vast sections of land between the two empires were no man's land. The treaty strictly limited resettlement attempts. The initial expeditions under treaty were simply lost. The party initially consisted of the Northern Empire's latest treaty approved attempt to investigate and, if possible, form a bridgehead, to rebuild, if they can. There is NO civilization here, at least nothing conventional. The nearest outposts are about a year's journey away. And there is no trade with them due to treaty limitations.
And there were literally no sailors left in the known/accessible world.
Hmm, very interesting. No seas or oceans means dire climatic changes. And vast expanses without civilization might imply there's people whose profession is to traverse it, linking settlements. Reminds me of the world of Mad Max, which is mostly desert, where gasoline - an elixir against hundreds of miles of emptiness - is the most precious commodity. "Sailor" of this world could be a driver, or a caravaneer. Or there could be a flat salty desert somewhere with ships on wheels... Seas of sand, seas of salt, seas of weed (like in "Hyperion" by Dan Simmons). Just tossing ideas)
If it's ribbon, do we need the label of "feature" slapped on it? Wouldn't the background writeup suffice?
It is useful for both player and DM to have some mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms, just as it is similarly useful for them both to have some idea how effective a light spell is, or how far one can reasonably travel in a day, or any number of other aspects of the game that could similarly be left to 'roleplay' or to DM caveat.
So by "mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms" are you talking about mechanics, specifically? Or would a conversation such as the following, work?
"As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?"
Because if you mean mechanics, then we have been given a few different mechanical widgets to represent a Background in level 1 Feats. But if you don't specifically mean mechanics, then I feel like "What did you do? Who did you study with? What kinds of things did you acquire? Etc" would be the kinds of thing that would establish that mutual sense of a background's capabilities, wouldn't they?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If it's ribbon, do we need the label of "feature" slapped on it? Wouldn't the background writeup suffice?
It is useful for both player and DM to have some mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms, just as it is similarly useful for them both to have some idea how effective a light spell is, or how far one can reasonably travel in a day, or any number of other aspects of the game that could similarly be left to 'roleplay' or to DM caveat.
So by "mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms" are you talking about mechanics, specifically? Or would a conversation such as the following, work?
"As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?"
Because if you mean mechanics, then we have been given a few different mechanical widgets to represent a Background in level 1 Feats. But if you don't specifically mean mechanics, then I feel like "What did you do? Who did you study with? What kinds of things did you acquire? Etc" would be the kinds of thing that would establish that mutual sense of a background's capabilities, wouldn't they?
That is a great start... I would add "What lasting connections did they make?" in there.
Defining a character's Bonds would help in those regards, but yes. So you're in agreement that the 1DD playtest rules, which include the quoted questions, do cover the material required for a Background Feature then?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If it's ribbon, do we need the label of "feature" slapped on it? Wouldn't the background writeup suffice?
It is useful for both player and DM to have some mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms, just as it is similarly useful for them both to have some idea how effective a light spell is, or how far one can reasonably travel in a day, or any number of other aspects of the game that could similarly be left to 'roleplay' or to DM caveat.
So by "mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms" are you talking about mechanics, specifically? Or would a conversation such as the following, work?
"As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?"
Because if you mean mechanics, then we have been given a few different mechanical widgets to represent a Background in level 1 Feats. But if you don't specifically mean mechanics, then I feel like "What did you do? Who did you study with? What kinds of things did you acquire? Etc" would be the kinds of thing that would establish that mutual sense of a background's capabilities, wouldn't they?
That is a great start... I would add "What lasting connections did they make?" in there.
Defining a character's Bonds would help in those regards, but yes. So you're in agreement that the 1DD playtest rules, which include the quoted questions, do cover the material required for a Background Feature then?
Other than the fact none of their 'samples' cover connections or any non-1st level feat non-skill capabilities
In fact, the only 1DD sample background that overtly mentions any lasting connections is the Gladiator.
... are we reading the same document?
Every Background has connections to people, places, and things written into them. They may be a tad generic, but that's to be expected from samples meant to be customized per character. Not every character will "forever share a remarkable bond" with anything, but nevertheless all the Backgrounds detail how they were shaped by the people, places, and things in their history. The Acolyte tells of a temple, a priest, and the worshippers in a community, none of those are covered by the mechanical widgets but all of them would be things that this character could expect to be able to influence or draw upon in game. The Guard tells of bunking in the mayor's barracks with fellow sentries so there are fellow sentries and even a Mayor that the player of this character could reasonably expect to be able to interact with, none of which is detailed in their mechanical widgets. The Noble tells of an entire family and castle which the character would expect to interact with in significant ways, none of which are detailed in the mechanical widgets.
How can you look at any of those and not see connections?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If it's ribbon, do we need the label of "feature" slapped on it? Wouldn't the background writeup suffice?
It is useful for both player and DM to have some mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms, just as it is similarly useful for them both to have some idea how effective a light spell is, or how far one can reasonably travel in a day, or any number of other aspects of the game that could similarly be left to 'roleplay' or to DM caveat.
So by "mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms" are you talking about mechanics, specifically? Or would a conversation such as the following, work?
"As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?"
Because if you mean mechanics, then we have been given a few different mechanical widgets to represent a Background in level 1 Feats. But if you don't specifically mean mechanics, then I feel like "What did you do? Who did you study with? What kinds of things did you acquire? Etc" would be the kinds of thing that would establish that mutual sense of a background's capabilities, wouldn't they?
That is a great start... I would add "What lasting connections did they make?" in there.
Defining a character's Bonds would help in those regards, but yes. So you're in agreement that the 1DD playtest rules, which include the quoted questions, do cover the material required for a Background Feature then?
Other than the fact none of their 'samples' cover connections or any non-1st level feat non-skill capabilities
In fact, the only 1DD sample background that overtly mentions any lasting connections is the Gladiator.
... are we reading the same document?
Every Background has connections to people, places, and things written into them. They may be a tad generic, but that's to be expected from samples meant to be customized per character. Not every character will "forever share a remarkable bond" with anything, but nevertheless all the Backgrounds detail how they were shaped by the people, places, and things in their history. The Acolyte tells of a temple, a priest, and the worshippers in a community, none of those are covered by the mechanical widgets but all of them would be things that this character could expect to be able to influence or draw upon in game. The Guard tells of bunking in the mayor's barracks with fellow sentries so there are fellow sentries and even a Mayor that the player of this character could reasonably expect to be able to interact with, none of which is detailed in their mechanical widgets. The Noble tells of an entire family and castle which the character would expect to interact with in significant ways, none of which are detailed in the mechanical widgets.
How can you look at any of those and not see connections?
I just re-read through them. All references to connections are in the past tense, except the Gladiator, which mentions lasting bonds.
If I wrote my own personal history I would also use past tense, come on now. You can't seriously be using a common writing convention and implying that because it is written in past tense that means that it implies everything detailed is what? Over and done now?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I just re-read through them. All references to connections are in the past tense, except the Gladiator, which mentions lasting bonds.
If I wrote my own personal history I would also use past tense, come on now. You can't seriously be using a common writing convention and implying that because it is written in past tense that means that it implies everything detailed is what? Over and done now?
There is a difference, you know. Consider how many people have shaped your life. How many teachers you have had, how many coworkers, etc. Now how many are you still in touch with? How many could you still rely on today if you needed something from them?
There is a significant difference between past tense and present. Or do you believe that the former soldier still has their full rank and authority despite having mustered out?
I'm sorry, but in this context there bloody well is not a significant difference and I think you know it. This is honestly a very weak rebuttal if you're trying to say that every statement made in past tense implies an irrelevance to current story.
"I met the love of my life last year and we got married."
Is also past tense and does not in any way imply a severing or discontinuation of that state. If there was a discontinuation in the past, it would also have been mentioned, "I retired from military service" or some such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I just re-read through them. All references to connections are in the past tense, except the Gladiator, which mentions lasting bonds.
If I wrote my own personal history I would also use past tense, come on now. You can't seriously be using a common writing convention and implying that because it is written in past tense that means that it implies everything detailed is what? Over and done now?
There is a difference, you know. Consider how many people have shaped your life. How many teachers you have had, how many coworkers, etc. Now how many are you still in touch with? How many could you still rely on today if you needed something from them?
There is a significant difference between past tense and present. Or do you believe that the former soldier still has their full rank and authority despite having mustered out?
I'm sorry, but in this context there bloody well is not a significant difference and I think you know it. This is honestly a very weak rebuttal if you're trying to say that every statement made in past tense implies an irrelevance to current story.
"I met the love of my life last year and we got married."
Is also past tense and does not in any way imply a severing or discontinuation of that state. If there was a discontinuation in the past, it would also have been mentioned, "I retired from military service" or some such.
Your character is joining the party, not staying in their background profession. Working relationships with coworkers do not work like marriages. They do not automatically extend beyond leaving the job.
If they are still an actively serving member of the military, you figure that is not relevant to state? That has ramifications too. When they take off with the party, are they AWOL? Do they get to continue drawing pay? How much authority do they retain? Can they legally order civilians around?
These are relevant issues that should be mentioned in the background writeup.
By the way, their Noble, despite being from a family of lesser nobility, still is somewhere in line to inherit a family castle some day. There is also the question of what additional rights they have as nobility that peasants do not.
All of that is up to the DM and Player and how they want backgrounds to impact the campaign and should never be codified by rules.
I just re-read through them. All references to connections are in the past tense, except the Gladiator, which mentions lasting bonds.
If I wrote my own personal history I would also use past tense, come on now. You can't seriously be using a common writing convention and implying that because it is written in past tense that means that it implies everything detailed is what? Over and done now?
There is a difference, you know. Consider how many people have shaped your life. How many teachers you have had, how many coworkers, etc. Now how many are you still in touch with? How many could you still rely on today if you needed something from them?
There is a significant difference between past tense and present. Or do you believe that the former soldier still has their full rank and authority despite having mustered out?
I'm sorry, but in this context there bloody well is not a significant difference and I think you know it. This is honestly a very weak rebuttal if you're trying to say that every statement made in past tense implies an irrelevance to current story.
"I met the love of my life last year and we got married."
Is also past tense and does not in any way imply a severing or discontinuation of that state. If there was a discontinuation in the past, it would also have been mentioned, "I retired from military service" or some such.
Your character is joining the party, not staying in their background profession. Working relationships with coworkers do not work like marriages. They do not automatically extend beyond leaving the job.
If they are still an actively serving member of the military, you figure that is not relevant to state? That has ramifications too. When they take off with the party, are they AWOL? Do they get to continue drawing pay? How much authority do they retain? Can they legally order civilians around?
These are relevant issues that should be mentioned in the background writeup.
By the way, their Noble, despite being from a family of lesser nobility, still is somewhere in line to inherit a family castle some day. There is also the question of what additional rights they have as nobility that peasants do not.
At this point I honestly feel like you're equivocating.
- Do you or do you not think that the character histories presented in the 1DD playtest are meant to be irrelevant to any sort of current in game connections to the people, places, and things mentioned in their histories?
If yes, how do you think a character history should be written to detail current relevance?
If no, then do you see how the background provides ample detail as to the roleplay connections with the world and provides narrative permission to draw upon or affect the world in those respects?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with @kamchatmonk, if anyone doesn't like the backgrounds being build-your-own, they can always use the sample ones. It's not like the build-your-owns are super complicated on there own anyway, so without adding more confusing elements to them, most players would be able to build-their-own-backgrounds without it being too hard anyway.
No matter what, when is having more good options bad? It just gives you a bunch of nice ways to pick or build background. And you can pick the way that you enjoy/like best.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.The text states that you can cannibalize other backgrounds to create a composite made from the pieces of other backgrounds. you can obtain the standard gear for a standard background (but you're not allowed to change it), or you can use your class's rolled gold to buy stuff instead (which just means you're out equipment period). There is one sentence stating that if you want to go beyond the fifteen-odd Background Features listed in the PHB, you will have to homebrew - and as we all know, homebrew is a cardinal sin that must be avoided at all costs.
[REDACTED] Once you have one, that feature describes the sum totality of what your character is capable of. That innkeeper's daughter I mentioned a few pages back would be, according to the rules, a Folk Hero. She is not a wandering apothecary and cannot in fact use her herbalism kit, nor can she travel on seagoing ships or attempt to find knowledge in a library, and she cannot enter temples. Those are all the provinces of other Background Features, and this girl cannot possibly encroach on them because "Rustic Hospitality" is in fact the only piece of text on her entire sheet that has any narrative point, meaning, or weight.
I may or may not feel some kind of way about that.
Please do not contact or message me.
I do not necessarily think the idea is bad or good (need more of the game rules to see how it fits in with other things) but I do think how the info is presented is problematic (just like I said 2 years ago or so on this forum). I think the info could/can be easily rewritten by the same author or another author or editor and be much clearer in nature (ie the samples use the above rules in the doc to make background for the authors game and that they may or may not work for your game.)
I do agree that some aspects can be very game and or setting specific, if you want to provide generic examples then in the slots for choice say <pick> or say in the background that pick from the list of options based on the background description.
I do think again that having optional rules that allowed some of the things in 5e's backgrounds to be included but in a much more limited/focused form would also be beneficial. So being an Outlander in Saltmarsh would allow you to gather food around Saltmarsh with out a survival check. Because that is where you grew up and spent your time but when you go to other places the PC would have to use the skill based method. So options are more limited in scope and or are more descriptive where they can be used and thus not used.
What I like about the 1dnd backgrounds is that the primary option is full custom, but there are also the options of taking a pre made background or “fiddling” with a pre made. The full custom almost allows you to create a reasonable facsimile of a real person. Even the equipment is not really a problem as all (background) equipment packages run 50GP so as long as you stick with that you can take any equipment you want. That guy in my sig is a real person and this is the first time in decades I could actually put together a decent version of his real background following the rules. I’m waiting to see what they do with the ranger and monk classes to see how it all fits together but the backgrounds and races I can work with without significant problems.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
A dozen pages in a thread that's only on page eight? Either you and I have different ideas on what constitutes a dozen, or I missed something. Did a previous thread get locked for toxic behavior?
Since it's been linked to several times, and I don't know your permissions, I'm going to share the relevant text here. There's clearly been a breakdown.
As you can plainly see, the only time this rule suggests consulting with the DM is when creating a custom feature. If I want to, for example, swap something out, like replace one of the language proficiencies granted by the Sage background with proficiency with calligrapher's supplies, I don't need permission. I can just do it. Any of us can. And if the DM doesn't like it, that's their problem. It isn't overpowered. The background still doesn't come with the requisite tools. That requires either another change or expending starting gold. So now I'm either down some gold or I can't use the proficiency. And either way, I'm down a language.
To reiterate, nothing above actually discourages players from customizing their background. Nor do the rules require the player to have the DM's permission ahead of time. I don't know if you simply didn't know that, or if you did and were lying to score points. I've read this thread. And what I see from a great many participants, yourself included, is people shouting past one another with DEBATE ME rhetoric instead of actually reading and paying attention.
You have repeated demonstrably false statements. There's no honest discourse to be had with someone who does this.
My biggest issue is WITH the creation of a new feature. The existing features are mostly harmless and fluff. I could take or leave them. They could exist or not exist and I would lose no sleep either way. The new feat thing, to me, is super impactful as it gives players another way to make a mechanical decision about their character at level 1 and I am big into mechanical decisions being put along side purely narrative mechanics so I definitely do not want to lose the new feat thing at level 1 to help further distinguish characters, but the main crux of my issue is when a feature doesn't fit with the custom background and you need to talk to your DM to figure out another one. There aren't any rules for creating a feature, and just giving a player ANOTHER feat seems unfair. This is why I would rather do away with features, as most of the written ones are largely implied by the characters background and given history, in combination with their being no rules for creating one to fit a new character and that puts a lot of onus on the GM to come up with one without having anything to direct them in how to do so.
The fortune teller is a good example that I gave earlier. If we keep the feat thing, great magic initiate, but now what is the feature? We can't just give it ANOTHER feat. The DM might try to but now you have the problem of other players going "hey why do they get 2 feats and I only get 1". They could say hey you get this once per long rest ability, but that misses the mark by comparison to other features and, again, becomes more like a feat than a feature. Now a GM COULD figure out a good solve, but the problem is without rules for creating a feature the DM could wind up anywhere on the power spectrum for designing custom features. By simply doing away with features the GM no longer needs to define those custom features at level 1, nor does the player have to stick with an established feature that doesn't quite work with their character concept while also still being the thing they said they were. Instead, these things evolve and exist naturally through gameplay as players ask to do things rather than having to be established all at once.
Edit: Oh and just a note, yes there is a second thread. It is called first level feats.
And right here you might as well have admitted that you do not have a method for coming up with a brand new feature. The best is cannibalize an existing one. You are too focused on the specific example of the background rather than the point being made. If you are making a unique enough custom background that no currently existing feature exists that satisfies it the DM now needs to come up with one and there are no guidelines to do so. Without the existing features however, nothing is really lost from a mechanical or roleplay standpoint. These are ribbon features that are basically suggestions for roleplay and are, for the most part, largely inferred by the character's backstory. When you play a game without these features then your past experience is woven in as needed, nothing more nothing less. When you define it right out the gate it is too specific and does a poor job of encapsulating the characters specific back story over their generic background. These features, in many cases, have to be forced in rather than occurring naturally.
I know you haven't, but you might as well have, because you are ignoring the point of the argument to focus on the insignificant rhetoric of the argument. Fortune teller is one of a million theoretical backgrounds. You can not know, and neither can I, every background someone will come up with. That is why the "talk to your GM" part is there. It is specifically there because Wizards understands that not every background or backstory is going to fit an existing feature. The problem is they didn't give the GM's tools to create a feature. And again, the features themselves aren't really meaningful in game anyway. Argue the point not the literary device and example used to illustrate the point.
Its called playing a role playing game. You nix the rules for it and then you role play based on your backstory and your DM reacts to it rather than having to come up with some universal feature before the game even begins to be played. You seem to be hung up that because it isn't written down at the start of the game that it doesn't exist. Or that you need to have this hard fast rule about your backstory on session 0 for your back story to matter at session 15.
You don't.
Saying "I am Maximus decimus maridius a beloved general of the factions of the north" is all you need to say in session 0 to know that in session 15 when you run into some soldiers from the north that they may have heard of you and be in awe of your great deeds and help you out. You don't need a feature at session 0 to tell you that. And HAVING a feature tell you that means that when a weirder background comes up you now have to figure out a feature for it too. This feature could be meaningless and never come up, which would suck. This feature could be way too powerful, which would also suck. There are no guidelines and the character is in the conceptual stage rather than the realized stage at session 0 when you are being asked to come up with one. But 15 sessions later when something comes up that may pertain to your backstory if you guys decided on the wrong style for the feature and the concept has evolved past into a more realized character it doesn't matter that this moment came up you can't do anything with it because you don't have a feature for it. OR if no features exist than the GM can just make what ever logical thing happen now 5, 10, 15, 17, 21 sessions into the game. You just role play.
Ok so I am not even going to dignify this with a full response. Go back and read my main point and address the actual point. Thank you.
So you're complaining because there's no hard and fast rule for what this ribbon feature should look like? No precise formula for what they need? That's literally it? Heavens forbid, someone who wants to customize something in a game should engage in a little game design.
You think nothing is lost if those ribbons are gone. I disagree. They say something about how the world sees your character. A folk hero or pirate is someone whose reputation precedes them. A gladiator probably could, too, or at the very least someone might approach them and ask if they want to compete in the local fighting pit. "Hey, you look like a tough S.O.B., want to make some quick coin?"
An acolyte belongs to a faith and can get favors from other followers. A sage has a letter with a mystery they're trying to solve and always knows where to go to answer questions. A noble has a title with the possibilities of land, money, and political enemies. You can gain an audience with another noble or other high-ranking member of society as early as 1st-level; without having to make a name for yourself as an adventurer.
If you think these are minor or inconsequential, that speaks to the quality of the game you play in. I don't mean your games are bad; I'm sure you have a lot of fun doing whatever it is you do. They're tools to be used, but nobody can make you use them. Doesn't mean they're bad or should be excised.
EDIT: To be fair, I don't think you ever had a point.
Let's look at the fortune-teller again. What archetype are we looking to emulate? There's Fortune-Teller Baba from Dragon Ball, whose basically a Hermit. Or you could be like Aunt Wu from Avatar: The Last Airbender. She might be a Folk Hero or Noble, but honestly I think she's better represented with actual spellcasting and some wizard levels. (She learned cloud reading from a book and studied other forms of divination.)
Or maybe it isn't real at all. Maybe the fortune-teller is a Charlatan whose just good at sussing out what people want to hear.
Personally, I don't think "fortune-teller" is unique enough for a background. Background like Folk Hero, Guild Artisan, and even Soldier cover dozens of professions. I think it's a bad example, but you do you. And it hasn't stopped people from trying.
If it's ribbon, do we need the label of "feature" slapped on it? Wouldn't the background writeup suffice?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Hmm, very interesting. No seas or oceans means dire climatic changes. And vast expanses without civilization might imply there's people whose profession is to traverse it, linking settlements. Reminds me of the world of Mad Max, which is mostly desert, where gasoline - an elixir against hundreds of miles of emptiness - is the most precious commodity. "Sailor" of this world could be a driver, or a caravaneer. Or there could be a flat salty desert somewhere with ships on wheels... Seas of sand, seas of salt, seas of weed (like in "Hyperion" by Dan Simmons). Just tossing ideas)
So by "mutual sense of what the background writeup means in practical terms" are you talking about mechanics, specifically? Or would a conversation such as the following, work?
"As you make choices for those features, think about your character’s past. Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?"
Because if you mean mechanics, then we have been given a few different mechanical widgets to represent a Background in level 1 Feats. But if you don't specifically mean mechanics, then I feel like "What did you do? Who did you study with? What kinds of things did you acquire? Etc" would be the kinds of thing that would establish that mutual sense of a background's capabilities, wouldn't they?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Defining a character's Bonds would help in those regards, but yes. So you're in agreement that the 1DD playtest rules, which include the quoted questions, do cover the material required for a Background Feature then?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
... are we reading the same document?
Every Background has connections to people, places, and things written into them. They may be a tad generic, but that's to be expected from samples meant to be customized per character. Not every character will "forever share a remarkable bond" with anything, but nevertheless all the Backgrounds detail how they were shaped by the people, places, and things in their history. The Acolyte tells of a temple, a priest, and the worshippers in a community, none of those are covered by the mechanical widgets but all of them would be things that this character could expect to be able to influence or draw upon in game. The Guard tells of bunking in the mayor's barracks with fellow sentries so there are fellow sentries and even a Mayor that the player of this character could reasonably expect to be able to interact with, none of which is detailed in their mechanical widgets. The Noble tells of an entire family and castle which the character would expect to interact with in significant ways, none of which are detailed in the mechanical widgets.
How can you look at any of those and not see connections?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
If I wrote my own personal history I would also use past tense, come on now. You can't seriously be using a common writing convention and implying that because it is written in past tense that means that it implies everything detailed is what? Over and done now?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm sorry, but in this context there bloody well is not a significant difference and I think you know it. This is honestly a very weak rebuttal if you're trying to say that every statement made in past tense implies an irrelevance to current story.
"I met the love of my life last year and we got married."
Is also past tense and does not in any way imply a severing or discontinuation of that state. If there was a discontinuation in the past, it would also have been mentioned, "I retired from military service" or some such.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
All of that is up to the DM and Player and how they want backgrounds to impact the campaign and should never be codified by rules.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
At this point I honestly feel like you're equivocating.
- Do you or do you not think that the character histories presented in the 1DD playtest are meant to be irrelevant to any sort of current in game connections to the people, places, and things mentioned in their histories?
If yes, how do you think a character history should be written to detail current relevance?
If no, then do you see how the background provides ample detail as to the roleplay connections with the world and provides narrative permission to draw upon or affect the world in those respects?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!