I would like to know how you think Culture should be handled in conjunction with Lineage. Dwarves for example have Dwarven Combat Training, Tool Proficiency and Stone Cunning. Other races from the PHB have similar traits, to varying degrees, that are learned abilities. Should the new Lineage system introduce Culture as a choice along with Background? If so, what kind of abilities should Culture include? If you don't think Culture should be considered its own thing, what would you propose instead?
Personally I think Culture would be easier to add to the system than it would be to recreate all the Backgrounds to make them more robust. Plus adding a new choice to how to customize your character sounds pretty cool to me. As far as what abilities Culture would add, it seems that the most common things already in place are Weapons, Skills, Tools and Languages. Those are fairly simple to do, but things like Stone Cunning are a bit more complex even if it is mostly a ribbon ability.
To be clear, I am not trying to rework existing races, just using them as a guideline for balancing what Culture could add to Lineage to make the system feel more complete.
I also acknowledge that Culture can be as dangerous a subject as Race, so if any of my ideas are offensive then please let me know how and why.
I would say that Culture definitely includes Language; unless you have a Diplomat or Scribe background, you probably aren't going to be learning languages from them. Some weapon proficiency make sense, but not always. If a feature is purely biological, then it shouldn't be under culture. But some blur the line between trained and natural characteristics, like Stonecunning and the High Elf Cantrip.
As noted, anything you give to a named culture that is mechanically significant is likely to cause some friction, so I would recommend keeping "Culture" generic, or have the benefits be self-referential. For example, give people from the same cultural background advantage to influence one another and to Int/Wis checks relating to the culture. In that model, the only mechanical difference is going to be how the distribution of the cultures impacts how often it will come into play.
If you go much deeper than that, you'll probably get some significant blowback. Culture is a very sensitive subject for most people, and highly subjective.
I would say that Culture definitely includes Language; unless you have a Diplomat or Scribe background, you probably aren't going to be learning languages from them. Some weapon proficiency make sense, but not always. If a feature is purely biological, then it shouldn't be under culture. But some blur the line between trained and natural characteristics, like Stonecunning and the High Elf Cantrip.
I agree that Stone Cunning and the like could go either way, but I like the idea of little ribbon abilities that add a little something to the character.
Frankly? The best space I can think of for cultural traits is a remodel of feats. backgrounds are extremely strict in what they offer - you get two AND ONLY TWO skills, two AND ONLY TWO non-skill proficiencies which may be two tools, two languages, or one of each but nothing else, one proasaic "Background Feature" no one ever uses, and a bunch of fluff and fritter. But feats? Feats can be anything, feats can do anything, and if every character was allowed/encouraged/required to choose one "Cultural Feat" at the beginning of the game, then each cultural feat could be built into its own self-contained package of whatever-that-culture-needs-to-work.
Also makes it easier for new settings books - instead of writing out huge and extensive background entries for cultures, simply create an appropriate feat for each culture that needs one in your book and off you go. Makes life easy, and as an added bonus it's actually possible to retrofit into existing games.
I agree with Yurei that a level one cultural feat might be the easiest way to handle things if WotC isn't interested in overcomplicating the current system. A revamp of everything would still be better in my personal opinion, but that would take a much greater amount of work and as such is not that likely in the current edition.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Frankly? The best space I can think of for cultural traits is a remodel of feats. backgrounds are extremely strict in what they offer - you get two AND ONLY TWO skills, two AND ONLY TWO non-skill proficiencies which may be two tools, two languages, or one of each but nothing else, one proasaic "Background Feature" no one ever uses, and a bunch of fluff and fritter. But feats? Feats can be anything, feats can do anything, and if every character was allowed/encouraged/required to choose one "Cultural Feat" at the beginning of the game, then each cultural feat could be built into its own self-contained package of whatever-that-culture-needs-to-work.
Also makes it easier for new settings books - instead of writing out huge and extensive background entries for cultures, simply create an appropriate feat for each culture that needs one in your book and off you go. Makes life easy, and as an added bonus it's actually possible to retrofit into existing games.
I like this idea. Cultural Feats could even be picked up later should a character choose to adopt a new culture.
Yes, of course, let's remove stonecunning that everyone absolutely loves and replace it by feats, which we all know are totally underpowered. This will certainly not lead to power escalation, noooo....
Then how would you handle this Lyxen, if you don't mind me asking. WotC has already stated that they plan to remove cultural features from lineages going forward.
For Stonecunning, it would first have to be determined if it is a learned trait (living in a mine and knowing types of rock) making it a cultural, or divine gift/magical (Moradin blessing the dwarves with knowledge of stone) which would make it racial.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Again, I am not looking to redo or convert existing races. I used Dwarves as an example of what already exists. I also used Stone Cunning as an example of an ability that is more than just a skill.
Yes, of course, let's remove stonecunning that everyone absolutely loves and replace it by feats, which we all know are totally underpowered. This will certainly not lead to power escalation, noooo....
Indeed. I have played in games where the DM allows additional ASI's, additional feats, at 0 level. The game becomes a nightmare, as smart players min-max a char to ridiculous levels. Experienced DM's can handle these uber-chars out of the gate, but less experienced DM's, oh, they are in for some pain.
And of course, no one talks about the impact of introducing these new uber-chars into an existing game, where the other chars in the game were built using the classical standards. Talk about disruptive.....That is one of the lies being spouted. All this talk of how "these rules are optional, and players can choose to use the the classical rules." If a player holds true to the game, and his values on how the game is to be played, while other players adopt these progressive rules, that traditional player is soon going facing a situation where his char can't do its fair share. The DM is forced to scale the game to the uber chars, and the traditional player is left behind or forced to abandon his values, and char.
This is no different than when an Aasimar Paladin is introduced into a game.
I don't think adding culture to backgrounds would work, it seems like instead of X backgrounds plus Y cultures we'd need X times Y of these combined options if we want both to be meaningful. Even if we weed out the redundancies, there are about 50 backgrounds already. Fifty backgrounds plus another 50 cultures is 100 options to describe. Fifty times 50 means listing 2,500 options. Even restricted by setting to say, 10 cultures and only half of the backgrounds available that's still 250 entries. Nuh-uh, not gonna happen.
On the other hand, Uthgard Tribe Member and Outlander feel more like what I'd expect a culture to be than a background. Backgrounds may need to get defined a little more strictly, and a couple might need reworking or scrapping. Some will simply not exist in certain settings. Pruning would be needed, both in general and per setting.
Culture would apply to large population groups, largely based on racial, geographical and/or religious demarcations. It'd be about a way of life. Background would be about where individuals fit into such a population. It'd be about making a living.
edit:also, I don't see much difference between creating a bunch of cultural feats everyone gets to pick one from at character creation, and a bunch of background-style cultural packages everyone gets to pick one from at character creation. That just seems like semantics to me.
To clarify, since I am apparently being badmouthed behind my back (thanks, Ignore feature -_-):
Traits such as Stonecunning are essentially impossible to reintroduce into the game via any way other than feats. There's no uniform, one-size-fits-all system that would be sufficient unto the needs of Cultural Diversity, but we already have a system in 5e wherein individual abilities/features/traits can be packaged up into one neat little piece of portable content that can be dropped onto a sheet.
So. as an example: take Dwarven Martial Training, Stonecunning, and Dwarven Tool Proficiency off the dwarf species stat block. Put them into a "Dwarven Clannholder" feat, instead. Mark that feat 'Cultural' for purposes of a Cultural feat rule. A dwarf who is particularly dwarfy takes the Dwarven Clannholder feat as their cultural feat, and they are a galactic standard Faerunian dwarf once more. A dwarf who is not a Dwarven Clannholder might opt for the Steppes Nomad cultural feat instead, which offers proficiency in Animal Handling, Land Vehicles, the shortbow and scimitar (saber), and the "Traveler" feature that allows the nomad to travel for two extra hours in a day and grants advantage on Constitution checks made to avoid the exhaustion from a forced march.
For Stonecunning, it would first have to be determined if it is a learned trait (living in a mine and knowing types of rock) making it a cultural, or divine gift/magical (Moradin blessing the dwarves with knowledge of stone) which would make it racial.
To be fair, having many of the official setting focus on deities and their connections to their creations can muddy the water in regards to some current racial features being cultural/evolutionary and others being direct blessing/curses from their creator deity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
For Stonecunning, it would first have to be determined if it is a learned trait (living in a mine and knowing types of rock) making it a cultural, or divine gift/magical (Moradin blessing the dwarves with knowledge of stone) which would make it racial.
To be fair, having many of the official setting focus on deities and their connections to their creations can muddy the water in regards to some current racial features being cultural/evolutionary and others being direct blessing/curses from their creator deity.
Yeah, that is one of difficulties.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
To clarify, since I am apparently being badmouthed behind my back (thanks, Ignore feature -_-):
Traits such as Stonecunning are essentially impossible to reintroduce into the game via any way other than feats. There's no uniform, one-size-fits-all system that would be sufficient unto the needs of Cultural Diversity, but we already have a system in 5e wherein individual abilities/features/traits can be packaged up into one neat little piece of portable content that can be dropped onto a sheet.
So. as an example: take Dwarven Martial Training, Stonecunning, and Dwarven Tool Proficiency off the dwarf species stat block. Put them into a "Dwarven Clannholder" feat, instead. Mark that feat 'Cultural' for purposes of a Cultural feat rule. A dwarf who is particularly dwarfy takes the Dwarven Clannholder feat as their cultural feat, and they are a galactic standard Faerunian dwarf once more. A dwarf who is not a Dwarven Clannholder might opt for the Steppes Nomad cultural feat instead, which offers proficiency in Animal Handling, Land Vehicles, the shortbow and scimitar (saber), and the "Traveler" feature that allows the nomad to travel for two extra hours in a day and grants advantage on Constitution checks made to avoid the exhaustion from a forced march.
Done. Easy. Everybody wins.
I assume you are aware of how much of a mess this makes char design. Every time a new source book shows up, and has new backgrounds/subclasses/feats, and now this god-awful stuff, the combinations and permutations don't merely add, they multiply. New players are going to be overwhelmed with choices, and experienced min-maxers will make a mockery of any kind of balanced group of chars.
What you want is simply not reasonable, especially for new players. In your utopian view, where anyone can be anyone, and be customized to the nth degree, it is great. From a game mechanics point of view, it is totally unwieldy.
It's not any more unwieldy than Variant Human. You pick a species (dwarf), you pick a background (guild artisan, let's say), and then you pick one cultural feat from a given source (Clannholder). Boom - done. Move on. Problem settled. Traditionalists can mandate that [X] species has [Y] cultural feat at all times ("if you're a dwarf, you're a dwarven clannholder, no exceptions"), progressives can have fun designing homebrew cultural feats for their own homebrew worlds now that the game has an explicit space for people to do exactly that.
There's no downside that isn't also a downside with variant human, and people love the shit out of them some Vhuman, so....?
The only difference that I see between Culture used like a Background and Culture used like a Feat is that a Cultural Feat could potentially be taken at later levels in the same manner as a regular Feat, while if simply chosen at first level like a Background, it is one and done.
The only difference that I see between Culture used like a Background and Culture used like a Feat is that a Cultural Feat could potentially be taken at later levels in the same manner as a regular Feat, while if simply chosen at first level like a Background, it is one and done.
Is there something I am missing?
I think it's more of the idea that backgrounds are usually seen as meh and not that game changing while a feat can be amazing and a must have depending on what it does. At least I think that it the issue some are seeing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
The only difference that I see between Culture used like a Background and Culture used like a Feat is that a Cultural Feat could potentially be taken at later levels in the same manner as a regular Feat, while if simply chosen at first level like a Background, it is one and done.
Is there something I am missing?
I think it's more of the idea that backgrounds are usually seen as meh and not that game changing while a feat can be amazing and a must have depending on what it does. At least I think that it the issue some are seeing.
Ok, so if they are created as Feats, the expectation would be that they are on par with other Feats. That could be hard. Though if everyone gets one at first level, then no one is sacrificing anything to take it unless they want to take another as an ASI.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I would like to know how you think Culture should be handled in conjunction with Lineage. Dwarves for example have Dwarven Combat Training, Tool Proficiency and Stone Cunning. Other races from the PHB have similar traits, to varying degrees, that are learned abilities. Should the new Lineage system introduce Culture as a choice along with Background? If so, what kind of abilities should Culture include? If you don't think Culture should be considered its own thing, what would you propose instead?
Personally I think Culture would be easier to add to the system than it would be to recreate all the Backgrounds to make them more robust. Plus adding a new choice to how to customize your character sounds pretty cool to me. As far as what abilities Culture would add, it seems that the most common things already in place are Weapons, Skills, Tools and Languages. Those are fairly simple to do, but things like Stone Cunning are a bit more complex even if it is mostly a ribbon ability.
To be clear, I am not trying to rework existing races, just using them as a guideline for balancing what Culture could add to Lineage to make the system feel more complete.
I also acknowledge that Culture can be as dangerous a subject as Race, so if any of my ideas are offensive then please let me know how and why.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I would say that Culture definitely includes Language; unless you have a Diplomat or Scribe background, you probably aren't going to be learning languages from them. Some weapon proficiency make sense, but not always. If a feature is purely biological, then it shouldn't be under culture. But some blur the line between trained and natural characteristics, like Stonecunning and the High Elf Cantrip.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
As noted, anything you give to a named culture that is mechanically significant is likely to cause some friction, so I would recommend keeping "Culture" generic, or have the benefits be self-referential. For example, give people from the same cultural background advantage to influence one another and to Int/Wis checks relating to the culture. In that model, the only mechanical difference is going to be how the distribution of the cultures impacts how often it will come into play.
If you go much deeper than that, you'll probably get some significant blowback. Culture is a very sensitive subject for most people, and highly subjective.
I agree that Stone Cunning and the like could go either way, but I like the idea of little ribbon abilities that add a little something to the character.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Heh. That which is dead may never die.
Frankly? The best space I can think of for cultural traits is a remodel of feats. backgrounds are extremely strict in what they offer - you get two AND ONLY TWO skills, two AND ONLY TWO non-skill proficiencies which may be two tools, two languages, or one of each but nothing else, one proasaic "Background Feature" no one ever uses, and a bunch of fluff and fritter. But feats? Feats can be anything, feats can do anything, and if every character was allowed/encouraged/required to choose one "Cultural Feat" at the beginning of the game, then each cultural feat could be built into its own self-contained package of whatever-that-culture-needs-to-work.
Also makes it easier for new settings books - instead of writing out huge and extensive background entries for cultures, simply create an appropriate feat for each culture that needs one in your book and off you go. Makes life easy, and as an added bonus it's actually possible to retrofit into existing games.
Please do not contact or message me.
I agree with Yurei that a level one cultural feat might be the easiest way to handle things if WotC isn't interested in overcomplicating the current system. A revamp of everything would still be better in my personal opinion, but that would take a much greater amount of work and as such is not that likely in the current edition.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
I like this idea. Cultural Feats could even be picked up later should a character choose to adopt a new culture.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Then how would you handle this Lyxen, if you don't mind me asking. WotC has already stated that they plan to remove cultural features from lineages going forward.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
For Stonecunning, it would first have to be determined if it is a learned trait (living in a mine and knowing types of rock) making it a cultural, or divine gift/magical (Moradin blessing the dwarves with knowledge of stone) which would make it racial.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Again, I am not looking to redo or convert existing races. I used Dwarves as an example of what already exists. I also used Stone Cunning as an example of an ability that is more than just a skill.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Indeed. I have played in games where the DM allows additional ASI's, additional feats, at 0 level. The game becomes a nightmare, as smart players min-max a char to ridiculous levels. Experienced DM's can handle these uber-chars out of the gate, but less experienced DM's, oh, they are in for some pain.
And of course, no one talks about the impact of introducing these new uber-chars into an existing game, where the other chars in the game were built using the classical standards. Talk about disruptive.....That is one of the lies being spouted. All this talk of how "these rules are optional, and players can choose to use the the classical rules." If a player holds true to the game, and his values on how the game is to be played, while other players adopt these progressive rules, that traditional player is soon going facing a situation where his char can't do its fair share. The DM is forced to scale the game to the uber chars, and the traditional player is left behind or forced to abandon his values, and char.
This is no different than when an Aasimar Paladin is introduced into a game.
I don't think adding culture to backgrounds would work, it seems like instead of X backgrounds plus Y cultures we'd need X times Y of these combined options if we want both to be meaningful. Even if we weed out the redundancies, there are about 50 backgrounds already. Fifty backgrounds plus another 50 cultures is 100 options to describe. Fifty times 50 means listing 2,500 options. Even restricted by setting to say, 10 cultures and only half of the backgrounds available that's still 250 entries. Nuh-uh, not gonna happen.
On the other hand, Uthgard Tribe Member and Outlander feel more like what I'd expect a culture to be than a background. Backgrounds may need to get defined a little more strictly, and a couple might need reworking or scrapping. Some will simply not exist in certain settings. Pruning would be needed, both in general and per setting.
Culture would apply to large population groups, largely based on racial, geographical and/or religious demarcations. It'd be about a way of life.
Background would be about where individuals fit into such a population. It'd be about making a living.
edit:also, I don't see much difference between creating a bunch of cultural feats everyone gets to pick one from at character creation, and a bunch of background-style cultural packages everyone gets to pick one from at character creation. That just seems like semantics to me.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To clarify, since I am apparently being badmouthed behind my back (thanks, Ignore feature -_-):
Traits such as Stonecunning are essentially impossible to reintroduce into the game via any way other than feats. There's no uniform, one-size-fits-all system that would be sufficient unto the needs of Cultural Diversity, but we already have a system in 5e wherein individual abilities/features/traits can be packaged up into one neat little piece of portable content that can be dropped onto a sheet.
So. as an example: take Dwarven Martial Training, Stonecunning, and Dwarven Tool Proficiency off the dwarf species stat block. Put them into a "Dwarven Clannholder" feat, instead. Mark that feat 'Cultural' for purposes of a Cultural feat rule. A dwarf who is particularly dwarfy takes the Dwarven Clannholder feat as their cultural feat, and they are a galactic standard Faerunian dwarf once more. A dwarf who is not a Dwarven Clannholder might opt for the Steppes Nomad cultural feat instead, which offers proficiency in Animal Handling, Land Vehicles, the shortbow and scimitar (saber), and the "Traveler" feature that allows the nomad to travel for two extra hours in a day and grants advantage on Constitution checks made to avoid the exhaustion from a forced march.
Done. Easy. Everybody wins.
Please do not contact or message me.
To be fair, having many of the official setting focus on deities and their connections to their creations can muddy the water in regards to some current racial features being cultural/evolutionary and others being direct blessing/curses from their creator deity.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Yeah, that is one of difficulties.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
I assume you are aware of how much of a mess this makes char design. Every time a new source book shows up, and has new backgrounds/subclasses/feats, and now this god-awful stuff, the combinations and permutations don't merely add, they multiply. New players are going to be overwhelmed with choices, and experienced min-maxers will make a mockery of any kind of balanced group of chars.
What you want is simply not reasonable, especially for new players. In your utopian view, where anyone can be anyone, and be customized to the nth degree, it is great. From a game mechanics point of view, it is totally unwieldy.
...no?
It's not any more unwieldy than Variant Human. You pick a species (dwarf), you pick a background (guild artisan, let's say), and then you pick one cultural feat from a given source (Clannholder). Boom - done. Move on. Problem settled. Traditionalists can mandate that [X] species has [Y] cultural feat at all times ("if you're a dwarf, you're a dwarven clannholder, no exceptions"), progressives can have fun designing homebrew cultural feats for their own homebrew worlds now that the game has an explicit space for people to do exactly that.
There's no downside that isn't also a downside with variant human, and people love the shit out of them some Vhuman, so....?
Please do not contact or message me.
The only difference that I see between Culture used like a Background and Culture used like a Feat is that a Cultural Feat could potentially be taken at later levels in the same manner as a regular Feat, while if simply chosen at first level like a Background, it is one and done.
Is there something I am missing?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think it's more of the idea that backgrounds are usually seen as meh and not that game changing while a feat can be amazing and a must have depending on what it does. At least I think that it the issue some are seeing.
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Characters for Tenebris Sine Fine
RoughCoronet's Greater Wills
Ok, so if they are created as Feats, the expectation would be that they are on par with other Feats. That could be hard. Though if everyone gets one at first level, then no one is sacrificing anything to take it unless they want to take another as an ASI.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master