You act like that's a distinction with meaning. It is not. Under the rules you actively espouse, a character is not permitted to encroach upon the territory of an established Background Feature, because by doing so they are claiming membership in that Background and thus becoming ninja pirate nobleman samurai and breaking the game.
You act like that's a distinction with meaning. It is not. Under the rules you actively espouse, a character is not permitted to encroach upon the territory of an established Background Feature, because by doing so they are claiming membership in that Background and thus becoming ninja pirate nobleman samurai and breaking the game.
Citation needed. In a specific campaign, it might well be reasonably to be a ninja pirate nobleman samurai. 'Pirate' comes down to whom you are preying on and may well be state sanctioned. Since Knight or Samurai are traditionally titles of lesser nobility, those already overlap. Knighthood usually comes with additional responsibilities and a different, not always worse social standing than mere 'nobility' (non-knighted lesser child of some lesser house) or higher ranking nobility (one of the top heirs or sole child of some truly prominent noble house). Ninja and Samurai are setting specific titles anyway....
However, if you are complaining that a player cannot expect it to be accepted that their character has all the perks they want, simply because their background says so, well don't see that being accepted under the new system, either. Again, there is a difference between 'automatically all the things' and 'automatically this thing, but some lesser degree of other things too., or even simply "some of this and some of this and some of this..."
Basically this. I'm pretty sure I've invoked Arya Stark at some point, and depending on which part of her story you emphasize depends on which background gets listed: noble, criminal or urchin, and acolyte.
The ribbon features mean you don't have to negotiate for everything you want. They don't mean you can't negotiate for other things. Their loss means everything is negotiable, which may not seem like a big loss to you, who's been playing 5E for the last 8 years. But it does mean a newcomer doesn't know they can have these things. There is room for them somewhere, and they shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.
Rather than rehash that argument for another fourteen pages, let's try this.
Roleplaying prompts - and that's ALL the terrible 2014 "Background Features" are, is shitty roleplaying prompts - should not have the force of rules. if you want the book to have big lists of roleplaying prompts in it for unimaginative players somewhere, fine. Go for it. But those roleplaying prompts should be prompts, not restrictions. They should give players ideas of what they might be able to do, not Lay Down The Law on what they cannot do. And they damn well shouldn't actively get in the way of imaginative players the way the 2014 "Background" system does, all the goddamn time.
UA Playtest 6 demonstrates how game mechanics and roleplay aspects positively interact. The Influence action shows that a character gains an advantage on an ability check for a target with a friendly attitude. Backgrounds can include a number of statements about the prior experience of a character that affects the target attitude without backgrounds being mutually exclusive or difficult to manage using game mechanics, even in combat. My cleric acolyte background now states certain temples are friendly to me; when I ask (Persuade) them to help my party - even when I am unknown - I gain an advantage on the roll. I try not to abuse the privilege, so my DC is kept low. Game mechanics support roleplay, and roleplay uses game mechanics to move the narrative forward.
... To use an example myself, if I'm a cleric of Kelemvor in the Forgotten Realms whose job it is to hunt undead as Kelemvor clerics typically do, why wouldn't a Kelemvor temple supply me with what I need to hunt undead if I ask them?
Hell - if you're a Van Helsing-esque wandering demon hunter with a riff on Haunted One and you're in the area tracking dangerous undead, why wouldn't that same temple offer what reasonable aid it could even though you're not vested clergy of Kelemvor? They may not give you room and board, but they might supply you with tools and information, or help you recover if the hunt goes badly and you need to rest after a dust-up. That would make perfect sense to me as a DM; if you're pursuing the temple's goals it would offer at least some aid even to laypeople if it meant a better chance of a successful hunt.
Buuuuuuut...according to Jou/Kotath rules, you can't do that. Because you're not an Acolyte, which means you don't have the ability that allows you to gain aid from temples, which means the temeple of Kelemvor will slam its doors in your face and tell you to get bent. Even if that means the dangerous undead you're hunting escapes your pursuit.
Yep. Because that totally makes sense and is an absolutely logical and reasonable thing to run the world as doing.
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.
Space in the core book is finite, especially since they're adding more species, more subclasses, more art, more feats, more spells and so on than existed in 2014. The vestigial plot coupons from 2014 Backgrounds are a waste of precious space, on top of being either useless and redundant (an Acolyte of a religion can get help from the local branch of their church?? Astounding!!) or even more actively hindering than helpful (Hey DM, my Noble plot coupon says you have to give me an audience with a local lord, no I don't care that they don't know me or my country of origin from a hole in the ground, hop to it.)
UA Playtest 6 demonstrates how game mechanics and roleplay aspects positively interact. The Influence action shows that a character gains an advantage on an ability check for a target with a friendly attitude. Backgrounds can include a number of statements about the prior experience of a character that affects the target attitude without backgrounds being mutually exclusive or difficult to manage using game mechanics, even in combat. My cleric acolyte background now states certain temples are friendly to me; when I ask (Persuade) them to help my party - even when I am unknown - I gain an advantage on the roll. I try not to abuse the privilege, so my DC is kept low. Game mechanics support roleplay, and roleplay uses game mechanics to move the narrative forward.
If we're going by the acolyte example you're using, why wouldn't those temples be friendly to you (and thus more receptive to providing something you need within reason) regardless of whether or not you have the feature to say so? This is more of a worldbuilding element than something that needs to be called out for a specific player.
To use an example myself, if I'm a cleric of Kelemvor in the Forgotten Realms whose job it is to hunt undead as Kelemvor clerics typically do, why wouldn't a Kelemvor temple supply me with what I need to hunt undead if I ask them?
A temple that is part of your order and a request for something you need within reason would be a low DC or perhaps an automatic success. Your background story could state clerics of your order can request and often receive help of this nature, or you might assume this fact is true and test the assumption out in the game. As the request becomes more challenging, there could be a reluctance to assist, or they might be overly inclined to help; either change the DC. The game mechanic of the Influence action helps the DM decide with input from the player and accounting for factors outside the player's knowledge. Roleplay and Combat address taking action with an uncertain outcome, resolving the outcome drives the narrative.
Rather than rehash that argument for another fourteen pages, let's try this.
Roleplaying prompts - and that's ALL the terrible 2014 "Background Features" are, is shitty roleplaying prompts - should not have the force of rules. if you want the book to have big lists of roleplaying prompts in it for unimaginative players somewhere, fine. Go for it. But those roleplaying prompts should be prompts, not restrictions. They should give players ideas of what they might be able to do, not Lay Down The Law on what they cannot do. And they damn well shouldn't actively get in the way of imaginative players the way the 2014 "Background" system does, all the goddamn time.
The only person saying "This thing gives or lets you do something" is a restriction is you.
Very few things tell players what they cannot do. The text is overwhelmingly giving out permissions.
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.
Space in the core book is finite, especially since they're adding more species, more subclasses, more art, more feats, more spells and so on than existed in 2014. The vestigial plot coupons from 2014 Backgrounds are a waste of precious space, on top of being either useless and redundant (an Acolyte of a religion can get help from the local branch of their church?? Astounding!!) or even more actively hindering than helpful (Hey DM, my Noble plot coupon says you have to give me an audience with a local lord, no I don't care that they don't know me or my country of origin from a hole in the ground, hop to it.)
As I said, they aren't helpful to you. They may be helpful to newer players.
Stop being mad that things in the books might not be written for you, specifically.
... To use an example myself, if I'm a cleric of Kelemvor in the Forgotten Realms whose job it is to hunt undead as Kelemvor clerics typically do, why wouldn't a Kelemvor temple supply me with what I need to hunt undead if I ask them?
Hell - if you're a Van Helsing-esque wandering demon hunter with a riff on Haunted One and you're in the area tracking dangerous undead, why wouldn't that same temple offer what reasonable aid it could even though you're not vested clergy of Kelemvor? They may not give you room and board, but they might supply you with tools and information, or help you recover if the hunt goes badly and you need to rest after a dust-up. That would make perfect sense to me as a DM; if you're pursuing the temple's goals it would offer at least some aid even to laypeople if it meant a better chance of a successful hunt.
Buuuuuuut...according to Jou/Kotath rules, you can't do that. Because you're not an Acolyte, which means you don't have the ability that allows you to gain aid from temples, which means the temeple of Kelemvor will slam its doors in your face and tell you to get bent. Even if that means the dangerous undead you're hunting escapes your pursuit.
Yep. Because that totally makes sense and is an absolutely logical and reasonable thing to run the world as doing.
Once again, stop trying to put words in peoples' mouths.
Automatically being able to do one thing doesn't mean you cannot ask for more. For all your venting, you seem hell-bent on this simple truth.
As I said, they aren't helpful to you. They may be helpful to newer players.
Stop being mad that things in the books might not be written for you, specifically.
I'm not mad, in fact I'm quite happy with the design direction and understand the reasons behind it. You're the one complaining, not me.
And I think newer players would be better served by internalizing the ability check resolution system rather than being conditioned to bypass it via a random assortment of plot coupons.
That simple bolded phrase highlights the difference.
Yes, it does. It indicates that the DM is running the world in such a way that they're reacting appropriately to who the PCs are, what they've done, and what the world knows of them. As a good DM should.
That acolytes automatically get that level of support, does not mean that others cannot, regardless of situation. Nor does it mean the aid is necessarily of the same level.
1.) yes it does. That's the entire point of "Background Features", and you know it. 2.) Does the Acolyte still get automatic support if they turn apostate? Renounce and denounce their religion, even kill higher-ranking members of the clergy? Do they get their automatic support if their god's enemy manages to wheedle them into a new deal and they turn traitor? No? Gee - I wonder if running the world in such a way that it's reacting appropriately to who the PCs are, what they've done, and what the world knows of them is better than leaning on dumb stupid choking restrictive always-on-no-matter-what "Background Features" that simple shackle the game and often make no god damned sense.
That a city guard has certain standard rights and authority does not prohibit that city from situationally deputizing others. Nor does it need any skill checks on the part of those others, if the DM feels it plot worthy.
Under your espoused system, yes it does. If there are no Guards in the party, the party cannot do any sort of police or police-adjacent work for the city because nobody in the party has a "City Guard/Police" Background Feature. Doesn't matter that this is the story the DM wants to run, or the one the players want to play - if they adhere properly to your system they cannot do it.
You're doubltess going to hit me with your favorite little "Citation needed" bit. You don't get one. Because reason and logic dictate that if you want a system where Background Features are front and center in Backgrounds - which you have said repeatedly that you do - and if those features are supposed to Matter - which you have repeatedly said they must - then this is the only logical way for these damn rules to work. If you don't have the Feature, YOU CAN'T DO THE THING. Elsewise there's no god damned point in having the "Feature" in the first place.
"Background" does not equal "the only thing that will ever apply to a character."
In your version of the 2014 rules? Yes it does.
It does not mean so for the character with any given background that might be relevant, nor does it mean so for the character without such a background. The situation you gave was a wandering demon hunter in the course of an active hunt for undead, an activity that specific church cares about and supports. That church would likely offer aid due to that current plot element (dangerous undead in the area).
The problem is that according to your rules, the temple of Kelemvor offering any aid, of any sort, to this demon hunter would be a horrible breach of trust with the Acolyte player, because now you're giving someone else who didn't pay for it with their sole and entire background the benefit of Shelter of the Faithful. This is absolutely not tolerable and cannot be permitted, therefore the hunter is out of luck. Doesn't matter that this makes absolutely no goddamn sense for the world, or that it means the demon hunter can't have her cool moment. Letting any temple offer any aid to any player that isn't an Acolyte means the Acolyte background instantly becomes worthless and you've betrayed the trust of any Acolyte players at your table.
The fact that you're not reading it that way doesn't mean it's not meant that way, or that a large percentage of players aren't reading it that way. Hell, look at Relyk's latest thread where he complains that the loss of the Knight background's "Retainers" feature means it's fundamentally impossible for him to have any retainers now, and also that he can't force his character to have retainers even if the DM strenuously does not want to have to manage three party-pet NPCs in that game. How is that anything but proof that this system is broken, bad, cloying, restrictive, awful, and in need of a serious update?
As I said, they aren't helpful to you. They may be helpful to newer players.
Stop being mad that things in the books might not be written for you, specifically.
I'm not mad, in fact I'm quite happy with the design direction and understand the reasons behind it. You're the one complaining, not me.
And I think newer players would be better served by internalizing the ability check resolution system rather than being conditioned to bypass it via a random assortment of plot coupons.
If I'm complaining, it's because I think people want to gatekeep by removing useful tools to newcomers. And just because they have a "plot coupon" doesn't mean they get to automatically bypass an ability check.
But I wouldn't expect most people here actually understand that.
As I said, they aren't helpful to you. They may be helpful to newer players.
Stop being mad that things in the books might not be written for you, specifically.
I'm not mad, in fact I'm quite happy with the design direction and understand the reasons behind it. You're the one complaining, not me.
And I think newer players would be better served by internalizing the ability check resolution system rather than being conditioned to bypass it via a random assortment of plot coupons.
If I'm complaining, it's because I think people want to gatekeep by removing useful tools to newcomers. And just because they have a "plot coupon" doesn't mean they get to automatically bypass an ability check.
But I wouldn't expect most people here actually understand that.
2014 background features aren't useful tools. They're end-runs around the DM. They're text you can point to and declare "The BOOK says I get to do X, regardless of circumstance, effort, or common sense."
They are a crutch the game never needed, and removing them was the right call. I'm not sorry they're gone.
If we're talking about usefulness to players as a roleplay aid, I still think the openness of the UA Background details is still going to come out ahead because it's going to scale with player roleplay skill. Unlike many of the 2014 ribbon Backgrounds. If they maybe just made it clearer in the Backgrounds section that one must "work with the DM to determine the types of people and groups with whom your character would have connections and rapport" it would be great! One rules suggestion that covers all those social connection details and putting it firmly in the Write-Your-Own section where it belongs. And you still have the example builds that prewrite them for beginners while giving more experienced roleplayers the room to get more nuanced and detailed.
I agree with Yurei, making those ribbon social details into a hard coded mechanical feature innately hedges them into niche protection territory, just by design. Of course any DM can bend those rules, but it's always harder on the learning curve to learn to break something hard coded than it is to flex something that is flexible by design.
If we're talking about usefulness to players as a roleplay aid, I still think the openness of the UA Background details is still going to come out ahead because it's going to scale with player roleplay skill. Unlike many of the 2014 ribbon Backgrounds. If they maybe just made it clearer in the Backgrounds section that one must "work with the DM to determine the types of people and groups with whom your character would have connections and rapport" it would be great! One rules suggestion that covers all those social connection details and putting it firmly in the Write-Your-Own section where it belongs. And you still have the example builds that prewrite them for beginners while giving more experienced roleplayers the room to get more nuanced and detailed.
I agree with Yurei, making those ribbon social details into a hard coded mechanical feature innately hedges them into niche protection territory, just by design. Of course any DM can bend those rules, but it's always harder on the learning curve to learn to break something hard coded than it is to flex something that is flexible by design.
And again, this 'hard coded' term as if this is software. It isn't. Every DM has their own interpretations of things and frankly, not sure how DM's that take that super strict interpretation of every rule would manage to keep players.
They do also make it clear that one can work with the DM to come up with something new. I have cited the line many times, only to be told it doesn't count, because reasons.
There have always been rules lawyers, but the game has thrived because of DM creativity. The current system gives DMs more to build off of, while still making it clear that there is full permission to be creative and be different.
Why does it give them more to work off of? Everyone is getting a feat instead of a 'feature' both of which have mechanical benefits it is just the feature's mechanical benefits either end up telling you what you CANT do with another thing or else why have the feature at all, or tell you what you should obviously be able to do even if the feature wasn't there and GM's can be just as creative without it as they were with it. Other than that this is a playtest document. Which means they aren't going to go into as much roleplaying tips or suggestions as they would in the actual book. I didn't see any ideals, bonds, personality traits or weaknesses listed, but I am sure those will still be in the book.
There is nothing with the new origins that stops someone from doing what they were already doing with the acolyte background, it just also now gives them a feat.
If we're talking about usefulness to players as a roleplay aid, I still think the openness of the UA Background details is still going to come out ahead because it's going to scale with player roleplay skill. Unlike many of the 2014 ribbon Backgrounds. If they maybe just made it clearer in the Backgrounds section that one must "work with the DM to determine the types of people and groups with whom your character would have connections and rapport" it would be great! One rules suggestion that covers all those social connection details and putting it firmly in the Write-Your-Own section where it belongs. And you still have the example builds that prewrite them for beginners while giving more experienced roleplayers the room to get more nuanced and detailed.
I agree with Yurei, making those ribbon social details into a hard coded mechanical feature innately hedges them into niche protection territory, just by design. Of course any DM can bend those rules, but it's always harder on the learning curve to learn to break something hard coded than it is to flex something that is flexible by design.
And again, this 'hard coded' term as if this is software. It isn't. Every DM has their own interpretations of things and frankly, not sure how DM's that take that super strict interpretation of every rule would manage to keep players.
Just to be clear here, what I'm talking about is specifically is the "Feature" portion of a Background, not Background as a whole.
They do also make it clear that one can work with the DM to come up with something new. I have cited the line many times, only to be told it doesn't count, because reasons.
I have acknowledged this point before, but again I'm talking about specifically the Feature portion of the Background and in regards to that, you are incorrect. There are no rules or suggestions for coming up with new Features. Let's cite the rule you're talking about:
"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."
So you are entirely correct that the rules allow you to customize Backgrounds, but the only customization of the Feature portion mentioned is just swapping Features in from different Backgrounds. There is no guidance or even mention of creating new Background Features. There is only a finite list of Features from the finite list of Backgrounds and no other choices and not even an inkling of the concept of creating new ones.
There have always been rules lawyers, but the game has thrived because of DM creativity. The current system gives DMs more to build off of, while still making it clear that there is full permission to be creative and be different.
Disagreed. In regards to specifically the Feature portion of the Background, I see a system that is basically a list of the only choices one is allowed and no help in being creative other than just swapping for something else on the list.
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!
And again, this 'hard coded' term as if this is software. It isn't. Every DM has their own interpretations of things and frankly, not sure how DM's that take that super strict interpretation of every rule would manage to keep players.
DMs ignoring the rules in the book doesn't mean the rules in the book aren't bad. Hell, if DMs tend to near-universally ignore a rule - such as Background Features - isn't that a sign that the rule is bad and doesn't need to continue existing? Your refusal to see that forcing these rules the way you keep trying to do, cramming "Background Features" down the throats of players who may want to do something the book doesn't give them mother-may-I permission for, and discarding the dramatically improved character generation from the Origins document that proposed to replace these rules, is simply more harm than good.
They do also make it clear that one can work with the DM to come up with something new. I have cited the line many times, only to be told it doesn't count, because reasons.
It doesn't count because it's a random one-off throwaway line with no guidance or support, no explanation, and no methodsology behind it. It's exactly the same as if the book had said "if you don't like these Background Features just do whatever I guess." Yes, obviously a DM can homebrew whatever they wish. That doesn't mean all of them wish, or that the system should force them to do so just because they have a player that wants to be creative instead of using the same boring terrible overplayed archetypes everybody always uses.
Besides. Have you tried using the Homebrew Background tools here in Beyond? They're awful. Thoroughly awful. It's a twitchy finicky morass of nonsense that can take hours or even days to get right, and that's for one Background, once. Why should a DM have to spend days and days fighting a terrible software tool just so their player can try and be a little more creative than your average Friday Night AL yaybo?
There have always been rules lawyers, but the game has thrived because of DM creativity. The current system gives DMs more to build off of, while still making it clear that there is full permission to be creative and be different.
The current system does NOT give DMs more to build off of, and it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT make clear any damned thing about there still being full permission to be creative and different. The only reason people are creative anyways is because of Rule Zero; the background rules in the 2014 book make it absolutely crystal clear you're supposed to choose a so-called "Sample" background and be done with it, with the bare-bones incomplete throwaway "customization" rules being exactly that - a throwaway without the force of real, proper rules that do nothing whatsoever beyond restate Rule Zero with all the energy and enthusiasm of a turtle on sleep aids.
One pointless throwaway paragraph saying "do whatever if you have to I guess" is no damned substitute for the Origins document's fantastic revision of the chargen rules.
In the Player's Handbook, under 'Customizing a Background,' the very last line is "If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."
It is right there.
Oh why so it is ... apologies I did miss that.
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!
By that logic, scrap every rule, since they are published rules and someone might say "The BOOK says I get to do X, regardless of circumstance, effort, or common sense."
The books also make it clear that the DM can change or outright deny any rule they want.
So because some 2014 rules have value, they all do? That's your "logic?" You must really enjoy bloat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You act like that's a distinction with meaning. It is not. Under the rules you actively espouse, a character is not permitted to encroach upon the territory of an established Background Feature, because by doing so they are claiming membership in that Background and thus becoming ninja pirate nobleman samurai and breaking the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
Basically this. I'm pretty sure I've invoked Arya Stark at some point, and depending on which part of her story you emphasize depends on which background gets listed: noble, criminal or urchin, and acolyte.
The ribbon features mean you don't have to negotiate for everything you want. They don't mean you can't negotiate for other things. Their loss means everything is negotiable, which may not seem like a big loss to you, who's been playing 5E for the last 8 years. But it does mean a newcomer doesn't know they can have these things. There is room for them somewhere, and they shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater.
Rather than rehash that argument for another fourteen pages, let's try this.
Roleplaying prompts - and that's ALL the terrible 2014 "Background Features" are, is shitty roleplaying prompts - should not have the force of rules. if you want the book to have big lists of roleplaying prompts in it for unimaginative players somewhere, fine. Go for it. But those roleplaying prompts should be prompts, not restrictions. They should give players ideas of what they might be able to do, not Lay Down The Law on what they cannot do. And they damn well shouldn't actively get in the way of imaginative players the way the 2014 "Background" system does, all the goddamn time.
Please do not contact or message me.
UA Playtest 6 demonstrates how game mechanics and roleplay aspects positively interact. The Influence action shows that a character gains an advantage on an ability check for a target with a friendly attitude. Backgrounds can include a number of statements about the prior experience of a character that affects the target attitude without backgrounds being mutually exclusive or difficult to manage using game mechanics, even in combat. My cleric acolyte background now states certain temples are friendly to me; when I ask (Persuade) them to help my party - even when I am unknown - I gain an advantage on the roll. I try not to abuse the privilege, so my DC is kept low. Game mechanics support roleplay, and roleplay uses game mechanics to move the narrative forward.
Hell - if you're a Van Helsing-esque wandering demon hunter with a riff on Haunted One and you're in the area tracking dangerous undead, why wouldn't that same temple offer what reasonable aid it could even though you're not vested clergy of Kelemvor? They may not give you room and board, but they might supply you with tools and information, or help you recover if the hunt goes badly and you need to rest after a dust-up. That would make perfect sense to me as a DM; if you're pursuing the temple's goals it would offer at least some aid even to laypeople if it meant a better chance of a successful hunt.
Buuuuuuut...according to Jou/Kotath rules, you can't do that. Because you're not an Acolyte, which means you don't have the ability that allows you to gain aid from temples, which means the temeple of Kelemvor will slam its doors in your face and tell you to get bent. Even if that means the dangerous undead you're hunting escapes your pursuit.
Yep. Because that totally makes sense and is an absolutely logical and reasonable thing to run the world as doing.
Please do not contact or message me.
Space in the core book is finite, especially since they're adding more species, more subclasses, more art, more feats, more spells and so on than existed in 2014. The vestigial plot coupons from 2014 Backgrounds are a waste of precious space, on top of being either useless and redundant (an Acolyte of a religion can get help from the local branch of their church?? Astounding!!) or even more actively hindering than helpful (Hey DM, my Noble plot coupon says you have to give me an audience with a local lord, no I don't care that they don't know me or my country of origin from a hole in the ground, hop to it.)
A temple that is part of your order and a request for something you need within reason would be a low DC or perhaps an automatic success. Your background story could state clerics of your order can request and often receive help of this nature, or you might assume this fact is true and test the assumption out in the game. As the request becomes more challenging, there could be a reluctance to assist, or they might be overly inclined to help; either change the DC. The game mechanic of the Influence action helps the DM decide with input from the player and accounting for factors outside the player's knowledge. Roleplay and Combat address taking action with an uncertain outcome, resolving the outcome drives the narrative.
The only person saying "This thing gives or lets you do something" is a restriction is you.
Very few things tell players what they cannot do. The text is overwhelmingly giving out permissions.
As I said, they aren't helpful to you. They may be helpful to newer players.
Stop being mad that things in the books might not be written for you, specifically.
Once again, stop trying to put words in peoples' mouths.
Automatically being able to do one thing doesn't mean you cannot ask for more. For all your venting, you seem hell-bent on this simple truth.
I'm not mad, in fact I'm quite happy with the design direction and understand the reasons behind it. You're the one complaining, not me.
And I think newer players would be better served by internalizing the ability check resolution system rather than being conditioned to bypass it via a random assortment of plot coupons.
Yes, it does. It indicates that the DM is running the world in such a way that they're reacting appropriately to who the PCs are, what they've done, and what the world knows of them. As a good DM should.
1.) yes it does. That's the entire point of "Background Features", and you know it.
2.) Does the Acolyte still get automatic support if they turn apostate? Renounce and denounce their religion, even kill higher-ranking members of the clergy? Do they get their automatic support if their god's enemy manages to wheedle them into a new deal and they turn traitor? No? Gee - I wonder if running the world in such a way that it's reacting appropriately to who the PCs are, what they've done, and what the world knows of them is better than leaning on dumb stupid choking restrictive always-on-no-matter-what "Background Features" that simple shackle the game and often make no god damned sense.
Under your espoused system, yes it does. If there are no Guards in the party, the party cannot do any sort of police or police-adjacent work for the city because nobody in the party has a "City Guard/Police" Background Feature. Doesn't matter that this is the story the DM wants to run, or the one the players want to play - if they adhere properly to your system they cannot do it.
You're doubltess going to hit me with your favorite little "Citation needed" bit. You don't get one. Because reason and logic dictate that if you want a system where Background Features are front and center in Backgrounds - which you have said repeatedly that you do - and if those features are supposed to Matter - which you have repeatedly said they must - then this is the only logical way for these damn rules to work. If you don't have the Feature, YOU CAN'T DO THE THING. Elsewise there's no god damned point in having the "Feature" in the first place.
In your version of the 2014 rules? Yes it does.
The problem is that according to your rules, the temple of Kelemvor offering any aid, of any sort, to this demon hunter would be a horrible breach of trust with the Acolyte player, because now you're giving someone else who didn't pay for it with their sole and entire background the benefit of Shelter of the Faithful. This is absolutely not tolerable and cannot be permitted, therefore the hunter is out of luck. Doesn't matter that this makes absolutely no goddamn sense for the world, or that it means the demon hunter can't have her cool moment. Letting any temple offer any aid to any player that isn't an Acolyte means the Acolyte background instantly becomes worthless and you've betrayed the trust of any Acolyte players at your table.
The fact that you're not reading it that way doesn't mean it's not meant that way, or that a large percentage of players aren't reading it that way. Hell, look at Relyk's latest thread where he complains that the loss of the Knight background's "Retainers" feature means it's fundamentally impossible for him to have any retainers now, and also that he can't force his character to have retainers even if the DM strenuously does not want to have to manage three party-pet NPCs in that game. How is that anything but proof that this system is broken, bad, cloying, restrictive, awful, and in need of a serious update?
Please do not contact or message me.
If I'm complaining, it's because I think people want to gatekeep by removing useful tools to newcomers. And just because they have a "plot coupon" doesn't mean they get to automatically bypass an ability check.
But I wouldn't expect most people here actually understand that.
2014 background features aren't useful tools. They're end-runs around the DM. They're text you can point to and declare "The BOOK says I get to do X, regardless of circumstance, effort, or common sense."
They are a crutch the game never needed, and removing them was the right call. I'm not sorry they're gone.
If we're talking about usefulness to players as a roleplay aid, I still think the openness of the UA Background details is still going to come out ahead because it's going to scale with player roleplay skill. Unlike many of the 2014 ribbon Backgrounds. If they maybe just made it clearer in the Backgrounds section that one must "work with the DM to determine the types of people and groups with whom your character would have connections and rapport" it would be great! One rules suggestion that covers all those social connection details and putting it firmly in the Write-Your-Own section where it belongs. And you still have the example builds that prewrite them for beginners while giving more experienced roleplayers the room to get more nuanced and detailed.
I agree with Yurei, making those ribbon social details into a hard coded mechanical feature innately hedges them into niche protection territory, just by design. Of course any DM can bend those rules, but it's always harder on the learning curve to learn to break something hard coded than it is to flex something that is flexible by design.
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!
Why does it give them more to work off of? Everyone is getting a feat instead of a 'feature' both of which have mechanical benefits it is just the feature's mechanical benefits either end up telling you what you CANT do with another thing or else why have the feature at all, or tell you what you should obviously be able to do even if the feature wasn't there and GM's can be just as creative without it as they were with it. Other than that this is a playtest document. Which means they aren't going to go into as much roleplaying tips or suggestions as they would in the actual book. I didn't see any ideals, bonds, personality traits or weaknesses listed, but I am sure those will still be in the book.
There is nothing with the new origins that stops someone from doing what they were already doing with the acolyte background, it just also now gives them a feat.
Just to be clear here, what I'm talking about is specifically is the "Feature" portion of a Background, not Background as a whole.
I have acknowledged this point before, but again I'm talking about specifically the Feature portion of the Background and in regards to that, you are incorrect. There are no rules or suggestions for coming up with new Features. Let's cite the rule you're talking about:
"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."
So you are entirely correct that the rules allow you to customize Backgrounds, but the only customization of the Feature portion mentioned is just swapping Features in from different Backgrounds. There is no guidance or even mention of creating new Background Features. There is only a finite list of Features from the finite list of Backgrounds and no other choices and not even an inkling of the concept of creating new ones.
Disagreed. In regards to specifically the Feature portion of the Background, I see a system that is basically a list of the only choices one is allowed and no help in being creative other than just swapping for something else on the list.
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!
DMs ignoring the rules in the book doesn't mean the rules in the book aren't bad. Hell, if DMs tend to near-universally ignore a rule - such as Background Features - isn't that a sign that the rule is bad and doesn't need to continue existing? Your refusal to see that forcing these rules the way you keep trying to do, cramming "Background Features" down the throats of players who may want to do something the book doesn't give them mother-may-I permission for, and discarding the dramatically improved character generation from the Origins document that proposed to replace these rules, is simply more harm than good.
It doesn't count because it's a random one-off throwaway line with no guidance or support, no explanation, and no methodsology behind it. It's exactly the same as if the book had said "if you don't like these Background Features just do whatever I guess." Yes, obviously a DM can homebrew whatever they wish. That doesn't mean all of them wish, or that the system should force them to do so just because they have a player that wants to be creative instead of using the same boring terrible overplayed archetypes everybody always uses.
Besides. Have you tried using the Homebrew Background tools here in Beyond? They're awful. Thoroughly awful. It's a twitchy finicky morass of nonsense that can take hours or even days to get right, and that's for one Background, once. Why should a DM have to spend days and days fighting a terrible software tool just so their player can try and be a little more creative than your average Friday Night AL yaybo?
The current system does NOT give DMs more to build off of, and it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT make clear any damned thing about there still being full permission to be creative and different. The only reason people are creative anyways is because of Rule Zero; the background rules in the 2014 book make it absolutely crystal clear you're supposed to choose a so-called "Sample" background and be done with it, with the bare-bones incomplete throwaway "customization" rules being exactly that - a throwaway without the force of real, proper rules that do nothing whatsoever beyond restate Rule Zero with all the energy and enthusiasm of a turtle on sleep aids.
One pointless throwaway paragraph saying "do whatever if you have to I guess" is no damned substitute for the Origins document's fantastic revision of the chargen rules.
Please do not contact or message me.
Oh why so it is ... apologies I did miss that.
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!
So because some 2014 rules have value, they all do? That's your "logic?" You must really enjoy bloat.