No, Jounichi, even just switching a skill proficiency is Homebrewing Shit that requires DM notification, buy-in, and approval. You cannot use any of the "Custom" rules in the 2014 PHB without explicitly telling your DM you're doing so and justifying why you get to be a Special Little Snowflake who gets to do something nobody else is allowed to. They are not core rules. They are an undesired bolt-on every single player in the game misses on their first read through the PHB that barely even qualifies as RAW, if it does.
The 2014 rules for "customizing" backgrounds suck fat flabby donkey hindus. They are BAD. They are not GOOD. They do not WORK. Nobody LIKES them. Nobody USES them. Why people insisted on preserving them in favor of the superb new rules the Origins document gave us, I will never figure out. And also never forgive.
No, Jounichi, even just switching a skill proficiency is Homebrewing Shit that requires DM notification, buy-in, and approval. You cannot use any of the "Custom" rules in the 2014 PHB without explicitly telling your DM you're doing so and justifying why you get to be a Special Little Snowflake who gets to do something nobody else is allowed to. They are not core rules. They are an undesired bolt-on every single player in the game misses on their first read through the PHB that barely even qualifies as RAW, if it does.
The 2014 rules for "customizing" backgrounds suck fat flabby donkey hindus. They are BAD. They are not GOOD. They do not WORK. Nobody LIKES them. Nobody USES them. Why people insisted on preserving them in favor of the superb new rules the Origins document gave us, I will never figure out. And also never forgive.
I'm sorry you've played under such draconian Dungeon Masters. The book doesn't say you need their permission to tweak anything, so as a DM I don't really care. So long as my players have what looks like the right numbers of their things, they're fine.
And I get it. Everything you dislike is bad. I think that's a terrible way to go through life, and I'm glad we don't think along the same lines. That said, I suggest you avoid dragging the followers of the dominant religion of India into this. I know you think you're being fancy and anatomical by referring to donkey butt as hindus, but I think the word you're looking for it petat.
Unless you're talking about donkey/horse hybrids (hindus is also a breed of horse), which would mean either a mule or a hinny, and then we're both well and truly lost.
As others are saying, you keep repeating that as a mantra. It does not make it so. There are DM's out there who go strict letter of the rules, but vaguer rules are not going to keep them from being strict. Most DM's and any really good DM is nowhere near so hard line.
A permissible DM is not necessarily a good one. In fact part of learning to be a DM is knowing where and when to be restrictive and when not to be.
Personally I'm fairly permissible but I'm against home brew because it's the easiest way to screw up mechanics and balance.
Too often players forget they aren't the dm, and not the arbiter of the rules.
A DM working with players is not the same thing as a DM saying yes to everything players ask. That is like saying that if there is any discretion in anything at all, then anything goes: Middle ground is a thing.
Either your saying the same thing as me or you still feel the player should have more say than the DM.
The DM is the one who has final say and final judgement. Everything up to that point is trying to plead a case, hence why it's called "mother MAY I".. MAY being the critical word here.
Your DM is not your *****. They aren't your little game gremlin who should bow to your whims.
They also aren't your enemy nor should they be.
They're human beings and players just like you and they have the task of creating the world, setting up an adventure, and making sure the whole thing actually works and functions as intended. To that end, GENERALLY homebrew is disallowed unless the DM has figured out every possible means that you might exploit it to break the game, or the DM has homebrewed it themselves.
You can work with your DM saying, "hey, I got this idea, how can we make this work?" But showing up with your homebrew nonsense is not going to fly.
As it is, the game has turned from "how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?" To "what are the most game breaking abuse of mechanics that I can get away with and absolutely s**t stomp a goblin out of existence at level 1?"
Either your saying the same thing as me or you still feel the player should have more say than the DM.
Kotath is saying that there's space between "you can do whatever you want no matter what" and "you play by the book or you leave my table." Which is generally true. Nobody says the DM should have less say than the player, but if your players get absolutely no input at all into the game, why are they playing it?
The DM is the one who has final say and final judgement. Everything up to that point is trying to plead a case, hence why it's called "mother MAY I".. MAY being the critical word here.
You're still misunderstanding. "Mother May I" is an idiom/turn of phrase that, in this usage, indicates an excessive and unnecessary need for prior consent from an outside party that either shouldn't be required to give that consent, or shouldn't be able to not consent. That is in fact the crux of much of the argument in this thread you've decided not to bother reading despite being called out on not doing so three separate times now - Kotath et al believe that the "Background Feature" ribbon fluffery serve as points of inspiration and brakes egregious player nonsense, while Yurei et al believe that the same features are choking, restrictive 'Mother-May-I' shackles that prevent, restrict, and unduly prohobit natural, ordinary roleplaying opportunities, i.e. literally ******* no one but an "Entertainer" can sing for their supper in the local tavern despite Performance being its entire own-ass skill, because if they could do that thing than the entire point and purpose of being an "Entertainer" is lost.
Not okay. Has never been okay. Sick of it, want it gone. Don't get to watch it leave because grognards complained. Still pissed.
Your DM is not your *****. They aren't your little game gremlin who should bow to your whims.
****. Salty much? Which says a lot coming from me.
They also aren't your enemy nor should they be.
The one correct thing you've said so far.
They're human beings and players just like you and they have the task of creating the world, setting up an adventure, and making sure the whole thing actually works and functions as intended.
Incorrect! The DM's job is not to create a world, set up an adventure, and "make sure the whole thing works and functions as intended." The DM's job is to provide a backdrop for the players to adventure in, a spark and a path to set the players off adventuring on, and then to adjudicate what happens when Alice tries to seduce a plum tree instead of the party investigating the recent halfling raids.
If that means creating a five hundred page World Bible with ten thousand years of recorded history and an ironclad railroad towards Epic Destiny? Well, any DM who expects their players to read that, and tolerate that game, is in for a surprise. Instead, the DM simply makes a town and its environs, or uses one presupplied by someone else, says "hey, something Weird's going on in thataway direction", and processes the inevitable chaos.
Making sure things work "as intended" is the job of the entire table, not just the DM. And frankly, D&D never goes the way players or DMs predict or intend, unless the DM is so controlling that the players are essentially spectators rather than participants. One of the first keystones to being a better DM is to let go of the illusion of control.
To that end, GENERALLY homebrew is disallowed unless the DM has figured out every possible means that you might exploit it to break the game, or the DM has homebrewed it themselves.
You can work with your DM saying, "hey, I got this idea, how can we make this work?" But showing up with your homebrew nonsense is not going to fly.
Players want to be creative, too. They have cool ideas they want to try out, and yet not every player is willing, ready, or able to commit to spending 5+ years running an Epic Saga from behind the screen. You say in the first half of your little comment there that players can work with their DM to try and do something cool, and in the second half of the same sentence say that any homebrew the players suggest is automatically garbage. Maybe make up your mind? The DM doesn't get sole custody of creativity.
As it is, the game has turned from "how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?" To "what are the most game breaking abuse of mechanics that I can get away with and absolutely s**t stomp a goblin out of existence at level 1?"
Aaaaaaand we're back to Stormwind Fallacy. No, the game has not lost 'how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?' It never has. Nor is "I want to have a strong character that's good at winning fights" a new phenomenon. Nor is being an abusive ******* trying to bamboozle the DM the only justification a player could possibly have for wanting to make and try a Cool New Thing. This sentence indicates you do not trust your players in the slightest, which means you probably shouldn't be behind the screen at all. If a player cannot come up to you and say "Hey, check this out! What do you think?" without getting read the riot act, why should they play with you?
Hell, my group routinely spitballs new homebrew stuff just for the **** of it, oftentimes with no intention of using it or forcing it into games. We just do it because we like making stuff, and sometimes a particular creation is inspired and makes it into the table's general homebrew pool DMs can draw on. If any given player's default response to homebrew was "no stop **** you quit being an evil munchkinning turdburglar", we'd wonder how that jackhole got into our server and promptly give him the boot.
Or, to put a long story short: chill. It'll be okay, dude. Especially since none of this has any-damned-thing to do with the Origins document and its background rules.
Either your saying the same thing as me or you still feel the player should have more say than the DM.
Kotath is saying that there's space between "you can do whatever you want no matter what" and "you play by the book or you leave my table." Which is generally true. Nobody says the DM should have less say than the player, but if your players get absolutely no input at all into the game, why are they playing it?
The DM is the one who has final say and final judgement. Everything up to that point is trying to plead a case, hence why it's called "mother MAY I".. MAY being the critical word here.
You're still misunderstanding. "Mother May I" is an idiom/turn of phrase that, in this usage, indicates an excessive and unnecessary need for prior consent from an outside party that either shouldn't be required to give that consent, or shouldn't be able to not consent. That is in fact the crux of much of the argument in this thread you've decided not to bother reading despite being called out on not doing so three separate times now - Kotath et al believe that the "Background Feature" ribbon fluffery serve as points of inspiration and brakes egregious player nonsense, while Yurei et al believe that the same features are choking, restrictive 'Mother-May-I' shackles that prevent, restrict, and unduly prohobit natural, ordinary roleplaying opportunities, i.e. literally ******* no one but an "Entertainer" can sing for their supper in the local tavern despite Performance being its entire own-ass skill, because if they could do that thing than the entire point and purpose of being an "Entertainer" is lost.
Not okay. Has never been okay. Sick of it, want it gone. Don't get to watch it leave because grognards complained. Still pissed.
Your DM is not your *****. They aren't your little game gremlin who should bow to your whims.
****. Salty much? Which says a lot coming from me.
They also aren't your enemy nor should they be.
The one correct thing you've said so far.
They're human beings and players just like you and they have the task of creating the world, setting up an adventure, and making sure the whole thing actually works and functions as intended.
Incorrect! The DM's job is not to create a world, set up an adventure, and "make sure the whole thing works and functions as intended." The DM's job is to provide a backdrop for the players to adventure in, a spark and a path to set the players off adventuring on, and then to adjudicate what happens when Alice tries to seduce a plum tree instead of the party investigating the recent halfling raids.
If that means creating a five hundred page World Bible with ten thousand years of recorded history and an ironclad railroad towards Epic Destiny? Well, any DM who expects their players to read that, and tolerate that game, is in for a surprise. Instead, the DM simply makes a town and its environs, or uses one presupplied by someone else, says "hey, something Weird's going on in thataway direction", and processes the inevitable chaos.
Making sure things work "as intended" is the job of the entire table, not just the DM. And frankly, D&D never goes the way players or DMs predict or intend, unless the DM is so controlling that the players are essentially spectators rather than participants. One of the first keystones to being a better DM is to let go of the illusion of control.
To that end, GENERALLY homebrew is disallowed unless the DM has figured out every possible means that you might exploit it to break the game, or the DM has homebrewed it themselves.
You can work with your DM saying, "hey, I got this idea, how can we make this work?" But showing up with your homebrew nonsense is not going to fly.
Players want to be creative, too. They have cool ideas they want to try out, and yet not every player is willing, ready, or able to commit to spending 5+ years running an Epic Saga from behind the screen. You say in the first half of your little comment there that players can work with their DM to try and do something cool, and in the second half of the same sentence say that any homebrew the players suggest is automatically garbage. Maybe make up your mind? The DM doesn't get sole custody of creativity.
As it is, the game has turned from "how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?" To "what are the most game breaking abuse of mechanics that I can get away with and absolutely s**t stomp a goblin out of existence at level 1?"
Aaaaaaand we're back to Stormwind Fallacy. No, the game has not lost 'how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?' It never has. Nor is "I want to have a strong character that's good at winning fights" a new phenomenon. Nor is being an abusive ******* trying to bamboozle the DM the only justification a player could possibly have for wanting to make and try a Cool New Thing. This sentence indicates you do not trust your players in the slightest, which means you probably shouldn't be behind the screen at all. If a player cannot come up to you and say "Hey, check this out! What do you think?" without getting read the riot act, why should they play with you?
Hell, my group routinely spitballs new homebrew stuff just for the **** of it, oftentimes with no intention of using it or forcing it into games. We just do it because we like making stuff, and sometimes a particular creation is inspired and makes it into the table's general homebrew pool DMs can draw on. If any given player's default response to homebrew was "no stop **** you quit being an evil munchkinning turdburglar", we'd wonder how that jackhole got into our server and promptly give him the boot.
Or, to put a long story short: chill. It'll be okay, dude. Especially since none of this has any-damned-thing to do with the Origins document and its background rules.
You're right, it's getting off track, but it starts with this "well a GOOD DM...." BS.
Look, you want to pick a skill or two and do your own ASI's, then fine, go ahead. but the expectation that everyone will do the same or should do the same is wrong, and that most tables will have different rulings on that.
There IS a lot of player entitlement, and a lot revolves around home brew and these "open ended rules" of "the player can pick".
Personally, I DON'T like a lot of "mother may I" situations because as a player, and a rogue main, I have suffered greatly for it. (hide mechanics are a *****, and when your DM favors strength rolls over dex, it sucks).
But i GET both sides to this, and my point is, backgrounds as a MMI situation are going to be disallowed because a lot of new DM's and even a lot of experienced ones are going to be terrified of players breaking games with their homebrew bullshit. As a DM it takes a LOT to break players of wanting that +12 sword of awesosmeness homebrewed into their starting equipment out the gate or deciding asking for a +3 longsword to be sold to them on their first shopping trip, and THAT is what feed into that "no homebrew" mentality.
And no homebrew means "NO HOMEBREW".
Meanwhile, there's a judgment on how "awesome" your DM is based on how much they let you get away with....
You're right, it's getting off track, but it starts with this "well a GOOD DM...." BS.
Everybody's going to argue for what they consider to be good DMing. Don't take it as an attack on yourself, or on your DMs. it's the way Internet 'debates' work.
Look, you want to pick a skill or two and do your own ASI's, then fine, go ahead. but the expectation that everyone will do the same or should do the same is wrong, and that most tables will have different rulings on that.
I keep telling you, that's why the Origins document was amazing. It DID set the expectation that everybody would be allowed - even encouraged! - to create their own background instead of being stuck with the same boring crappy terrible Stock backgrounds that have never fit a character properly. There was no need for table rulings - the rules were clear, precise, intuitive, and simple. They were great. Players could simply make a character, and not have to wrestle with cramming a square peg into a round Background-shaped hole.
There IS a lot of player entitlement, and a lot revolves around home brew and these "open ended rules" of "the player can pick".
D&D 5e does a very poor job of allowing players to make meaningful decisions about how their characters grow and progress after character creation. A very poor job. So yes, any time the developers unclench a little and give players options? The players are going to be excited to exercise those options, because that's such a novel rarity for most of us.
But i GET both sides to this, and my point is, backgrounds as a MMI situation are going to be disallowed because a lot of new DM's and even a lot of experienced ones are going to be terrified of players breaking games with their homebrew bullshit. As a DM it takes a LOT to break players of wanting that +12 sword of awesosmeness homebrewed into their starting equipment out the gate or deciding asking for a +3 longsword to be sold to them on their first shopping trip, and THAT is what feed into that "no homebrew" mentality.
I have never once played with someone who demanded a ridiculously broken homebrew item out of the gates, or insisted they be sold legendary gear in Start Town's local outfitter. The Internet likes to meme about those players being everywhere, but this hobby takes work to break into. You have to buy a whole lotta books, you have to read and comprehend those books, you have to assemble a group of people willing to play...the barriers to entry in the tabletop gaming space are not necessarily low. The sorts of people who're out for nothing but a cheap, momentary juvenile power fantasy you're talking about have plenty of video games that are way cheaper, way easier, and way more satisfying than bullying a bunch of nominal friends into letting them be the Main Character.
The only time this is anything like a problem is with brand new players who haven't yet gotten a good grip on what's reasonable for characters of a given level to have. And frankly, if a new DM with new players hands out loot that's "way too good" for their players' level because nobody knows any better and everybody's having a gas of a time slaying bugbears with their vorpal swords and staves of power? Who cares, they're having fun, let 'em eat their dessert first.
****, if I was running a game and one of my players asked if they could start with a +3 sword and weren't being an obvious dicktroll? I'd say "Okay. I'm curious. Let's talk, see why you might have this thing, and what the ramifications of such a low-level nobody having such a powerful weapon are." There's Stories to be had in the juxtaposition of low-level nobodies carrying stuff that's way over their pay grade, and there's a definite delight in being able to actually use all that cool shit they put in the magic item lists but nobody ever gets to be high-level enough to acquire 'naturally'. Even without the obvious "it's cursed" or "you stole it from somebody who's chasing you down" bits, there's Stories to be had.
Perhaps the Folk Hero-esque fighter managed to save a village from a vicious raid near single-handedly, and in honor of the deed the nation's monarch awarded them a Blade of the Realm (a +2 or +3 sword). The blade is powerful, and serves as a badge of distinction that opens doors...but it also comes with Expectations, and badges of distinction can be a drawback just as often as they can be a positive. That fighter has a Name now, and if he tarnishes that Name he will be so much worse off than if he'd bungled something while still being a relatively unknown nobody.
Decisions have consequences, evben if they're decisions made before campaign start. If somebody wants to try a different story, have a Powerful Thing but are willing to pay the consequences of possessing that Powerful Thing? Why not run with it, see what happens? It may not work out, no, but not everything does. A good player will be willing to adjust, and the bad ones aren't worth playing with anyways.
And no homebrew means "NO HOMEBREW".
I keep telling you the Origin rules were not homebrew.
Meanwhile, there's a judgment on how "awesome" your DM is based on how much they let you get away with....
Now I know you're taking all this as an attack on yourself. Chill, guy. Nobody's passing judgment on your games or your tables. There's plenty of people who respect stern DMs that run stern games. Hell, I've seen plenty of players who actively seek out that sort of experience. Not everybody needs, wants, or even likes the Juvenile Power Fantasy. You'll be fine. Honest.
You're not having a debate, Yurei. You're blaming the forum for the behavior of the people in it, as if the participants would all be better if they were somewhere else.
Maybe we should expect better of the people here, instead of passing the buck.
The custom background rules in the Origins playtest document are not homebrew. If they become the rule of the game, then players will be able to create a background (mechanically choosing a feat and some proficiencies) as they see fit, within those rules. That would be no more "homebrew" than letting a player choose their class or their species or their spells would be.
(If you are the sort of DM who does not let them choose their class/species/background, then I guess you would say that the players doing so is "homebrew" but you'd be wrong; it is you who would be engaging in homebrew rules, as is your right.)
Either your saying the same thing as me or you still feel the player should have more say than the DM.
Kotath is saying that there's space between "you can do whatever you want no matter what" and "you play by the book or you leave my table." Which is generally true. Nobody says the DM should have less say than the player, but if your players get absolutely no input at all into the game, why are they playing it?
The DM is the one who has final say and final judgement. Everything up to that point is trying to plead a case, hence why it's called "mother MAY I".. MAY being the critical word here.
You're still misunderstanding. "Mother May I" is an idiom/turn of phrase that, in this usage, indicates an excessive and unnecessary need for prior consent from an outside party that either shouldn't be required to give that consent, or shouldn't be able to not consent. That is in fact the crux of much of the argument in this thread you've decided not to bother reading despite being called out on not doing so three separate times now - Kotath et al believe that the "Background Feature" ribbon fluffery serve as points of inspiration and brakes egregious player nonsense, while Yurei et al believe that the same features are choking, restrictive 'Mother-May-I' shackles that prevent, restrict, and unduly prohobit natural, ordinary roleplaying opportunities, i.e. literally ******* no one but an "Entertainer" can sing for their supper in the local tavern despite Performance being its entire own-ass skill, because if they could do that thing than the entire point and purpose of being an "Entertainer" is lost.
Not okay. Has never been okay. Sick of it, want it gone. Don't get to watch it leave because grognards complained. Still pissed.
Your DM is not your *****. They aren't your little game gremlin who should bow to your whims.
****. Salty much? Which says a lot coming from me.
They also aren't your enemy nor should they be.
The one correct thing you've said so far.
They're human beings and players just like you and they have the task of creating the world, setting up an adventure, and making sure the whole thing actually works and functions as intended.
Incorrect! The DM's job is not to create a world, set up an adventure, and "make sure the whole thing works and functions as intended." The DM's job is to provide a backdrop for the players to adventure in, a spark and a path to set the players off adventuring on, and then to adjudicate what happens when Alice tries to seduce a plum tree instead of the party investigating the recent halfling raids.
If that means creating a five hundred page World Bible with ten thousand years of recorded history and an ironclad railroad towards Epic Destiny? Well, any DM who expects their players to read that, and tolerate that game, is in for a surprise. Instead, the DM simply makes a town and its environs, or uses one presupplied by someone else, says "hey, something Weird's going on in thataway direction", and processes the inevitable chaos.
Making sure things work "as intended" is the job of the entire table, not just the DM. And frankly, D&D never goes the way players or DMs predict or intend, unless the DM is so controlling that the players are essentially spectators rather than participants. One of the first keystones to being a better DM is to let go of the illusion of control.
To that end, GENERALLY homebrew is disallowed unless the DM has figured out every possible means that you might exploit it to break the game, or the DM has homebrewed it themselves.
You can work with your DM saying, "hey, I got this idea, how can we make this work?" But showing up with your homebrew nonsense is not going to fly.
Players want to be creative, too. They have cool ideas they want to try out, and yet not every player is willing, ready, or able to commit to spending 5+ years running an Epic Saga from behind the screen. You say in the first half of your little comment there that players can work with their DM to try and do something cool, and in the second half of the same sentence say that any homebrew the players suggest is automatically garbage. Maybe make up your mind? The DM doesn't get sole custody of creativity.
As it is, the game has turned from "how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?" To "what are the most game breaking abuse of mechanics that I can get away with and absolutely s**t stomp a goblin out of existence at level 1?"
Aaaaaaand we're back to Stormwind Fallacy. No, the game has not lost 'how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?' It never has. Nor is "I want to have a strong character that's good at winning fights" a new phenomenon. Nor is being an abusive ******* trying to bamboozle the DM the only justification a player could possibly have for wanting to make and try a Cool New Thing. This sentence indicates you do not trust your players in the slightest, which means you probably shouldn't be behind the screen at all. If a player cannot come up to you and say "Hey, check this out! What do you think?" without getting read the riot act, why should they play with you?
Hell, my group routinely spitballs new homebrew stuff just for the **** of it, oftentimes with no intention of using it or forcing it into games. We just do it because we like making stuff, and sometimes a particular creation is inspired and makes it into the table's general homebrew pool DMs can draw on. If any given player's default response to homebrew was "no stop **** you quit being an evil munchkinning turdburglar", we'd wonder how that jackhole got into our server and promptly give him the boot.
Or, to put a long story short: chill. It'll be okay, dude. Especially since none of this has any-damned-thing to do with the Origins document and its background rules.
You're right, it's getting off track, but it starts with this "well a GOOD DM...." BS.
Look, you want to pick a skill or two and do your own ASI's, then fine, go ahead. but the expectation that everyone will do the same or should do the same is wrong, and that most tables will have different rulings on that.
There IS a lot of player entitlement, and a lot revolves around home brew and these "open ended rules" of "the player can pick".
Personally, I DON'T like a lot of "mother may I" situations because as a player, and a rogue main, I have suffered greatly for it. (hide mechanics are a *****, and when your DM favors strength rolls over dex, it sucks).
But i GET both sides to this, and my point is, backgrounds as a MMI situation are going to be disallowed because a lot of new DM's and even a lot of experienced ones are going to be terrified of players breaking games with their homebrew bullshit. As a DM it takes a LOT to break players of wanting that +12 sword of awesosmeness homebrewed into their starting equipment out the gate or deciding asking for a +3 longsword to be sold to them on their first shopping trip, and THAT is what feed into that "no homebrew" mentality.
And no homebrew means "NO HOMEBREW".
Meanwhile, there's a judgment on how "awesome" your DM is based on how much they let you get away with....
Background Features
Ability Scores. When you determine your character’s ability scores, choose two of them, and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables (these appear later in the document). Your character knows that language.
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat. Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.
Those are the rules you are claiming are a mother may I scenario. They also happen to be the first option listed for creating a background. If you are worried about a player getting a +3 longsword as part of their starting equipment with the amazing 50 gold they are allowed to start with, that's a problem with your table and not the rules. There is literally nothing game breaking or exploitable in those rules unless you consider players being able to choose things they are already allowed to choose as game breaking.
The 1D&D origin rules are(were?) an invitation to create solid backgrounds that are not “cookie- cutter” the mechanical changes CE down to adding a feat to each background and shifting the stat adjustments from the species to the background. Because the listed preferred method is to actually write our own “fluff” narrative they can’t give any Features or personality traits which we should be providing anyway. No that is not homebrew ether it’s story telling about OUR character. The feats allowed are limited and about the most powerful are the magic initiate feats granting a character a whopping 2 cantrips and a single casting of a single L1 spell ( oh my! I’m scared to death at the extra power that grants - especially since everyone now gets a feat at L1). If you don’t want to think about your character’s background then you can grab one of the examples. Basically 2014 gave you cookie cutters but sort of allowed modification. 1D&D reverses that, you are supposed to build the character’s background using the the skills, tools, languages and feats allowed as well as your personal story telling of that particular PC. If you want a special narrative feature like those in the 2014 backgrounds add it ( maybe run it past your DM to make sure it’s something they are fine with working in.
If anything in some ways I think the UA backgrounds don’t go far enough - in 2014 you have backgrounds like soldier, and mercenary that should come with a basic armor proficiency and some sort of martial weapon proficiencies. Now I realize that in 2014 armor and weapons were either part of a race or a class. But that is being changed for 2024 so he not include armor and some weapon skills in the backgrounds just as the stat adjustments now are. There were things in 2014 backgrounds that I really hated - like musical instruments anywhere they couldn’t think of a good tool ( or considered the herbalist tool kit etc too powerful). Now the player can truly design their character not try to “shoehorn” a premade background into fitting the character. Will there have to be some DM oversight? Of course, but then there has always been a need because there are a few players that will go way over boardjust as there are some players who will still take the premade instead of creating their own. It’s Ok.
The 1D&D origin rules are(were?) an invitation to create solid backgrounds that are not “cookie- cutter” the mechanical changes CE down to adding a feat to each background and shifting the stat adjustments from the species to the background. Because the listed preferred method is to actually write our own “fluff” narrative they can’t give any Features or personality traits which we should be providing anyway. No that is not homebrew ether it’s story telling about OUR character. The feats allowed are limited and about the most powerful are the magic initiate feats granting a character a whopping 2 cantrips and a single casting of a single L1 spell ( oh my! I’m scared to death at the extra power that grants - especially since everyone now gets a feat at L1). If you don’t want to think about your character’s background then you can grab one of the examples. Basically 2014 gave you cookie cutters but sort of allowed modification. 1D&D reverses that, you are supposed to build the character’s background using the the skills, tools, languages and feats allowed as well as your personal story telling of that particular PC. If you want a special narrative feature like those in the 2014 backgrounds add it ( maybe run it past your DM to make sure it’s something they are fine with working in.
If anything in some ways I think the UA backgrounds don’t go far enough - in 2014 you have backgrounds like soldier, and mercenary that should come with a basic armor proficiency and some sort of martial weapon proficiencies. Now I realize that in 2014 armor and weapons were either part of a race or a class. But that is being changed for 2024 so he not include armor and some weapon skills in the backgrounds just as the stat adjustments now are. There were things in 2014 backgrounds that I really hated - like musical instruments anywhere they couldn’t think of a good tool ( or considered the herbalist tool kit etc too powerful). Now the player can truly design their character not try to “shoehorn” a premade background into fitting the character. Will there have to be some DM oversight? Of course, but then there has always been a need because there are a few players that will go way over boardjust as there are some players who will still take the premade instead of creating their own. It’s Ok.
In the expert playtest, which is the last time we saw feats updates, lightly armored was a first level feat granting light armor, medium armor and shield training. I think there was also a first level feat to grant martial weapons. So a soldier or merc could get either of those or tough and it would make sense.
Yes - as their L1 feat in the origins UA - but, they can get one or the other (armor or weapons) not both. Just as arcane spell casters have a few simple weapons they are proficient with why not have a way to add just light armor or just shield and a spear, long sword or scimitar and a cross bow as proficiencies where appropriate for backgrounds? I homebrewed a feat for just this - it grants light armor and shield and a single martial melee and single martial or simple missile/ranged weapon proficiency.
Okay but what about features like haunted one allowing our character to be haunted by a ghost or other entity
It's a cosmetic feature that has literally zero game effect. you can just write it down in your background.
or acolyte guaranteeing we will get some help at our god’s temple
Or knight allowing us to have retainers who shine our armor to fetch us wine, \
or feylost letting us have animal tails or smell like apple, and allowing fey to be more friendly to us
Except for the knight, which is just weird, and not worth shaping an entire game subsystem around just to keep, these can be summed up as "cosmetic" or "if your background gives you a connection to a group, that group will likely be favorably inclined to you".
and what about items like prayer wheels, trinkets like “electrum whistle only fey can hear” or “faerie dragon three dragon ante card”, or a scroll of pedigree, things that aren’t purchasable and can only be gotten via backgrounds?
I can't purchase "a cameo of the face of my dead sister" or "the sword of my father, Domingo Montoya", or any of the other personal items my character might have. Items with no game-mechanical effect can just exist. Items with mechanical relevance can be cosmetically reflavored. If you want to have, say, a pet mouse, you can just write down "I have a pet mouse."
Okay but what about features like haunted one allowing our character to be haunted by a ghost or other entity
Haunted One doesn't allow this, and never has. The Haunted One background feature speaks to gaining aid from common citizens, it does not speak to being "haunted by a ghost or other entity". Roughly half of the "Harrowing Events" table speaks to an event that causes trauma, rather than an event that causes a physical possession/haunting, and the background language itself describes trauma and PTSD as much or more so than it describes being haunted by an unquiet ghost. You assume Haunted One lets you be Haunted because of the fluff written around it, so the answer is to write 'Haunted One' fluff for your One D&D background and talk to your DM about what that haunting means.
or acolyte guaranteeing we will get some help at our god’s temple
The Acolyte background states that "you and your allies can expect free healing and care at a temple, shrine or established presence of your faith", and "the temple will support you and ONLY you at a modest lifestyle." The argument I made over a year ago is that there is no reason why a vested acolyte of a religion should not expect these things under ordinary circumstances, and there is no need to spell it out. If you're a vested acolyte of your religious order, holy places of your faith will treat you like a vested acolyte of your order until you give them reason not to. This is not a mechanical "Feature", this is an unneeded roleplaying prompt that suggests through tis very existence that nobody else can ever expect aid from temples, shrines, or holy places even if those religions are devoted to aiding others. Which is stupid.
Or knight allowing us to have retainers who shine our armor to fetch us wine,
If you wish to feed and clothe three commoners who do peaceful mundane tasks for you provided you treat them well, I can't imagine most DMs would strongly object. Those commoners are not any sort of gameplay edge, they have no real impact beyond seasoning. The DM might be aggravated at having to juggle those three extra NPCs at all times, but here's the thing - they'll be aggravated whether you have a Mommy-may-I background feature or not. it's why some DMs bar the Knight background and any similar "I have guys" backgrounds, or state that the player has to run those NPCs unless the DM steps in.
or feylost letting us have animal tails or smell like apple, and allowing fey to be more friendly to us
You want a fox tail, have a fox tail. You want to smell like fruit, smell like fruit. If a DM is up for that sort of whimsy, they'll let you do it whether your background says you can or not. If they're not up for that sort of whimsy, then you won't be allowed to use the Feylost background. Your arguments all seem to assume that the 5e backgrounds allow you to do these things even if your DM doesn't want to deal with them, lets you force the issue over your DM's objections. I can assure you, that is not the case.
and what about items like prayer wheels, trinkets like “electrum whistle only fey can hear” or “faerie dragon three dragon ante card”, or a scroll of pedigree, things that aren’t purchasable and can only be gotten via backgrounds?
Add 'em to your sheet. if they have no gold value, no mechanical value, and would be something your character logically/reasonably owns? Write it on your sheet. Why not? Who's gonna say no?
You're treating the One D&D background as being restrictive - you can ONLY have what the document says you can have, or ONLY do what the document says you can do. This is not the case. The rules in the Origins playtest document describe the mechanical structure of a background and the gameplay mechanisms your background entitles you to. Anything else is between you and the DM. As it should be. The DM should be as excited to run a game for your character as you are to play them; using 2014-style backgrounds to force the DM to run a game for a character they hate is as against the spirit of the game as a DM forcing a player to play in a game they hate.
Just because you don't think you need those roleplaying prompts doesn't mean others don't. It's okay if something in the PH isn't written for you, specifically.
Jou, we went over this last year. "Roleplaying prompts" do not need to, and should not, be "Rules" you HAVE to follow, and which actively and harmfully exclude actual roleplaying. The way you and Kotath and all the rest want to run these "prompts" means I am, by your strict and unbending RAW, unable to ever play any of the characters I HAVE played or have ever WANTED to play.
You can have roleplaying prompts in the book without making them iron shackles around the throats of your players.
Just because you don't think you need those roleplaying prompts doesn't mean others don't. It's okay if something in the PH isn't written for you, specifically.
You can have roleplay prompts without making them mechanical. The bonds and flaws dont have mechanical benefits but it still has suggestion s to help round the character out.
Just because you don't think you need those roleplaying prompts doesn't mean others don't. It's okay if something in the PH isn't written for you, specifically.
It's not about roleplaying prompts. It's about these roleplaying prompts and minor abilities being argued to be a good reason to stick with the old background system of predefined templates instead of replacing it with something vastly more flexible.
Roleplaying prompts and the general activity of making your character a character are something that ought to be covered in the PHB, but not mechanically.
Jou, we went over this last year. "Roleplaying prompts" do not need to, and should not, be "Rules" you HAVE to follow, and which actively and harmfully exclude actual roleplaying. The way you and Kotath and all the rest want to run these "prompts" means I am, by your strict and unbending RAW, unable to ever play any of the characters I HAVE played or have ever WANTED to play.
You can have roleplaying prompts in the book without making them iron shackles around the throats of your players.
Do not presume to tell me how I want things to be presented or run. If you're going to insist on rubbing people the wrong way, I'm going to insist you start buying us lotion.
I'm not telling you how you want things presented or run. I'm saying that I spent fourteen pages last year trying to fight against you, Kotath, and many others protested the new documented and wanted it thrown out because you wanted to keep Background Features, and for Background Features to Matter.
Well, the only way for a Background Feature to Matter is if you need the Feature to do what the Feature says. And in order for that to happen, nobody else without the Feature can be allowed to do what the Feature says. Which means that if you're not a Sailor you can't book passage on a ship, if you're not an Acolyte you cannot find any aid or shelter of any sort at a temple, if you're not a Folk Hero (or a Haunted One) you cannot expect any aid or support from common folk...
This is the natural and unavoidable end consequence of the thing you spent fourteen pages arguing with me over last year, Jounichi. To get what you have told me in words right here on the forum you want, you have to end up at the point where Background Features are restrictive, roleplaying-strangling shackles around our necks. There is no other option, no Plan C, no alternative.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No, Jounichi, even just switching a skill proficiency is Homebrewing Shit that requires DM notification, buy-in, and approval. You cannot use any of the "Custom" rules in the 2014 PHB without explicitly telling your DM you're doing so and justifying why you get to be a Special Little Snowflake who gets to do something nobody else is allowed to. They are not core rules. They are an undesired bolt-on every single player in the game misses on their first read through the PHB that barely even qualifies as RAW, if it does.
The 2014 rules for "customizing" backgrounds suck fat flabby donkey hindus. They are BAD. They are not GOOD. They do not WORK. Nobody LIKES them. Nobody USES them. Why people insisted on preserving them in favor of the superb new rules the Origins document gave us, I will never figure out. And also never forgive.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm sorry you've played under such draconian Dungeon Masters. The book doesn't say you need their permission to tweak anything, so as a DM I don't really care. So long as my players have what looks like the right numbers of their things, they're fine.
And I get it. Everything you dislike is bad. I think that's a terrible way to go through life, and I'm glad we don't think along the same lines. That said, I suggest you avoid dragging the followers of the dominant religion of India into this. I know you think you're being fancy and anatomical by referring to donkey butt as hindus, but I think the word you're looking for it petat.
Unless you're talking about donkey/horse hybrids (hindus is also a breed of horse), which would mean either a mule or a hinny, and then we're both well and truly lost.
Either your saying the same thing as me or you still feel the player should have more say than the DM.
The DM is the one who has final say and final judgement. Everything up to that point is trying to plead a case, hence why it's called "mother MAY I".. MAY being the critical word here.
Your DM is not your *****. They aren't your little game gremlin who should bow to your whims.
They also aren't your enemy nor should they be.
They're human beings and players just like you and they have the task of creating the world, setting up an adventure, and making sure the whole thing actually works and functions as intended. To that end, GENERALLY homebrew is disallowed unless the DM has figured out every possible means that you might exploit it to break the game, or the DM has homebrewed it themselves.
You can work with your DM saying, "hey, I got this idea, how can we make this work?" But showing up with your homebrew nonsense is not going to fly.
As it is, the game has turned from "how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?" To "what are the most game breaking abuse of mechanics that I can get away with and absolutely s**t stomp a goblin out of existence at level 1?"
Kotath is saying that there's space between "you can do whatever you want no matter what" and "you play by the book or you leave my table." Which is generally true. Nobody says the DM should have less say than the player, but if your players get absolutely no input at all into the game, why are they playing it?
You're still misunderstanding. "Mother May I" is an idiom/turn of phrase that, in this usage, indicates an excessive and unnecessary need for prior consent from an outside party that either shouldn't be required to give that consent, or shouldn't be able to not consent. That is in fact the crux of much of the argument in this thread you've decided not to bother reading despite being called out on not doing so three separate times now - Kotath et al believe that the "Background Feature" ribbon fluffery serve as points of inspiration and brakes egregious player nonsense, while Yurei et al believe that the same features are choking, restrictive 'Mother-May-I' shackles that prevent, restrict, and unduly prohobit natural, ordinary roleplaying opportunities, i.e. literally ******* no one but an "Entertainer" can sing for their supper in the local tavern despite Performance being its entire own-ass skill, because if they could do that thing than the entire point and purpose of being an "Entertainer" is lost.
Not okay. Has never been okay. Sick of it, want it gone. Don't get to watch it leave because grognards complained. Still pissed.
****. Salty much? Which says a lot coming from me.
The one correct thing you've said so far.
Incorrect! The DM's job is not to create a world, set up an adventure, and "make sure the whole thing works and functions as intended." The DM's job is to provide a backdrop for the players to adventure in, a spark and a path to set the players off adventuring on, and then to adjudicate what happens when Alice tries to seduce a plum tree instead of the party investigating the recent halfling raids.
If that means creating a five hundred page World Bible with ten thousand years of recorded history and an ironclad railroad towards Epic Destiny? Well, any DM who expects their players to read that, and tolerate that game, is in for a surprise. Instead, the DM simply makes a town and its environs, or uses one presupplied by someone else, says "hey, something Weird's going on in thataway direction", and processes the inevitable chaos.
Making sure things work "as intended" is the job of the entire table, not just the DM. And frankly, D&D never goes the way players or DMs predict or intend, unless the DM is so controlling that the players are essentially spectators rather than participants. One of the first keystones to being a better DM is to let go of the illusion of control.
Players want to be creative, too. They have cool ideas they want to try out, and yet not every player is willing, ready, or able to commit to spending 5+ years running an Epic Saga from behind the screen. You say in the first half of your little comment there that players can work with their DM to try and do something cool, and in the second half of the same sentence say that any homebrew the players suggest is automatically garbage. Maybe make up your mind? The DM doesn't get sole custody of creativity.
Aaaaaaand we're back to Stormwind Fallacy. No, the game has not lost 'how can I have fun pretending to be this fantasy character?' It never has. Nor is "I want to have a strong character that's good at winning fights" a new phenomenon. Nor is being an abusive ******* trying to bamboozle the DM the only justification a player could possibly have for wanting to make and try a Cool New Thing. This sentence indicates you do not trust your players in the slightest, which means you probably shouldn't be behind the screen at all. If a player cannot come up to you and say "Hey, check this out! What do you think?" without getting read the riot act, why should they play with you?
Hell, my group routinely spitballs new homebrew stuff just for the **** of it, oftentimes with no intention of using it or forcing it into games. We just do it because we like making stuff, and sometimes a particular creation is inspired and makes it into the table's general homebrew pool DMs can draw on. If any given player's default response to homebrew was "no stop **** you quit being an evil munchkinning turdburglar", we'd wonder how that jackhole got into our server and promptly give him the boot.
Or, to put a long story short: chill. It'll be okay, dude. Especially since none of this has any-damned-thing to do with the Origins document and its background rules.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're right, it's getting off track, but it starts with this "well a GOOD DM...." BS.
Look, you want to pick a skill or two and do your own ASI's, then fine, go ahead. but the expectation that everyone will do the same or should do the same is wrong, and that most tables will have different rulings on that.
There IS a lot of player entitlement, and a lot revolves around home brew and these "open ended rules" of "the player can pick".
Personally, I DON'T like a lot of "mother may I" situations because as a player, and a rogue main, I have suffered greatly for it. (hide mechanics are a *****, and when your DM favors strength rolls over dex, it sucks).
But i GET both sides to this, and my point is, backgrounds as a MMI situation are going to be disallowed because a lot of new DM's and even a lot of experienced ones are going to be terrified of players breaking games with their homebrew bullshit. As a DM it takes a LOT to break players of wanting that +12 sword of awesosmeness homebrewed into their starting equipment out the gate or deciding asking for a +3 longsword to be sold to them on their first shopping trip, and THAT is what feed into that "no homebrew" mentality.
And no homebrew means "NO HOMEBREW".
Meanwhile, there's a judgment on how "awesome" your DM is based on how much they let you get away with....
Everybody's going to argue for what they consider to be good DMing. Don't take it as an attack on yourself, or on your DMs. it's the way Internet 'debates' work.
I keep telling you, that's why the Origins document was amazing. It DID set the expectation that everybody would be allowed - even encouraged! - to create their own background instead of being stuck with the same boring crappy terrible Stock backgrounds that have never fit a character properly. There was no need for table rulings - the rules were clear, precise, intuitive, and simple. They were great. Players could simply make a character, and not have to wrestle with cramming a square peg into a round Background-shaped hole.
D&D 5e does a very poor job of allowing players to make meaningful decisions about how their characters grow and progress after character creation. A very poor job. So yes, any time the developers unclench a little and give players options? The players are going to be excited to exercise those options, because that's such a novel rarity for most of us.
I have never once played with someone who demanded a ridiculously broken homebrew item out of the gates, or insisted they be sold legendary gear in Start Town's local outfitter. The Internet likes to meme about those players being everywhere, but this hobby takes work to break into. You have to buy a whole lotta books, you have to read and comprehend those books, you have to assemble a group of people willing to play...the barriers to entry in the tabletop gaming space are not necessarily low. The sorts of people who're out for nothing but a cheap, momentary juvenile power fantasy you're talking about have plenty of video games that are way cheaper, way easier, and way more satisfying than bullying a bunch of nominal friends into letting them be the Main Character.
The only time this is anything like a problem is with brand new players who haven't yet gotten a good grip on what's reasonable for characters of a given level to have. And frankly, if a new DM with new players hands out loot that's "way too good" for their players' level because nobody knows any better and everybody's having a gas of a time slaying bugbears with their vorpal swords and staves of power? Who cares, they're having fun, let 'em eat their dessert first.
****, if I was running a game and one of my players asked if they could start with a +3 sword and weren't being an obvious dicktroll? I'd say "Okay. I'm curious. Let's talk, see why you might have this thing, and what the ramifications of such a low-level nobody having such a powerful weapon are." There's Stories to be had in the juxtaposition of low-level nobodies carrying stuff that's way over their pay grade, and there's a definite delight in being able to actually use all that cool shit they put in the magic item lists but nobody ever gets to be high-level enough to acquire 'naturally'. Even without the obvious "it's cursed" or "you stole it from somebody who's chasing you down" bits, there's Stories to be had.
Perhaps the Folk Hero-esque fighter managed to save a village from a vicious raid near single-handedly, and in honor of the deed the nation's monarch awarded them a Blade of the Realm (a +2 or +3 sword). The blade is powerful, and serves as a badge of distinction that opens doors...but it also comes with Expectations, and badges of distinction can be a drawback just as often as they can be a positive. That fighter has a Name now, and if he tarnishes that Name he will be so much worse off than if he'd bungled something while still being a relatively unknown nobody.
Decisions have consequences, evben if they're decisions made before campaign start. If somebody wants to try a different story, have a Powerful Thing but are willing to pay the consequences of possessing that Powerful Thing? Why not run with it, see what happens? It may not work out, no, but not everything does. A good player will be willing to adjust, and the bad ones aren't worth playing with anyways.
I keep telling you the Origin rules were not homebrew.
Now I know you're taking all this as an attack on yourself. Chill, guy. Nobody's passing judgment on your games or your tables. There's plenty of people who respect stern DMs that run stern games. Hell, I've seen plenty of players who actively seek out that sort of experience. Not everybody needs, wants, or even likes the Juvenile Power Fantasy. You'll be fine. Honest.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're not having a debate, Yurei. You're blaming the forum for the behavior of the people in it, as if the participants would all be better if they were somewhere else.
Maybe we should expect better of the people here, instead of passing the buck.
The custom background rules in the Origins playtest document are not homebrew. If they become the rule of the game, then players will be able to create a background (mechanically choosing a feat and some proficiencies) as they see fit, within those rules. That would be no more "homebrew" than letting a player choose their class or their species or their spells would be.
(If you are the sort of DM who does not let them choose their class/species/background, then I guess you would say that the players doing so is "homebrew" but you'd be wrong; it is you who would be engaging in homebrew rules, as is your right.)
Background Features
Ability Scores. When you determine your character’s ability scores, choose two of them, and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables (these appear later in the document). Your character knows that language.
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat. Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.
Those are the rules you are claiming are a mother may I scenario. They also happen to be the first option listed for creating a background. If you are worried about a player getting a +3 longsword as part of their starting equipment with the amazing 50 gold they are allowed to start with, that's a problem with your table and not the rules. There is literally nothing game breaking or exploitable in those rules unless you consider players being able to choose things they are already allowed to choose as game breaking.
The 1D&D origin rules are(were?) an invitation to create solid backgrounds that are not “cookie- cutter” the mechanical changes CE down to adding a feat to each background and shifting the stat adjustments from the species to the background. Because the listed preferred method is to actually write our own “fluff” narrative they can’t give any Features or personality traits which we should be providing anyway. No that is not homebrew ether it’s story telling about OUR character. The feats allowed are limited and about the most powerful are the magic initiate feats granting a character a whopping 2 cantrips and a single casting of a single L1 spell ( oh my! I’m scared to death at the extra power that grants - especially since everyone now gets a feat at L1). If you don’t want to think about your character’s background then you can grab one of the examples. Basically 2014 gave you cookie cutters but sort of allowed modification. 1D&D reverses that, you are supposed to build the character’s background using the the skills, tools, languages and feats allowed as well as your personal story telling of that particular PC. If you want a special narrative feature like those in the 2014 backgrounds add it ( maybe run it past your DM to make sure it’s something they are fine with working in.
If anything in some ways I think the UA backgrounds don’t go far enough - in 2014 you have backgrounds like soldier, and mercenary that should come with a basic armor proficiency and some sort of martial weapon proficiencies. Now I realize that in 2014 armor and weapons were either part of a race or a class. But that is being changed for 2024 so he not include armor and some weapon skills in the backgrounds just as the stat adjustments now are. There were things in 2014 backgrounds that I really hated - like musical instruments anywhere they couldn’t think of a good tool ( or considered the herbalist tool kit etc too powerful). Now the player can truly design their character not try to “shoehorn” a premade background into fitting the character. Will there have to be some DM oversight? Of course, but then there has always been a need because there are a few players that will go way over boardjust as there are some players who will still take the premade instead of creating their own. It’s Ok.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
In the expert playtest, which is the last time we saw feats updates, lightly armored was a first level feat granting light armor, medium armor and shield training. I think there was also a first level feat to grant martial weapons. So a soldier or merc could get either of those or tough and it would make sense.
Yes - as their L1 feat in the origins UA - but, they can get one or the other (armor or weapons) not both. Just as arcane spell casters have a few simple weapons they are proficient with why not have a way to add just light armor or just shield and a spear, long sword or scimitar and a cross bow as proficiencies where appropriate for backgrounds? I homebrewed a feat for just this - it grants light armor and shield and a single martial melee and single martial or simple missile/ranged weapon proficiency.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's a cosmetic feature that has literally zero game effect. you can just write it down in your background.
I can't purchase "a cameo of the face of my dead sister" or "the sword of my father, Domingo Montoya", or any of the other personal items my character might have. Items with no game-mechanical effect can just exist. Items with mechanical relevance can be cosmetically reflavored. If you want to have, say, a pet mouse, you can just write down "I have a pet mouse."
I answered these in your other thread but okay, here we go.
Haunted One doesn't allow this, and never has. The Haunted One background feature speaks to gaining aid from common citizens, it does not speak to being "haunted by a ghost or other entity". Roughly half of the "Harrowing Events" table speaks to an event that causes trauma, rather than an event that causes a physical possession/haunting, and the background language itself describes trauma and PTSD as much or more so than it describes being haunted by an unquiet ghost. You assume Haunted One lets you be Haunted because of the fluff written around it, so the answer is to write 'Haunted One' fluff for your One D&D background and talk to your DM about what that haunting means.
The Acolyte background states that "you and your allies can expect free healing and care at a temple, shrine or established presence of your faith", and "the temple will support you and ONLY you at a modest lifestyle." The argument I made over a year ago is that there is no reason why a vested acolyte of a religion should not expect these things under ordinary circumstances, and there is no need to spell it out. If you're a vested acolyte of your religious order, holy places of your faith will treat you like a vested acolyte of your order until you give them reason not to. This is not a mechanical "Feature", this is an unneeded roleplaying prompt that suggests through tis very existence that nobody else can ever expect aid from temples, shrines, or holy places even if those religions are devoted to aiding others. Which is stupid.
If you wish to feed and clothe three commoners who do peaceful mundane tasks for you provided you treat them well, I can't imagine most DMs would strongly object. Those commoners are not any sort of gameplay edge, they have no real impact beyond seasoning. The DM might be aggravated at having to juggle those three extra NPCs at all times, but here's the thing - they'll be aggravated whether you have a Mommy-may-I background feature or not. it's why some DMs bar the Knight background and any similar "I have guys" backgrounds, or state that the player has to run those NPCs unless the DM steps in.
You want a fox tail, have a fox tail. You want to smell like fruit, smell like fruit. If a DM is up for that sort of whimsy, they'll let you do it whether your background says you can or not. If they're not up for that sort of whimsy, then you won't be allowed to use the Feylost background. Your arguments all seem to assume that the 5e backgrounds allow you to do these things even if your DM doesn't want to deal with them, lets you force the issue over your DM's objections. I can assure you, that is not the case.
Add 'em to your sheet. if they have no gold value, no mechanical value, and would be something your character logically/reasonably owns? Write it on your sheet. Why not? Who's gonna say no?
You're treating the One D&D background as being restrictive - you can ONLY have what the document says you can have, or ONLY do what the document says you can do. This is not the case. The rules in the Origins playtest document describe the mechanical structure of a background and the gameplay mechanisms your background entitles you to. Anything else is between you and the DM. As it should be. The DM should be as excited to run a game for your character as you are to play them; using 2014-style backgrounds to force the DM to run a game for a character they hate is as against the spirit of the game as a DM forcing a player to play in a game they hate.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just because you don't think you need those roleplaying prompts doesn't mean others don't. It's okay if something in the PH isn't written for you, specifically.
Jou, we went over this last year. "Roleplaying prompts" do not need to, and should not, be "Rules" you HAVE to follow, and which actively and harmfully exclude actual roleplaying. The way you and Kotath and all the rest want to run these "prompts" means I am, by your strict and unbending RAW, unable to ever play any of the characters I HAVE played or have ever WANTED to play.
You can have roleplaying prompts in the book without making them iron shackles around the throats of your players.
Please do not contact or message me.
You can have roleplay prompts without making them mechanical. The bonds and flaws dont have mechanical benefits but it still has suggestion s to help round the character out.
It's not about roleplaying prompts. It's about these roleplaying prompts and minor abilities being argued to be a good reason to stick with the old background system of predefined templates instead of replacing it with something vastly more flexible.
Roleplaying prompts and the general activity of making your character a character are something that ought to be covered in the PHB, but not mechanically.
Do not presume to tell me how I want things to be presented or run. If you're going to insist on rubbing people the wrong way, I'm going to insist you start buying us lotion.
I'm not telling you how you want things presented or run. I'm saying that I spent fourteen pages last year trying to fight against you, Kotath, and many others protested the new documented and wanted it thrown out because you wanted to keep Background Features, and for Background Features to Matter.
Well, the only way for a Background Feature to Matter is if you need the Feature to do what the Feature says. And in order for that to happen, nobody else without the Feature can be allowed to do what the Feature says. Which means that if you're not a Sailor you can't book passage on a ship, if you're not an Acolyte you cannot find any aid or shelter of any sort at a temple, if you're not a Folk Hero (or a Haunted One) you cannot expect any aid or support from common folk...
This is the natural and unavoidable end consequence of the thing you spent fourteen pages arguing with me over last year, Jounichi. To get what you have told me in words right here on the forum you want, you have to end up at the point where Background Features are restrictive, roleplaying-strangling shackles around our necks. There is no other option, no Plan C, no alternative.
Please do not contact or message me.