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.
Well technically I've forgotten the equipment, so you can add Fine clothing, a signet ring, and money to that for your nobility.
Background and foreground just make up a character. Nitpicking where each piece comes from is fairly meaningless. Also, you do know there is more to sailing than crawling around rigging, right? They're a sailor, they work on a naval vessel doing the job that was assigned to (secretly arranged for) them. And who says they gave up ships to focus on land combat? They aren't mutually exclusive.
A mage is a mage. They might not be a great mage, but they're still a mage.
Thieves cant is a language the new background rules allow you to take.
So they have basic knowledge of the things their background would have them have knowledge in. Seems like that would be something they would logically have regardless of features and whatever else. Said farmer has their own specialties, befitting whatever they say they're background is. I don't see what the problem is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well technically I've forgotten the equipment, so you can add Fine clothing, a signet ring, and money to that for your nobility.
Background and foreground just make up a character. Nitpicking where each piece comes from is fairly meaningless. Also, you do know there is more to sailing than crawling around rigging, right? They're a sailor, they work on a naval vessel doing the job that was assigned to (secretly arranged for) them. And who says they gave up ships to focus on land combat? They aren't mutually exclusive.
A mage is a mage. They might not be a great mage, but they're still a mage.
Thieves cant is a language the new background rules allow you to take.
So they have basic knowledge of the things their background would have them have knowledge in. Seems like that would be something they would logically have regardless of features and whatever else. Said farmer has their own specialties, befitting whatever they say they're background is. I don't see what the problem is.