The "common ground" is super easy and has already been suggested. Keep some of the "Features" as a list/tool for roleplaying prompts somewhere in the book, elsewhere beyond chargen rules. People want them because they think the "Features" are super-gosh-duper neato for Guiding New People What Don't Know Game? Yohkei, cool. Put them somewhere in a 'New to Roleplaying?" section. They do NOT need to be attached to character generation, not as hard-and-fast Rules with the weight and force of the combat engine behind it. They never have been, they don't deserve to be.
The "common ground" is super easy and has already been suggested. Keep some of the "Features" as a list/tool for roleplaying prompts somewhere in the book, elsewhere beyond chargen rules. People want them because they think the "Features" are super-gosh-duper neato for Guiding New People What Don't Know Game? Yohkei, cool. Put them somewhere in a 'New to Roleplaying?" section. They do NOT need to be attached to character generation, not as hard-and-fast Rules with the weight and force of the combat engine behind it. They never have been, they don't deserve to be.
Indeed. And then throw the prayer wheels and other tchotchkes onto the Trinkets table, and call it a day.
The impossibility of completely idiot-proofing a document does not absolve the document's writers of the obligation to do their reasonable best job to create the tightest, cleanest, mose useful and least blocky or exploitable ruleset they can.
2014 Background "Features" are loose, sloppy, largely useless and very easy for bad actors to exploit where they're useful at all
The best way to improve them is to remove them as Rules. Make them part of the story you write for your character during chargen, and let the DM do their job.
There is only so much page space you can devote to onboarding people. Eventually, people HAVE to make an effort to learn if they want to play. Blowing half the book's page count on far too many needlessly specific examples that do NOTHING for non-newbies at best - or actively and seriously hinder them at worst - is not a good game design and book layout decision.
Indeed. And then throw the prayer wheels and other tchotchkes onto the Trinkets table, and call it a day.
All of that would take TWO pages rather than 20.
Better idea: put a paragraph in the book explaining that a "Trinket" is "any mundane, nonmagical Tiny object with no mechanical effect and a value of 1gp or less. Many people in the Multiverse carry trinkets; examples are available in the Trinkets table should you wish to roll to determine a random trinket, but any nonmagical Tiny object without mechanical effect is a Trinket. DMs should be generous in allowing their players to obtain Trinkets, and should allow players to add three or four Trinkets to their character without cost during character creation."
Indeed. And then throw the prayer wheels and other tchotchkes onto the Trinkets table, and call it a day.
All of that would take TWO pages rather than 20.
Better idea: put a paragraph in the book explaining that a "Trinket" is "any mundane, nonmagical Tiny object with no mechanical effect and a value of 1gp or less. Many people in the Multiverse carry trinkets; examples are available in the Trinkets table should you wish to roll to determine a random trinket, but any nonmagical Tiny object without mechanical effect is a Trinket. DMs should be generous in allowing their players to obtain Trinkets, and should allow players to add three or four Trinkets to their character without cost during character creation."
Oh for sure! Open language like that is the best solution. I just wanted to avoid any accusations that "OMG WotC took away the prayer wheels that were absolutely crucial to my character, grrr streamlining!" by having explicit entries on the trinket list for the remaining handful of widgets that were tied to 2014 backgrounds.
Should the spell lists all be removed from the game on the same grounds then? If not, why not?
Spells are designed from the ground up to be rules text and limited as such. Background features are not.
If I want to try and use the Suggestion spell on a noble to gain an audience with them, there are specific circumstances and limitations that adjudicate how that plays out, such as me needing to get within 30ft, the act of spellcasting itself being obvious unless I find ways to to circumvent that, the noble getting a saving throw, and me having a limited window of time to act. If instead I try to use my Noble Background Coupon to do it, the game can quickly devolve into absurdism as my Waterdeep magistrate is automatically ushered into a Drow Matron's presence, or the DM arbitrarily telling me no, or calling for a check etc. And if every table needs to adjudicate it differently anyway, then it being positioned as a coupon with the force of RAW is pointless; the game should do what it's supposed to do in the first place and direct both the player and the DM to the challenge resolution system in the gameplay chapter.
Why do these abilities need to exist, if "anyone" can get them just by throwing a d20 at the DM's head? What benefit do they have? What do they do for the game as hard-coded capital-R RUUUURRUUS rather than simply roleplaying prompts? What game-design value does it have to give players a Magic Free Get-Out-Of-Plot Button they can press but then telling them "if you just roleplay gud, you can also push the Get Out Of Plot Free button, but ooooonly if you roll reeeeaaaaaally well!"
Spoilers: the answer is zero. Zero value. There is no value whatsoever that these stupid "Features" have as Hard Coded Ultrarules that they wouldn't have as a simple list of roleplaying prompts or a few examples of how a DM can respond to a player's background. You're giving a DM a fish rather than teaching him to fish - you're saying that if the DM finds himself in this specific situation he's supposed to just let the player have an unearned gimme, but in any other situation he's given no guidance on what to do.
Teach people to fish, Jou. Don't give them fish.
They let the adventure continue, Yurei.
The last thing anyone wants is to have progress halted by a bad ability check; or a string of bad ability checks. The acolyte, entertainer, and folk hero aren't just staying somewhere for free. They can learn information from who they stay with and get their (likely differing) perspective on local politics and problems. If the group comes across some lore and nobody passes their Intelligence check to figure out what it means, or simply can't read the language, the sage knows precisely where to go to find out. The sailor can acquire passage for a voyage across the sea. The outlander helps you survive in the wilds, away from the relative safety of civilization, longer than most. The noble can just get you an audience with another noble, or even royalty, or an invitation to a social gathering.
Yes, you could just roll a d20 or spend some gold for some of this, but that's a false dilemma. If a shop is vandalized, it's not good for the local economy if the owner has to spend money on new glass, furnishings, and inventory. It's better to just invest their profits back into the business, not get back to where they were before. We want players invested in their characters and game, right? Then we should be looking for ways to just give them some minor things. And you might not need these features to do this. I don't, but that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. It takes time to develop these skills. Not everyone plays "on your level" or however else you choose to describe it. The rule books aren't just for you. They're for everyone.
Objectively, they're no worse than spells like Teleportation Circle and Plane Shift. They simply exist to help continue the adventure. These features have value, and I'm sorry you choose not to open your eyes enough to see that. They do not have to stay as they are, but to remove them and not put anything in their place will create an inferior product.
If you want to teach players, not the DM, how to fish, show them what it looks like. Don't throw a stick and line at their feet and make them figure it out on their own. They're more apt to starve than thrive.
The Noble background outright says "Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries." It is by no means a given that your Noble House is on good relations with any given other such house.
If I have to "work with my DM" for this thing to function on even a basic level, why does it need to be a rule? I can already ask my DM to "come up with an appropriate title for my character and determine how much authority that title carries," and where. And because this isn't magic like, say, a Suggestion spell is, my DM and I have to also figure out how my authority works and why in a way that doesn't shatter the verisimilitude of the world.
It is not a given that any given DM will even simply let your character choose that background at all. It is a background designed either for more political campaigns where such concerns really are being dealt with in depth or those where the DM wants the party to have access to higher levels of resources and allows it as a convenient justification. Again, DM's should be working with players to fit backgrounds to their worlds regardless.
You realize this doesn't help your case at all, right? "Your DM might simply not allow this background." Okay - so now you're telling me a number of tables will outright render paragraphs of text in a book that's already perilously short on room, a complete waste of space. How is that a good thing again?
Backgrounds currently take up 20 pages of space in the 2014 PHB. That's more than the Combat chapter! That's more than the Equipment chapter! And for what? A bunch of faff that doesn't even work without a heaping dose of case by case adjudication anyway.
The Noble background outright says "Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries." It is by no means a given that your Noble House is on good relations with any given other such house.
If I have to "work with my DM" for this thing to function on even a basic level, why does it need to be a rule? I can already ask my DM to "come up with an appropriate title for my character and determine how much authority that title carries," and where. And because this isn't magic like, say, a Suggestion spell is, my DM and I have to also figure out how my authority works and why in a way that doesn't shatter the verisimilitude of the world.
It is not a given that any given DM will even simply let your character choose that background at all. It is a background designed either for more political campaigns where such concerns really are being dealt with in depth or those where the DM wants the party to have access to higher levels of resources and allows it as a convenient justification. Again, DM's should be working with players to fit backgrounds to their worlds regardless.
You realize this doesn't help your case at all, right? "Your DM might simply not allow this background." Okay - so now you're telling me a number of tables will outright render paragraphs of text in a book that's already perilously short on room, a complete waste of space. How is that a good thing again?
Backgrounds currently take up 20 pages of space in the 2014 PHB. That's more than the Combat chapter! That's more than the Equipment chapter! And for what? A bunch of faff that doesn't even work without a heaping dose of case by case adjudication anyway.
Are you honestly cool with playing a noble without knowing the specific title, holdings, relationships to others in the peerage, or any other details?
Here, DM, I want to be vaguely this. It's on you to figure out the rest. Bye, I have to go play PS5.
You have to work with your DM on more than a basic level to play any RPG. Your DM describes their world. Ignore the descriptions at your peril. If your characters make no sense for their world, do not expect the DM to be happy with that, or even accept you as a player at all.
Needing to work with my DM to play an RPG, and needing to work with them on every individual feature in that RPG, are two different things. For 2014 background ribbons, the juice isn't worth the squeeze even at tables where they don't cause problems like entitlement.
Edit: As for how much space it takes up, do you feel it would be replaced with something better? Do you feel the price would be materially different without them?
I didn't say anything about price. They already have plans for a lot of things they want to add to the core book that weren't there before, such as art for all 48 subclasses, brand new species, the new weapon mastery rules, more feats etc. They're already running into challenges with things like finding a printer. If they can trim down 20 pages that are already barely worth the space they take up, while also providing benefits most tables will actually use, that's a win-win.
Are you honestly cool with playing a noble without knowing the specific title, holdings, relationships to others in the peerage, or any other details?
Here, DM, I want to be vaguely this. It's on you to figure out the rest. Bye, I have to go play PS5.
Come on!
Uh... thanks for supporting my exact point? 🤔 Yes, these are all details that the coupon requires to function, and the coupon does nothing to help you actually devise any of them. Great use of precious real estate.
The features do not run the campaign for you, no. Again, neither do the combat rules. If a DM is not willing to put in even the slightest bit of creativity on their own, why are they DMing?
There's plenty of places to be creative already without poorly-conceived coupons.
The features do not run the campaign for you, no. Again, neither do the combat rules. If a DM is not willing to put in even the slightest bit of creativity on their own, why are they DMing?
There's plenty of places to be creative already without poorly-conceived coupons.
Circular, since the arguments trying to show poor conception have been that they require the DM to be creative, while also being in interesting contrast to the complaints that they somehow stifle DM creativity.
As for the Xanathar's, it was not published until three years after the core rules. Hard to include rules they had not even thought of yet. I'll bet that, if they had such choices in things, they would have published 5e instead of 4e and never published 4e at all. Hindsight is just that. And saying that it would be either/or is like insisting that because the background features exist, Xanathar's should have or even could have never been published at all. That is clearly not the case. Nor does the existence of the background features in any way prevent the use of anything from Xanathar's.
Not circular. Because it’s a feature, it’s RAW. Because it’s RAW, in order to follow the rules and not negate the background feature entirely, the DM is supposed to obey what it says in the feature. Which means you end up with square peg round hole as the previous example of a Waterdeep magistrate is taken to see a drow matron mother. That’s the only outcome which means the choice of background is relevant; and it ruins anything the DM might have had planned so the party could actually have a decent story by trying to meet the matron mother. Therefore, they stifle DM creativity. They also require it at session 0, because it’s a set background; the DM, working with the player, has to fit that in, even if it’s a square peg round hole, because it’s not a setting specific background. Players shouldn’t have to change their character concepts because of fixed backgrounds. Custom ones are better.
Are you honestly cool with playing a noble without knowing the specific title, holdings, relationships to others in the peerage, or any other details?
Here, DM, I want to be vaguely this. It's on you to figure out the rest. Bye, I have to go play PS5.
Come on!
Uh... thanks for supporting my exact point? 🤔 Yes, these are all details that the coupon requires to function, and the coupon does nothing to help you actually devise any of them. Great use of precious real estate.
If your point is, "I don't care about my character beyond numbers on a page," then you've made it.
Sorry to hear you aren't as invested as others. That doesn't make something which isn't for you a waste.
Why do these abilities need to exist, if "anyone" can get them just by throwing a d20
at the DM's head? What benefit do they have? What do they do for the game as hard-coded capital-R RUUUURRUUS rather than simply roleplaying prompts? What game-design value does it have to give players a Magic Free Get-Out-Of-Plot Button they can press but then telling them "if you just roleplay gud, you can also push the Get Out Of Plot Free button, but ooooonly if you roll reeeeaaaaaally well!"
Spoilers: the answer is zero. Zero value. There is no value whatsoever that these stupid "Features" have as Hard Coded Ultrarules that they wouldn't have as a simple list of roleplaying prompts or a few examples of how a DM can respond to a player's background.
You're giving a DM a fish rather than teaching him to fish - you're saying that if the DM finds himself in this specific situation he's supposed to just let the player have an unearned gimme, but in any other situation he's given no guidance on what to do.
Teach people to fish, Jou. Don't give them fish.
They let the adventure continue, Yurei.
The last thing anyone wants is to have progress halted by a bad ability check; or a string of bad ability checks. The acolyte, entertainer, and folk hero aren't just staying somewhere for free. They can learn information from who they stay with and get their (likely differing) perspective on local politics and problems. If the group comes across some lore and nobody passes their Intelligence check to figure out what it means, or simply can't read the language, the sage knows precisely where to go to find out. The sailor can acquire passage for a voyage across the sea. The outlander helps you survive in the wilds, away from the relative safety of civilization, longer than most. The noble can just get you an audience with another noble, or even royalty, or an invitation to a social gathering.
Yes, you could just roll a d20 or spend some gold for some of this, but that's a false dilemma. If a shop is vandalized, it's not good for the local economy if the owner has to spend money on new glass, furnishings, and inventory. It's better to just invest their profits back into the business, not get back to where they were before. We want players invested in their characters and game, right? Then we should be looking for ways to just give them some minor things. And you might not need these features to do this. I don't, but that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. It takes time to develop these skills. Not everyone plays "on your level" or however else you choose to describe it. The rule books aren't just for you. They're for everyone.
Objectively, they're no worse than spells like Teleportation Circle and Plane Shift. They simply exist to help continue the adventure. These features have value, and I'm sorry you choose not to open your eyes enough to see that. They do not have to stay as they are, but to remove them and not put anything in their place will create an inferior product.
If you want to teach players, not the DM, how to fish, show them what it looks like. Don't throw a stick and line at their feet and make them figure it out on their own. They're more apt to starve than thrive.
"The last thing anyone wants is to have progress halted by a bad ability check..." are you serious?? to quote the DMG: dice don't run your game, you do. if you've dm'd yourself into a corner where a check cannot fail, then don't roll a check!! having said that, do not confuse that advice with the path of low-dice: one of those things encourages creativity, the other thing is a bailout that you could just accept gracefully (by not calling for a roll). but if you've chosen the high-dice path and rolled, then why not just let it fail? for now. circle round, come at it again from a different angle. if you've mentioned a noble, then a noble they shall meet. if not in their study, then maybe in the kitchen or when their distraught butler is uncharacteristically drinking at the same pub as the characters or when their daughter is saved from convenient dogs. or there's always that noble's rival who it turns out had the correct information the whole time. etc etc.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
But which is it? Are there 'plot coupons?' Or are there just assumed to be the equivalent whether the DM realizes such things are options or not?
Yes, any given DM can write all this from scratch. But without it in place... even if it was just a couple such features as examples rather than so long a list.. would they be likely to? Or would they just adhere to the cold numbers of the skill system, which, without this, are what would be there formally in the rules?
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
But which is it? Are there 'plot coupons?' Or are there just assumed to be the equivalent whether the DM realizes such things are options or not?
Yes, any given DM can write all this from scratch. But without it in place... even if it was just a couple such features as examples rather than so long a list.. would they be likely to? Or would they just adhere to the cold numbers of the skill system, which, without this, are what would be there formally in the rules?
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
Is it that people misunderstand them, or that people are intentionally mischaracterizing them?
Because the person who started this finds lowering the DC of a check, or eliminating the check completely, stifling. Yes, it's somehow stifling to empower players. Rather, they advocate for stripping such tools out, through gross hyperbole, as is so often the case, and dumping all that work on the DM. Yes, there are those among us who have actually called for the DM to write their character's backstory for them. I find that incredibly rude, and it speaks to the person's disinterest in engaging with the material.
The Player's Handbook shouldn't simply be a collection of neutrally-presented rules. It should also inspire and encourage player engagement. I teach people how to play. I've developed the tools to get my players to ask and initiate; even if I'm the one ultimately calling for the die roll and determining its DC and modifiers. Not every new player gets there on their own, and not every DM tries to teach this skill. The fact that people here are advocating for the stripping of tools to assist new players reeks of the worst of gatekeeping behavior.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
But which is it? Are there 'plot coupons?' Or are there just assumed to be the equivalent whether the DM realizes such things are options or not?
Yes, any given DM can write all this from scratch. But without it in place... even if it was just a couple such features as examples rather than so long a list.. would they be likely to? Or would they just adhere to the cold numbers of the skill system, which, without this, are what would be there formally in the rules?
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
Is it that people misunderstand them, or that people are intentionally mischaracterizing them?
Because the person who started this finds lowering the DC of a check, or eliminating the check completely, stifling. Yes, it's somehow stifling to empower players. Rather, they advocate for stripping such tools out, through gross hyperbole, as is so often the case, and dumping all that work on the DM. Yes, there are those among us who have actually called for the DM to write their character's backstory for them. I find that incredibly rude, and it speaks to the person's disinterest in engaging with the material.
The Player's Handbook shouldn't simply be a collection of neutrally-presented rules. It should also inspire and encourage player engagement. I teach people how to play. I've developed the tools to get my players to ask and initiate; even if I'm the one ultimately calling for the die roll and determining its DC and modifiers. Not every new player gets there on their own, and not every DM tries to teach this skill. The fact that people here are advocating for the stripping of tools to assist new players reeks of the worst of gatekeeping behavior.
It's disgusting.
you call them tools. in the sense that it's a section of ideas, yes. as a menu of mundane powers, no. most are simply a codifying of an expected benefit of having insider knowledge. that is to say, they're a privilege written down. the detriment is when that potential and circumstantial privilege is mistaken for an entitlement, as something that is owed. i have a different opinion about who is mischaracterizing things.
with regards to the stifling effect, i don't understand what makes the concept difficult. other than peoples' animus against one specific person's hyperbole coloring the debate. imagine for a moment two characters are attempting the same action but separately: a charlatan and a noble. without knowing which was which, would either of them require a check to use the noble's Position of Privilege feature in a situation where a chance of failure existed? you'd need circumstance to figure that out. so much for that tool, then. did we really need a tool to tell us sometimes a well dressed person gains differential treatment in world of class divisions? maybe, actually. sounds like something a 3rd-party publisher might explore in depth since the main rulebooks are really there for the generals concerns.
it's not the backgrounds that are the problem, it's the features. if the concern is that teaching this revised dnd would be more difficult without these backgrounds (sans features being called features and being worded more like a suggestion), take note that the origins UA gives many example backgrounds. and many more PHB backgrounds could be translated there as further examples in the final book.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
But which is it? Are there 'plot coupons?' Or are there just assumed to be the equivalent whether the DM realizes such things are options or not?
Yes, any given DM can write all this from scratch. But without it in place... even if it was just a couple such features as examples rather than so long a list.. would they be likely to? Or would they just adhere to the cold numbers of the skill system, which, without this, are what would be there formally in the rules?
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
Not sure that speaks to a problem with the background features but rather the insistence that they are misunderstood and being somehow misused.
All these hypothetical situations that it is claimed that, despite the actual wording of the features to the contrary, exist and cause some sort of massive problems.
'Coupons' and a bunch of related mechanics around that which are nowhere in the rules and are, frankly, pure cold mechanics, seemingly tossing out any meaningful RP aspects is not an accurate depiction of RAW. Again, it is treating this like this is some sort of computer game with an AI DM rather than a live DM.
nowhere in the rules? whether or not every dm is up-front about the DC of a given check, that's still mechanically how encounters work behind the screen: "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." what is up for grabs is whether these background features entitle a character to halt proceedings and claim that chance of failure is off the table due to privilege. because they're misunderstood they should be removed.
it would be a poorly revised edition that still requires errata to say "these things written down in the book aren't hard and fast rules." it's a rule book. it needs to be clear.
Circular, since the arguments trying to show poor conception have been that they require the DM to be creative, while also being in interesting contrast to the complaints that they somehow stifle DM creativity.
No, requiring creativity /adjudication isn't their problem. Their problem is that they are positioned as binding rules text when they don't and can't work that way, on top of said rules text taking up way more space than it needs to.
As for the Xanathar's, it was not published until three years after the core rules. Hard to include rules they had not even thought of yet.
I'm not blaming them for what they didn't think of back in 2014. I'm looking ahead and talking about what should (and shouldn't) be in the books in 2024.
If your point is, "I don't care about my character beyond numbers on a page," then you've made it.
You're getting straw everywhere; your dichotomy between "you either support 2014 backgrounds or you don't care about your character beyond numbers" is false.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
But which is it? Are there 'plot coupons?' Or are there just assumed to be the equivalent whether the DM realizes such things are options or not?
Yes, any given DM can write all this from scratch. But without it in place... even if it was just a couple such features as examples rather than so long a list.. would they be likely to? Or would they just adhere to the cold numbers of the skill system, which, without this, are what would be there formally in the rules?
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
Is it that people misunderstand them, or that people are intentionally mischaracterizing them?
Because the person who started this finds lowering the DC of a check, or eliminating the check completely, stifling. Yes, it's somehow stifling to empower players. Rather, they advocate for stripping such tools out, through gross hyperbole, as is so often the case, and dumping all that work on the DM. Yes, there are those among us who have actually called for the DM to write their character's backstory for them. I find that incredibly rude, and it speaks to the person's disinterest in engaging with the material.
The Player's Handbook shouldn't simply be a collection of neutrally-presented rules. It should also inspire and encourage player engagement. I teach people how to play. I've developed the tools to get my players to ask and initiate; even if I'm the one ultimately calling for the die roll and determining its DC and modifiers. Not every new player gets there on their own, and not every DM tries to teach this skill. The fact that people here are advocating for the stripping of tools to assist new players reeks of the worst of gatekeeping behavior.
It's disgusting.
you call them tools. in the sense that it's a section of ideas, yes. as a menu of mundane powers, no. most are simply a codifying of an expected benefit of having insider knowledge. that is to say, they're a privilege written down. the detriment is when that potential and circumstantial privilege is mistaken for an entitlement, as something that is owed. i have a different opinion about who is mischaracterizing things.
with regards to the stifling effect, i don't understand what makes the concept difficult. other than peoples' animus against one specific person's hyperbole coloring the debate. imagine for a moment two characters are attempting the same action but separately: a charlatan and a noble. without knowing which was which, would either of them require a check to use the noble's Position of Privilege feature in a situation where a chance of failure existed? you'd need circumstance to figure that out. so much for that tool, then. did we really need a tool to tell us sometimes a well dressed person gains differential treatment in world of class divisions? maybe, actually. sounds like something a 3rd-party publisher might explore in depth since the main rulebooks are really there for the generals concerns.
it's not the backgrounds that are the problem, it's the features. if the concern is that teaching this revised dnd would be more difficult without these backgrounds (sans features being called features and being worded more like a suggestion), take note that the origins UA gives many example backgrounds. and many more PHB backgrounds could be translated there as further examples in the final book.
There's a world of difference between simply dressing nice and actually being a mover and shaker in the world. What you're describing is an edge case where one player may intentionally be trying to step on the toes of another. To put it another way, it's a form of PVP. It's bad etiquette, and I don't like the idea of using such poor behavior for a thought experiment, but whatever. You're choosing to be confrontational over this.
You could just as easily suggest the noble is using their position to help the charlatan; because the two are friends and allies with aligned goals.
I'm not saying these features need to be there as they are, though they could remain in some simplified form. I, and others, have been pointing out they're far from useless. Setting some basic expectation of your character's role in the world lays the foundation for how they interact with it. Believe it or not, our characters are more than just their class and numbers on 1-3 sheets of paper.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
But which is it? Are there 'plot coupons?' Or are there just assumed to be the equivalent whether the DM realizes such things are options or not?
Yes, any given DM can write all this from scratch. But without it in place... even if it was just a couple such features as examples rather than so long a list.. would they be likely to? Or would they just adhere to the cold numbers of the skill system, which, without this, are what would be there formally in the rules?
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
Is it that people misunderstand them, or that people are intentionally mischaracterizing them?
Because the person who started this finds lowering the DC of a check, or eliminating the check completely, stifling. Yes, it's somehow stifling to empower players. Rather, they advocate for stripping such tools out, through gross hyperbole, as is so often the case, and dumping all that work on the DM. Yes, there are those among us who have actually called for the DM to write their character's backstory for them. I find that incredibly rude, and it speaks to the person's disinterest in engaging with the material.
The Player's Handbook shouldn't simply be a collection of neutrally-presented rules. It should also inspire and encourage player engagement. I teach people how to play. I've developed the tools to get my players to ask and initiate; even if I'm the one ultimately calling for the die roll and determining its DC and modifiers. Not every new player gets there on their own, and not every DM tries to teach this skill. The fact that people here are advocating for the stripping of tools to assist new players reeks of the worst of gatekeeping behavior.
It's disgusting.
you call them tools. in the sense that it's a section of ideas, yes. as a menu of mundane powers, no. most are simply a codifying of an expected benefit of having insider knowledge. that is to say, they're a privilege written down. the detriment is when that potential and circumstantial privilege is mistaken for an entitlement, as something that is owed. i have a different opinion about who is mischaracterizing things.
with regards to the stifling effect, i don't understand what makes the concept difficult. other than peoples' animus against one specific person's hyperbole coloring the debate. imagine for a moment two characters are attempting the same action but separately: a charlatan and a noble. without knowing which was which, would either of them require a check to use the noble's Position of Privilege feature in a situation where a chance of failure existed? you'd need circumstance to figure that out. so much for that tool, then. did we really need a tool to tell us sometimes a well dressed person gains differential treatment in world of class divisions? maybe, actually. sounds like something a 3rd-party publisher might explore in depth since the main rulebooks are really there for the generals concerns.
it's not the backgrounds that are the problem, it's the features. if the concern is that teaching this revised dnd would be more difficult without these backgrounds (sans features being called features and being worded more like a suggestion), take note that the origins UA gives many example backgrounds. and many more PHB backgrounds could be translated there as further examples in the final book.
There's a world of difference between simply dressing nice and actually being a mover and shaker in the world. What you're describing is an edge case where one player may intentionally be trying to step on the toes of another. To put it another way, it's a form of PVP. It's bad etiquette, and I don't like the idea of using such poor behavior for a thought experiment, but whatever. You're choosing to be confrontational over this.
You could just as easily suggest the noble is using their position to help the charlatan; because the two are friends and allies with aligned goals.
I'm not saying these features need to be there as they are, though they could remain in some simplified form. I, and others, have been pointing out they're far from useless. Setting some basic expectation of your character's role in the world lays the foundation for how they interact with it. Believe it or not, our characters are more than just their class and numbers on 1-3 sheets of paper.
i said nothing about reputation, rivalry, acting ability, or proximity (neither by time nor distance). you're adding context to the charlatan and noble example. you're adding circumstances to make it work or not. but that was kinda my point: different circumstances change the DC of the attempt. we need the context. the dm looks at the situation and makes a call. that shouldn't be burdened by whether or not someone has clipped a coupon referred to their background feature in lieu of skill check.
if you must know whether the player has the the noble's Position of Privilege feature or not before calling a 'no significant chance of failure' success to their efforts to use the privileges within that feature, then it's a rule, not a suggestion. if it is a rule, get that rule out.
if your answer is "a-ha! but i wouldn't give either of the players an auto-succeed," then why is it a feature instead of flavor text? if it's not a rule, it's not a feature. unbold that heading and rewrite it more speculatively along the lines of "one way noble privilege could be interpreted is..."
look, if all you were asking was that character origins example backgrounds for UA / revised 5e were to include a bit more text? okay. none of us are in charge of that, but i'm not sure anyone's argued for shorter backgrounds. how about a whole section describing of how a hero/non-hero acolyte, farmer, noble, merchant, soldier, scholar, charlatan, etc would spend their 10-day and interact with the others? that's sorely needed, even if it's mostly going to catch hate for not being just like someone else's campaign. but, i feel like the absurdity of arguing past each other has gotten to the point that it needs to come down to a poll for clarity. and if there was a poll for this i feel it would read something like "keep backgrounds intact including features," (highly unlikely) vs "keep backgrounds, lose the features," (not likely) vs "character origins customizable backgrounds, no features," (more likely) vs "strawman who hates you" (no votes because this was imagined).
The "common ground" is super easy and has already been suggested. Keep some of the "Features" as a list/tool for roleplaying prompts somewhere in the book, elsewhere beyond chargen rules. People want them because they think the "Features" are super-gosh-duper neato for Guiding New People What Don't Know Game? Yohkei, cool. Put them somewhere in a 'New to Roleplaying?" section. They do NOT need to be attached to character generation, not as hard-and-fast Rules with the weight and force of the combat engine behind it. They never have been, they don't deserve to be.
Please do not contact or message me.
Indeed. And then throw the prayer wheels and other tchotchkes onto the Trinkets table, and call it a day.
All of that would take TWO pages rather than 20.
The impossibility of completely idiot-proofing a document does not absolve the document's writers of the obligation to do their reasonable best job to create the tightest, cleanest, mose useful and least blocky or exploitable ruleset they can.
2014 Background "Features" are loose, sloppy, largely useless and very easy for bad actors to exploit where they're useful at all
The best way to improve them is to remove them as Rules. Make them part of the story you write for your character during chargen, and let the DM do their job.
There is only so much page space you can devote to onboarding people. Eventually, people HAVE to make an effort to learn if they want to play. Blowing half the book's page count on far too many needlessly specific examples that do NOTHING for non-newbies at best - or actively and seriously hinder them at worst - is not a good game design and book layout decision.
EDIT::
Better idea: put a paragraph in the book explaining that a "Trinket" is "any mundane, nonmagical Tiny object with no mechanical effect and a value of 1gp or less. Many people in the Multiverse carry trinkets; examples are available in the Trinkets table should you wish to roll to determine a random trinket, but any nonmagical Tiny object without mechanical effect is a Trinket. DMs should be generous in allowing their players to obtain Trinkets, and should allow players to add three or four Trinkets to their character without cost during character creation."
Please do not contact or message me.
Oh for sure! Open language like that is the best solution. I just wanted to avoid any accusations that "OMG WotC took away the prayer wheels that were absolutely crucial to my character, grrr streamlining!" by having explicit entries on the trinket list for the remaining handful of widgets that were tied to 2014 backgrounds.
Spells are designed from the ground up to be rules text and limited as such. Background features are not.
If I want to try and use the Suggestion spell on a noble to gain an audience with them, there are specific circumstances and limitations that adjudicate how that plays out, such as me needing to get within 30ft, the act of spellcasting itself being obvious unless I find ways to to circumvent that, the noble getting a saving throw, and me having a limited window of time to act. If instead I try to use my Noble Background Coupon to do it, the game can quickly devolve into absurdism as my Waterdeep magistrate is automatically ushered into a Drow Matron's presence, or the DM arbitrarily telling me no, or calling for a check etc. And if every table needs to adjudicate it differently anyway, then it being positioned as a coupon with the force of RAW is pointless; the game should do what it's supposed to do in the first place and direct both the player and the DM to the challenge resolution system in the gameplay chapter.
They let the adventure continue, Yurei.
The last thing anyone wants is to have progress halted by a bad ability check; or a string of bad ability checks. The acolyte, entertainer, and folk hero aren't just staying somewhere for free. They can learn information from who they stay with and get their (likely differing) perspective on local politics and problems. If the group comes across some lore and nobody passes their Intelligence check to figure out what it means, or simply can't read the language, the sage knows precisely where to go to find out. The sailor can acquire passage for a voyage across the sea. The outlander helps you survive in the wilds, away from the relative safety of civilization, longer than most. The noble can just get you an audience with another noble, or even royalty, or an invitation to a social gathering.
Yes, you could just roll a d20 or spend some gold for some of this, but that's a false dilemma. If a shop is vandalized, it's not good for the local economy if the owner has to spend money on new glass, furnishings, and inventory. It's better to just invest their profits back into the business, not get back to where they were before. We want players invested in their characters and game, right? Then we should be looking for ways to just give them some minor things. And you might not need these features to do this. I don't, but that doesn't mean everyone else doesn't. It takes time to develop these skills. Not everyone plays "on your level" or however else you choose to describe it. The rule books aren't just for you. They're for everyone.
Objectively, they're no worse than spells like Teleportation Circle and Plane Shift. They simply exist to help continue the adventure. These features have value, and I'm sorry you choose not to open your eyes enough to see that. They do not have to stay as they are, but to remove them and not put anything in their place will create an inferior product.
If you want to teach players, not the DM, how to fish, show them what it looks like. Don't throw a stick and line at their feet and make them figure it out on their own. They're more apt to starve than thrive.
If I have to "work with my DM" for this thing to function on even a basic level, why does it need to be a rule? I can already ask my DM to "come up with an appropriate title for my character and determine how much authority that title carries," and where. And because this isn't magic like, say, a Suggestion spell is, my DM and I have to also figure out how my authority works and why in a way that doesn't shatter the verisimilitude of the world.
You realize this doesn't help your case at all, right? "Your DM might simply not allow this background." Okay - so now you're telling me a number of tables will outright render paragraphs of text in a book that's already perilously short on room, a complete waste of space. How is that a good thing again?
Backgrounds currently take up 20 pages of space in the 2014 PHB. That's more than the Combat chapter! That's more than the Equipment chapter! And for what? A bunch of faff that doesn't even work without a heaping dose of case by case adjudication anyway.
Are you honestly cool with playing a noble without knowing the specific title, holdings, relationships to others in the peerage, or any other details?
Here, DM, I want to be vaguely this. It's on you to figure out the rest. Bye, I have to go play PS5.
Come on!
Needing to work with my DM to play an RPG, and needing to work with them on every individual feature in that RPG, are two different things. For 2014 background ribbons, the juice isn't worth the squeeze even at tables where they don't cause problems like entitlement.
I didn't say anything about price. They already have plans for a lot of things they want to add to the core book that weren't there before, such as art for all 48 subclasses, brand new species, the new weapon mastery rules, more feats etc. They're already running into challenges with things like finding a printer. If they can trim down 20 pages that are already barely worth the space they take up, while also providing benefits most tables will actually use, that's a win-win.
Uh... thanks for supporting my exact point? 🤔 Yes, these are all details that the coupon requires to function, and the coupon does nothing to help you actually devise any of them. Great use of precious real estate.
There's plenty of places to be creative already without poorly-conceived coupons.
I would 100% welcome this being in core over silly Background ribbons.
Also, they're pulling in Downtime rules into the new core books too. Coupons can go.
Not circular. Because it’s a feature, it’s RAW. Because it’s RAW, in order to follow the rules and not negate the background feature entirely, the DM is supposed to obey what it says in the feature. Which means you end up with square peg round hole as the previous example of a Waterdeep magistrate is taken to see a drow matron mother. That’s the only outcome which means the choice of background is relevant; and it ruins anything the DM might have had planned so the party could actually have a decent story by trying to meet the matron mother. Therefore, they stifle DM creativity. They also require it at session 0, because it’s a set background; the DM, working with the player, has to fit that in, even if it’s a square peg round hole, because it’s not a setting specific background. Players shouldn’t have to change their character concepts because of fixed backgrounds. Custom ones are better.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
If your point is, "I don't care about my character beyond numbers on a page," then you've made it.
Sorry to hear you aren't as invested as others. That doesn't make something which isn't for you a waste.
"The last thing anyone wants is to have progress halted by a bad ability check..." are you serious?? to quote the DMG: dice don't run your game, you do. if you've dm'd yourself into a corner where a check cannot fail, then don't roll a check!! having said that, do not confuse that advice with the path of low-dice: one of those things encourages creativity, the other thing is a bailout that you could just accept gracefully (by not calling for a roll). but if you've chosen the high-dice path and rolled, then why not just let it fail? for now. circle round, come at it again from a different angle. if you've mentioned a noble, then a noble they shall meet. if not in their study, then maybe in the kitchen or when their distraught butler is uncharacteristically drinking at the same pub as the characters or when their daughter is saved from convenient dogs. or there's always that noble's rival who it turns out had the correct information the whole time. etc etc.
and anyway what's with setting up a cannot-fail example that one player will solve due to their background... but then suggesting that if the plot coupon was not written into the the basic rules then this scenario would go any differently? if the dm placed a round peg beside a round hole, then the intent was there whether or not someone quotes a line from the instruction manual before putting the two together.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
in 2014 backgrounds that 'coupon' is naming the variable, nothing more. the mechanisms for what happens when a noble character 'spends their coupon' to get an audience with another noble (or whatever) is that the DC for that encounter has been reduced by reasonable circumstance. difficulty was up here, but the right character stepped forward so now difficulty is down here. same as might happen for a pocket that requires picking, tracking of footprints, or animal handling. furthermore, if circumstances lead to reducing the DC sufficiently, then it's not that there's automatically no roll but rather that we often don't roll when a task is easy. the issue is when players assume that the named variable, the 'coupon,' is a fungible token. this leads to situations like a waterdeep noble requesting audience with the drow matron and the DC is reduced but then the player cites the coupon asking for further discount. that's double dipping. background plot coupons are not sex panther from odeon. dungeon master is not relieved of choice and the player is not relieved of their burden of play.
20 pages later, the fact that many people misunderstand plot coupons is exactly the reason to remove them.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Is it that people misunderstand them, or that people are intentionally mischaracterizing them?
Because the person who started this finds lowering the DC of a check, or eliminating the check completely, stifling. Yes, it's somehow stifling to empower players. Rather, they advocate for stripping such tools out, through gross hyperbole, as is so often the case, and dumping all that work on the DM. Yes, there are those among us who have actually called for the DM to write their character's backstory for them. I find that incredibly rude, and it speaks to the person's disinterest in engaging with the material.
The Player's Handbook shouldn't simply be a collection of neutrally-presented rules. It should also inspire and encourage player engagement. I teach people how to play. I've developed the tools to get my players to ask and initiate; even if I'm the one ultimately calling for the die roll and determining its DC and modifiers. Not every new player gets there on their own, and not every DM tries to teach this skill. The fact that people here are advocating for the stripping of tools to assist new players reeks of the worst of gatekeeping behavior.
It's disgusting.
you call them tools. in the sense that it's a section of ideas, yes. as a menu of mundane powers, no. most are simply a codifying of an expected benefit of having insider knowledge. that is to say, they're a privilege written down. the detriment is when that potential and circumstantial privilege is mistaken for an entitlement, as something that is owed. i have a different opinion about who is mischaracterizing things.
with regards to the stifling effect, i don't understand what makes the concept difficult. other than peoples' animus against one specific person's hyperbole coloring the debate. imagine for a moment two characters are attempting the same action but separately: a charlatan and a noble. without knowing which was which, would either of them require a check to use the noble's Position of Privilege feature in a situation where a chance of failure existed? you'd need circumstance to figure that out. so much for that tool, then. did we really need a tool to tell us sometimes a well dressed person gains differential treatment in world of class divisions? maybe, actually. sounds like something a 3rd-party publisher might explore in depth since the main rulebooks are really there for the generals concerns.
it's not the backgrounds that are the problem, it's the features. if the concern is that teaching this revised dnd would be more difficult without these backgrounds (sans features being called features and being worded more like a suggestion), take note that the origins UA gives many example backgrounds. and many more PHB backgrounds could be translated there as further examples in the final book.
nowhere in the rules? whether or not every dm is up-front about the DC of a given check, that's still mechanically how encounters work behind the screen: "When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." what is up for grabs is whether these background features entitle a character to halt proceedings and claim that chance of failure is off the table due to privilege. because they're misunderstood they should be removed.
it would be a poorly revised edition that still requires errata to say "these things written down in the book aren't hard and fast rules." it's a rule book. it needs to be clear.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
No, requiring creativity /adjudication isn't their problem. Their problem is that they are positioned as binding rules text when they don't and can't work that way, on top of said rules text taking up way more space than it needs to.
I'm not blaming them for what they didn't think of back in 2014. I'm looking ahead and talking about what should (and shouldn't) be in the books in 2024.
You're getting straw everywhere; your dichotomy between "you either support 2014 backgrounds or you don't care about your character beyond numbers" is false.
There's a world of difference between simply dressing nice and actually being a mover and shaker in the world. What you're describing is an edge case where one player may intentionally be trying to step on the toes of another. To put it another way, it's a form of PVP. It's bad etiquette, and I don't like the idea of using such poor behavior for a thought experiment, but whatever. You're choosing to be confrontational over this.
You could just as easily suggest the noble is using their position to help the charlatan; because the two are friends and allies with aligned goals.
I'm not saying these features need to be there as they are, though they could remain in some simplified form. I, and others, have been pointing out they're far from useless. Setting some basic expectation of your character's role in the world lays the foundation for how they interact with it. Believe it or not, our characters are more than just their class and numbers on 1-3 sheets of paper.
i said nothing about reputation, rivalry, acting ability, or proximity (neither by time nor distance). you're adding context to the charlatan and noble example. you're adding circumstances to make it work or not. but that was kinda my point: different circumstances change the DC of the attempt. we need the context. the dm looks at the situation and makes a call. that shouldn't be burdened by whether or not someone has
clipped a couponreferred to their background feature in lieu of skill check.look, if all you were asking was that character origins example backgrounds for UA / revised 5e were to include a bit more text? okay. none of us are in charge of that, but i'm not sure anyone's argued for shorter backgrounds. how about a whole section describing of how a hero/non-hero acolyte, farmer, noble, merchant, soldier, scholar, charlatan, etc would spend their 10-day and interact with the others? that's sorely needed, even if it's mostly going to catch hate for not being just like someone else's campaign. but, i feel like the absurdity of arguing past each other has gotten to the point that it needs to come down to a poll for clarity. and if there was a poll for this i feel it would read something like "keep backgrounds intact including features," (highly unlikely) vs "keep backgrounds, lose the features," (not likely) vs "character origins customizable backgrounds, no features," (more likely) vs "strawman who hates you" (no votes because this was imagined).
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
If your point was, "This needs context, but I'm going to intentionally omit it to trap someone," then you don't actually have a point.