Backgrounds

[Prophet_of_Io]

Backgrounds may just be my favorite new edition to the game. They're easy ways to make you're fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue feel unique to all the others in the world. Also the simple fact that where you grew up and what you grew up doing does indeed play a part in what your character can do is fantastic. They're also quite easy to homebrew.

A player I have came to me before our first game monday claiming that none of the backgrounds fit the character idea that she wanted, one in which she had been swallowed whole by a monster survived but now has some form of amnesia. So I wrote up a background that I remembered from the playtest in 5e fashion.

Survivor
Skill Proficiencies: Survival, Perception
Tool Proficiencies: Herbalism Kit, Navigator's Tools
Equipment: Vial of Antitoxin, Fishing Tackle, Hunting Trap, a souvenir from you're first experience hanging from a loose string around your neck and a belt pouch containing 10 gp


Defining Event d6
1 I was swallowed whole by a ferocious creature and lived to talk about it.
2 I was marooned on an island after a storm sunk the ship I was on
3 My village was raided by marauders, I was the only survivor
4 My family was being extorted by some powerful men, they smuggled me to safety but I've had to take care of myself
5 I've grown up alone on the streets my entire life
6 I've been labeled a "deserter" after I fled during battle, abandoning the rest of my platoon who were slaughtered by an invading force.


Feature: Self-Sufficient
Since you've spent you most recent formative years taking care of yourself you're very adapt at keeping yourself healthy. In any area with healthy wildlife and/or edible animals you can always scavenge for food and know of the best places to camp.


Suggested Characteristics
A survivor takes care of themselves, before anyone else. You've lived through things that few are lucky enough to claim. This has made you cautious you're entire life. Most survivors look upon their traumatic past as a warning and a constant reminder of how dangerous the world is. Maintaining their own life has become the top priority for them.


d8 Personality Trait


d6 Ideal
1 Independence. The ability to live on your own is the noblest of all. If you can't take care of yourself you can't take care of anyone. (Chaotic)
2 Life. Life is precious and everyone has the right to live, I hold the lives of people above all else. (Good)
3 Respect. A brush with death shows just how fragile everything is. I give my thanks to all the chances I've been given and all the lives I have taken so that I may survive. (Neutral)
4 Might. Strength is all that matters, the week die and the strong survive, that's why I need to be the strongest. (Evil)
5 Live and Let Live. People come and go, ideals rise and fall. Nothing and no one is worth dying over. (Neutral)
6 Caution. Mistakes are easy to make and easier to be punished for. Thinking things through and taking that extra precaution is the difference between life and death. (Any)

d6 Bond
1 I was close to starving once, now I gladly share my food with the hungry and never let any scraps go to waste.
2 I was the only survivor in the past, to make up for that I take every effort to make sure no one else dies around me.
3 I lost my family once, so family is an important concept to me.
4 A monster trampled through my home town, I kill any monster than might be a threat to others.
5 I was once alone and learning to survive, now I help those who are lost and alone too.
6 There's one person who I'll never be able to forget, I wish that they had lived and I had died.

d6 Flaw
1 I become overwhelmed with fear at the thought or sight of a creature like the one that once swallowed me whole.
2 Secretly I believe that I should've died that day, I'm very prone to guilt.
3 I'm constantly torn between my own survival and not letting anyone else die around me.
4 I drown out my nightmares, usually with hard drink.
5 I see nothing wrong with taking what I need from other people.
6 I have trouble trusting people, even allies.

I never actually filled out the personality traits because I was pretty burned out that day but my player already had some that she was interested in so it all worked out (I still might finish it at some point but feel free to throw out suggestions). Has anyone else experienced similar situations? Or have you dabbled in backgrounds design yourself? What do you think of the backgrounds that we have and are there any you miss/expect to come out in the PHB (I actually expect to see an official Survivor but I'm fine with mine for now).

Edit- final list of backgrounds:

Acolyte
Charlatan
Criminal
Entertainer
Folk Hero
Guild Artisan
Hermit
Noble
Outlander
Sage
Sailor
Soldier
Urchin

[Yorrin]

One of the ones that I'm hoping for (and will custom make if it's not there) is a Sailor background for a Rogue idea I have. My wife is also working on a character concept that's going to want "Diplomat" or similar for her Cleric, which again I will do custom for her if it's not in there.

[Inevitability]

One of the ones that I'm hoping for (and will custom make if it's not there) is a Sailor background for a Rogue idea I have.

I smell pirate... :smallwink:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

A year or so from now I'm hoping to see "Background Compendium I" that has a ridiculously massive amount of backgrounds in it.

[Tholomyes]

The only thing that I'm disappointed in is that Backgrounds aren't more expanded. I'd prefer if the only classes who got proficiency in skills were classes who part of their point was skills (rogue might get two skills from their class, and Bard and maybe ranger would get 1), and then either backgrounds would give 4 skill proficiencies, or they'd stay as they are, but you get to pick two (in which case, they might have to halve the Tool/language proficiencies).

[Inevitability]

A year or so from now I'm hoping to see "Background Compendium I" that has a ridiculously massive amount of backgrounds in it.

I'd prefer having the backgrounds spread out over the splatbooks. I wouldn't buy a book with only backgrounds in it when I could just make them up myself.

[Yuukale]

Well, they don`t need to create new backgrounds, just the unique advantages to backgrounds. Othert than that, they`re all a choice between some skills, some equipment and, gods allow, a feat.

[Yorrin]

I smell pirate... :smallwink:

Guilty as charged :smallwink:

[Madfellow]

I am loving the addition of backgrounds as well. Just a couple days ago I made my first character for 5th, and I think his background had more of an influence on him than his class. He is a high elf sage, with rogue as his class. Basically, he works for a prominent library in the acquisitions department, scouring dungeons and ruins for old tomes to bring home.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Still don't know how to direct link but...

Hermit!

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/490208854211186688

[pwykersotz]

Still don't know how to direct link but...

Hermit!

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/490208854211186688

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs2SWr3CcAEn4Gt.jpg

Thanks Spawn!

[Secret Bard]

I'm not a huge fan of the "Feature" part of the backgrounds. So every time one of my players picks the Hermit, I have to come up with some kind of secret of the cosmos to tell them?

[RedWarlock]

I'm not a huge fan of the "Feature" part of the backgrounds. So every time one of my players picks the Hermit, I have to come up with some kind of secret of the cosmos to tell them?

Not necessarily. It could be something more mundane and local, not necessarily cosmic in scope. It's more about the nature of your world and it's structure, so even if the players know out-of-character, its something that character knows in-game that might drive how they act or what goals they seek. All worlds have secrets or uncommonly-known truths, this is an excuse for you to prop something of your world and let the player run with it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not a huge fan of the "Feature" part of the backgrounds. So every time one of my players picks the Hermit, I have to come up with some kind of secret of the cosmos to tell them?

First off, with a screen name like that I kinda feel like you are messing with us.

Secondly, you could totally say they know the answer to a question about the cosmos but not the question about the cosmos.

Like, they may have found the second half of a scroll that said "the answer is 42", and now they are a hermit to find the question.

[Tholomyes]

At least the way I'm going to do it, is have the build-your-own background (I.e, pick two skills, two tools and/or languages, and some RP perk; standard equipment ignored, since I'll just be doing set money by class) be standard, and they only pick one of the set backgrounds if they don't want to customize their own. Hopefully this way it diminishes the more 'out-there' RP perks like Hermit's. If someone does choose something like hermit, I'll probably just ask them to come up with their own unique discovery, with veto-power for something too big or something that doesn't fit the campaign world.

My big problem with stuff like the Hermit perk is that it usually just doesn't mean anything, campaign wise. I like more low-key stuff, that's still more useful. Like the Folk Hero background perk. That's useful, but it's not something that uncommon. With the 'knowing a secret of the universe thing' it's grandiose-sounding, but it's not likely to play into the campaign, unless there's an arc centered around it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

At least the way I'm going to do it, is have the build-your-own background (I.e, pick two skills, two tools and/or languages, and some RP perk; standard equipment ignored, since I'll just be doing set money by class) be standard, and they only pick one of the set backgrounds if they don't want to customize their own. Hopefully this way it diminishes the more 'out-there' RP perks like Hermit's. If someone does choose something like hermit, I'll probably just ask them to come up with their own unique discovery, with veto-power for something too big or something that doesn't fit the campaign world.

My big problem with stuff like the Hermit perk is that it usually just doesn't mean anything, campaign wise. I like more low-key stuff, that's still more useful. Like the Folk Hero background perk. That's useful, but it's not something that uncommon. With the 'knowing a secret of the universe thing' it's grandiose-sounding, but it's not likely to play into the campaign, unless there's an arc centered around it.

Build your own will be in the PHB, it is already in the Basic PDF.

[Secret Bard]

First off, with a screen name like that I kinda feel like you are messing with us.

Secondly, you could totally say they know the answer to a question about the cosmos but not the question about the cosmos.

Like, they may have found the second half of a scroll that said "the answer is 42", and now they are a hermit to find the question.


What's wrong with my name?

I feel like background features kind of force aspects in a world that the DM might not have anticipated or cared to add.

[Tholomyes]

Build your own will be in the PHB, it is already in the Basic PDF. I get that, but my point will be that it's standard operating assumption that you build your own, even if there's one that nominally does what your background is. At least my reading of the basic rules is that it assumes you take one of the given backgrounds unless you can't find one to fit your concept (and even then it's more a "with DM permission, thing). My way of doing it is assuming players will make their own backgrounds, unless one that's given is exactly what they want and/or they just want to make a character in a hurry (not that I really see assigning two skill proficiencies and two tool/language proficiencies, and picking a RP benefit to be all that time consuming, but hey)

[Secret Bard]

Yeah, I think I prefer the build your own approach to these.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

What's wrong with my name?

I feel like background features kind of force aspects in a world that the DM might not have anticipated or cared to add.

Its a secret, I can't tell you.

If a DM is that unimaginative or lazy they shouldn't DM.

[pwykersotz]

I get that, but my point will be that it's standard operating assumption that you build your own, even if there's one that nominally does what your background is. At least my reading of the basic rules is that it assumes you take one of the given backgrounds unless you can't find one to fit your concept (and even then it's more a "with DM permission, thing). My way of doing it is assuming players will make their own backgrounds, unless one that's given is exactly what they want and/or they just want to make a character in a hurry (not that I really see assigning two skill proficiencies and two tool/language proficiencies, and picking a RP benefit to be all that time consuming, but hey)

I agree, I think players coming up with their own is a solid method of handling custom backgrounds. It keeps the character sheets in their hands.

[akaddk]

Dunno where they got this as it's not up on the WotC site (that I can find), but:

https://i.imgur.com/ksAg7L4l.jpg

Pretty cool, I think.

[pwykersotz]

Dunno where they got this as it's not up on the WotC site (that I can find), but:

Pretty cool, I think.

That was posted above already. :smallsmile:

Here's something I haven't seen on these boards yet though.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxpSLjCQAA1oiA.jpg:large

[akaddk]

That was posted above already. :smallsmile:

Here's something I haven't seen on these boards yet though.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxpSLjCQAA1oiA.jpg:large

Ah, bugger. I did a search for "hermit" but I must've done it on the wrong thread.

[Inevitability]

I am loving the addition of backgrounds as well. Just a couple days ago I made my first character for 5th, and I think his background had more of an influence on him than his class. He is a high elf sage, with rogue as his class. Basically, he works for a prominent library in the acquisitions department, scouring dungeons and ruins for old tomes to bring home.

Is his name Indiana? :smalltongue:

But I agree. I'm playing a human soldier wizard, and so far most of his actions have been determined by his background, rather than his race or class.

[Madfellow]

Is his name Indiana? :smalltongue:

But I agree. I'm playing a human soldier wizard, and so far most of his actions have been determined by his background, rather than his race or class.

Not gonna lie, Indy was probably the primary inspiration for the character. It was a toss-up between him and Sherlock Holmes. :smallsmile:

[Joe the Rat]

One thing I like about them is how you tie it to the character class. Is this your old life - what you did before you "went to fighter college", or does this reflect how you use your class abilities now? A Wizard Criminal could be a former ne'er-do-well taken up as a wizards' apprentice... or a dastardly villain using his magic talents for felonious acts.

A little mix-and-match of the existing lists is a good way to build up new ideas. Soldier frame + Thug feature = Fearsome Mercenary (military training, bad reputation).

[ZeshinX]

I wasn't too keen on them at first, though they're growing on me (didn't like the mechanics intruding in to what in my games has been traditionally left to the player's imagination to come up with).

That said, with the build your own option, I actually quite like them now. They remind me a lot of 2e kits.

[Madfellow]

They kinda remind me of the Lifepaths system in Burning Wheel. In that system, instead of a class you choose a number of Lifepaths that your character has walked on their way to the present day, with each one representing about a decade of your character's life. Cool stuff.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I'm glad to see them make it into the game, even if I'm not crazy about the specific implementation. I learned to RPG (and was most forum-active) during 3.5E, and most of the conversations regarding stuff like this tended to end in some form of "RULES for ROLEPLAYING? How would that work?" or "I don't need rules because I'm a REAL ROLEPLAYER." And I confess to having fallen into similar traps at some point or another. (The former, not the latter. I'm not that big of a jerk.) But 4E in particular was a great reminder that, even in a table top game, user interface matters. If you present 1000 pages of rules and 999 of them are about punching things in the face, people will mostly use your game to punch things in the face even if that 1 page has very good things to say about non-face-punching activities. I'm glad to see that WotC identified that codifying roleplaying as part of the game will, on the whole, influence people to do some roleplaying while they massacre kobolds together. Where I'm less positive is how they're integrated into the game itself.

First off is the fact that it's presented as optional. ("Inspiration is a rule the DM can use...") Commit to it! It is the easiest thing in the world to ignore rules. Even if you're not going to make it a bigger part of the system, own up to it being a part of the game. If DMs want to ignore it, they can ignore it, just like they can ignore PCs losing their Dex bonus to AC when on balance beams or whatever the futz other minutiae is in the book.

Also not thrilled with the implementation of Bonds and Ideals. Bonds being a PCs connection to pretty much anything neuters a lot of their relevance; it's incredibly easy for bonds to not matter for long stretches of time. What do you do if your bond is about how cool the mayor of Elftown is when you're adventuring in Dwarfsburg? Likewise, some of them have very clear "end" conditions (the first two for the Acolyte involve finding an old relic and getting revenge on somebody) at which point I guess you just don't have a bond? And then there are others ("Everything I do is for the common people," "I will become the greatest thief that ever lived") that really blur the lines with traits or ideals. On the Ideals side of things, there's a lot of overlap with Alignment, to the point where why do we even have Alignment oh my god Alignment is so dumb. Your ideal will also heavily inform Traits and Flaws, which makes it feel slightly redundant there as well.

And finally there's the overall economy of Inspiration. The setup seems rife for player showboating until they've gotten the single (why?) Inspiration they can hold, and actually using it is totally divorced from any BIFTs. That's a double-whammy of this-could-be-smoother. It's definitely better than the old system of "Maybe if somebody roleplays well, give them 50XP or something?" but these pieces combined with the simplicity of the Advantage/Disadvantage system (one of X cancels out infinity of Y) keeps it from a big thumbs up from me.

Other Games' Approaches That I Like Better

Dungeon World uses Ideals as your alignment, and even then alignment only exists because the game is riffing on D&D; many fan-made resources scrap alignment and just call them Ideals or Drives. Some are more helpful than others ("Avoid conflict or defuse a tense situation" vs. "Spur others to significant and unplanned decisive action"), but there's no other category for Traits/Flaws so overlap isn't an issue. Bonds, on the other hand, represent your current relationships with your party members, meaning they can come up often and are expected to be updated regularly. In both cases, they represent something that can (and potentially should be) updated at the end of each session. Especially since the moment you write "Avon is a pretty cool dude and I trust him with my life," the DM is going to make sure Avon has some very interesting decisions to make in the following sessions.

Furthermore, there's a lot of thought that went into how they suit the overall game as a pulpy D&D romp rather than Big Dramatic Acting. Quote from one of the designers below, explaining why the general rule is that players resolve a single bond at the end of each session. (Note that all of these reference getting a single XP -- you don't get XP just for killing monsters in Dungeon World)Let's look at how you can get XP in DW:
-Rolling a 6-
-Playing your alignment
-Resolving a bond
-Learn something new and important about the world
-Overcome a notable monster or enemy
-Loot a memorable treasure

Of those, only rolling 6- can happen more than once per session, by design. That's on purpose! The best thing you can do to get XP is take chances and get into tough situations.

Of the remaining options, three are about classic adventuring: learn stuff, kill/overcome stuff, loot stuff. That's 3 XP per session for adventuring. That's by design! We want being an adventurer to earn you XP.

Then there's the last two, your alignment and resolving a bond. Those are, to us, the icing on the cake. They should together be worth less than the others because they're not as important. They're a spice that enriches the rest of the game, not the focus of it.

If you could resolve as many bonds as you wanted the best way to earn XP would be to just focus on interpersonal stuff with the other players. You'd never need to adventure, really. You could just sit around and talk it out for 3-5 XP (depending on class) per session (or more if you can resolve mid-session). That's not the game we wanted to make.That to me says "We really considered how our capital-r-Roleplaying elements would interact with the game as a whole." And the fact that it has a very clear trigger ("At the end of the session, check to see if you did this stuff") makes it more cleanly integrated than 5E's "When the player hams it up, unless he has hammed it up recently" element.

Fate (which I'm somewhat familiar with but haven't played) is more story-focused than D&D or DW, and the economy of Fate points (roughly analogous to Inspiration) is a big part of that. PCs (and locations, and enemies, and items, and... other stuff?) get Aspects, which encompass BIFTs and anything else important to a character. Pulling from the first google hit, Aspects could range from "Mama's Boy" to "It's Not My Fault!" to "My lucky rabbit foot." The idea being that you stockpile Fate points as bad stuff happens to you as a result of your Aspects, and you spend them to use (or overcome) Aspects to create a natural character arc and/or resolution to a problem. Important parts include paying Fate points to use your own Aspects (as opposed to 5E's earning it for something character-focused, then using the point for something generally not character-related) and the GM having an active role in the Fate point economy through specifically tempting players to succumb to their flaws and taking a Fate point if the player refuses the compel. Once again, a clearer and more significant trigger than 5E's.

13th Age (more familiar with than Fate but likewise haven't played) lumps a lot into Backgrounds, which most notably power the skill system. These are free-form entries that can be as broad as "Criminal" to as specific as "Apprentice to the Grand Wizard Arcanus, adviser to Emperor Vasili IV," and they replace the idea of skill ranks or training in a skill. Whenever you make a skill check (the list is similar to D&D 3E/4E/5E) if you can justify a background as relevant to the DM, then you add the Background's bonus to your check. So your Apprentice background will obviously work for Arcane checks most of the time, but maybe you can twist it into an occasional Diplomacy check by mentioning that Arcanus was wildly vulgar & impolite, and as a result your character often acted on his behalf when dealing with nobility. This ends up naturally expanding the character's background through play, giving the DM hooks to latch onto for future events. The other Bond-like component are the PCs relationship to Icons -- major figures in the campaign world. Once per session, the DM rolls to see which Icons influence the session (and whether they do so positively or negatively) because of which players. This doesn't assume Elminster himself ports in to high-five the PC, but rather that the greater forces in the world -- maybe a particular Harper or whoever that guy hangs out with -- shows up to introduce a wrinkle in the story. In both cases, clearer trigger conditions, and more significant and natural impact on the story.

Wow this ended up being a lot longer than I meant it to.

[Jeivar]

So what does the final backgrounds list look like?

Oh, and does someone have a link to the finished version of the noble? That one interested me quite a bit.

[Tholomyes]

We don't really know the background list, though we know there'll be the 5 in the basic rules, noble from the starter set, and the Hermit which was revealed via twitter. We can reasonably assume there'll be some, if not all, of the ones from the last playtest packet.

We can also reasonably extrapolate the Noble's Proficiencies to be Two Languages, Persuasion and History, and the Position of Privilege benefit (which appears to be ill defined "you are of noble birth" benefits)

[Jeraa]

We can also reasonably extrapolate the Noble's Proficiencies to be Two Languages, Persuasion and History, and the Position of Privilege benefit (which appears to be ill defined "you are of noble birth" benefits)

The fighter character with the Noble background has three languages, while humans normally get 2 (Common, and one of their choice). So the Noble background should give only 1 language.

Fighters don't receive tool proficiency, but the Noble fighter is proficiency with playing cards, so the Noble background seems to give a gaming set proficiency. It could give a weapon or armor proficiency, but we can't tell as fighters already have all of those.

The Noble background definitely does give the Persuasion skill, and most likely the History skill (which the fighter also gives, so it isn't clear which the pre-gen character is using to get proficiency).

You are correct on the Position of Privilege.

The Noble background starting equipment seems to be 25gp, a set of fine clothes, a signet ring, and a scroll of pedigree.

[Jeivar]

We can also reasonably extrapolate the Noble's Proficiencies to be Two Languages, Persuasion and History, and the Position of Privilege benefit (which appears to be ill defined "you are of noble birth" benefits)

So it's not the three retainers anymore? I had some concerns about those not being terribly useful and getting in the way, but I have to admit travelling with three servants is pretty cool.

[Prophet_of_Io]

How many backgrounds do you think we'll get? It's looking around 18 I think in the players handbook, including the 6(? Acolyte, criminal, folk hero, noble, sage, soldier) we already know.

Maybe just that, maybe an extra features in a homebrewing section in DMG. So ill guess 18 +/- 1.

[Jeraa]

How many backgrounds do you think we'll get? It's looking around 18 I think in the players handbook, including the 6(? Acolyte, criminal, folk hero, noble, sage, soldier) we already know.

Maybe just that, maybe an extra features in a homebrewing section in DMG. So ill guess 18 +/- 1.

We actually know of at least 7. Acolyte, Criminal, Folk Hero, Sage, and Soldier from the Basic PDF, Noble from the Starter Box, and the Hermit background was shown on Twitter.

[Sartharina]

So it's not the three retainers anymore? I had some concerns about those not being terribly useful and getting in the way, but I have to admit travelling with three servants is pretty cool.I think retainers had too much baggage for 3e and 4e purists.

[Prophet_of_Io]

We actually know of at least 7. Acolyte, Criminal, Folk Hero, Sage, and Soldier from the Basic PDF, Noble from the Starter Box, and the Hermit background was shown on Twitter.

Right, good catch. Still, 11 new backgrounds is pretty nice.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Right, good catch. Still, 11 new backgrounds is pretty nice.

Do note it is perfectly ok that someone mix and match to make their own background.

So while there may be X official backgrounds there will be hundreds of different combination options in the PHB alone.

[Knaight]

First off is the fact that it's presented as optional. ("Inspiration is a rule the DM can use...") Commit to it! It is the easiest thing in the world to ignore rules. Even if you're not going to make it a bigger part of the system, own up to it being a part of the game. If DMs want to ignore it, they can ignore it, just like they can ignore PCs losing their Dex bonus to AC when on balance beams or whatever the futz other minutiae is in the book.

It's hardly minutia - Backgrounds are basically packaged of skills plus a benefit. As such, it's much more optional, as skills pretty much replace it.

[Lycoris]

We actually know of at least 7. Acolyte, Criminal, Folk Hero, Sage, and Soldier from the Basic PDF, Noble from the Starter Box, and the Hermit background was shown on Twitter.


Right, good catch. Still, 11 new backgrounds is pretty nice.

From the Warlock preview, we also know that Charlatan is going to be a background, as it was listed in the quick-build rules. No idea on what it gives though.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

From the Warlock preview, we also know that Charlatan is going to be a background, as it was listed in the quick-build rules. No idea on what it gives though.

Deception, Persuasion, Gaming Set (riged), and possibly some minor benefit allowing the charlitan to be well liked by a certain group and thus having a free meal and a bed for the bight?

I can't wait to see the ideals, flaws, goals, and what knot.

[Jeraa]

From the Warlock preview, we also know that Charlatan is going to be a background, as it was listed in the quick-build rules. No idea on what it gives though.

Also, the Bard Preview (http://www.d20monkey.com/2014/07/28/the-bard/) has the Entertainer background. That brings us up to 9 backgrounds:

Acolyte, Sage, Criminal, Soldier, Folk Hero, Hermit (these are the only ones we know for sure what they give)
Noble
Charlatan
Entertainer

[Sartharina]

Deception, Persuasion, Gaming Set (riged), and possibly some minor benefit allowing the charlitan to be well liked by a certain group and thus having a free meal and a bed for the bight?
If it's anything like the playtest, it gives the ability to pass off as someone completely different.

[Jeraa]

And now with the barbarian preview (http://www.dungeonbastard.com/?p=836#more-836), we have 10 known backgrounds. The Barbarian preview adds the Outlander background.

Acolyte, Sage, Criminal, Soldier, Folk Hero, Hermit (these are the only ones we know for sure what they give)
Noble
Charlatan
Entertainer
Outlander

[Human Paragon 3]

I'm really excited for the entertainer background. I need it to make one of my character concepts work - a dwarf rogue who is a strong man (bending bars, pushing fully loaded carts, bench pressing oxen and so on) with double proficiency bonus in performance and athletics.

I could easily get the features I need without the background, but no other background seemed to fit.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm really excited for the entertainer background. I need it to make one of my character concepts work - a dwarf rogue who is a strong man (bending bars, pushing fully loaded carts, bench pressing oxen and so on) with double proficiency bonus in performance and athletics.

I could easily get the features I need without the background, but no other background seemed to fit.


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPL9XydRhGthF2zEf50ZPfWF7BoFT8l oemONJnFlyaHyOEw8xS

[ImperiousLeader]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPL9XydRhGthF2zEf50ZPfWF7BoFT8l oemONJnFlyaHyOEw8xS

New Background: Armstrong Family Lineage

Special Proficiency: You may use your proficiency bonus on any check or saving throw when you flex and call attention to your family lineage. Sparkles and shirtlessness will result.

[PiggDaddy]

In the dnd Adventure League players guide their is a starting lifestyle table that has different lifestyle qualities for all the different backgrounds. The backgrounds listed are Acolyte, Charlatan, Criminal, Entertainer, Folk hero, Guild artisan, Hermit, Noble, Outlander, Sage, Sailor, Soldier, and Urchin. So that's 13 different backgrounds.

Here is a link http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/events/adventurers-league-resources

[Prophet_of_Io]

We had found them before but now our weekly Legends and Lore confirms the backgrounds with one red harring:

Acolyte
Charlatan
Criminal
Entertainer
Folk Hero
Gold Dragon, Ancient
Guild Artisan
Hermit
Noble
Outlander
Sage
Sailor
Soldier
Urchin

With this we have all of our backgrounds. Survivor, as it turns out, is not on the list so I will be keeping that for my own play group. Out next step will be to figure out which of these backgrounds is a fake. (My money's on Charlatan).

[HorridElemental]

We had found them before but now our weekly Legends and Lore confirms the backgrounds with one red harring:

Acolyte
Charlatan
Criminal
Entertainer
Folk Hero
Gold Dragon, Ancient
Guild Artisan
Hermit
Noble
Outlander
Sage
Sailor
Soldier
Urchin

With this we have all of our backgrounds. Survivor, as it turns out, is not on the list so I will be keeping that for my own play group. Out next step will be to figure out which of these backgrounds is a fake. (My money's on Charlatan).

Well obviously they all are fake except the Ancient Gold Dragon background.

Because AGD is the only background anyone could ever need.

[Prophet_of_Io]

I'm already writing my own ancient gold dragon prediction background.

Ill post it soon.

[Tholomyes]

On the topic of the L&L article, I'm a bit pissed off at one thing (though as many issues that show up in L&L, my issues with it are largely philosophical) in the article:


If my little puzzle proved easy to solve, then you’ve had a firsthand experience in seeing how easy it is to make your own backgrounds. In fact, customizing backgrounds is one of the best tools a DM can use to bring a campaign or setting to life.

While I know my group, and thus I know it's not going to be an issue for me, I can't help but feel that this attitude creates a "Mother-may-I?" situation that makes it too easy for bad DMs to exert control over character concepts. Granted, a DM has that power, anyway, I don't think codifying it is important, especially when it's not something where it can be problematic for game balance (especially when Mearls also mentions: "You can swap out one tool or skill for another without messing anything up," so the only issue is features, which are more narrative power, which is easier for the DM to account for).

So, as I said, it's more of a philosophical argument of a DM control vs Player autonomy perspective, but there are multiple times I've seen this in 5e, which gives me some pause.

[Zeuel]

I think retainers had too much baggage for 3e and 4e purists.

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame! The retainers were my favorite part of that background. I wanted minions to carry my stuff, boss around, and shout things like "you furry fool!" at. :/

[Tholomyes]

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame! The retainers were my favorite part of that background. I wanted minions to carry my stuff, boss around, and shout things like "you furry fool!" at. :/While I'm glad that retainers aren't inherent to any background, since that has too much unavoidable flavor inherent to it, but, assuming your DM allows, you could probably take the old retainers feature replacing the current one. Moreover, the Wealthy/Aristocratic Lifestyles and the Hireling servants could fill a similar role, albeit at a cost (but since Magic items won't be bought and sold, you've got less to spend your money on anyway)

[Ayago22]

On the topic of the L&L article, I'm a bit pissed off at one thing (though as many issues that show up in L&L, my issues with it are largely philosophical) in the article:



While I know my group, and thus I know it's not going to be an issue for me, I can't help but feel that this attitude creates a "Mother-may-I?" situation that makes it too easy for bad DMs to exert control over character concepts. Granted, a DM has that power, anyway, I don't think codifying it is important, especially when it's not something where it can be problematic for game balance (especially when Mearls also mentions: "You can swap out one tool or skill for another without messing anything up," so the only issue is features, which are more narrative power, which is easier for the DM to account for).

So, as I said, it's more of a philosophical argument of a DM control vs Player autonomy perspective, but there are multiple times I've seen this in 5e, which gives me some pause.

I personally like the facet of "check with your DM before assuming that this is good to go" that runs through 5E. A lot of the stupid shenanigans that broke 3E and 3.5E would have been stopped cold if people would "check with your DM before assuming that this is good to go"
I know that some things (especially in the splatbooks) were worded poorly and allowed for some ridiculous power gaming, and as a DM I would not have allowed them. But I only DM for my kids and they have to listen to me anyway :smallbiggrin:

[Tholomyes]

I personally like the facet of "check with your DM before assuming that this is good to go" that runs through 5E. A lot of the stupid shenanigans that broke 3E and 3.5E would have been stopped cold if people would "check with your DM before assuming that this is good to go"
I know that some things (especially in the splatbooks) were worded poorly and allowed for some ridiculous power gaming, and as a DM I would not have allowed them. But I only DM for my kids and they have to listen to me anyway :smallbiggrin:In my mind, the difference is in the areas that the "Check with the DM" cover. In 3.X, those power gaming issues usually revolved around splatbook classes, feats, spells, and such, which are nearly entirely mechanical. In 5e, you have this type of stuff in Backgrounds, or (at least in past playtests), Races (which were generally as powerful or less powerful than the core races), and such. Sure, some DMs might want to limit certain backgrounds or races, but I feel like this should be something where the DM has to specify it, as opposed to the rules indicating or implying that it's a "DM-may-I?" thing.

[Lord Raziere]

I think retainers had too much baggage for 3e and 4e purists.

eh, I'd allow them on the caveat that all three of them have no combat ability whatsoever, so that the fighting can focus on the PC's, and possibly give them people to get kidnapped so that they can rescue them....if they're ok with that...

[Craft (Cheese)]

In my mind, the difference is in the areas that the "Check with the DM" cover. In 3.X, those power gaming issues usually revolved around splatbook classes, feats, spells, and such, which are nearly entirely mechanical. In 5e, you have this type of stuff in Backgrounds, or (at least in past playtests), Races (which were generally as powerful or less powerful than the core races), and such. Sure, some DMs might want to limit certain backgrounds or races, but I feel like this should be something where the DM has to specify it, as opposed to the rules indicating or implying that it's a "DM-may-I?" thing.

Honestly I think the problem is even deeper: If you'll allow me to tinfoil a bit, the design of 5E screams to me that it was built around the model of selling adventure paths. This means that the players are, by design, intended to be passive experiencers of the story. This is why 5E opts to remove player agency and place it in the hands of the DM everywhere that it possibly can without treading on sacred cows.

[Tholomyes]

Honestly I think the problem is even deeper: If you'll allow me to tinfoil a bit, the design of 5E screams to me that it was built around the model of selling adventure paths. This means that the players are, by design, intended to be passive experiencers of the story. This is why 5E opts to remove player agency and place it in the hands of the DM everywhere that it possibly can without treading on sacred cows.I'm not sure how much that is the case. After all Pathfinder is built around their APs. Probably the largest reason Pathfinder exists is because Paizo was wanting to sell their APs. Hell, I'll bet even more of the Paizo players (at least in proportion) are there for the APs than 5e players will be. But there still is a good deal of player agency, in PF, even if it still carries some of the 3e issues.

[Knaight]

Honestly I think the problem is even deeper: If you'll allow me to tinfoil a bit, the design of 5E screams to me that it was built around the model of selling adventure paths. This means that the players are, by design, intended to be passive experiencers of the story. This is why 5E opts to remove player agency and place it in the hands of the DM everywhere that it possibly can without treading on sacred cows.

I don't see it. For one thing, getting players to dislike the system is a terrible way to sell adventure paths. It also really didn't do that much to remove player agency. It plays up the "ask the DM" a bit, but that's probably more a response to all the whining about "player entitlement" among the player base. There's not even any practical change, as explicitly typing up rule zero moves so much to the DM that the rest of it is irrelevant.

[Tholomyes]

I don't see it. For one thing, getting players to dislike the system is a terrible way to sell adventure paths. It also really didn't do that much to remove player agency. It plays up the "ask the DM" a bit, but that's probably more a response to all the whining about "player entitlement" among the player base. There's not even any practical change, as explicitly typing up rule zero moves so much to the DM that the rest of it is irrelevant.I agree largely, though I disagree on the last part. There is a large difference between 'the DM has veto power and can change rules as they see fit' and 'These things are options, but only if you play out a Mother-may-I with your DM', largely on whether the burden is on the DM to say no or yes. When you put the burden on the DM to say yes, this ends up restricting options, since players are more likely to minimize the options that they have to ask the DM about, and many DMs will simply take the passive option (which in this case is the default no) when they are unsure of the implications of allowing the option. This would restrict the opportunity for power-gaming, except the majority of things which have been shown with this 'DM-may-I?' attitude are things which have little room for power-gaming, anyway.

With the burden on the DM to say no, options are, by default, a lot broader. In such a case, any restrictions the DM wants to place will be tailored to the campaign the DM wants to run, which is less likely to be a problem (at least assuming good intragroup communication; "Hey, guys, I've got a campaign idea I want to try, with an all Dwarf party. *more in depth description* That sound cool to everyone?" is a lot better than declaring the game is Dwarf-only, and vetoing everything else, including that one guy's Hobb- Er.. Halfling Burgl- er... I mean rogue... halfling rogue). It opens up more for power gaming, but at the point where power-gaming is a real problem that interplayer communication won't solve, sometimes the Iron-fist veto is more necessary.

Of course, this is just my opinion, but I feel like it's easier and better to have more permissive rules, and reign in problems, than the other way around, at least for core. Supplements are a different thing (though assuming bloat is low, as the goals indicate, I'd still err on the side of permissiveness), though many of the issues could be mitigated by a section in the DMG, talking about supplements and how to handle potential bloat.

[archaeo]

Supplements are a different thing (though assuming bloat is low, as the goals indicate, I'd still err on the side of permissiveness), though many of the issues could be mitigated by a section in the DMG, talking about supplements and how to handle potential bloat.

Ah, the mystical DMG. If it's going to contain the answer to every critic's problem, you'll need a wheelbarrow to cart it around at this rate.

This conversation took a weird turn somewhere. When did D&D become about players vs. the DM? Basic, at least, spends several pages on the dynamic of the game, with the DM as leader and storyteller, but at every point where the DM is expected to make a decisive ruling about the player character, there isn't a lot of "will" language, but "ask" language. To me, 5e seems to be asking players and the DM to have a conversation, which, as I think we'll all agree, is the ideal way to play. D&D is a game about a conversation in which a story emerges; the best games are those where the players and the DM work together toward that goal.

D&D isn't group therapy. It can attempt to provide guidance on best practices, but no DMG is going to make a lousy jerk into a great DM, and no PHB can turn an obnoxious player into a cheerful team player. That kind of thing would be worth a lot more than $49.99.

[Lycoris]

Not much in the way of new news (as I forgot they spoiled this in the L&L), but there's a preview of the PHB at Acts of Geek found here (http://www.actsofgeek.com/2014/08/game-the-game-5th-edition-players-handbook-preview-part-1/) that seems to confirm the background list (though how they neglected to mention Ancient Gold Dragon....). What it does add is that the Entertainer apparently gets a variant background with the Gladiator, that replaces an instrument proficiency for an exotic weapon proficiency of sorts.

Does this mean that Bards can be Spartacus now? :smalltongue:

[Sartharina]

Does this mean that Bards can be Spartacus now? :smalltongue:It means anyone can be Spartacus now. The Entertainer background isn't restricted to bards. (Case in point, in one of my games, the Fighter's an Acolyte, and Cleric's a Soldier)

[TheOOB]

I think backgrounds look fine. The three traits thing appears to be purely a roleplay tool(aside from inspiration which doesn't seem like a huge deal), and could be a helpful tool to new roleplayers. The features I actually like, because they give the character a bit more of a link to the setting, and a bit more of a reason for them to roleplay their character beyond their class. You can safely ignore your feature, and be fine, but you have the option of using it to great effect.

The thing I find most interesting is how they toed the line between ease of use and flexibility. I know players who like to spend a lot of time making careful choices about every aspect of their character, and you can do that, by basically picking your feature, proficiencies, and traits all separate. However, if you just want to make a quick character, bundling all the abilities together as backgrounds allows for that.

[Jeraa]

Acolyte
Anthropologist
Archaeologist
Black Fist Double Agent
Caravan Specialist
Charlatan
City Watch
Clan Crafter
Cloistered Scholar
Cormanthor Refugee
Courtier
Criminal
Dissenter
Dragon Casualty
Earthspur Miner
Entertainer
like This if you need more backgrounds you can collect from this site https://5ebackgrounds.com/ he listed every background and even he explained each background as a separate topic. This is not a promotional link, i am just sharing here because i got clarity after reading his articles on backgrounds.

I can tell you which one you missed. The Thread Necromancer. Seriously, this was a 4.5 year dead thread.

Edit: And seeing as how like all your posts are necro'd thread with links elsewhere, I also refuse to believe that the link above wasn't for promotional purposes. At the very least, a habitual thread necromancer.