You are arguing as if these misunderstandings you seem to claim to be problems are widespread enough to actually be meaningful problems.
Honestly, I'm not. Like I said, even on the face of it it is a worse written set of rules than the Origins UA and the meaningfulness of the problem has nothing to do without how widespread it is. Most DM's do have the sense to smooth over the issue with DM fiat. That doesn't mean it's well written. If it requires DM fiat to solve, that doesn't speak well for it.
I argued that the Noble feature is meant to bend to the reality of that DM's world. That is not the same as bending to the requirements of roleplay.
Fine, we'll use your terminology for now then. You're still incorrect. The Background Features are explicitly written to not bend to the DM's world. They are included in the list of concrete rules and as such players who read that should rightly expect that they work as mechanical superpowers.
Unless you're specifically talking about Rule 0 which says that the DM can just change rules when they deem necessary.
The latter would be a player insisting their noble is as powerful as they want their character to be, irrespective of what the DM says. That was one of Yurei's accusations. I was pointing out that, no, it clearly states that DM's can reign it in as needed for their world to make sense.
Where in the Feature section of Noble does it say that? Because, let me remind you, the Feature is explicitly written to be a concrete mechanical benefit. It is a superpower just like a Rogue's Cunning Action or a Fighter's Action Surge and it would take something like Rule 0 for a DM to say it doesn't work on any and all local nobles whether they be completely alien or enemies, or what have you.
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!
In my experience, pedantry is more likely to burn bridges than build them.
Agreed.
So why are you making this distinction? A character with a 15 strength can leap 15' safely. So, say there is a 16' chasm under otherwise good jumping conditions. The character has to leap approx 18' (including enough space to land), so they have to leap 3 more feet than they safely can using the formula only. Whatever the DC the DM decides upon, if they make or beat it, they will have lept 18+ feat, 3+ more feat than normal without having made the DC check. Thus having made the check will have added 3+ feet to their normal jump distance.
That is the definition of 'add.' 'To increase the size, number or amount'
because you claim that athletics adds to jumping distance.
It doesn't.
At no point does anything say "Athletics increases your jumping distance".
not in your example (which describes a use of it where it does not add, but provides an example of when to use it), and notin the rules.
And the specific reason that it doesn't add is because if it did, then it would do so for jumps of less than your capability, as well. It does not add to anything.
But also...
that isn't the part of the response with pedantry.
Yes it is.
The distinction between "will" and "can" is slight and can be easily forgiven. Let this one go.
The only feature I can think of that has had any meaningful threads debating has been Haunted One and those usually get sorted out pretty quick.
1) Uhh, where were you looking? Because my quick google search on just the Noble background, limited solely to Reddit, uncovered reams of debates and clarification requests on it from both sides of the table. For one background, on one website, that has gotten a lot more traffic over the past near-decade than this one has.
2) Even if you had been right, and that there weren't a bunch of forum posts anywhere about these backgrounds aside from Haunted One - why is that the only possible metric you're considering in the first place? WotC has actual play data. They've gotten feedback about Backgrounds and the character creation process both before and after the Character Origins UA. Crawford even specifically described how they took 2014 backgrounds, deconstructed them into their component parts, and reconstructed them - and in the process, they determined that stripping out the extraneous features was the right call.
3) Everything in the Origins UA scored 70s or higher, except "Monsters can't crit" (well,, d20 tests in general), Ardling, and the first Dragonborn. And the majority of that was in the 80s. New Backgrounds were thus well-received.
Where in the Feature section of Noble does it say that? Because, let me remind you, the Feature is explicitly written to be a concrete mechanical benefit. It is a superpower just like a Rogue's Cunning Action or a Fighter's Action Surge and it would take something like Rule 0 for a DM to say it doesn't work on any and all local nobles whether they be completely alien or enemies, or what have you.
"Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries.
You didn't pay attention to the assignment. That is not in the Feature section, that is in what is clearly the roleplaying suggestion section. Remember that the Feature is explicitly called out as part of the "concrete benefits" part of the Background
The sample backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions.
You are using DM Fiat here to counteract what is unclear rules, and you would be right to do so, but that does not make the writing of the rules any less unclear. And again the point of this thread has been to talk about the proposed changes in the rules and how the compare and contrast to the existent rules. This is a point of unclarity in the 2014 rules that is fixed by the more clear distinction between concrete benefits and roleplaying suggestions in the Origins UA.
While it is true that is not the feature, it does make it clear that there are limits to this background to be worked out with the DM. And it is true that if the feature is not taken in that context that the feature comes across as absolute.
The 2014 PHB itself clearly says that there are concrete benefits and roleplaying suggestions. The line was explicitly drawn there and it was not by me. It's not my fault that they drew a line and then danced back and forth across it themselves.
Feature: Position of Privilege
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.
"Inclined to" does not equal 'automatically do.' "A right to be wherever you are" clearly does not extend to literally anywhere (eg. Royal Bedroom and Royal Treasury are not going to be open to all nobles). 'Every effort' from common folk also should be read with the grains of salt presented in the list of things to work out with the DM and 'as a member of the same social sphere' can be just as much seen as a rival as as an ally. "A" local noble does not equal "any and every local noble you want an audience with."
You are using DM fiat to wallpaper over what is demonstrably unclear rules.
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!
How would the subject of PC Nobles be any less controversial in the UA rules? That is temporal power, something there is no skill for.
The UA version states:
You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership.
So, your family has a castle? Or are they living in someone else's castle? Does every noble family, no matter how minor, have their own castle? None of the wealth power or privilege are earned yet somehow your family are good rolemodels for teaching you leadership. And it says absolutely nothing about power or authority even inside the castle let alone outside. No guidance at all.
You figure there will be no debates over that?
Yes, or at least less because of how the entire section is written. Allow me to demonstrate:
When you choose a Background, you have three options: • Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
When you build a Background, your character gains the features in the “Background Features” section below.
SAMPLE BACKGROUNDS Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds that you can choose from when making a character. These Backgrounds were built using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section, and each of them contains story-oriented details that are meant inspire you as you think of your character’s backstory.
So not only are the sample backgrounds very clearly samples and not meant to be the be-all-end-all, but they also pretty clearly tell you that the Features part are all the mechanical parts like the ASI, Proficiencies, and the Feat. People will be much less likely to try and claim that whatever they write in their backstory part has mechanical weight because it is much more clearly in the sections that is meant for story oriented details and to serve as inspiration rather than concrete benefits.
Which is the mistake that the 2014 Background section made when it explicitly says that the Feature is a concrete benefit and then stuffed roleplaying and story oriented material in there as well.
It's way, way more active than these forums, if that's what you were using/referring to earlier. But I could also look at ENWorld, GitP, RPGNet etc if you prefer.
How would the subject of PC Nobles be any less controversial in the UA rules? That is temporal power, something there is no skill for.
The UA version states:
You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership.
So, your family has a castle? Or are they living in someone else's castle? Does every noble family, no matter how minor, have their own castle? None of the wealth power or privilege are earned yet somehow your family are good rolemodels for teaching you leadership. And it says absolutely nothing about power or authority even inside the castle let alone outside. No guidance at all.
You figure there will be no debates over that?
Of course it's someone else's castle 🤨 You're minor aristocrats, not royalty. And yes, I do believe the UA version will cause less disagreements, because it positions CYOB more prominently as the default.
So, your family has a castle? Or are they living in someone else's castle? Does every noble family, no matter how minor, have their own castle? None of the wealth power or privilege are earned yet somehow your family are good rolemodels for teaching you leadership. And it says absolutely nothing about power or authority even inside the castle let alone outside. No guidance at all.
You figure there will be no debates over that?
The thing you quoting is not a rule or mechanic. It does not have the same weight as a 2014 “feature.” It is narrative text, example narrative text at that, that the player can just make up.
That’s the point. Narrative stuff is isolated from mechanics, so people can make them up without having to write their own mechanics.
If this distinction is new to you, no wonder why this discussion is going in circles.
Do you think that the Persuasion proficiency granted by a background should "not always be applicable"? Do you think that the player's Persuasion proficiency should not apply to all Persuasion checks, that the DM should be encouraged to say "you're proficient in Persuasion but I don't like it for this check, so roll without proficiency"? And before you say "yes, of course the DM can do that", remember: arguing Rule Zero doesn't mean anything because Rule Zero throws out every assumption and is an argument against you as much as for you.
If you disagree that a skill proficiency should be sketchy and only apply intermittently - say to fewer than half of the rlevant checks a player might make? Then you are simultaneously arguing that Plot Coupon Background "Features" should also always apply regardless of whatever, because 2014 Backgrounds give the "Feature the same weight of RAW as the proficiencies the background provides. No distinction is made between "your background provides Persuasion proficiency" which is assumed to always be on for any Persuasion check unless there's a damn good reason your proficiency somehow doesn't apply and "your background allows you to gain an audience with any VIP you wish". Which, by the 2014 rules, is ALSO assumed to be "always on" and applicable to any situation, even when it might wildly contradict the tale being told.
And saying "well the DM can just overrule background features if they don't make sense" isn't nearly the argument you think it is, because if the DM has to constantly override and overrule these "Rules", why are they being written and included as rules? If the player cannot count on them as being Always On, why are they presented as special abilities equivalent to class features that the player is supposed to be able to use freely and without restraint? Rules the DM has to constantly adjust, override, and throw out don't deserve to be rules. As Ophidimancer said, even the mechanics-focused Origins document posed better questions for the player to consider than the 2014 PHB did. Those questions get the player's brain moving, and also give them guidance and direction that crappy example backgrounds simply cannot.
Giving someone a focused question they can give a single, concrete answer to gives them a foot in the door of the creative process, gets their brain moving and makes it easier to keep going. This has been proven over and over and over again, in many studies of not just gaming but human behavior in general. Asking focused questions with concrete answers is just about always better than an open-ended blagghle of "okay, you have infinite freedom, what do you want to do with it?" The overlong list of "Sample" backgrounds in the 2014 PHB do not offer any questions; they simply say "make something that looks like this" with no guidance whatsoever on how to do so, even beyond the "Custom Background" pseudo-rules being a nonexistent joke. That's simply poor game design, and it's why the Origins document is inarguably better game design.
You were raised in a castle as a creature of wealth, power, and privilege—none of it earned. Your family are minor aristocrats who saw to it that you received a first-class education, some of which you appreciated and some of which you resented. (Was it truly necessary to read all those ancient histories in their original Draconic?) Your time in the castle, especially the many hours you spent observing your family at court, also taught you a great deal about leadership.
So, your family has a castle? Or are they living in someone else's castle? Does every noble family, no matter how minor, have their own castle? None of the wealth power or privilege are earned yet somehow your family are good rolemodels for teaching you leadership. And it says absolutely nothing about power or authority even inside the castle let alone outside. No guidance at all.
You figure there will be no debates over that?
I answered this in the very first post of this thread. That is not a generic 'Noble' background. That is a specific background tuned to one specific character, who clearly grew up in a castle. It doesn't matter what other noble families had or did, it mattered what this one did.And in this case you're kvetching that there isn't two pages of exhaustive documancy laying out the entire family lineage, holdings, trade and political relations, and history of the noble bloodline in a playtest document designed to get rules in front of people. Do you not see where maybe that junk is irrelevant to the purposes of a playtest and thus a waste of valuable document space in documents that are already way too goddamn big?
So, your family has a castle? Or are they living in someone else's castle? Does every noble family, no matter how minor, have their own castle? None of the wealth power or privilege are earned yet somehow your family are good rolemodels for teaching you leadership. And it says absolutely nothing about power or authority even inside the castle let alone outside. No guidance at all.
You figure there will be no debates over that?
The thing you quoting is not a rule or mechanic. It does not have the same weight as a 2014 “feature.” It is narrative text, example narrative text at that, that the player can just make up.
That’s the point. Narrative stuff is isolated from mechanics, so people can make them up without having to write their own mechanics.
If this distinction is new to you, no wonder why this discussion is going in circles.
So what you are saying is that the character is a Noble, but since there is no rule actually saying they have any power whatsoever, they are merely someone called a Noble who has no actual power?
I understand that distinction. Do not expect that to be intuitive to anyone other than rules lawyers. Why call the background 'Noble' if it has nothing to do with nobility?
Nobility is a social construct, not a game rule. It’s a roleplaying detail, an aid, a plot hook, and generally the domain of your creativity and that of your DM.
I answered this in the very first post of this thread. That is not a generic 'Noble' background. That is a specific background tuned to one specific character, who clearly grew up in a castle. It doesn't matter what other noble families had or did, it mattered what this one did.And in this case you're kvetching that there isn't two pages of exhaustive documancy laying out the entire family lineage, holdings, trade and political relations, and history of the noble bloodline in a playtest document designed to get rules in front of people. Do you not see where maybe that junk is irrelevant to the purposes of a playtest and thus a waste of valuable document space in documents that are already way too goddamn big?
So, by that logic, the current backgrounds which lay that kind of thing out (and crystalize them via the features) are irrelevant to playtesters, who apparently are only intended to test combat mechanics?
First of all yes, the current 2014 Backgrounds are irrelevant to playtesters who are testing the material for 2024. Why would they playtest material that is already out? Playtesting is for new material. Second of all, how did you come to the conclusion that the playtest is only for combat mechanics? That's not the point of the playtest, nor is it remotely close to what Yurei said. She said that it is about playtesting rules. Rules which include combat mechanics as well as the inclusion of story details in the Background, but what it does not have time for is novel length back stories in the UA document.
Yes, if you consider any actual depth to a background to be 'junk,' then the UA version is definitely more your thing. Fair game to have that preference.
Unfair and unfairly said, this is not what Yurei said, you are misconstruing her and I only hope it is not deliberate.
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!
Nobility is a social construct, not a game rule. It’s a roleplaying detail, an aid, a plot hook, and generally the domain of your creativity and that of your DM.
So a PC is a noble. That background calls them this. What does that mean? Apparently only that they know draconic, history, persuasion, gaming and three other skills.
Calling it noble is (apparently) completely arbitrary and meaningless, despite the fact that 'noble' in this context has meanings in English. Nobility may be a social construct but is an existing social construct that has a wide variety of meanings. And temporal power, such as that normally wielded by nobles, is real power and authority, so perhaps at least a minimal attempt at guidance to DMs as to how to handle it? Or for that matter, to players as to what to expect as reasonable limits, from DM's?
If calling it noble means nothing, why call any of them anything at all? Why not just a straight menu system?
How did you get from "Noble is the story inspiration part of the Background" to "therefore Noble doesn't actually mean anything?" Unless you think that Backstory of a character is arbitrary and meaningless. Is that what you think?
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!
Skill Proficiencies: Choose 1 from Etiquette, History (homeland), or Negotiation
Tool Proficiencies: Gaming tools, Scribe Kit
Languages: Read and Write your Homeland language and script.
Equipment: A set of fine clothes, a signet ring, a scroll of pedigree, and a purse containing 150 sp Feature: Privileged Past
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be present at upper class functions while, other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a noble in your Liege chain if you need to, follow protocol, and you have sworn an Oath of Fealty. You were born into a direct family, the head of which is currently serving as the Liege Lord for the Village, Town, or City you come from. You are not in the line of succession as a named Heir, and like most Nobles without a role or position in society you have access to great wealth during your formative years, but you now must make your own way like all other nobles. You might have been a pampered aristocrat unfamiliar with work or discomfort, the child of a former merchant just elevated to the nobility, or a disinherited scoundrel with a disproportionate sense of entitlement. Or you could be an honest, hard-working member who might have been in line if you had not chosen to be an adventurer, yet who still cares deeply about the people who live and work on your land, keenly aware of your responsibility to them. Work with your DM to determine the status, location, and standing of your House, and your relationships to the members of the House who serve the Estate. Some questions to answer:
What is your standing in the Court? Did you refuse to take an Oath of Fealty? Were you the third or later child? Did your Liege choose to declare an heir outside the immediate family? What does the Liege think of your choosing to be an Adventurer, and your particular specialty as such?
This is presented as an example. It is specific to the Wyrlde setting (which all backgrounds probably should be, in relation to the setting of the DM running the campaign). Note that there are very specific ways that Nobility works on Wyrlde that are not the same as Earth (because Wyrlde is not Earth).
Not that my version of the background provides a much larger base of coin (the base coin is SP, and the average gain for each wealth step is about 3gp in converted terms), has Negotiation instead of Persuasion, and draws from the likely experience of being a teenager on Wyrlde. it can be matched by an "origin' background that is also Noble, and offers exactly the same core abilities otherwise.
The Request to see a Noble is handled according to the setting. it is known that the devs would expect the DM to adjust the particulars of that ability tot he setting, which this does. As a member of a noble Family, inheritance is not a guarantee, and more often is only a way to get access to things like formal dances and cotillions and the like. they can ask for a meeting with their liege, but it is limited to the at Liege -- and then because of the way that nobility works, it can move up the chain. theoretically, a Nole could ask to see the king, but to do so they have to go through their Liege Lord, who has to ask theirs, who also has to ask theirs, and so on, all the way up to the King. that takes time, and is not immediate. Seeing their direct liege is likely much easier -- they are family, after all. It also only works with their Liege and those directly above them. outside of that, it isn't worth much of anything, and this does not count as a feat, because it is something that anyone in such a position would normally be able to do given the nature of the setting.The only thing I didn't include is the 3 sentence backstory part.
Now, most games are played using the forgotten realms.nobility there is a much loser, far more variable thing, so even using the core feature as written up, it will require a lot of work to establish. on the part of the DM. In my example's case, I have already done that work.
that's how this is more or less meant to go. If anything, im, the "see a noble if needed" thing is weaksauce for a Feature, because it doesn't say you *always* or 8must*, is say you can. the noble may turn down the request, or require it in writing, or fob the PC off on some lesser dignitary (in my word's case, likely an Envoy in employ of the Court, in case they need to kill the visitor). "Can" is not an absolute guarantee they will. If it was meant to convey that, it would have read "You secure an audience" and left out the can. Can introduces the possibility that it might not happen, which undermines the function of the example as a Feat, imo.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
How did you get from "Noble is the story inspiration part of the Background" to "therefore Noble doesn't actually mean anything?"
By way of my stating that giving DM's and Players insight into how to handle a character in such a role in a campaign would be invaluable, simply because of the temporal power aspect normally associated with nobility. They do traditionally have rights and powers. Saying "But these rules don't grant them any, so they don't" is rendering that aspect of being a noble meaningless and the title arbitrary.
You do realize how that sample background related directly to the Features of that Background, don't you? Leadership = Persuasion, History = History, Draconic = Draconic, Wealth = Fine clothing, Education = Skilled Feat. That is literally how that backstory provides mechanical powers to the character. Just because they don't have what was formerly called a Feature doesn't mean that it provides nothing. You're so locked into the mindset and looking for a 2014 style Feature that you just look at this and says it provides "nothing" when that isn't true.
You seem to be arguing in circles, here, that because they have no power as nobles spelled out in these rules, they have none, but because they might anyway (despite insisting they have none and therefore there being no need to discuss the topic as part of the background), the title is not actually meaningless.
I think the name of the Background has meaning, you're the one who is saying it's meaningless. And you're the one who is arbitrarily hung up on only one definition of power ... and are No True Scotsmanning anything that isn't specifically a 2014 style Background Feature.
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!
So, your family has a castle? Or are they living in someone else's castle? Does every noble family, no matter how minor, have their own castle? None of the wealth power or privilege are earned yet somehow your family are good rolemodels for teaching you leadership. And it says absolutely nothing about power or authority even inside the castle let alone outside. No guidance at all.
You figure there will be no debates over that?
The thing you quoting is not a rule or mechanic. It does not have the same weight as a 2014 “feature.” It is narrative text, example narrative text at that, that the player can just make up.
That’s the point. Narrative stuff is isolated from mechanics, so people can make them up without having to write their own mechanics.
If this distinction is new to you, no wonder why this discussion is going in circles.
So what you are saying is that the character is a Noble, but since there is no rule actually saying they have any power whatsoever, they are merely someone called a Noble who has no actual power?
I'm not saying that, and I find it hard to believe you could read what I wrote (included above) that way. I'm thinking maybe you're being a troll.
Anyway...not all "power" is mechanical in a game. Sometimes it's just a character relationship. The point is that such kinds of relationships and "soft power" are easier to create (whether by player fiat or DM negotiation) when they are not definitively attached to game mechanics (what we might call "hard power" in this metaphor --- I'm not trying to literally invoke the political meanings of soft and hard power --- and I'm not talking about how the noble may have, in-game, social power over others).
I understand that distinction. Do not expect that to be intuitive to anyone other than rules lawyers.
"ah, so you understand it, therefore you must be a rules lawyer?" ;)
(I see no shame in being a rules lawyer, but that's not what we're discussing here.)
If you understand the distinction, then please stop intentionally blurring the line to construct strawman arguments.
Nobility is a social construct, not a game rule. It’s a roleplaying detail, an aid, a plot hook, and generally the domain of your creativity and that of your DM.
<snip> Calling it noble is (apparently) completely arbitrary and meaningless...
Again, not what I said, and yet another time you've tried to reframe someone else's point to fit your personal narrative.
...despite the fact that 'noble' in this context has meanings in English. Nobility may be a social construct but is an existing social construct that has a wide variety of meanings. And temporal power, such as that normally wielded by nobles, is real power and authority, so perhaps at least a minimal attempt at guidance to DMs as to how to handle it? Or for that matter, to players as to what to expect as reasonable limits, from DM's?
That "real power and authority" is completely relative to the relationship the noble has with other characters in the game. There are thousands of ways it could work in real life and thousands of ways it could be handled by a DM. Any "reasonably limits," whether pre-discussed with the DM or not, are the domain of DC values for Persuasion checks, or implicit power held over (or by) NPCs being roleplayed by the DM. Another way to think of it: if another PC were playing a non-noble, they would be under no strict game obligation to follow the noble's lead, even and especially when said noble decided the other PC(s) had to do what they were told.
If the player wants to back their nobility up with real mechanics, they can choose complimentary skill proficiencies, ASIs, or even a feat representing actual game mechanics. If they choose to not do so, they would not be rendering their nobility "meaningless" but they would be not backing it up with concrete game mechanics. Presumably by choice...perhaps this is the black sheep of a noble family, or a disgraced noble fallen on hard times...or maybe they just didn't care very much about the "power of nobility" and instead chose the "power of stabbing monsters in the face" while still being from a noble family.
So, by that logic, the current backgrounds which lay that kind of thing out (and crystalize them via the features) are irrelevant to playtesters, who apparently are only intended to test combat mechanics? And I was referring to this particular noble and the fact that either his family has a castle or they seem to be living in someone else's castle.
Fluff is fluff. It doesn't need playtesting. Does that make it valueless? No. But when yoiu're attempting to playtest mechanics, overdosing on fluff just gets in the way.
And so what if this hypothetical player just said "I used to live in a castle"? If that's good enough for their DM, oh well. It's clearly not good enough for you, but you're not running that table are you?
Not to mention the current Noble background is not two pages.
The current Noble background doesn't do what you want it to, either. You keep saying "the background says work with your DM" like that's some sort of panacea, without ever acknowledging that the Origin rules say that about all backgrounds, from everybody.
Yes, if you consider any actual depth to a background to be 'junk,' then the UA version is definitely more your thing. Fair game to have that preference.
And there's your key differentiator. I don't consider the Plot Coupons to be "depth". They offer nothing of any value to anyone invested in creating a story, they offer only very limited value in brute-force "guidance" to brand newbies who may not know what a background is without actually showing them how to create one, and as a mechanical lever the Plot Coupons take away from "depth" because they allow a player to simply pull their mechanical lever and get their plot goodie. "Depth" comes from engaging with the Origin system and creating an actual background for your character, and no - Plot Coupons are not essential nor helpful to that goal.
If you consider crappy, lazy mechanical-lever Plot Coupons with no verisimilitude and no rhyme or reason to their existence to be "depth", then hey - the 2014 books and their blatantly mismatched, mismanaged, miswritten Plot Coupon-laden backgrounds are definitely more your thing. Fair game to have that preference.
Edit: Nearly missed your opening there. Yes, persuasion skill always applies. However when you do not know any language known by those whom you are trying to persuade or you are trying to persuade the tide not to come in, it does not matter that you have that proficiency or how well you roll.
Having a capability does not guarantee that said capability is useful in or applies at all to all situations or even all those you might try using it in.
And there you go. "Persuasion skill always applies." Can the DM decide arbitrarily that you cannot Persuade someone, for whichever reason? Yes, though again, that's not nearly as compelling an argument as you think it is. Though I applaud your use of reducto ad absurdum with the splendidly ridiculous argument that "if you're trying to persuade the tide not to come in, it doesn't matter what you roll." See? Taking and arguing absurd stances can be quite useful, though in this case your analogy is off. See, Persuasion has no connection or correlation to the motion of the tides, while someone saying "I invoke my Plot Coupon, give me my freebie" isn't going to do so in completely unrelated circumstances.
A Sailor isn't going to try and Book Passage in the middle of a desert (unless sandships are a thing, in which case badass, sandship games are awesome), a Noble isn't going to Gain an Audience when they're in rural areas dealing with monster infestations, an Entertainer isn't going to 'By Popular Demand' themself a room in an inn when they're traveling in a caravan on the roads to Baldur's Gate. They're going to do those things in places where they want to do them, and in those places and situations your very own rules demand that the GM give them their freebies because Plot Coupons have the full force of RAW. Yes yes yes, a DM can override that with Rule Zero. Again - if the DM has to constantly override the rules to make the game functional, do the rules deserve to be rules?
And the features are nowhere near so general use as skills.
Which makes it all the more imperative that the DM let players have their freebies when a chance does come up to invoke their Plot Coupon, ne? Makes it even less acceptable for the DM to say "no, your Plot Coupon doesn't make any sense right now"; they have to give their player the freebie or they're a Bad DM Forever. And nobody wants to be a Bad DM Forever.
And yet castle means nothing whatsoever. Because reasons.
It does if the player and DM work to make it mean something. Because it's in the plot/story hook/inspiration section where you write your own meaning in.
Family attending (or running) court means nothing whatsoever, because they do not spell it out in cold mechanical terms.
Umm, yes it does mean something. It's just in the section where you write your own meaning in, where it properly belongs.
Wasn't 'programmed' but that's ok, still makes perfect sense because it apparently is not meant or needed to.
Yes, exactly. The narrative portions of the character are exactly where they should be. In the narrative section of the character sheet.
Hung up on only one definition of power?
Yes, because you seem to think that a 2014 PHB style Background Feature is the only thing that makes sense to mechanically represent a Background Feature. When the UA has a whole bunch of mechanical bits to a Background Feature which in combination (abilities+skills+tools+language+feat) form a fairly unique power set to represent the Background that a player wants to create. That mechanical skeleton is then clothed in the flesh of the Backstory to make the complete character.
What definition do you feel is better?
One where a decently unique combination of abilities, skills, tools, language, and feat represent the mechanical aspect of a Background which is then able to be customized with a narrative backstory is a pretty good step up from something that has a Feature which is really only meant for one Background and has to be awkwardly cludged to fit something else if customization is desired.
Does merely having the persuasion skill mean there is any legal or social weight backing or legitimizing your attempts to persuade? Are you seen by the people as or related to their chosen leader(s)?
Legal and social weight are part of the DM's world and thus part of the negotiation that the DM and the player should have rather than something that should be keyed into a mechanical superpower. Having the Persuasion skill proficiency is a decent way of representing leadership skills that are internal to a character.
Now you are pulling out No True Scotsmanning,
I'm not sure you know what that means. Because I'm saying there are other ways to represent something rather than trying to invalidate any but one definition. I don't think the UA mechanics are the only way to represent the power of a Background, I just think they are better written than the 2014 PHB Backgrounds.
as if the UA backgrounds are equivalent to those background features, that you and others have been arguing vehemently are bad.
That ... is not the No True Scotsman fallacy, by the way.
Can you please elaborate on that?
I don't think it's the equivalent, I think it's better. But I do think I already demonstrated how they fulfill the same role. The Ability Scores, Skill Proficiencies, Tool Proficiencies, Language, and Feat are the mechanical representation of the things a character gains from their Background and thus are, in combination, the Background Features. As it says in the UA.
It is not like the 2014 Background Features because those made the mistake of mixing both mechanical powers and roleplaying suggestions. The UA splits those things up, with the mechanical powers being those five systems mentioned above and the roleplaying suggestions being part of the Backstory which the player and the DM collaborate to create. Much more clear and neat.
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!
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
And of course, you are just going to say that rather than explain your understanding of it or how you see it applying.
The following is a simplified rendition of the fallacy:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge." Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Now please explain how that fallacy applies.
yes, I am going to just say that an not explain my reasoning We are communicating on the internet, and as you just showed, you can look stuff up.
you said: No True Scotsman is where there are nitpicking reasons making it impossible for anything to be what you are claiming it isn't.
That is not the No True Scotsman fallacy. The fallacy is not about nitpicking The fallacy is where person A argues that "Thing X is not done by these sorts." when there is evidence (even a single point) that such does happen.
For an in context example:
Person A: No Background provides enough information to allow a DM to properly create a decent basis for that background in their world.
Person B: Here is a background that does that.
Person C: Ah, but that's not really a background that counts.
In your perspective, the Fallacy comes in at the second response of Person A (the nitpicking part). That's incorrect. The fallacy comes in the first line, in the core assertion.
No True Scotsman isn't about nitpicking, it is about making absolutist statements regarding a particular class of item as inviolate, and then declaring that any example provided of that class not being that way renders the example as not a "real" or "true" member of that class of item.
Nitpicking -- or calling out small details and minor portions of an argument while leaving the core points unaddressed, as one would do when running a comb through hair to remove lice nits, which is the origin of the idiom -- would be things like arguing over the use of a word in an argument, but ignoring the substantive portions of the argument.
In context: the arguments here are about Backgrounds (the forest), whereas arguing about what a no true scotsman fallacy is is tertiary to it (the tree), and so that argument would be a nitpicking. Nitpicking is not a fallacy, however, so does not undermine a larger argument. Any fallacy, however, does undermine an argument -- even more so when you realize that the use of a fallacy in a judged system of debate is normally taken as a sign of bad faith, and arguing in bad faith is an immediate loss of the argument (because there is no chance of changing the outcome).
An example of why it matters that precision of application is important comes in the area of the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. Not all insults are ad hominem, only ones that tie the quality or nature of the person to the quality and nature of their argument are ad hominems, the rest are just insults. Colloquial use on the internet has often conflated to two, effectively weaponizing the 'ad hominem" fallacy as a portion of a different fallacy that seeks to silence the opposing party and is always an example of bad faith.
A: You insufferable baboon, this is why your argument fails...
B: Your argument fails because you are an insufferable baboon...
A is an insult. B is a fallacy of ad hominem. Surprisingly, insults (often in a more academic manner and favoring creativity) are a tradition in debate stretching back at least 5,000 years. Ad hominems are not.
There, I gave you two points to ponder. I should give you a third, relating to the fallacy of "shifting goalposts", but that would ultimately strip the conversation of essential value because it would undermine the entertainment value, and I am enjoying seeing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Either this background means having a Noble title or it does not. If it means having such a title, then what does that title mean? The UA background gives absolutely no guidance on that. Given what it says it gives, the background should likely be renamed 'Scholar,' since it makes mention only of things learned, but seems to give none of the actual resources associated with nobility, authority being the most notable. And any DM as strict as Yurei seems concerned about would stick to what it says it gives. Any player fasttalking the DM and shaming them into giving more is more free to do so with the UA rule. As such, I am not sure how this is better.
What having a noble title means is undefinable mechanically.
Literally. That's it. A noble title is vastly more useful in a game of power politics in Waterdeep than it is in my spelljammer game, where the players were whisked away from their backwater world that nobody who's anybody has heard of, and being the son of the Lord High Protector of the Kingdom of Dirt is worth exactly as much as you can make of it. Similarly, it's not a lot of use in a game that's a long-term dungeon crawl, and may actually be a detriment in a game where you're operating in the lands of a kingdom that hates your homeland with a passion.
The new backgrounds give you encouragement to build a narrative framework to tie together a bunch of stuff that they think all PCs should have. Any other benefits from the narrative of your past must be granted by the DM. Really, the best you could hope for mechanically would be something like:
Experience and Connections: You have advantage on non-combat skill rolls that involve situations and people that you are familiar with due to your background. People who are particularly well-inclined to you will give you reasonable amounts of aid and hospitality freely. You have disadvantage on social skill rolls when interacting with people who have reason to be ill-inclined to you due to your background, if they are aware of it.
And that's totally a pile of GM fiat, but it's essentially the same pile of fiat that the background features you're arguing for give now. IMO, they're so conditional, barely useful even at low levels, and just plain uninteresting that I'm not going to miss them, or really even notice their loss. Obviously, you disagree.
All the argument about the 2014 Noble background is frankly drifting into minutiae at this point. We can argue till we're blue in the face over whether that specific Background is better supported in 2014 or 2024, but the fact that both systems support it just fine for most tables is irrefutable.
What is also irrefutable is that the 2024 system is indisputably better at handling backgrounds such as 'Wandering Apothecary/Doctor', 'Caravaneer', 'Big Game Hunter', or even the ironically unserved 'Ordinary, Unremarkable Farm Boy With Parental Figures Killed by The BBEG Who's Catapulted to a Position of Promenance' background. People say "Folk Hero" serves that, but it really doesn't - Folk Hero forces the assumption you're already notable and well-regarded, which is not what the Cloudstriders of the game are looking for.
Any Background not formally written down and codified is better served by the 2024 rules. Any mixed background, where a character has traits from two or more 2014 backgrounds, are better served by the 2024 rules. After all, if the argument is that without Background Features players and DMs both are going to flounder helplessly with absolutely no idea whatsoever of How To Roleplay, what in the Emperor's name makes you think players that flounder helplessly without being handed their roleplaying in a bucket are going to be able to flawlessly conceive of and create a "custom" 2014 background? Y'know, using the nonexistent background customization rules in the 2014 book that amount to one single line saying "if you don't like these figure it out yourself"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, I'm not. Like I said, even on the face of it it is a worse written set of rules than the Origins UA and the meaningfulness of the problem has nothing to do without how widespread it is. Most DM's do have the sense to smooth over the issue with DM fiat. That doesn't mean it's well written. If it requires DM fiat to solve, that doesn't speak well for it.
Fine, we'll use your terminology for now then. You're still incorrect. The Background Features are explicitly written to not bend to the DM's world. They are included in the list of concrete rules and as such players who read that should rightly expect that they work as mechanical superpowers.
Unless you're specifically talking about Rule 0 which says that the DM can just change rules when they deem necessary.
Where in the Feature section of Noble does it say that? Because, let me remind you, the Feature is explicitly written to be a concrete mechanical benefit. It is a superpower just like a Rogue's Cunning Action or a Fighter's Action Surge and it would take something like Rule 0 for a DM to say it doesn't work on any and all local nobles whether they be completely alien or enemies, or what have you.
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!
Yes it is.
The distinction between "will" and "can" is slight and can be easily forgiven. Let this one go.
1) Uhh, where were you looking? Because my quick google search on just the Noble background, limited solely to Reddit, uncovered reams of debates and clarification requests on it from both sides of the table. For one background, on one website, that has gotten a lot more traffic over the past near-decade than this one has.
2) Even if you had been right, and that there weren't a bunch of forum posts anywhere about these backgrounds aside from Haunted One - why is that the only possible metric you're considering in the first place? WotC has actual play data. They've gotten feedback about Backgrounds and the character creation process both before and after the Character Origins UA. Crawford even specifically described how they took 2014 backgrounds, deconstructed them into their component parts, and reconstructed them - and in the process, they determined that stripping out the extraneous features was the right call.
3) Everything in the Origins UA scored 70s or higher, except "Monsters can't crit" (well,, d20 tests in general), Ardling, and the first Dragonborn. And the majority of that was in the 80s. New Backgrounds were thus well-received.
You didn't pay attention to the assignment. That is not in the Feature section, that is in what is clearly the roleplaying suggestion section. Remember that the Feature is explicitly called out as part of the "concrete benefits" part of the Background
You are using DM Fiat here to counteract what is unclear rules, and you would be right to do so, but that does not make the writing of the rules any less unclear. And again the point of this thread has been to talk about the proposed changes in the rules and how the compare and contrast to the existent rules. This is a point of unclarity in the 2014 rules that is fixed by the more clear distinction between concrete benefits and roleplaying suggestions in the Origins UA.
The 2014 PHB itself clearly says that there are concrete benefits and roleplaying suggestions. The line was explicitly drawn there and it was not by me. It's not my fault that they drew a line and then danced back and forth across it themselves.
You are using DM fiat to wallpaper over what is demonstrably unclear rules.
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!
Yes, or at least less because of how the entire section is written. Allow me to demonstrate:
So not only are the sample backgrounds very clearly samples and not meant to be the be-all-end-all, but they also pretty clearly tell you that the Features part are all the mechanical parts like the ASI, Proficiencies, and the Feat. People will be much less likely to try and claim that whatever they write in their backstory part has mechanical weight because it is much more clearly in the sections that is meant for story oriented details and to serve as inspiration rather than concrete benefits.
Which is the mistake that the 2014 Background section made when it explicitly says that the Feature is a concrete benefit and then stuffed roleplaying and story oriented material in there as well.
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!
It's way, way more active than these forums, if that's what you were using/referring to earlier. But I could also look at ENWorld, GitP, RPGNet etc if you prefer.
Of course it's someone else's castle 🤨 You're minor aristocrats, not royalty.
And yes, I do believe the UA version will cause less disagreements, because it positions CYOB more prominently as the default.
The thing you quoting is not a rule or mechanic. It does not have the same weight as a 2014 “feature.” It is narrative text, example narrative text at that, that the player can just make up.
That’s the point. Narrative stuff is isolated from mechanics, so people can make them up without having to write their own mechanics.
If this distinction is new to you, no wonder why this discussion is going in circles.
Kotath.
Do you think that the Persuasion proficiency granted by a background should "not always be applicable"? Do you think that the player's Persuasion proficiency should not apply to all Persuasion checks, that the DM should be encouraged to say "you're proficient in Persuasion but I don't like it for this check, so roll without proficiency"? And before you say "yes, of course the DM can do that", remember: arguing Rule Zero doesn't mean anything because Rule Zero throws out every assumption and is an argument against you as much as for you.
If you disagree that a skill proficiency should be sketchy and only apply intermittently - say to fewer than half of the rlevant checks a player might make? Then you are simultaneously arguing that Plot Coupon Background "Features" should also always apply regardless of whatever, because 2014 Backgrounds give the "Feature the same weight of RAW as the proficiencies the background provides. No distinction is made between "your background provides Persuasion proficiency" which is assumed to always be on for any Persuasion check unless there's a damn good reason your proficiency somehow doesn't apply and "your background allows you to gain an audience with any VIP you wish". Which, by the 2014 rules, is ALSO assumed to be "always on" and applicable to any situation, even when it might wildly contradict the tale being told.
And saying "well the DM can just overrule background features if they don't make sense" isn't nearly the argument you think it is, because if the DM has to constantly override and overrule these "Rules", why are they being written and included as rules? If the player cannot count on them as being Always On, why are they presented as special abilities equivalent to class features that the player is supposed to be able to use freely and without restraint? Rules the DM has to constantly adjust, override, and throw out don't deserve to be rules. As Ophidimancer said, even the mechanics-focused Origins document posed better questions for the player to consider than the 2014 PHB did. Those questions get the player's brain moving, and also give them guidance and direction that crappy example backgrounds simply cannot.
Giving someone a focused question they can give a single, concrete answer to gives them a foot in the door of the creative process, gets their brain moving and makes it easier to keep going. This has been proven over and over and over again, in many studies of not just gaming but human behavior in general. Asking focused questions with concrete answers is just about always better than an open-ended blagghle of "okay, you have infinite freedom, what do you want to do with it?" The overlong list of "Sample" backgrounds in the 2014 PHB do not offer any questions; they simply say "make something that looks like this" with no guidance whatsoever on how to do so, even beyond the "Custom Background" pseudo-rules being a nonexistent joke. That's simply poor game design, and it's why the Origins document is inarguably better game design.
As to this?
I answered this in the very first post of this thread. That is not a generic 'Noble' background. That is a specific background tuned to one specific character, who clearly grew up in a castle. It doesn't matter what other noble families had or did, it mattered what this one did. And in this case you're kvetching that there isn't two pages of exhaustive documancy laying out the entire family lineage, holdings, trade and political relations, and history of the noble bloodline in a playtest document designed to get rules in front of people. Do you not see where maybe that junk is irrelevant to the purposes of a playtest and thus a waste of valuable document space in documents that are already way too goddamn big?
Please do not contact or message me.
Nobility is a social construct, not a game rule. It’s a roleplaying detail, an aid, a plot hook, and generally the domain of your creativity and that of your DM.
First of all yes, the current 2014 Backgrounds are irrelevant to playtesters who are testing the material for 2024. Why would they playtest material that is already out? Playtesting is for new material. Second of all, how did you come to the conclusion that the playtest is only for combat mechanics? That's not the point of the playtest, nor is it remotely close to what Yurei said. She said that it is about playtesting rules. Rules which include combat mechanics as well as the inclusion of story details in the Background, but what it does not have time for is novel length back stories in the UA document.
Unfair and unfairly said, this is not what Yurei said, you are misconstruing her and I only hope it is not deliberate.
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!
How did you get from "Noble is the story inspiration part of the Background" to "therefore Noble doesn't actually mean anything?" Unless you think that Backstory of a character is arbitrary and meaningless. Is that what you think?
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!
Noble Background (Wyrlde variant, example)
Feature: Privileged Past
Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be present at upper class functions while, other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a noble in your Liege chain if you need to, follow protocol, and you have sworn an Oath of Fealty.
You were born into a direct family, the head of which is currently serving as the Liege Lord for the Village, Town, or City you come from. You are not in the line of succession as a named Heir, and like most Nobles without a role or position in society you have access to great wealth during your formative years, but you now must make your own way like all other nobles. You might have been a pampered aristocrat unfamiliar with work or discomfort, the child of a former merchant just elevated to the nobility, or a disinherited scoundrel with a disproportionate sense of entitlement. Or you could be an honest, hard-working member who might have been in line if you had not chosen to be an adventurer, yet who still cares deeply about the people who live and work on your land, keenly aware of your responsibility to them.
Work with your DM to determine the status, location, and standing of your House, and your relationships to the members of the House who serve the Estate. Some questions to answer:
What is your standing in the Court?
Did you refuse to take an Oath of Fealty?
Were you the third or later child?
Did your Liege choose to declare an heir outside the immediate family?
What does the Liege think of your choosing to be an Adventurer, and your particular specialty as such?
This is presented as an example. It is specific to the Wyrlde setting (which all backgrounds probably should be, in relation to the setting of the DM running the campaign). Note that there are very specific ways that Nobility works on Wyrlde that are not the same as Earth (because Wyrlde is not Earth).
Not that my version of the background provides a much larger base of coin (the base coin is SP, and the average gain for each wealth step is about 3gp in converted terms), has Negotiation instead of Persuasion, and draws from the likely experience of being a teenager on Wyrlde. it can be matched by an "origin' background that is also Noble, and offers exactly the same core abilities otherwise.
The Request to see a Noble is handled according to the setting. it is known that the devs would expect the DM to adjust the particulars of that ability tot he setting, which this does. As a member of a noble Family, inheritance is not a guarantee, and more often is only a way to get access to things like formal dances and cotillions and the like. they can ask for a meeting with their liege, but it is limited to the at Liege -- and then because of the way that nobility works, it can move up the chain. theoretically, a Nole could ask to see the king, but to do so they have to go through their Liege Lord, who has to ask theirs, who also has to ask theirs, and so on, all the way up to the King. that takes time, and is not immediate. Seeing their direct liege is likely much easier -- they are family, after all. It also only works with their Liege and those directly above them. outside of that, it isn't worth much of anything, and this does not count as a feat, because it is something that anyone in such a position would normally be able to do given the nature of the setting.The only thing I didn't include is the 3 sentence backstory part.
Now, most games are played using the forgotten realms.nobility there is a much loser, far more variable thing, so even using the core feature as written up, it will require a lot of work to establish. on the part of the DM. In my example's case, I have already done that work.
that's how this is more or less meant to go. If anything, im, the "see a noble if needed" thing is weaksauce for a Feature, because it doesn't say you *always* or 8must*, is say you can. the noble may turn down the request, or require it in writing, or fob the PC off on some lesser dignitary (in my word's case, likely an Envoy in employ of the Court, in case they need to kill the visitor). "Can" is not an absolute guarantee they will. If it was meant to convey that, it would have read "You secure an audience" and left out the can. Can introduces the possibility that it might not happen, which undermines the function of the example as a Feat, imo.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
You do realize how that sample background related directly to the Features of that Background, don't you? Leadership = Persuasion, History = History, Draconic = Draconic, Wealth = Fine clothing, Education = Skilled Feat. That is literally how that backstory provides mechanical powers to the character. Just because they don't have what was formerly called a Feature doesn't mean that it provides nothing. You're so locked into the mindset and looking for a 2014 style Feature that you just look at this and says it provides "nothing" when that isn't true.
I think the name of the Background has meaning, you're the one who is saying it's meaningless. And you're the one who is arbitrarily hung up on only one definition of power ... and are No True Scotsmanning anything that isn't specifically a 2014 style Background Feature.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm not saying that, and I find it hard to believe you could read what I wrote (included above) that way. I'm thinking maybe you're being a troll.
Anyway...not all "power" is mechanical in a game. Sometimes it's just a character relationship. The point is that such kinds of relationships and "soft power" are easier to create (whether by player fiat or DM negotiation) when they are not definitively attached to game mechanics (what we might call "hard power" in this metaphor --- I'm not trying to literally invoke the political meanings of soft and hard power --- and I'm not talking about how the noble may have, in-game, social power over others).
"ah, so you understand it, therefore you must be a rules lawyer?" ;)
(I see no shame in being a rules lawyer, but that's not what we're discussing here.)
If you understand the distinction, then please stop intentionally blurring the line to construct strawman arguments.
Again, not what I said, and yet another time you've tried to reframe someone else's point to fit your personal narrative.
That "real power and authority" is completely relative to the relationship the noble has with other characters in the game. There are thousands of ways it could work in real life and thousands of ways it could be handled by a DM. Any "reasonably limits," whether pre-discussed with the DM or not, are the domain of DC values for Persuasion checks, or implicit power held over (or by) NPCs being roleplayed by the DM. Another way to think of it: if another PC were playing a non-noble, they would be under no strict game obligation to follow the noble's lead, even and especially when said noble decided the other PC(s) had to do what they were told.
If the player wants to back their nobility up with real mechanics, they can choose complimentary skill proficiencies, ASIs, or even a feat representing actual game mechanics. If they choose to not do so, they would not be rendering their nobility "meaningless" but they would be not backing it up with concrete game mechanics. Presumably by choice...perhaps this is the black sheep of a noble family, or a disgraced noble fallen on hard times...or maybe they just didn't care very much about the "power of nobility" and instead chose the "power of stabbing monsters in the face" while still being from a noble family.
Fluff is fluff. It doesn't need playtesting. Does that make it valueless? No. But when yoiu're attempting to playtest mechanics, overdosing on fluff just gets in the way.
And so what if this hypothetical player just said "I used to live in a castle"? If that's good enough for their DM, oh well. It's clearly not good enough for you, but you're not running that table are you?
The current Noble background doesn't do what you want it to, either. You keep saying "the background says work with your DM" like that's some sort of panacea, without ever acknowledging that the Origin rules say that about all backgrounds, from everybody.
And there's your key differentiator. I don't consider the Plot Coupons to be "depth". They offer nothing of any value to anyone invested in creating a story, they offer only very limited value in brute-force "guidance" to brand newbies who may not know what a background is without actually showing them how to create one, and as a mechanical lever the Plot Coupons take away from "depth" because they allow a player to simply pull their mechanical lever and get their plot goodie. "Depth" comes from engaging with the Origin system and creating an actual background for your character, and no - Plot Coupons are not essential nor helpful to that goal.
If you consider crappy, lazy mechanical-lever Plot Coupons with no verisimilitude and no rhyme or reason to their existence to be "depth", then hey - the 2014 books and their blatantly mismatched, mismanaged, miswritten Plot Coupon-laden backgrounds are definitely more your thing. Fair game to have that preference.
And there you go. "Persuasion skill always applies." Can the DM decide arbitrarily that you cannot Persuade someone, for whichever reason? Yes, though again, that's not nearly as compelling an argument as you think it is. Though I applaud your use of reducto ad absurdum with the splendidly ridiculous argument that "if you're trying to persuade the tide not to come in, it doesn't matter what you roll." See? Taking and arguing absurd stances can be quite useful, though in this case your analogy is off. See, Persuasion has no connection or correlation to the motion of the tides, while someone saying "I invoke my Plot Coupon, give me my freebie" isn't going to do so in completely unrelated circumstances.
A Sailor isn't going to try and Book Passage in the middle of a desert (unless sandships are a thing, in which case badass, sandship games are awesome), a Noble isn't going to Gain an Audience when they're in rural areas dealing with monster infestations, an Entertainer isn't going to 'By Popular Demand' themself a room in an inn when they're traveling in a caravan on the roads to Baldur's Gate. They're going to do those things in places where they want to do them, and in those places and situations your very own rules demand that the GM give them their freebies because Plot Coupons have the full force of RAW. Yes yes yes, a DM can override that with Rule Zero. Again - if the DM has to constantly override the rules to make the game functional, do the rules deserve to be rules?
Which makes it all the more imperative that the DM let players have their freebies when a chance does come up to invoke their Plot Coupon, ne? Makes it even less acceptable for the DM to say "no, your Plot Coupon doesn't make any sense right now"; they have to give their player the freebie or they're a Bad DM Forever. And nobody wants to be a Bad DM Forever.
Please do not contact or message me.
It does if the player and DM work to make it mean something. Because it's in the plot/story hook/inspiration section where you write your own meaning in.
Umm, yes it does mean something. It's just in the section where you write your own meaning in, where it properly belongs.
Yes, exactly. The narrative portions of the character are exactly where they should be. In the narrative section of the character sheet.
Yes, because you seem to think that a 2014 PHB style Background Feature is the only thing that makes sense to mechanically represent a Background Feature. When the UA has a whole bunch of mechanical bits to a Background Feature which in combination (abilities+skills+tools+language+feat) form a fairly unique power set to represent the Background that a player wants to create. That mechanical skeleton is then clothed in the flesh of the Backstory to make the complete character.
One where a decently unique combination of abilities, skills, tools, language, and feat represent the mechanical aspect of a Background which is then able to be customized with a narrative backstory is a pretty good step up from something that has a Feature which is really only meant for one Background and has to be awkwardly cludged to fit something else if customization is desired.
Legal and social weight are part of the DM's world and thus part of the negotiation that the DM and the player should have rather than something that should be keyed into a mechanical superpower. Having the Persuasion skill proficiency is a decent way of representing leadership skills that are internal to a character.
I'm not sure you know what that means. Because I'm saying there are other ways to represent something rather than trying to invalidate any but one definition. I don't think the UA mechanics are the only way to represent the power of a Background, I just think they are better written than the 2014 PHB Backgrounds.
That ... is not the No True Scotsman fallacy, by the way.
I don't think it's the equivalent, I think it's better. But I do think I already demonstrated how they fulfill the same role. The Ability Scores, Skill Proficiencies, Tool Proficiencies, Language, and Feat are the mechanical representation of the things a character gains from their Background and thus are, in combination, the Background Features. As it says in the UA.
It is not like the 2014 Background Features because those made the mistake of mixing both mechanical powers and roleplaying suggestions. The UA splits those things up, with the mechanical powers being those five systems mentioned above and the roleplaying suggestions being part of the Backstory which the player and the DM collaborate to create. Much more clear and neat.
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!
Kotath, that is not the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
yes, I am going to just say that an not explain my reasoning We are communicating on the internet, and as you just showed, you can look stuff up.
you said: No True Scotsman is where there are nitpicking reasons making it impossible for anything to be what you are claiming it isn't.
That is not the No True Scotsman fallacy. The fallacy is not about nitpicking The fallacy is where person A argues that "Thing X is not done by these sorts." when there is evidence (even a single point) that such does happen.
For an in context example:
In your perspective, the Fallacy comes in at the second response of Person A (the nitpicking part). That's incorrect. The fallacy comes in the first line, in the core assertion.
No True Scotsman isn't about nitpicking, it is about making absolutist statements regarding a particular class of item as inviolate, and then declaring that any example provided of that class not being that way renders the example as not a "real" or "true" member of that class of item.
Nitpicking -- or calling out small details and minor portions of an argument while leaving the core points unaddressed, as one would do when running a comb through hair to remove lice nits, which is the origin of the idiom -- would be things like arguing over the use of a word in an argument, but ignoring the substantive portions of the argument.
In context: the arguments here are about Backgrounds (the forest), whereas arguing about what a no true scotsman fallacy is is tertiary to it (the tree), and so that argument would be a nitpicking. Nitpicking is not a fallacy, however, so does not undermine a larger argument. Any fallacy, however, does undermine an argument -- even more so when you realize that the use of a fallacy in a judged system of debate is normally taken as a sign of bad faith, and arguing in bad faith is an immediate loss of the argument (because there is no chance of changing the outcome).
An example of why it matters that precision of application is important comes in the area of the difference between an ad hominem and an insult. Not all insults are ad hominem, only ones that tie the quality or nature of the person to the quality and nature of their argument are ad hominems, the rest are just insults. Colloquial use on the internet has often conflated to two, effectively weaponizing the 'ad hominem" fallacy as a portion of a different fallacy that seeks to silence the opposing party and is always an example of bad faith.
A: You insufferable baboon, this is why your argument fails...
B: Your argument fails because you are an insufferable baboon...
A is an insult. B is a fallacy of ad hominem. Surprisingly, insults (often in a more academic manner and favoring creativity) are a tradition in debate stretching back at least 5,000 years. Ad hominems are not.
There, I gave you two points to ponder. I should give you a third, relating to the fallacy of "shifting goalposts", but that would ultimately strip the conversation of essential value because it would undermine the entertainment value, and I am enjoying seeing it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What having a noble title means is undefinable mechanically.
Literally. That's it. A noble title is vastly more useful in a game of power politics in Waterdeep than it is in my spelljammer game, where the players were whisked away from their backwater world that nobody who's anybody has heard of, and being the son of the Lord High Protector of the Kingdom of Dirt is worth exactly as much as you can make of it. Similarly, it's not a lot of use in a game that's a long-term dungeon crawl, and may actually be a detriment in a game where you're operating in the lands of a kingdom that hates your homeland with a passion.
The new backgrounds give you encouragement to build a narrative framework to tie together a bunch of stuff that they think all PCs should have. Any other benefits from the narrative of your past must be granted by the DM. Really, the best you could hope for mechanically would be something like:
Experience and Connections: You have advantage on non-combat skill rolls that involve situations and people that you are familiar with due to your background. People who are particularly well-inclined to you will give you reasonable amounts of aid and hospitality freely. You have disadvantage on social skill rolls when interacting with people who have reason to be ill-inclined to you due to your background, if they are aware of it.
And that's totally a pile of GM fiat, but it's essentially the same pile of fiat that the background features you're arguing for give now. IMO, they're so conditional, barely useful even at low levels, and just plain uninteresting that I'm not going to miss them, or really even notice their loss. Obviously, you disagree.
All the argument about the 2014 Noble background is frankly drifting into minutiae at this point. We can argue till we're blue in the face over whether that specific Background is better supported in 2014 or 2024, but the fact that both systems support it just fine for most tables is irrefutable.
What is also irrefutable is that the 2024 system is indisputably better at handling backgrounds such as 'Wandering Apothecary/Doctor', 'Caravaneer', 'Big Game Hunter', or even the ironically unserved 'Ordinary, Unremarkable Farm Boy With Parental Figures Killed by The BBEG Who's Catapulted to a Position of Promenance' background. People say "Folk Hero" serves that, but it really doesn't - Folk Hero forces the assumption you're already notable and well-regarded, which is not what the Cloudstriders of the game are looking for.
Any Background not formally written down and codified is better served by the 2024 rules. Any mixed background, where a character has traits from two or more 2014 backgrounds, are better served by the 2024 rules. After all, if the argument is that without Background Features players and DMs both are going to flounder helplessly with absolutely no idea whatsoever of How To Roleplay, what in the Emperor's name makes you think players that flounder helplessly without being handed their roleplaying in a bucket are going to be able to flawlessly conceive of and create a "custom" 2014 background? Y'know, using the nonexistent background customization rules in the 2014 book that amount to one single line saying "if you don't like these figure it out yourself"?
Please do not contact or message me.