I don't want to get into the discussion at large, but I do want to point out that this isn't true at all. You 100% get to take background equipment when you customize your background.
Sadly, backgrounds in DDB are fixed in iron. To customize a background you have to use the Create Custom background feature to clone and then tweak it, and the CCB feature completely disallows/turns off any sort of background equipment. You can manually add gear later, sure, but per the 'Rules' of DDB, any form of customized background sacrifices all background equipment. It sucks, but it's also the reality we're stuck with.
I believe you that DDB restricts this, but DDB is bad. I just don't think it's fair to use DDB's failure to implement what is explicitly RAW as evidence in what is a discussion about (at least as far as I know) the actual rules of D&D.
You are right, of course. There is no actual game since the game requires a DM to run adventures. Since a DM might not run adventures, the entire game clearly does not exist and there is therefore no point to any of this discussion whatsoever.
If someone volunteers to DM and gives you no combat, then all combat abilities are useless. If there is no dialogue that ever matters, all social skills are useless.
The argument that any given feature is DM dependent is thus non-productive.
Ok, I'll bite.
You and your compatriots arrive in the local Harbor city of Porttown on the southern Coast of the Continent. Gasping, bleeding, and wounded you have barely managed to escape from the cultists that had held you captive while trying to feed you to the Giant Purple Worm they had come to worship as their divine oracle. You know from the bragging of the Cult Guardsman that the town has secret members all over.
One player quickly grabs some nondescript blankets to cover up and obscure your identities.
A discussion quickly happens between the players, one of them suggests getting to the harbor and hopping on the first boat out of town, but all your gold was taken when the Bard failed their Seduction on the Cult leader (who ONLY dates men under 6ft, thank you very much!) and got the group captured to begin with.
You all begin making your way (cue song) to the harbor and find a boat from the neighboring theocratic nation is loading up food for a relief mission to a site of a natural disaster.
You explain to the captain of the ship your predicament and the devout captain agrees to get you out of the city quickly and quietly.
Successfully away and out to sea, the captain comes to visit you all hiding in his quarters. He tells you it's terribly bad luck for non-paying patrons on a vessel to get free passage and to keep the crew from getting superstious he wants to have you all act as guards to help him deliver this food to the site of the natural disaster. It's a short trip, a week by ship and a day or two once they reach shore to deliver the goods, on top of that, he can offer you some small payment. Not much, but enough to get you all back on your feet, and some basic equipment such as weapons and armor from the ships stores.
Left with few better choices, and happy to help you agree to keep the ship safe, completely unaware of the sea giant beneath the waves already planning on taking this ship as his latest prize.
No sailor, no feature. Adventures fine. What would the feature have changed? That your character recognized the boat and captain either directly or by reputation and you knew he could be trusted. And only if I wanted to engage with it that much.
Heck, even if the party had left via a road instead of a boat, they would have ended up witnessing the ship get attacked and dragged down by a giant just off the coast on their second or third night of setting up camp on the bluffs.
Alternatively.
Your group arrives in the city via the inland road that leads from the city to the East. You have a day or two to rest from your current travels before you get back on the coastal trade route heading north toward your ultimate objective. The Caravan you were traveling with has come to the end of the run so you'll have to secure new arrangements.
You, as part of your background logically use your Feature to secure Free Passage as part of a Ship Crew heading up the coast. You arrive in the next city a few days later, bypassing the difficult and arduous coastal trip up the trade route.
Now yes, I could as the DM put an adventure on that ship, but I wasn't planning on that, I was planning on the Trade route and the weeks of encounters. So my options were, let you bypass the storybeats by using your feature, or tell you that there were currently no ships in the harbor and that your feature failed in the exact situation it was meant to be used in.
And yes, maybe I have time to completely rejigger the encounters if I call the session there after 15 minutes of the party arriving in the city or I just let the players RP it out for the rest of the session, but sometimes that's just not an option.
No Dungeon Master in the history of D&D has ever allowed a character to study and obtain a tool proficiency during downtime. Primarily because no DM in the history of D&D has ever allowed a character to do anything meaningful with a tool proficiency that isn't thieves' tools proficiency. It drives me up the goddamn wall that DMs are so awful about letting players use their tools to do cool things.
I know you're generalizing and exaggerating, but I have. I have allowed my PCs in multiple different campaigns of obtaining tool proficiency during a background. And I've also allowed them to do things with those tools, like inventing new items, crafting items (magic or not), and researching how to upgrade inventions. It was actually necessary to get the best ending in a campaign I was running.
It's stupid that more people don't do this (especially if the players is playing an Artificer), and it's pretty difficult due to how lackluster 5e's crafting rules are, but I have done all of those things you've said DMs never do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Nobody is saying that your character's background shouldn't have an impact on the story. People are saying that you don't need a background feature named "Ship's Passage" that tells you you can book passage on ships to be a 'Sailor'. If someone is playing a character who spent their formative years as a sailor and they end up in a port town in need of a ship, that character will have a better shot at getting the party what they need than the character who spent his formative years as a wilderness guide on the inland savannahs. That shouldn't need to be said. It doesn't need to be said. And forcing everyone to adhere to the strict, unmodifiable backgrounds in the books simply means there's an endless myriad of characters you aren't allowed to play because there's no background Feature saying "you are an [X], you can do [X] things" for their given form of [X].
Nobody is saying that your character's background shouldn't have an impact on the story. People are saying that you don't need a background feature named "Ship's Passage" that tells you you can book passage on ships to be a 'Sailor'. If someone is playing a character who spent their formative years as a sailor and they end up in a port town in need of a ship, that character will have a better shot at getting the party what they need than the character who spent his formative years as a wilderness guide on the inland savannahs. That shouldn't need to be said. It doesn't need to be said. And forcing everyone to adhere to the strict, unmodifiable backgrounds in the books simply means there's an endless myriad of characters you aren't allowed to play because there's no background Feature saying "you are an [X], you can do [X] things" for their given form of [X].
WHY? What possible benefit is there?
How does a free feat do anything more? And they are modifiable. They are hard to modify in DDB, but the provision is actually technically there.
Better character customization. I kind of hated how all 1st level characters of a given class were essentially the same, and I'm glad they're taking steps to fix that.
Nobody is saying that your character's background shouldn't have an impact on the story. People are saying that you don't need a background feature named "Ship's Passage" that tells you you can book passage on ships to be a 'Sailor'. If someone is playing a character who spent their formative years as a sailor and they end up in a port town in need of a ship, that character will have a better shot at getting the party what they need than the character who spent his formative years as a wilderness guide on the inland savannahs. That shouldn't need to be said. It doesn't need to be said. And forcing everyone to adhere to the strict, unmodifiable backgrounds in the books simply means there's an endless myriad of characters you aren't allowed to play because there's no background Feature saying "you are an [X], you can do [X] things" for their given form of [X].
WHY? What possible benefit is there?
How does a free feat do anything more? And they are modifiable. They are hard to modify in DDB, but the provision is actually technically there.
Better character customization. I kind of hated how all 1st level characters of a given class were essentially the same, and I'm glad they're taking steps to fix that.
So why not leave the features in, plus a free feat? Although, frankly, betting most low spell selection classes would likely take magic initiate, and melees either savage attacker or alert.
Honestly? Because the features generally didn't do anything. They were essentially flavor text. Yurei was pretty much spot on about the features generally being 'does what the job title implies it does'. Like, if the DM wouldn't let you do the things the features said you could do without them being there you probably need to find a new DM anyways. Just sayin'.
DM's don't know what a character with a Sailor Background should be capable of unless the PHB specifically tells them. Lucky for us we know that the only thing a Sailor Background gives is passage for the party in exchange for work and nothing more.
OR
DM's are smart enough to know that a Sailor should be able to find passage on a ship in exchange for work, as well as anything else related to sailing without being told.
So why not leave the features in, plus a free feat? Although, frankly, betting most low spell selection classes would likely take magic initiate, and melees either savage attacker or alert.
I redid the backgrounds of four of my currently active characters using the new rules. An artificer, a warlock, a wizard, and a paladin. The artificer took Crafter, the warlock took Magic Initiate, the wizard took Alert, and the paladin also took Magic Initiate. In part, that's because there are only nine first-level feats currently listed in the document, so some degree of overlap is inevitable. That said? The only "caster that took Magic Initiate" in my list of four did so because there wasn't really a better-fitting option, as I outlined in that thread. The wizard took Alert, because she's a traveler who usually travels alone and being quick on her paws was important for her. The only martial in the list took MI: Divine to reflect her unusual power source, and did not optimize her spell selection. And of course my artificer took Crafter, which is basically a nonfeat insofar as combat impact goes but it fits her so well there was no resisting.
Again - this isn't about munchkinism, and even if it was what does that matter to you and yours? Are there any munchkins at your table? No? Then why does it matter if munchkins elsewhere are going to munch some kin? Legitimately: who cares? Arguments for "this makes munchkinning easier!" are nonarguments and have no business in serious discussions.
Honestly? Because the features generally didn't do anything. They were essentially flavor text. Yurei was pretty much spot on about the features generally being 'does what the job title implies it does'. Like, if the DM wouldn't let you do the things the features said you could do without them being there you probably need to find a new DM anyways. Just sayin'.
Again, my counter-argument to that is that in a completely freeform system, where such specific features are no longer treated as separate actual features you have to choose between, how does a DM, particularly a new DM decide which apply to your character? Is being a noble banned outright? If not, why can't someone be a noble sailor, with an inheritance?
The current interface does need better support for custom backgrounds, but they'll need a new interface for the new system anyway.
Who says you can't be a noble sailor? I think you pointed out earlier that nobility can be pretty much a birthright, and not something you dedicate your life to. If you want to be a noble who spent most of his life enlisted in your countries navy then knock yourself out. Take Athletics for climbing around riggings, or navigation tools if you were the guy in charge of plotting your course, or persuasion/intimidation if you were the captain and had to keep control of your men, or water vehicle proficiency, or air vehicle proficiency if you're in a setting where that exists, or whatever you want that fits your character.
As for the DM, all your DM needs to know is what your general background consists of. You can be as detailed or as vague as you want about it. Tell them you're a naval captain from a family of nobility. That's it. That's all they need to know unless you specifically want to tell them more. They can assume you know basic shit involving sailing ships, whichever countries navy you're part of, and whatever it is your family does.
Honestly? Because the features generally didn't do anything. They were essentially flavor text. Yurei was pretty much spot on about the features generally being 'does what the job title implies it does'. Like, if the DM wouldn't let you do the things the features said you could do without them being there you probably need to find a new DM anyways. Just sayin'.
Again, my counter-argument to that is that in a completely freeform system, where such specific features are no longer treated as separate actual features you have to choose between, how does a DM, particularly a new DM decide which apply to your character? Is being a noble banned outright? If not, why can't someone be a noble sailor, with an inheritance?
The current interface does need better support for custom backgrounds, but they'll need a new interface for the new system anyway.
Who says you can't be a noble sailor? I think you pointed out earlier that nobility can be pretty much a birthright, and not something you dedicate your life to. If you want to be a noble who spent most of his life enlisted in your countries navy then knock yourself out. Take Athletics for climbing around riggings, or navigation tools if you were the guy in charge of plotting your course, or persuasion/intimidation if you were the captain and had to keep control of your men, or water vehicle proficiency, or air vehicle proficiency if you're in a setting where that exists, or whatever you want that fits your character.
As for the DM, all your DM needs to know is what your general background consists of. You can be as detailed or as vague as you want about it. Tell them you're a naval captain from a family of nobility. That's it. That's all they need to know unless you specifically want to tell them more. They can assume you know basic shit involving sailing ships, whichever countries navy you're part of, and whatever it is your family does.
The question isn't one of what is theoretically possible but what is reasonable with respect to play balance concerns, with respect to stacking all the things. Even Yurei agrees that there is a limit there somewhere. The question becomes where the limit is.
The limit is what you and your DM can mutually agree upon. That's it. If you want to be a noble sailor spy mage soldier craftsman and your DM says fine, go for it.
So why not leave the features in, plus a free feat? Although, frankly, betting most low spell selection classes would likely take magic initiate, and melees either savage attacker or alert.
Because they're trying to make it clear that Customize/Create Your Background is the base. And those features weren't balanced. They weren't OP, but they definitely weren't balanced with each other. And the whole purpose of making it clear what backgrounds get and how to customize them is to make sure they're all balanced. There's no longer going to be stuff like the Celebrity Adventurer's Scion that gets more gold than anyone else, an extra tool proficiency, and an extremely useful feature that makes it so you basically never have to pay to find a place to rest/eat and also the Soldier that gets the worst Vehicle proficiency, a gaming set, and an extremely situational ability that you can only get the benefit from if you visit a military camp of the side you fought for (an extremely rare occurrence in my experience).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Again, my counter-argument to that is that in a completely freeform system, where such specific features are no longer treated as separate actual features you have to choose between, how does a DM, particularly a new DM decide which apply to your character?Is being a noble banned outright?If not, why can't someone be a noble sailor, with an inheritance?
The current interface does need better support for custom backgrounds, but they'll need a new interface for the new system anyway.
Because you tell the DM. Part of creating a character is defining that character's background, both mechanically and narratively. If you tell your DM that you're a noble scion from a family with a maritime tradition? Then you have the benefits - and responsibilities - of that station. Whatever the DM decides those benefits and responsibilities may be. If you're a Seventh Son of a Seventh Son or such, then you have the name but almost no influence. You're free to adventure as you like but the family's money is a fond dream for you, and they're not going to bail you out when you get arrested for being a PC complete dumbf@#$. Alternatively, if you're benefitting greatly from your family connections, then one would assume you have to do work to earn those connections and benefits, and also that you have to conduct yourself in a manner that doesn't besmirch the name of your House. Which means not being a PC complete dumbf@#$.
Of course not. But if you're doing a Maritime Nobility background, you're giving things up. Allow me to demonstrate: SEA BARON ASIs: +1CHA, +1DEX, +1INT Skills: History, Persuasion Tool: Cartographer's Tools Language: Primordial Feat: Crafter (Nav. Tools, Carpenter's Tools, Calligrapher's Supplies) Desc: For generations untold, your family has commanded the seas. Waging war and forging trade both, captains bearing your name have built a legacy upon the waves, and now it's your turn. You were raised on the decks of mighty warships and richly appointed trade galleons, taught to chart the course of your family's future and command the men sworn to your service. What drove you to a life of adventure away from your family's fleet is between you and the gods, but you'll never forget the years you spent on the waves.
There. A 'Noble Sailor' background. Notice that the Noble Sailor is better at peoplemancy, with CHA and INT emphasized over DX and WIS, and that the Noble Sailor has a profusion of useful tools...but also the Noble Sailor is not remotely as good in a fight and not as physically capable as a rank-and-file sea rat. They give up Acrobatics and perception for more Noble-y skills, and they also give up the extra Charisma and gaming proficiency of the Noble and the Skilled proficiency boost to gain the tools they need to work with and command ships and gain the ability to better barter with the merchants that feed their wealth. They don't get more than the Noble or the Sailor, they get parts of each.
They can, as seen above. But to claim a noble inheritance you have to earn it. Even back in the day, noble children who gallivanted around and disgraced their house were disowned rather than handed oodles of cash and influence. Nobility is not a free ticket to infinite money in a D&D game - it puts a target on your back as much as it opens doors for you, and if you want the benefits of being a nobleman you have to act like a nobleman. Which comes with a myriad of expectations and duties to accompany all those privileges. Same with criminal. Same with investigator. Same with soldier/guardsman. These words have meanings, and expecting people to throw out the meanings of the words they choose to describe their characters with is just absolutely nonsensical.
Literally nonsensical - it makes no freaking sense. I cannot be both a legendary pirate of the seas (which I shouldn't be at level 1 anyways) and also a well-respected nobleman - those two simply do not mix. if I was born a nobleman but turned to piracy, then I cannot claim the benefits of my noble title - any DM worth their screen would tell me that my family's disowned me for throwing in my lot with their worst nemeses and I am effectively a Pirate, not a Sea Baron.
Words have meaning, Kotath. That's why I've been advocating that the name and description for someone's character background are not optional. Those words are as important as the mechanical decisions being made.
Honestly? Because the features generally didn't do anything. They were essentially flavor text. Yurei was pretty much spot on about the features generally being 'does what the job title implies it does'. Like, if the DM wouldn't let you do the things the features said you could do without them being there you probably need to find a new DM anyways. Just sayin'.
Again, my counter-argument to that is that in a completely freeform system, where such specific features are no longer treated as separate actual features you have to choose between, how does a DM, particularly a new DM decide which apply to your character? Is being a noble banned outright? If not, why can't someone be a noble sailor, with an inheritance?
The current interface does need better support for custom backgrounds, but they'll need a new interface for the new system anyway.
Who says you can't be a noble sailor? I think you pointed out earlier that nobility can be pretty much a birthright, and not something you dedicate your life to. If you want to be a noble who spent most of his life enlisted in your countries navy then knock yourself out. Take Athletics for climbing around riggings, or navigation tools if you were the guy in charge of plotting your course, or persuasion/intimidation if you were the captain and had to keep control of your men, or water vehicle proficiency, or air vehicle proficiency if you're in a setting where that exists, or whatever you want that fits your character.
As for the DM, all your DM needs to know is what your general background consists of. You can be as detailed or as vague as you want about it. Tell them you're a naval captain from a family of nobility. That's it. That's all they need to know unless you specifically want to tell them more. They can assume you know basic shit involving sailing ships, whichever countries navy you're part of, and whatever it is your family does.
The question isn't one of what is theoretically possible but what is reasonable with respect to play balance concerns, with respect to stacking all the things. Even Yurei agrees that there is a limit there somewhere. The question becomes where the limit is.
The limit is what you and your DM can mutually agree upon. That's it. If you want to be a noble sailor spy mage soldier craftsman and your DM says fine, go for it.
Which, again, even if not reflected well in the DDB system, is fair game under the current system.
Which is fine. Lets be real here, you only have 2 skill proficiencies, 1 language, 1 tool proficiency, and 1 feat to pull off whatever concept you're going for. But if you wanted to be a magical spy from another country who worked as an repairman aboard another countries naval vessel you can probably pull it off. Take Deception and Stealth to be able to pull off your skullduggery, Thieves Cant to pass secret messages, smiths tool proficiency to know how to repair/make stuff, magic initiate to get a few cantrips to help you pull the whole thing off, be from part of a minor noble family in your home nation, and be a fighter or something so you can actually be enough of a fighting man to take care of yourself.
There you go, you're now a noble-sailor-spy-mage-soldier-craftsman. All things considered it isn't even that big of a stretch narratively.
Looking at the backgrounds from the phb, almost all of them could be replaced by
Background Contacts: you know people from your previous work, who will be willing to provide basic assistance, jobs, and hospitality.
In most games, that's going to cease being directly relevant quite shortly after the start of the game, though having background contacts is super useful for the DM to motivate the party so it's really something the game should encourage.
Honestly? Because the features generally didn't do anything. They were essentially flavor text. Yurei was pretty much spot on about the features generally being 'does what the job title implies it does'. Like, if the DM wouldn't let you do the things the features said you could do without them being there you probably need to find a new DM anyways. Just sayin'.
Again, my counter-argument to that is that in a completely freeform system, where such specific features are no longer treated as separate actual features you have to choose between, how does a DM, particularly a new DM decide which apply to your character? Is being a noble banned outright? If not, why can't someone be a noble sailor, with an inheritance?
The current interface does need better support for custom backgrounds, but they'll need a new interface for the new system anyway.
Who says you can't be a noble sailor? I think you pointed out earlier that nobility can be pretty much a birthright, and not something you dedicate your life to. If you want to be a noble who spent most of his life enlisted in your countries navy then knock yourself out. Take Athletics for climbing around riggings, or navigation tools if you were the guy in charge of plotting your course, or persuasion/intimidation if you were the captain and had to keep control of your men, or water vehicle proficiency, or air vehicle proficiency if you're in a setting where that exists, or whatever you want that fits your character.
As for the DM, all your DM needs to know is what your general background consists of. You can be as detailed or as vague as you want about it. Tell them you're a naval captain from a family of nobility. That's it. That's all they need to know unless you specifically want to tell them more. They can assume you know basic shit involving sailing ships, whichever countries navy you're part of, and whatever it is your family does.
The question isn't one of what is theoretically possible but what is reasonable with respect to play balance concerns, with respect to stacking all the things. Even Yurei agrees that there is a limit there somewhere. The question becomes where the limit is.
The limit is what you and your DM can mutually agree upon. That's it. If you want to be a noble sailor spy mage soldier craftsman and your DM says fine, go for it.
Which, again, even if not reflected well in the DDB system, is fair game under the current system.
Which is fine. Lets be real here, you only have 2 skill proficiencies, 1 language, 1 tool proficiency, and 1 feat to pull off whatever concept you're going for. But if you wanted to be a magical spy from another country who worked as an repairman aboard another countries naval vessel you can probably pull it off. Take Deception and Stealth to be able to pull off your skullduggery, Thieves Cant to pass secret messages, smiths tool proficiency to know how to repair/make stuff, magic initiate to get a few cantrips to help you pull the whole thing off, be from part of a minor noble family in your home nation, and be a fighter or something so you can actually be enough of a fighting man to take care of yourself.
There you go, you're now a noble-sailor-spy-mage-soldier-craftsman. All things considered it isn't even that big of a stretch narratively.
You have given Noble in name only, since you have given them no benefits from the title. You have given no skills relating to actual sailing, merely to drydock work on land. You have made them a fighter but that is foreground. Background is what happened before that, plus these are supposed to be things independent of class. Why did they give up ships to concentrate on land combat?
Mage comes from the free feat, but an initiate is not a full mage.
So you have craftsman, spy (and handed them thieves cant, which is usually a highly guarded guild secret), and off the books, given them knowledge of sailing, a noble title (that presumably does actually carry weight and authority somewhere), soldiering, and contacts from all of these occupations or positions. And then the non munchkin player comes along and is playing a simple peasant farmer.
This is a great example of why DM involvement should always be there with respect to backgrounds.
And really technically it is only one occupation which is ultimately spy. He learned the craftsman ship, and the sailing from people that were likely hired to teach him these things so that he could complete his spy mission or while he was on the job to maintain his cover. So Sailing spy. Also peasant farmer doesn't sound so bad either. They will relate more to the people of the world and the people of the world will relate more to them.
So why not leave the features in, plus a free feat? Although, frankly, betting most low spell selection classes would likely take magic initiate, and melees either savage attacker or alert.
Because they're trying to make it clear that Customize/Create Your Background is the base. And those features weren't balanced. They weren't OP, but they definitely weren't balanced with each other. And the whole purpose of making it clear what backgrounds get and how to customize them is to make sure they're all balanced. There's no longer going to be stuff like the Celebrity Adventurer's Scion that gets more gold than anyone else, an extra tool proficiency, and an extremely useful feature that makes it so you basically never have to pay to find a place to rest/eat and also the Soldier that gets the worst Vehicle proficiency, a gaming set, and an extremely situational ability that you can only get the benefit from if you visit a military camp of the side you fought for (an extremely rare occurrence in my experience).
So the answer to them not being perfectly balanced is to leave them out completely? And replace them with feats, which are not going to be perfectly balanced either?
1) Sure. The way those features were designed before, it was practically impossible to balance them. Getting rid of them to allow for more customizability and balance seems like a good tradeoff to me. My players have literally never used their background features before. They don't even bother writing them on their character sheets.
2) But feats are easier to balance. And more likely to come up during a campaign. And they're dividing feats into different level groups to help balance them.
You seem to have missed Yurei completely dismissing all of the 'you get a place to lodge and eat' benefits completely.
No, I didn't. I think those features are so minor and situational they might as well not be included in the game.
Starting funds, yes, that sounds like an issue, however we are talking a 20 gold variance between Scion and Urchin. That lets them afford a disguise kit to go with them having that skill. Should the Urchin have at least either a disguise kit or thieves tools to go with their tool proficiencies? Likely. So why not fix that rather than toss everything out? How long with that 20 gp difference matter, regardless? If the region is so impoverished that they do not clear 20 gold per member (after expenses) within an adventure or two, there is an argument that the richer backgrounds should maybe not be allowed at all for that campaign.
A difference is a difference. And they're not getting rid of background-specific starting equipment, they're just standardizing it, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
But the solution to balancing is not to toss out the rules. It is to balance them. What is with this cheering on Crawford and co as they gleefully reduce their own workloads and call it great?
Why is reducing the workload of game designers a bad thing? That gives them more time to focus on other content. And also helps 3rd party and homebrew game designers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Again, my counter-argument to that is that in a completely freeform system, where such specific features are no longer treated as separate actual features you have to choose between, how does a DM, particularly a new DM decide which apply to your character?Is being a noble banned outright?If not, why can't someone be a noble sailor, with an inheritance?
The current interface does need better support for custom backgrounds, but they'll need a new interface for the new system anyway.
Because you tell the DM. Part of creating a character is defining that character's background, both mechanically and narratively. If you tell your DM that you're a noble scion from a family with a maritime tradition? Then you have the benefits - and responsibilities - of that station. Whatever the DM decides those benefits and responsibilities may be. If you're a Seventh Son of a Seventh Son or such, then you have the name but almost no influence. You're free to adventure as you like but the family's money is a fond dream for you, and they're not going to bail you out when you get arrested for being a PC complete dumbf@#$. Alternatively, if you're benefitting greatly from your family connections, then one would assume you have to do work to earn those connections and benefits, and also that you have to conduct yourself in a manner that doesn't besmirch the name of your House. Which means not being a PC complete dumbf@#$.
Of course not. But if you're doing a Maritime Nobility background, you're giving things up. Allow me to demonstrate: SEA BARON ASIs: +1CHA, +1DEX, +1INT Skills: History, Persuasion Tool: Cartographer's Tools Language: Primordial Feat: Crafter (Nav. Tools, Carpenter's Tools, Calligrapher's Supplies) Desc: For generations untold, your family has commanded the seas. Waging war and forging trade both, captains bearing your name have built a legacy upon the waves, and now it's your turn. You were raised on the decks of mighty warships and richly appointed trade galleons, taught to chart the course of your family's future and command the men sworn to your service. What drove you to a life of adventure away from your family's fleet is between you and the gods, but you'll never forget the years you spent on the waves.
There. A 'Noble Sailor' background. Notice that the Noble Sailor is better at peoplemancy, with CHA and INT emphasized over DX and WIS, and that the Noble Sailor has a profusion of useful tools...but also the Noble Sailor is not remotely as good in a fight and not as physically capable as a rank-and-file sea rat. They give up Acrobatics and perception for more Noble-y skills, and they also give up the extra Charisma and gaming proficiency of the Noble and the Skilled proficiency boost to gain the tools they need to work with and command ships and gain the ability to better barter with the merchants that feed their wealth. They don't get more than the Noble or the Sailor, they get parts of each.
They can, as seen above. But to claim a noble inheritance you have to earn it. Even back in the day, noble children who gallivanted around and disgraced their house were disowned rather than handed oodles of cash and influence. Nobility is not a free ticket to infinite money in a D&D game - it puts a target on your back as much as it opens doors for you, and if you want the benefits of being a nobleman you have to act like a nobleman. Which comes with a myriad of expectations and duties to accompany all those privileges. Same with criminal. Same with investigator. Same with soldier/guardsman. These words have meanings, and expecting people to throw out the meanings of the words they choose to describe their characters with is just absolutely nonsensical.
Literally nonsensical - it makes no freaking sense. I cannot be both a legendary pirate of the seas (which I shouldn't be at level 1 anyways) and also a well-respected nobleman - those two simply do not mix. if I was born a nobleman but turned to piracy, then I cannot claim the benefits of my noble title - any DM worth their screen would tell me that my family's disowned me for throwing in my lot with their worst nemeses and I am effectively a Pirate, not a Sea Baron.
Words have meaning, Kotath. That's why I've been advocating that the name and description for someone's character background are not optional. Those words are as important as the mechanical decisions being made.
Words do indeed have meaning. So why are so many arguing that fewer words is better?
As an experienced DM, I really like the current backgrounds better. To me, they give a lot more to work from and it really saddens me when people ignore them. To me, they are not the end point but a far better starting point than the new system which is nearly pure mechanics.
And for new DM's, they rarely start out with the experience nor confidence to really fluff out bare bones backgrounds.
And you are not starting out a 'legendary pirate captain of the seas' but far more likely are recognized somehow as part of such a crew. You also seem to have never heard of privateers, that is to say, state sponsored pirates. Sir Walter Raleigh, is likely the best known example of a pirate from the nobility. To England, he was a heroic statesman, but to Spain, he was a vicious pirate, preying on their merchant vessels. While one could argue that he might have been higher than 1st level when he got his first ship, he quite likely had officers who had bought their commissions, who had quite possibly never set foot on a ship before, let alone seen battle or done anything worth xps. Being a noble, by definition means having higher status and usually more money. Now is it possible to squander that and toss it all away? Yes, of course it is, but that is normally the equivalent to 'course of play' stuff.
Words do indeed have meanings. And 'Noble' is a word.
Wait do you not have your players write a short backstory for you to elaborate on their backgrounds? I usually ask for like a 1 or 2 short paragraph blurb about their backstory what they did before adventuring and what brought them to the life of an adventurer. My session zero often times includes information about the setting and the tone and the town they will be starting in and they tell me as part of their backstory why they came to the town and how they may know any of the other player characters. I try to have at least a few of the characters know each other, even if none of them know everything about them, but those little backstories are usually enough to get an idea for them.
Wait do you not have your players write a short backstory for you to elaborate on their backgrounds? I usually ask for like a 1 or 2 short paragraph blurb about their backstory what they did before adventuring and what brought them to the life of an adventurer. My session zero often times includes information about the setting and the tone and the town they will be starting in and they tell me as part of their backstory why they came to the town and how they may know any of the other player characters. I try to have at least a few of the characters know each other, even if none of them know everything about them, but those little backstories are usually enough to get an idea for them.
Actually, in my current campaign, I have my players come up with a concept for their background and then I run with that, writing something for them to adapt it to my world setting and then hand it back to them for comments. They have the chance at that point to suggest changes or corrections, keeping them very much in the background development. So far every player has been happy with my efforts.
That campaign has a very specific, very tight setting though. In a more conventional campaign, I do leave it much more in player hands, but still retain veto over anything hokey that they right. However in both cases, the backgrounds list is the starting point.
One thing that does dismay me is the number of players who take 'Sage' background then show no interest in researching anything, but even in those cases I assume that their characters are doing so in downtime and they will be the ones most likely to come up with the next big lead. So far, this has functioned fine.
Ok so, if you are coming up with a backstory to go with the background, then it shouldn't be an issue for you, heck it might be even easier. They choose the mechanics they want to have and you tell them what background in your game would work with those mechanics. And then the feature thing and the like is based on what ever you came up with for their backstory. I think that is a lot of work on the GM, and I probably wouldn't do it that way, but as I have said in the past. Dnd has spread out so far now that every table is drastically different. We are all playing DnD but my table would probably look foreign to half the people here and vice versa.
Wait do you not have your players write a short backstory for you to elaborate on their backgrounds? I usually ask for like a 1 or 2 short paragraph blurb about their backstory what they did before adventuring and what brought them to the life of an adventurer. My session zero often times includes information about the setting and the tone and the town they will be starting in and they tell me as part of their backstory why they came to the town and how they may know any of the other player characters. I try to have at least a few of the characters know each other, even if none of them know everything about them, but those little backstories are usually enough to get an idea for them.
Actually, in my current campaign, I have my players come up with a concept for their background and then I run with that, writing something for them to adapt it to my world setting and then hand it back to them for comments. They have the chance at that point to suggest changes or corrections, keeping them very much in the background development. So far every player has been happy with my efforts.
That campaign has a very specific, very tight setting though. In a more conventional campaign, I do leave it much more in player hands, but still retain veto over anything hokey that they right. However in both cases, the backgrounds list is the starting point.
One thing that does dismay me is the number of players who take 'Sage' background then show no interest in researching anything, but even in those cases I assume that their characters are doing so in downtime and they will be the ones most likely to come up with the next big lead. So far, this has functioned fine.
Ok so, if you are coming up with a backstory to go with the background, then it shouldn't be an issue for you, heck it might be even easier. They choose the mechanics they want to have and you tell them what background in your game would work with those mechanics. And then the feature thing and the like is based on what ever you came up with for their backstory. I think that is a lot of work on the GM, and I probably wouldn't do it that way, but as I have said in the past. Dnd has spread out so far now that every table is drastically different. We are all playing DnD but my table would probably look foreign to half the people here and vice versa.
I still like the basics of a story there, and the current features, even those that others claim should be taken for granted give a better starting point and also give newer players a better idea of what kinds of things their background really means.
And for new DM's that effect is even moreso.
Well with ASI now also being linked and with First level feats do they not suggest anything to you? I mean lets take the sailor idea I gave in the other thread. By saying I am a sailor, but taking wisdom and con instead of dex con and the change of skills and feat suggest a different story right? I get the jump off point, but in all cases this has the opportunity for people to play MORE than what is just in the books for ideas. If they have a concept and the book doesn't have it they are at the mercy of the GM to not screw them over for equipment. If they want to modify the current backgrounds it is up to the DM to say if they could or couldn't. Why not just suggest that Wizards has something like the Personality, bond, ideals and flaws to act as inspiration. The current sample backgrounds still have flavor text to get it started with as a jump off point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I believe you that DDB restricts this, but DDB is bad. I just don't think it's fair to use DDB's failure to implement what is explicitly RAW as evidence in what is a discussion about (at least as far as I know) the actual rules of D&D.
I believe that's either a Slippery Slope fallacy or the Nirvana fallacy.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Ok, I'll bite.
No sailor, no feature. Adventures fine. What would the feature have changed? That your character recognized the boat and captain either directly or by reputation and you knew he could be trusted. And only if I wanted to engage with it that much.
Heck, even if the party had left via a road instead of a boat, they would have ended up witnessing the ship get attacked and dragged down by a giant just off the coast on their second or third night of setting up camp on the bluffs.
Alternatively.
Now yes, I could as the DM put an adventure on that ship, but I wasn't planning on that, I was planning on the Trade route and the weeks of encounters. So my options were, let you bypass the storybeats by using your feature, or tell you that there were currently no ships in the harbor and that your feature failed in the exact situation it was meant to be used in.
And yes, maybe I have time to completely rejigger the encounters if I call the session there after 15 minutes of the party arriving in the city or I just let the players RP it out for the rest of the session, but sometimes that's just not an option.
I know you're generalizing and exaggerating, but I have. I have allowed my PCs in multiple different campaigns of obtaining tool proficiency during a background. And I've also allowed them to do things with those tools, like inventing new items, crafting items (magic or not), and researching how to upgrade inventions. It was actually necessary to get the best ending in a campaign I was running.
It's stupid that more people don't do this (especially if the players is playing an Artificer), and it's pretty difficult due to how lackluster 5e's crafting rules are, but I have done all of those things you've said DMs never do.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
You don't get it, Kotath.
Nobody is saying that your character's background shouldn't have an impact on the story. People are saying that you don't need a background feature named "Ship's Passage" that tells you you can book passage on ships to be a 'Sailor'. If someone is playing a character who spent their formative years as a sailor and they end up in a port town in need of a ship, that character will have a better shot at getting the party what they need than the character who spent his formative years as a wilderness guide on the inland savannahs. That shouldn't need to be said. It doesn't need to be said. And forcing everyone to adhere to the strict, unmodifiable backgrounds in the books simply means there's an endless myriad of characters you aren't allowed to play because there's no background Feature saying "you are an [X], you can do [X] things" for their given form of [X].
WHY? What possible benefit is there?
Please do not contact or message me.
Better character customization. I kind of hated how all 1st level characters of a given class were essentially the same, and I'm glad they're taking steps to fix that.
Honestly? Because the features generally didn't do anything. They were essentially flavor text. Yurei was pretty much spot on about the features generally being 'does what the job title implies it does'. Like, if the DM wouldn't let you do the things the features said you could do without them being there you probably need to find a new DM anyways. Just sayin'.
So the argument is;
OR
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I redid the backgrounds of four of my currently active characters using the new rules. An artificer, a warlock, a wizard, and a paladin. The artificer took Crafter, the warlock took Magic Initiate, the wizard took Alert, and the paladin also took Magic Initiate. In part, that's because there are only nine first-level feats currently listed in the document, so some degree of overlap is inevitable. That said? The only "caster that took Magic Initiate" in my list of four did so because there wasn't really a better-fitting option, as I outlined in that thread. The wizard took Alert, because she's a traveler who usually travels alone and being quick on her paws was important for her. The only martial in the list took MI: Divine to reflect her unusual power source, and did not optimize her spell selection. And of course my artificer took Crafter, which is basically a nonfeat insofar as combat impact goes but it fits her so well there was no resisting.
Again - this isn't about munchkinism, and even if it was what does that matter to you and yours? Are there any munchkins at your table? No? Then why does it matter if munchkins elsewhere are going to munch some kin? Legitimately: who cares? Arguments for "this makes munchkinning easier!" are nonarguments and have no business in serious discussions.
Please do not contact or message me.
Who says you can't be a noble sailor? I think you pointed out earlier that nobility can be pretty much a birthright, and not something you dedicate your life to. If you want to be a noble who spent most of his life enlisted in your countries navy then knock yourself out. Take Athletics for climbing around riggings, or navigation tools if you were the guy in charge of plotting your course, or persuasion/intimidation if you were the captain and had to keep control of your men, or water vehicle proficiency, or air vehicle proficiency if you're in a setting where that exists, or whatever you want that fits your character.
As for the DM, all your DM needs to know is what your general background consists of. You can be as detailed or as vague as you want about it. Tell them you're a naval captain from a family of nobility. That's it. That's all they need to know unless you specifically want to tell them more. They can assume you know basic shit involving sailing ships, whichever countries navy you're part of, and whatever it is your family does.
The limit is what you and your DM can mutually agree upon. That's it. If you want to be a noble sailor spy mage soldier craftsman and your DM says fine, go for it.
Because they're trying to make it clear that Customize/Create Your Background is the base. And those features weren't balanced. They weren't OP, but they definitely weren't balanced with each other. And the whole purpose of making it clear what backgrounds get and how to customize them is to make sure they're all balanced. There's no longer going to be stuff like the Celebrity Adventurer's Scion that gets more gold than anyone else, an extra tool proficiency, and an extremely useful feature that makes it so you basically never have to pay to find a place to rest/eat and also the Soldier that gets the worst Vehicle proficiency, a gaming set, and an extremely situational ability that you can only get the benefit from if you visit a military camp of the side you fought for (an extremely rare occurrence in my experience).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Because you tell the DM. Part of creating a character is defining that character's background, both mechanically and narratively. If you tell your DM that you're a noble scion from a family with a maritime tradition? Then you have the benefits - and responsibilities - of that station. Whatever the DM decides those benefits and responsibilities may be. If you're a Seventh Son of a Seventh Son or such, then you have the name but almost no influence. You're free to adventure as you like but the family's money is a fond dream for you, and they're not going to bail you out when you get arrested for being a
PCcomplete dumbf@#$. Alternatively, if you're benefitting greatly from your family connections, then one would assume you have to do work to earn those connections and benefits, and also that you have to conduct yourself in a manner that doesn't besmirch the name of your House. Which means not being aPCcomplete dumbf@#$.Of course not. But if you're doing a Maritime Nobility background, you're giving things up. Allow me to demonstrate:
SEA BARON
ASIs: +1CHA, +1DEX, +1INT
Skills: History, Persuasion
Tool: Cartographer's Tools
Language: Primordial
Feat: Crafter (Nav. Tools, Carpenter's Tools, Calligrapher's Supplies)
Desc: For generations untold, your family has commanded the seas. Waging war and forging trade both, captains bearing your name have built a legacy upon the waves, and now it's your turn. You were raised on the decks of mighty warships and richly appointed trade galleons, taught to chart the course of your family's future and command the men sworn to your service. What drove you to a life of adventure away from your family's fleet is between you and the gods, but you'll never forget the years you spent on the waves.
There. A 'Noble Sailor' background. Notice that the Noble Sailor is better at peoplemancy, with CHA and INT emphasized over DX and WIS, and that the Noble Sailor has a profusion of useful tools...but also the Noble Sailor is not remotely as good in a fight and not as physically capable as a rank-and-file sea rat. They give up Acrobatics and perception for more Noble-y skills, and they also give up the extra Charisma and gaming proficiency of the Noble and the Skilled proficiency boost to gain the tools they need to work with and command ships and gain the ability to better barter with the merchants that feed their wealth. They don't get more than the Noble or the Sailor, they get parts of each.
They can, as seen above. But to claim a noble inheritance you have to earn it. Even back in the day, noble children who gallivanted around and disgraced their house were disowned rather than handed oodles of cash and influence. Nobility is not a free ticket to infinite money in a D&D game - it puts a target on your back as much as it opens doors for you, and if you want the benefits of being a nobleman you have to act like a nobleman. Which comes with a myriad of expectations and duties to accompany all those privileges. Same with criminal. Same with investigator. Same with soldier/guardsman. These words have meanings, and expecting people to throw out the meanings of the words they choose to describe their characters with is just absolutely nonsensical.
Literally nonsensical - it makes no freaking sense. I cannot be both a legendary pirate of the seas (which I shouldn't be at level 1 anyways) and also a well-respected nobleman - those two simply do not mix. if I was born a nobleman but turned to piracy, then I cannot claim the benefits of my noble title - any DM worth their screen would tell me that my family's disowned me for throwing in my lot with their worst nemeses and I am effectively a Pirate, not a Sea Baron.
Words have meaning, Kotath. That's why I've been advocating that the name and description for someone's character background are not optional. Those words are as important as the mechanical decisions being made.
Please do not contact or message me.
Which is fine. Lets be real here, you only have 2 skill proficiencies, 1 language, 1 tool proficiency, and 1 feat to pull off whatever concept you're going for. But if you wanted to be a magical spy from another country who worked as an repairman aboard another countries naval vessel you can probably pull it off. Take Deception and Stealth to be able to pull off your skullduggery, Thieves Cant to pass secret messages, smiths tool proficiency to know how to repair/make stuff, magic initiate to get a few cantrips to help you pull the whole thing off, be from part of a minor noble family in your home nation, and be a fighter or something so you can actually be enough of a fighting man to take care of yourself.
There you go, you're now a noble-sailor-spy-mage-soldier-craftsman. All things considered it isn't even that big of a stretch narratively.
Looking at the backgrounds from the phb, almost all of them could be replaced by
In most games, that's going to cease being directly relevant quite shortly after the start of the game, though having background contacts is super useful for the DM to motivate the party so it's really something the game should encourage.
And really technically it is only one occupation which is ultimately spy. He learned the craftsman ship, and the sailing from people that were likely hired to teach him these things so that he could complete his spy mission or while he was on the job to maintain his cover. So Sailing spy. Also peasant farmer doesn't sound so bad either. They will relate more to the people of the world and the people of the world will relate more to them.
1) Sure. The way those features were designed before, it was practically impossible to balance them. Getting rid of them to allow for more customizability and balance seems like a good tradeoff to me. My players have literally never used their background features before. They don't even bother writing them on their character sheets.
2) But feats are easier to balance. And more likely to come up during a campaign. And they're dividing feats into different level groups to help balance them.
No, I didn't. I think those features are so minor and situational they might as well not be included in the game.
A difference is a difference. And they're not getting rid of background-specific starting equipment, they're just standardizing it, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
Why is reducing the workload of game designers a bad thing? That gives them more time to focus on other content. And also helps 3rd party and homebrew game designers.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Wait do you not have your players write a short backstory for you to elaborate on their backgrounds? I usually ask for like a 1 or 2 short paragraph blurb about their backstory what they did before adventuring and what brought them to the life of an adventurer. My session zero often times includes information about the setting and the tone and the town they will be starting in and they tell me as part of their backstory why they came to the town and how they may know any of the other player characters. I try to have at least a few of the characters know each other, even if none of them know everything about them, but those little backstories are usually enough to get an idea for them.
Ok so, if you are coming up with a backstory to go with the background, then it shouldn't be an issue for you, heck it might be even easier. They choose the mechanics they want to have and you tell them what background in your game would work with those mechanics. And then the feature thing and the like is based on what ever you came up with for their backstory. I think that is a lot of work on the GM, and I probably wouldn't do it that way, but as I have said in the past. Dnd has spread out so far now that every table is drastically different. We are all playing DnD but my table would probably look foreign to half the people here and vice versa.
Well with ASI now also being linked and with First level feats do they not suggest anything to you? I mean lets take the sailor idea I gave in the other thread. By saying I am a sailor, but taking wisdom and con instead of dex con and the change of skills and feat suggest a different story right? I get the jump off point, but in all cases this has the opportunity for people to play MORE than what is just in the books for ideas. If they have a concept and the book doesn't have it they are at the mercy of the GM to not screw them over for equipment. If they want to modify the current backgrounds it is up to the DM to say if they could or couldn't. Why not just suggest that Wizards has something like the Personality, bond, ideals and flaws to act as inspiration. The current sample backgrounds still have flavor text to get it started with as a jump off point.