Hero of solving a local epidemic by way of some new herbal concoction that happened to work. Or just of having been there when the regular apothecary fell ill.
And YOU were the one who insisted I had to avoid custom. A simple substitution of medicine proficiency for animal handling and you have that covered, but note that an apothecary is not necessarily a medical professional outside of herbalism
You are also putting an artificial limit on folk hero, AGAIN showing you do not actually read these backgrounds. You seem to have missed this:
Defining Event
You previously pursued a simple profession among the peasantry, perhaps as a farmer, miner, servant, shepherd, woodcutter, or gravedigger. But something happened that set you on a different path and marked you for greater things.
Apothecary is a 'simple profession among the peasantry. And there has to have been some reason they gave up the apothecary to go adventuring, so clearly 'something happened.' Your answers are there.
------------
Now, lets look at yours.
I said UA, but "Without using custom backgrounds" the same restriction you placed on me, so just from the samples. Your entry is not there.
And you listed a defining event: "Anyone who could successfully befriend the goblin tribes in the area and gather herbs from their lands" ... plus, of course, being kicked out by your boss on the grounds that you are too valuable to keep around, lol. (Rather than tying that in with the party and there being some medical calamity outside your village that you'll require some escort/additional specialists to help with).
Well without a campaign and a party to play her in, how am I supposed to tune her background to that campaign/party? So generic story for a generic post. And the restriction against customizingf a background is because, as I have been arguing for two weeks now...R5e does not want you to customize your background. It HATES players customizing their background. It only allows them to do it because it kinda has to, not because R5e considers it to be a valid option. R5e thinks backgropund customization is for losers, (bad) munchkins, poseurs, and amateur thespians with no idea how D&D works. 1DD, per the OPT document, has acknowledged that this is a fundamentally stupid stance to take and has admitted that there's no reason not to allow people to do what they will with their background.
As for which sample background in the UA document fits Ms. Journeyman Apothecary best? None of them are a good fit, and that's the point. Hermit has the closest approximation of abilities but the MI: Primal makes no sense, nor the Religion proficiency. But in Origins I'm allowed to do something about that. Freely, without malus or worry. In R5e, I'm not allowed to do anything about that without a mother-may-I from the DM, which you have repeatedly argued the DM should not give because strict and fanatical adherence to the limitations of R5e Background Features as written eight and a half years ago in the PHB is Best For Narrative.
Hero of solving a local epidemic by way of some new herbal concoction that happened to work. Or just of having been there when the regular apothecary fell ill.
And YOU were the one who insisted I had to avoid custom. A simple substitution of medicine proficiency for animal handling and you have that covered, but note that an apothecary is not necessarily a medical professional outside of herbalism
You are also putting an artificial limit on folk hero, AGAIN showing you do not actually read these backgrounds. You seem to have missed this:
Defining Event
You previously pursued a simple profession among the peasantry, perhaps as a farmer, miner, servant, shepherd, woodcutter, or gravedigger. But something happened that set you on a different path and marked you for greater things.
Apothecary is a 'simple profession among the peasantry. And there has to have been some reason they gave up the apothecary to go adventuring, so clearly 'something happened.' Your answers are there.
------------
Now, lets look at yours.
I said UA, but "Without using custom backgrounds" the same restriction you placed on me, so just from the samples. Your entry is not there.
And you listed a defining event: "Anyone who could successfully befriend the goblin tribes in the area and gather herbs from their lands" ... plus, of course, being kicked out by your boss on the grounds that you are too valuable to keep around, lol. (Rather than tying that in with the party and there being some medical calamity outside your village that you'll require some escort/additional specialists to help with).
Well without a campaign and a party to play her in, how am I supposed to tune her background to that campaign/party? So generic story for a generic post. And the restriction against customizingf a background is because, as I have been arguing for two weeks now...R5e does not want you to customize your background. It HATES players customizing their background. It only allows them to do it because it kinda has to, not because R5e considers it to be a valid option. R5e thinks backgropund customization is for losers, (bad) munchkins, poseurs, and amateur thespians with no idea how D&D works. 1DD, per the OPT document, has acknowledged that this is a fundamentally stupid stance to take and has admitted that there's no reason not to allow people to do what they will with their background.
As for which sample background in the UA document fits Ms. Journeyman Apothecary best? None of them are a good fit, and that's the point. Hermit has the closest approximation of abilities but the MI: Primal makes no sense, nor the Religion proficiency. But in Origins I'm allowed to do something about that. Freely, without malus or worry. In R5e, I'm not allowed to do anything about that without a mother-may-I from the DM, which you have repeatedly argued the DM should not give because strict and fanatical adherence to the limitations of R5e Background Features as written eight and a half years ago in the PHB is Best For Narrative.
See the split, there?
Objection, your honor, facts not in evidence. That 5e does not want you to customize is your accusation, which you have no backup for other than the interface. And in this case, it is a situation the interface handles just fine. The ONLY needed change is one skill from animal handling to medicine. Plus, pencil and paper, there is no issue at all.
Again, Custom Background is the TOP option. It is not buried anywhere.
And if you have problems getting your DM to accept a simple skill choice swap like that, well, again, you need a better DM. Which you claim to have 6 of. You were saying that all 6 of your DM's would rubber stamp anything you made up from scratch and put before them, so what is all this hand wringing about DM approval?
The split there is only in your preconceptions.
Um yurei wasnt the one saying they had 6 DMs that was Aquilontune.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Objection, your honor, facts not in evidence. That 5e does not want you to customize is your accusation, which you have no backup for other than the interface. And in this case, it is a situation the interface handles just fine. The ONLY needed change is one skill from animal handling to medicine. Plus, pencil and paper, there is no issue at all.
Just went over the Backgrounds section in the PHB again. It talks several times about "choosing a background", and only mentions customizing a background once in a single somewhat sloppily written paragraph at the end of the description of all the things standard backgrounds give you and why you should choose one of those instead. The book also demands that you switch a feature for any other standard feature and makes zero mention of "custom features" save for a siongle throwaway sentence at the end of the paragraph that you, yourself, have stated players should not use because it places undue burden on the DM.
And if you have problems getting your DM to accept a simple skill choice swap like that, well, again, you need a better DM. Which you claim to have 6 of. You were saying that all 6 of your DM's would rubber stamp anything you made up from scratch and put before them, so what is all this hand wringing about DM approval?
The split there is only in your preconceptions.
I'd appreciate you not smearing the good name of the people running games at my table. The fact that we have no single, set DM and instead a number of players willing to step up and run games in turn is hardly deserving of this sort of sneering scorn, no? If you want to sneer, sneer at me, not the people willing to do the thankless, shitty, terrible job of running a game of D&D.
You think customizing backgrounds is fine, despite a strong bent towards stating that characters cannot ever be of any sort of mixed/hybridized/nonstandard background because the entire totality of their existence must be summarized by a single ribbon-feature paragraph of text describing their basic job function. How does "your entire existence MUST be defined by a single narrow pre-existing bit of background text describing your basic job function" equate to "customizing backgrounds or creating them from scratch to fit your character is perfectly fine"?
"All the hand wringing" is because you are trying to block better rules from happening. This background system is better than R5e, and I will fight to be allowed to keep it. people who tell me "you shouldn't be allowed to have any customization in your background, and you should HAVE to make your entire character be nothing but this one crapass background "feature" that does nothing unless you land a DM that refuses to let you do anything that isn't in your Background Feature!" are going to earn my ire. I like these rules. They are better rules. And people jerking their twitchy knees and screaming at Wizards "NO DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING EVER ALL THINGS MUST BE ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO R5E FOREVER!!" are going to ruin it and make me absolutely furious. So here I am, desperately trying to convince people to STOP being a bunch of knee-jerking nitwits that react instead of think so we have the fainest chance in Hell of actually keeping better chargen rules instead of it all being thrown the **** out in favor of a bunch of useless pointless meaningless ARBITRARY NONSENSE THAT'S NEVER HELPED A DAMN SOUL!!!
Except that if you force Wizards to continue printing Background Features, then the example backgrounds stop becoming 'examples'. They become Standard backgrounds, because Background Features by their nature cannot be fit into a framework builder template like this, and thus the ONLY acceptable backgrounds become the same dumbf@#$ list of restrictive straitjacket nonsense R5e backgrounds are. Either the dumbf#$ ribbon features don't matter in the slightest because the DM has the brainpower to realize that having a background means you have connections that are appropriate for your background, or you get the even more dumbf@#$ situation where the entire party - including the party's Loremaster with expertise in Arcana, Investigation, and History - automatically fails all checks made to "Research" something because none of them are Sages, thus none of them have the "Researcher" background feature, and thus none of them can ever possibly make use of stored knowledge. Except write that another twenty-odd times for each stupid dumbf@#$ background that replaces playing D&D with a pointless ribbon feature that APPARENTLY is more important than Life And The Gods Themselves to DMs.
******* goddamned hell, why am I even trying? The cause is doomed from the start if people are this myopic about the whole dumbf@#$ thing.
You do not get the Magic Initiate feat under current custom background rules, only with the new rules. If the GM Gave a feat to one player because they made a custom background as their "feature" and only the features to others that would not be fair. Under the current system this is not a solution, under the new system it is. You have exactly proven my point. As for where, it was in the edits above, just scroll up.
Congrats on proving my point for me by the way.
I am not sure you understand what 'work out something new with the DM' really means. Where does it say that cannot include a feat, if the DM thinks that is not too much power creep? There are tables out there where DM's give everyone a bonus starting feat just because they like that idea for their campaigns.
The Stryxhaven backgrounds all give specific Stryxhaven feats, so there is even precedent there.
But you are sort of making my point about this just being more about power creep than about any actual concern about backgrounds. If your background relies on being up a feat, something all but variant humans currently have to wait until 4th to get, are you not insisting on starting as higher than strictly level 1?
But that is NOT rules as written under the current form. That is house rules, thus if you do so you are no longer playing 5e as written. If you aren't going to stick to the rules than there isn't a point for arguing the rules. Stryxhaven feats and feats at level 1 house rule came out of players desire to have more customization at level 1 because the features you are so adamantly fighting for aren't meaningful enough. So even if the DM ALLOWED said feat now everyone else is sitting and asking for a feat too and now you have the player who made the fortune teller going. "But what about my feature?" and you are back to square one.
This isn't about power creep or anything like that it is about making meaningful decisions that meaningfully effect gameplay to set yourself as distinct from other barbarians, fighters, wizards and so on right at level 1.
You did a very good job of proving my point that the current rules custom backgrounds are entirely inadequate and that the new rules solves this because everyone gets the same opportunity for the same stuff and the feats are much broader applicable to a multitude of backgrounds without being role play defining the way the features can be.
Edit: and of course when I said I had 6 DM's which, under the NEW RULES, would look at anything I threw at them and go, sure what ever. Because each of the backgrounds are auto balanced, and they don't have to worry about it. Under CURRENT RULES these same GM's would not do that. So under NEW rules I can play what ever background I want without hassle, under old rules I cannot.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
I can kinda get your point, but if such simple options as those would confuse a player, then they have very little hope of grasping the whole rest of the game. Just sayin.’
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
Since it's still in early playtest, additional proficiency customizability is a reasonable thing to bring up in the feedback. The default set makes a certain amount of sense, as if it were just "a total of 4 skills/tools/languages", there'd be a strong temptation to go for the skills, as they come up the most. The enforced variety will probably lead to more uniqueness.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
I can kinda get your point, but if such simple options as those would confuse a player, then they have very little hope of grasping the whole rest of the game. Just sayin.’
True, I mean, the main problem is that it's not just that alone that might confuse them. It's the fact that it is stacked on top of another already somewhat confusing element.
You can always use one of the sample backgrounds, if you're new or don't have time. But I think adding these extra customizations might make sample backgrounds go from: "Confusing to new players," to "Confusing to most players." Yes, that element on it's own, or build-your-own-backgrounds on their ow both aren't super confusing, but having multiple levels of slightly things to customize on top of other levels of slightly confusing things combines to make the result a lot more confusing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
Since it's still in early playtest, additional proficiency customizability is a reasonable thing to bring up in the feedback. The default set makes a certain amount of sense, as if it were just "a total of 4 skills/tools/languages", there'd be a strong temptation to go for the skills, as they come up the most. The enforced variety will probably lead to more uniqueness.
That’s why I suggested 2 skills, 1 skill/tool/language, and 1 tool/language. It offers a li’l sumpin in the way of customization, but still has some push towards at least a li’l variety. Ne?
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
Since it's still in early playtest, additional proficiency customizability is a reasonable thing to bring up in the feedback. The default set makes a certain amount of sense, as if it were just "a total of 4 skills/tools/languages", there'd be a strong temptation to go for the skills, as they come up the most. The enforced variety will probably lead to more uniqueness.
That’s why I suggested 2 skills, 1 skill/tool/language, and 1 tool/language. It offers a li’l sumpin in the way of customization, but still has some push towards at least a li’l variety. Ne?
I can understand where you're coming from, so yeah, I'd probably like this as a variant in a sidebar. Just because, if it's a variant, then people won't get confused trying to understand how to do this & whether they should/have to. However, people who want to use it still can that way.
PS- This thread moves fast, is it always like this in this thread?
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
Since it's still in early playtest, additional proficiency customizability is a reasonable thing to bring up in the feedback. The default set makes a certain amount of sense, as if it were just "a total of 4 skills/tools/languages", there'd be a strong temptation to go for the skills, as they come up the most. The enforced variety will probably lead to more uniqueness.
That’s why I suggested 2 skills, 1 skill/tool/language, and 1 tool/language. It offers a li’l sumpin in the way of customization, but still has some push towards at least a li’l variety. Ne?
I would probably just hard Stick to 2 skills. Skills come up the most often and we dont want people power gaming for even more skills without having to take the skilled feat. But 2 languange/tool is perfectly fine. Ends up with 2 tools or 2 languages or 1 of each and is pretty simple.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
I can kinda get your point, but if such simple options as those would confuse a player, then they have very little hope of grasping the whole rest of the game. Just sayin.’
True, I mean, the main problem is that it's not just that alone that might confuse them. It's the fact that it is stacked on top of another already somewhat confusing element.
You can always use one of the sample backgrounds, if you're new or don't have time. But I think adding these extra customizations might make sample backgrounds go from: "Confusing to new players," to "Confusing to most players." Yes, that element on it's own, or build-your-own-backgrounds on their ow both aren't super confusing, but having multiple levels of slightly things to customize on top of other levels of slightly confusing things combines to make the result a lot more confusing.
From my perspective it’s too straightforward so as to be boring. I don’t see “confusing on top of confusing.” I don’t personally see any of it as confusing at all, so maybe it’s just me. 🤷♂️
Hero of solving a local epidemic by way of some new herbal concoction that happened to work. Or just of having been there when the regular apothecary fell ill.
And YOU were the one who insisted I had to avoid custom. A simple substitution of medicine proficiency for animal handling and you have that covered, but note that an apothecary is not necessarily a medical professional outside of herbalism
You are also putting an artificial limit on folk hero, AGAIN showing you do not actually read these backgrounds. You seem to have missed this:
Defining Event
You previously pursued a simple profession among the peasantry, perhaps as a farmer, miner, servant, shepherd, woodcutter, or gravedigger. But something happened that set you on a different path and marked you for greater things.
Apothecary is a 'simple profession among the peasantry. And there has to have been some reason they gave up the apothecary to go adventuring, so clearly 'something happened.' Your answers are there.
------------
Now, lets look at yours.
I said UA, but "Without using custom backgrounds" the same restriction you placed on me, so just from the samples. Your entry is not there.
And you listed a defining event: "Anyone who could successfully befriend the goblin tribes in the area and gather herbs from their lands" ... plus, of course, being kicked out by your boss on the grounds that you are too valuable to keep around, lol. (Rather than tying that in with the party and there being some medical calamity outside your village that you'll require some escort/additional specialists to help with).
Well without a campaign and a party to play her in, how am I supposed to tune her background to that campaign/party? So generic story for a generic post. And the restriction against customizingf a background is because, as I have been arguing for two weeks now...R5e does not want you to customize your background. It HATES players customizing their background. It only allows them to do it because it kinda has to, not because R5e considers it to be a valid option. R5e thinks backgropund customization is for losers, (bad) munchkins, poseurs, and amateur thespians with no idea how D&D works. 1DD, per the OPT document, has acknowledged that this is a fundamentally stupid stance to take and has admitted that there's no reason not to allow people to do what they will with their background.
As for which sample background in the UA document fits Ms. Journeyman Apothecary best? None of them are a good fit, and that's the point. Hermit has the closest approximation of abilities but the MI: Primal makes no sense, nor the Religion proficiency. But in Origins I'm allowed to do something about that. Freely, without malus or worry. In R5e, I'm not allowed to do anything about that without a mother-may-I from the DM, which you have repeatedly argued the DM should not give because strict and fanatical adherence to the limitations of R5e Background Features as written eight and a half years ago in the PHB is Best For Narrative.
See the split, there?
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
Since it's still in early playtest, additional proficiency customizability is a reasonable thing to bring up in the feedback. The default set makes a certain amount of sense, as if it were just "a total of 4 skills/tools/languages", there'd be a strong temptation to go for the skills, as they come up the most. The enforced variety will probably lead to more uniqueness.
That’s why I suggested 2 skills, 1 skill/tool/language, and 1 tool/language. It offers a li’l sumpin in the way of customization, but still has some push towards at least a li’l variety. Ne?
I would probably just hard Stick to 2 skills. Skills come up the most often and we dont want people power gaming for even more skills without having to take the skilled feat. But 2 languange/tool is perfectly fine. Ends up with 2 tools or 2 languages or 1 of each and is pretty simple.
Again, they are a starting point that the DM can work with you on. DM's can do that.
And moreover, if you do not trust your DM, then you need a new DM. Or if you trust no DM, you need to stick to MMO's or solo games.
Edit: And working with your DM includes asking them if any given feature is useful in their campaign. In my current campaign I advised players up front that the Sailor background makes no sense, since there are no large enough bodies of water in their area for there to be any sailors. That is not even any sort of play balance decision but simply an aspect of the setting.
Thing is, the mere names of sample new backgrounds provide enough information for DMs to work with, with much more mechanical and creative freedom. What's in the old social traits that makes them valuable as they are?
BTW in your example, you discourage players from picking a sailor. And what if my character is a former sailor who grew sick and tired of seafaring, but has a whole bunch of mannerisms and barely believable stories to tell when he's drunk (including a bone-chilling story explaining why he'd never go out into the sea again), thus combining skillset of a sailor with being able to easily mingle with tavernfolk and occasionally impress people with bits of exotic knowledge. The old social trait would be useless, but there's a lot more stuff that could come from this background... Which is discouraged because there's no water for Ship's Passage trait.
You're literally fighting against freedom and flexibility.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
I can kinda get your point, but if such simple options as those would confuse a player, then they have very little hope of grasping the whole rest of the game. Just sayin.’
True, I mean, the main problem is that it's not just that alone that might confuse them. It's the fact that it is stacked on top of another already somewhat confusing element.
You can always use one of the sample backgrounds, if you're new or don't have time. But I think adding these extra customizations might make sample backgrounds go from: "Confusing to new players," to "Confusing to most players." Yes, that element on it's own, or build-your-own-backgrounds on their ow both aren't super confusing, but having multiple levels of slightly things to customize on top of other levels of slightly confusing things combines to make the result a lot more confusing.
From my perspective it’s too straightforward so as to be boring. I don’t see “confusing on top of confusing.” I don’t personally see any of it as confusing at all, so maybe it’s just me. 🤷♂️
I don't find it very confusing, though I do find it a tiny bit more complicated. However some people, mainly new players, might find it confusing. That way, they can use the sample backgrounds of course, but if you add more layers of choices to something with a lot of choices and ways to customize, then it's harder for more players to use the sample backgrounds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well without a campaign and a party to play her in, how am I supposed to tune her background to that campaign/party? So generic story for a generic post. And the restriction against customizingf a background is because, as I have been arguing for two weeks now...R5e does not want you to customize your background. It HATES players customizing their background. It only allows them to do it because it kinda has to, not because R5e considers it to be a valid option. R5e thinks backgropund customization is for losers, (bad) munchkins, poseurs, and amateur thespians with no idea how D&D works. 1DD, per the OPT document, has acknowledged that this is a fundamentally stupid stance to take and has admitted that there's no reason not to allow people to do what they will with their background.
As for which sample background in the UA document fits Ms. Journeyman Apothecary best? None of them are a good fit, and that's the point. Hermit has the closest approximation of abilities but the MI: Primal makes no sense, nor the Religion proficiency. But in Origins I'm allowed to do something about that. Freely, without malus or worry. In R5e, I'm not allowed to do anything about that without a mother-may-I from the DM, which you have repeatedly argued the DM should not give because strict and fanatical adherence to the limitations of R5e Background Features as written eight and a half years ago in the PHB is Best For Narrative.
See the split, there?
Please do not contact or message me.
Um yurei wasnt the one saying they had 6 DMs that was Aquilontune.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
Just went over the Backgrounds section in the PHB again. It talks several times about "choosing a background", and only mentions customizing a background once in a single somewhat sloppily written paragraph at the end of the description of all the things standard backgrounds give you and why you should choose one of those instead. The book also demands that you switch a feature for any other standard feature and makes zero mention of "custom features" save for a siongle throwaway sentence at the end of the paragraph that you, yourself, have stated players should not use because it places undue burden on the DM.
And?
I'd appreciate you not smearing the good name of the people running games at my table. The fact that we have no single, set DM and instead a number of players willing to step up and run games in turn is hardly deserving of this sort of sneering scorn, no? If you want to sneer, sneer at me, not the people willing to do the thankless, shitty, terrible job of running a game of D&D.
You think customizing backgrounds is fine, despite a strong bent towards stating that characters cannot ever be of any sort of mixed/hybridized/nonstandard background because the entire totality of their existence must be summarized by a single ribbon-feature paragraph of text describing their basic job function. How does "your entire existence MUST be defined by a single narrow pre-existing bit of background text describing your basic job function" equate to "customizing backgrounds or creating them from scratch to fit your character is perfectly fine"?
Please do not contact or message me.
"All the hand wringing" is because you are trying to block better rules from happening. This background system is better than R5e, and I will fight to be allowed to keep it. people who tell me "you shouldn't be allowed to have any customization in your background, and you should HAVE to make your entire character be nothing but this one crapass background "feature" that does nothing unless you land a DM that refuses to let you do anything that isn't in your Background Feature!" are going to earn my ire. I like these rules. They are better rules. And people jerking their twitchy knees and screaming at Wizards "NO DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING EVER ALL THINGS MUST BE ABSOLUTELY IDENTICAL TO R5E FOREVER!!" are going to ruin it and make me absolutely furious. So here I am, desperately trying to convince people to STOP being a bunch of knee-jerking nitwits that react instead of think so we have the fainest chance in Hell of actually keeping better chargen rules instead of it all being thrown the **** out in favor of a bunch of useless pointless meaningless ARBITRARY NONSENSE THAT'S NEVER HELPED A DAMN SOUL!!!
Please do not contact or message me.
Except that if you force Wizards to continue printing Background Features, then the example backgrounds stop becoming 'examples'. They become Standard backgrounds, because Background Features by their nature cannot be fit into a framework builder template like this, and thus the ONLY acceptable backgrounds become the same dumbf@#$ list of restrictive straitjacket nonsense R5e backgrounds are. Either the dumbf#$ ribbon features don't matter in the slightest because the DM has the brainpower to realize that having a background means you have connections that are appropriate for your background, or you get the even more dumbf@#$ situation where the entire party - including the party's Loremaster with expertise in Arcana, Investigation, and History - automatically fails all checks made to "Research" something because none of them are Sages, thus none of them have the "Researcher" background feature, and thus none of them can ever possibly make use of stored knowledge. Except write that another twenty-odd times for each stupid dumbf@#$ background that replaces playing D&D with a pointless ribbon feature that APPARENTLY is more important than Life And The Gods Themselves to DMs.
******* goddamned hell, why am I even trying? The cause is doomed from the start if people are this myopic about the whole dumbf@#$ thing.
Please do not contact or message me.
But that is NOT rules as written under the current form. That is house rules, thus if you do so you are no longer playing 5e as written. If you aren't going to stick to the rules than there isn't a point for arguing the rules. Stryxhaven feats and feats at level 1 house rule came out of players desire to have more customization at level 1 because the features you are so adamantly fighting for aren't meaningful enough. So even if the DM ALLOWED said feat now everyone else is sitting and asking for a feat too and now you have the player who made the fortune teller going. "But what about my feature?" and you are back to square one.
This isn't about power creep or anything like that it is about making meaningful decisions that meaningfully effect gameplay to set yourself as distinct from other barbarians, fighters, wizards and so on right at level 1.
You did a very good job of proving my point that the current rules custom backgrounds are entirely inadequate and that the new rules solves this because everyone gets the same opportunity for the same stuff and the feats are much broader applicable to a multitude of backgrounds without being role play defining the way the features can be.
Edit: and of course when I said I had 6 DM's which, under the NEW RULES, would look at anything I threw at them and go, sure what ever. Because each of the backgrounds are auto balanced, and they don't have to worry about it. Under CURRENT RULES these same GM's would not do that. So under NEW rules I can play what ever background I want without hassle, under old rules I cannot.
One thing I find very annoying about the 1DD backgrounds is that they are all so uniform due to the BYO system being so restrictive. Why “2 skills, 1 tool, 1 language” for all of them?!? What if I want to be an unhandy polyglot who can’t figure out which end of a hammer to use but speaks four languages? Or what if I want to make a PC that can build or fix just about anything but can only speak common? I think the tool should be swappable for another skill or language and that the language should be swappable for a tool if we want. That little bit of flexibility would really make background generation a lot less boring and allow people to make PCs that are more representative of what we imagine.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then you can ask your DM to allow you to make an exception, it's a pretty simple change and most DM's would allow it. While I understand your point; it is nice to be able to customize languages for proficiencies in stuff for backgrounds, this is already a massive level of optional customization provided for you, and allowing you to swap out the customizable customation to your customized background, or whatever it is, may end up being to complicated for a lot of people who want to make their own background. Though admittedly, saying you can swap those out for other things as a variant rule might be nice.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I can kinda get your point, but if such simple options as those would confuse a player, then they have very little hope of grasping the whole rest of the game. Just sayin.’
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Since it's still in early playtest, additional proficiency customizability is a reasonable thing to bring up in the feedback. The default set makes a certain amount of sense, as if it were just "a total of 4 skills/tools/languages", there'd be a strong temptation to go for the skills, as they come up the most. The enforced variety will probably lead to more uniqueness.
True, I mean, the main problem is that it's not just that alone that might confuse them. It's the fact that it is stacked on top of another already somewhat confusing element.
You can always use one of the sample backgrounds, if you're new or don't have time. But I think adding these extra customizations might make sample backgrounds go from: "Confusing to new players," to "Confusing to most players." Yes, that element on it's own, or build-your-own-backgrounds on their ow both aren't super confusing, but having multiple levels of slightly things to customize on top of other levels of slightly confusing things combines to make the result a lot more confusing.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.That’s why I suggested 2 skills, 1 skill/tool/language, and 1 tool/language. It offers a li’l sumpin in the way of customization, but still has some push towards at least a li’l variety. Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I can understand where you're coming from, so yeah, I'd probably like this as a variant in a sidebar. Just because, if it's a variant, then people won't get confused trying to understand how to do this & whether they should/have to. However, people who want to use it still can that way.
PS- This thread moves fast, is it always like this in this thread?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I would probably just hard Stick to 2 skills. Skills come up the most often and we dont want people power gaming for even more skills without having to take the skilled feat. But 2 languange/tool is perfectly fine. Ends up with 2 tools or 2 languages or 1 of each and is pretty simple.
From my perspective it’s too straightforward so as to be boring. I don’t see “confusing on top of confusing.” I don’t personally see any of it as confusing at all, so maybe it’s just me. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If customizing your background was discouraged, then why is it a rule?
I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. Customizing your background isn't even an optional (Flanking) or variant (Feats) rule. It's a core rule. Why would you think that's being included begrudgingly? How does the text, in any way, discourage players and DMs from doing this?
That would be acceptable.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thing is, the mere names of sample new backgrounds provide enough information for DMs to work with, with much more mechanical and creative freedom. What's in the old social traits that makes them valuable as they are?
BTW in your example, you discourage players from picking a sailor. And what if my character is a former sailor who grew sick and tired of seafaring, but has a whole bunch of mannerisms and barely believable stories to tell when he's drunk (including a bone-chilling story explaining why he'd never go out into the sea again), thus combining skillset of a sailor with being able to easily mingle with tavernfolk and occasionally impress people with bits of exotic knowledge. The old social trait would be useless, but there's a lot more stuff that could come from this background... Which is discouraged because there's no water for Ship's Passage trait.
You're literally fighting against freedom and flexibility.
I don't find it very confusing, though I do find it a tiny bit more complicated. However some people, mainly new players, might find it confusing. That way, they can use the sample backgrounds of course, but if you add more layers of choices to something with a lot of choices and ways to customize, then it's harder for more players to use the sample backgrounds.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.