Backgrounds

[Tenmujiin]

Why does everyone always act like the default backgrounds are the only options when custom backgrounds are not only in the PHB, the are less 'optional' than feats and multiclassing? It just annoys me when I see people suggest that someone should 'get a background with x' when in the PHB it states you can just pick any two skills and any two languages/tools that relate to you character's backstory. I get that the background features given in the book are the only ones guaranteed to be in a given campaign (except that even then most of them rely on DM fiat anyway) but even for the basic backgrounds you're allowed to just swap out skills. Even if your DM decides to disallow customised backgrounds entirely you can just pick a background with a skill that your class can take, pick that skill as one of your class skills and suddenly you are allowed to pick any one skill to replace it in your background. /rant

[Maxilian]

Well... when talking about characters in page like these one, i try to stay in RAW as much as i can, including background, at least, that's my reason

[Tenmujiin]

The point I was trying to make is that custom backgrounds ARE RaW

[xyianth]

It's most likely a result of the stigma that homebrew carries. (at least in earlier editions) It is always easier and safer to discuss options that are published than those that were altered/customized. Personally, I am not a fan of completely custom backgrounds or of the select as a class skill to replace with any skill options. I have no issue with swapping one thematic skill for another, or tool proficiency for another, etc...; I just don't like the min/max potential of allowing any skill/tool combo in some arbitrary background.

For example: replacing the gaming set for a forgery kit on the spy background is fine. (spies tend to forge documents) But I have a problem when you take the noble background, swap the skills for stealth and perception, swap the tools for thieves' tools, and select the retainers variant feature. (so your knight specializes in scouting and breaking into things? while training a squire...? no, just no.)

If other people want to run things that way, it won't really break anything. I just don't like it for my games. If a player came to my table with a good backstory and a custom background that fit it, I'd allow it, as I allow lots of homebrew options at my table. (I just have to review it first to make sure it won't be unbalancing.)

[Tenmujiin]

But I have a problem when you take the noble background, swap the skills for stealth and perception, swap the tools for thieves' tools, and select the retainers variant feature. (so your knight specializes in scouting and breaking into things? while training a squire...? no, just no.)
I agree that the skills and feature need to match the character's backstory but if you are looking to get a certain skill on a character, chances are the character has a backstory reason they might have the skill already.

For the example you gave maybe the character is from a minor noble family and was trained to enter the kingdom's service as a spy? That would give them the skills and tools you listed while also allowing them to have the retainers feature.

My point is that by RaW, RaI and in my opinion, fun and balance characters basically get 2 (usually) class skills and 2 floating skills based on their backstory.

Edit: good point about the stigma against homebrewing.

[Magic Myrmidon]

It's most likely a result of the stigma that homebrew carries. (at least in earlier editions) It is always easier and safer to discuss options that are published than those that were altered/customized. Personally, I am not a fan of completely custom backgrounds or of the select as a class skill to replace with any skill options. I have no issue with swapping one thematic skill for another, or tool proficiency for another, etc...; I just don't like the min/max potential of allowing any skill/tool combo in some arbitrary background.

For example: replacing the gaming set for a forgery kit on the spy background is fine. (spies tend to forge documents) But I have a problem when you take the noble background, swap the skills for stealth and perception, swap the tools for thieves' tools, and select the retainers variant feature. (so your knight specializes in scouting and breaking into things? while training a squire...? no, just no.)

If other people want to run things that way, it won't really break anything. I just don't like it for my games. If a player came to my table with a good backstory and a custom background that fit it, I'd allow it, as I allow lots of homebrew options at my table. (I just have to review it first to make sure it won't be unbalancing.)

I find it somewhat hard to believe that having two particular skills trained will be a source of unbalance. Everyone gets two skills of their choice trained. That's really balanced right there. And rest of the stuff in backgrounds are hardly going to break anything (the tool proficiencies barely have any use at all, besides thieves' tools).

This is honestly sort of the problem I often have with storytelling mechanics. It's my character's background/concept, I can probably justify it any way I want. What's more, it will probably make sense. But since it isn't written in the book as an option, no.

Not to single you out in particular, xyianth, you sound pretty reasonable. But I see a lot of that prejudice against homebrew in a LOT of games, even when the homebrew is obviously innocuous.

[Myzz]

I think everyone refers to ONLY the presented Backgrounds, because they are the ONLY presented backgrounds...

Every conceivable possibility does exist but requires working with a particular DM in a particular setting in a particular campaign.

I suppose everyone could simply say grab skill X and skill Y... vice stating which presented background offers those particular skills...

AND the given backgrounds are pretty comprehensive...

It would be nice to hear if Adventurer's League ONLY utilizes the existing backgrounds...

[Vogonjeltz]

Why does everyone always act like the default backgrounds are the only options when custom backgrounds are not only in the PHB, the are less 'optional' than feats and multiclassing? It just annoys me when I see people suggest that someone should 'get a background with x' when in the PHB it states you can just pick any two skills and any two languages/tools that relate to you character's backstory. I get that the background features given in the book are the only ones guaranteed to be in a given campaign (except that even then most of them rely on DM fiat anyway) but even for the basic backgrounds you're allowed to just swap out skills. Even if your DM decides to disallow customised backgrounds entirely you can just pick a background with a skill that your class can take, pick that skill as one of your class skills and suddenly you are allowed to pick any one skill to replace it in your background. /rant

Probably because the listed backgrounds already cover 99% of all possible characters. At this point the primary reason I've seen given for creating a custom background is in order to exploit the rule you mention, that any duplicate skill allows the player to choose another skill.

That rule on duplicate skills is intended to prevent a player from getting screwed by choosing a background that is redundant with their class, but it seems that the only times I've seen it mentioned are in order to exploit it for metagame arguments.

I'd imagine that's either the reason or part of the reasoning. Why, what did you think it was?

[Ralanr]

The most min/maxing my group does with backgrounds is when we combine two and just take one skill proficiency of our choice from each, use the feature that best fits our characters backstory of the two (which is open to interpretation on the player) and swap around with traits from them. Normally for things like tools and starter items we choose the one that is used up the most of the two, picked first, or we just like it the most.

It's a fairly recent rule to my group, and if someone was going to combine the sailor background with something so they'd only get proficiency in perception and not bother to even mention sailing, then the rule lawyer in me (my own Mr. Hyde) would say, "You better spend a good amount of time on a ship buddy and it best be important. Otherwise you ain't getting it."

Or I bring up the matter to the DM. It's up to the DM whether it really works or not. A good DM listens to the concerns of the players before making the decision. At least that's what I think.

I mean that in character creation of course. Outside of that I'm not touching DM territory.

[xyianth]

I find it somewhat hard to believe that having two particular skills trained will be a source of unbalance. Everyone gets two skills of their choice trained. That's really balanced right there. And rest of the stuff in backgrounds are hardly going to break anything (the tool proficiencies barely have any use at all, besides thieves' tools).

Normally, I would agree with you on this, but what I have found is that all too often those 2 free skills are the same 2 skills on every character: stealth and perception. The only reason people select other skills is if they already have one or both of those skills offered by their class. Similarly, 90%+ of the time, the tool choice is thieves' tools. (herbalism kits and forgery kits are the other ~10%) If the 2 free skill rule led to increased variety of characters, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And this is the case despite my best efforts to make other skills matter far more often than RAW would indicate.

This is how I handle backgrounds and overlapped skills in my campaigns:

all published backgrounds are allowed.
if selecting hermit I (as the DM) will ensure that your feature has a meaningful impact on the campaign.
you may customize published backgrounds, but any changes have to be thematically justified.
you can create fully custom backgrounds, but I (as the DM) reserve the right to approve/suggest changes as needed for balance reasons.
if a background skill or a racial skill overlaps with a class skill, you can choose either a new class skill instead or you can gain expertise in the overlapped skill.
if none of the background options fit your character concept and you don't want to or can't create a custom one, I will help create a custom one with you.

[Magic Myrmidon]

That doesn't really seem like a balance thing, though, it just seems like you prefer there to be more variety in skill choice. That's understandable, but I don't blame people for wanting perception.

Your rules seem pretty reasonable, but it is somewhat annoying that I can't have a perceptive wizard jeweler (the guild merchant doesn't have perception, right?), since he should be able to see the fine details of gems to inspect them and such.

Then again, I suppose that's thematically justified, so we might be arguing the same thing in different ways.

[Battlebooze]

This is how I handle backgrounds and overlapped skills in my campaigns:

all published backgrounds are allowed.
if selecting hermit I (as the DM) will ensure that your feature has a meaningful impact on the campaign.
you may customize published backgrounds, but any changes have to be thematically justified.
you can create fully custom backgrounds, but I (as the DM) reserve the right to approve/suggest changes as needed for balance reasons.
if a background skill or a racial skill overlaps with a class skill, you can choose either a new class skill instead or you can gain expertise in the overlapped skill.
if none of the background options fit your character concept and you don't want to or can't create a custom one, I will help create a custom one with you.

This is pretty much how we handle Backgrounds in the campaign I play in. Everyone seems happy enough with it.

[Psikerlord]

You can mix any skill with any background as far as I'm concerned, just as the OP suggests, it's right there in the book... The real issue is making sure you and the other PCs dont double up on too many skills.

[JellyPooga]

...or you can gain expertise in the overlapped skill.

Wow. Really? I would totally not allow that, myself. That seems like a pretty big deal to me. Then again, I tend to play Rogue style characters anyway, so getting an extra two Expertise skills ('cos I'm likely to be taking a Background like Criminal or Urchin anyway) at Lvl.1 seems like an awesome deal to me. Do you apply the same to Tool Proficiencies? If you do, when can I play in one of your games? :smallbiggrin:

[xyianth]

That doesn't really seem like a balance thing, though, it just seems like you prefer there to be more variety in skill choice. That's understandable, but I don't blame people for wanting perception.

Your rules seem pretty reasonable, but it is somewhat annoying that I can't have a perceptive wizard jeweler (the guild merchant doesn't have perception, right?), since he should be able to see the fine details of gems to inspect them and such.

Then again, I suppose that's thematically justified, so we might be arguing the same thing in different ways.

I'd actually treat the inspection of jewels as an investigation check rather than a perception check (part of my attempts to make other skills more useful), but either way I wouldn't have a problem with a modification like that. Sometimes perception/investigation/stealth etc... can be thematic after all.


Wow. Really? I would totally not allow that, myself. That seems like a pretty big deal to me. Then again, I tend to play Rogue style characters anyway, so getting an extra two Expertise skills ('cos I'm likely to be taking a Background like Criminal or Urchin anyway) at Lvl.1 seems like an awesome deal to me. Do you apply the same to Tool Proficiencies? If you do, when can I play in one of your games? :smallbiggrin:

It's not really that unbalancing, if you are playing a rogue anyway it just frees you up to be an expert in other things as well. In the 'normal' case, you would be making the choice between proficiency in 4 skills and expertise in 2 skills. One is more adaptable, the other is more specialized. It can potentially be a little strong on a half-elf rogue who can start with 5 expertise skills, but half-elf rogues are supposed to be really good with skills. (without this rule, they start with 6 proficient skills and 2 expertise skills)

I do not use the expertise option with tools, mostly because I think the only tool you can normally get expertise with is thieves' tools, and that is only if you are a rogue. I didn't want to take away one of the advantages of the rogue class. Expertise is not specific to 1 or 2 classes so it is a little easier to justify making it available to a wider array of characters. The ability to get expertise without dipping rogue/bard/cleric/warlock* also helps strength based characters get athletics expertise, healers get medicine expertise, wizards get arcana expertise, etc... all without multiclassing.

* = warlocks in my games can gain expertise via the beguiling influence invocation if they are already proficient in deception/persuasion/intimidation.

[JellyPooga]

It's not really that unbalancing

I get where you're coming from; it makes sense that a dedicated scholar should be better at Arcana than a thief or a minstrel, for example. The balance issue, if it can even be called that, is not really in question either; specialisation vs. generalisation is a solid choice to have to make, from a balance point of view. I'm just of the opinion that giving access to Expertise to all Classes takes something vaguely unique away from the Rogue and Bard. In a sense, it also encourages a "min-max" attitude, whilst the whole Background system as written, seems to encourage a more diverse approach to character design. But hey, if it works for you, who am I to tell you you're wrong?:smallwink:

[Giant2005]

Even if your DM decides to disallow customised backgrounds entirely you can just pick a background with a skill that your class can take, pick that skill as one of your class skills and suddenly you are allowed to pick any one skill to replace it in your background. /rant

Is this part actually true? If so it doesn't make sense to me... I could understand if you were forced to have the same rule from two different sources but afaik, the system isn't able to force you into having the same skill from two different sources.

[kaoskonfety]

Is this part actually true? If so it doesn't make sense to me... I could understand if you were forced to have the same rule from two different sources but afaik, the system isn't able to force you into having the same skill from two different sources.

If you get the same skill from 2 sources you pick another skill of your choice, also away from my books but that's the short version. so if you take survival (a Barbarian) and Survival (an Outlander): pick any skill.

It is quite easy to get any one skill you really want and not hard to get any 2. I'm pretty sure it was quite deliberate.

[xyianth]

Is this part actually true? If so it doesn't make sense to me... I could understand if you were forced to have the same rule from two different sources but afaik, the system isn't able to force you into having the same skill from two different sources.

Page 125, the section labeled proficiencies.

[Myzz]

If you get the same skill from 2 sources you pick another skill of your choice, also away from my books but that's the short version. so if you take survival (a Barbarian) and Survival (an Outlander): pick any skill.

It is quite easy to get any one skill you really want and not hard to get any 2. I'm pretty sure it was quite deliberate.

Yeah its meant to be very deliberate through the character creation steps...

Background should be right after Races, and before Classes. BUT its last.

Mechanically, that makes it so that your bonus choices are not limited by your starting class. If you make WANT the extra choices to be Starting Class restricted, put background selection where it should thematically be...

[Slipperychicken]

My group is open to modifying backgrounds (i.e. Swap out a tool or skill proficiency) when there's a decent story reason for it. We haven't had to make one from scratch yet, though I know my DM would understand if the other backgrounds didn't fit.

Besides, it's not like custom backgrounds are overly strong either. It's just different skills and proficiencies. The game-balance isn't going to shatter because you're proficient in perception instead of acrobatics.

[kaoskonfety]

Yeah its meant to be very deliberate through the character creation steps...

Background should be right after Races, and before Classes. BUT its last.

Mechanically, that makes it so that your bonus choices are not limited by your starting class. If you make WANT the extra choices to be Starting Class restricted, put background selection where it should thematically be...

While I would agree as a layout for roleplay focused game it should be in "race (what are you, fluff focused) - background (who are you, fluff focused) - class (what is the core idea you bring to the table 'crunch' wise) - *everything else crunchy*", order the order the rules are in will have zero impact on any perceived abuses on class background combinations to get "the good skills". Most players I deal with read the entire rules before sitting down to make a "serious" character and the 'loophole' allowing you to be good at any one or 2 things (more with race overlap or human variant/halfelf "pick anything") you'd like is fairly obvious and just as accessible in any direction you face.

On the list of possible exploits "I can always be a sneaky git" is fairly low on my concerns for an individual character/player. If thats what they like to do, let them do it.
The issue is if the whole party is "sneak, thieves tool, perception" whose arcana? athletics? local lore? There are going to be gaps as the game is designed for a party of variant characters to overcome diverse challenges. Sure, practically no lock shall bar them with 4 rolls per door, but no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon you are wandering in doesn't look relevant - until it 200% is. Guess the wizard was playing hooky from History to rob the headmasters pantry all those years ago and now *DAMAGES*.

[Giant2005]

Page 125, the section labeled proficiencies.

That says "would" not "could". If your background gives you a skill and your class offers the same skill, the obvious answer is to choose a different class skill that isn't already given by your background. If the term was "Could", then you very well could just choose any skill you like simply by having the option of having two skills that are the same but the fact that it says "would" suggests that that clause only comes into play when you don't have the option.

[mephnick]

The issue is if the whole party is "sneak, thieves tool, perception" whose arcana? athletics? local lore? There are going to be gaps as the game is designed for a party of variant characters to overcome diverse challenges. Sure, practically no lock shall bar them with 4 rolls per door, but no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon you are wandering in doesn't look relevant - until it 200% is..

That's looking like my party right now. With the edition change and my penchant for variant monsters, the complete lack on knowledge skills may actually kill them.

[xyianth]

That says "would" not "could". If your background gives you a skill and your class offers the same skill, the obvious answer is to choose a different class skill that isn't already given by your background. If the term was "Could", then you very well could just choose any skill you like simply by having the option of having two skills that are the same but the fact that it says "would" suggests that that clause only comes into play when you don't have the option.

This is a perfectly logical way to handle it, but the RAW is that you select background after class. Since background skills are fixed, (unless you customize it, which results in a different fixed state) the difference between would and could is meaningless. Please note, I agree with you on how it should work, which is why I changed it to work that way. My inner rules lawyer just doesn't believe that is how it is described to work.


...
On the list of possible exploits "I can always be a sneaky git" is fairly low on my concerns for an individual character/player. If thats what they like to do, let them do it.
The issue is if the whole party is "sneak, thieves tool, perception" whose arcana? athletics? local lore? There are going to be gaps as the game is designed for a party of variant characters to overcome diverse challenges.

Well, its not like you can't still have a variety of skills in the party. All characters start with 4+ skills. This just results in that becoming stealth, perception, <skill>, <skill>. With coordination, a 4 man party can easily cover 8+ more skills while still being 'sneaky gits.' Since not all skills are even close to equal, covering 10+ out of 17 skills is a fairly good spread, especially given that most sane DC checks in 5e are easily doable without proficiency. (especially if the result is death on a failure)


Sure, practically no lock shall bar them with 4 rolls per door, but no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon you are wandering in doesn't look relevant - until it 200% is. Guess the wizard was playing hooky from History to rob the headmasters pantry all those years ago and now *DAMAGES*.


That's looking like my party right now. With the edition change and my penchant for variant monsters, the complete lack on knowledge skills may actually kill them.

I've always had trouble coming up with ways that knowledge skills could have dangerous or lethal results. Arcana and Nature threats always seem to be based on dangerous items that look innocuous. My players have all learned to check out suspicious items before wearing/imbibing them, even if that means waiting until the next large town in order to find someone knowledgeable. History has always been more of a tool for political intrigue for me. And, as a result, this isn't often applicable to some campaigns. Players tend to have it covered in campaigns when it is, but even if they don't, there are usually other ways to get the same information from others. And Religion has always been the one knowledge skill I can never find a good use for.

My point being, I would love to hear some examples of how 'no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon' results in '*DAMAGES*' or 'the complete lack on knowledge skills may actually kill them.' Maybe I should start a new thread to avoid derailing this one, as this is fairly off topic.

[SharkForce]

go play some 2nd edition or earlier D&D for a bit, with a DM who uses lots of different creatures. you will very quickly learn many of the ways that what you don't know can hurt you quite a bit :P

5th edition is much nicer about it (you don't get enemies that inflict dexterity draining curses or enemies that destroy weapons when you attack them so much, for example), but it can still make a huge difference if, say, you're struggling to figure out how to permanently kill these regenerating enemies when neither acid or fire seems to do the trick, or when they find out *after* the fight that an enemy is immune to slashing and piercing damage whether magical or not, and so forth. as noted, it really does help to include the occasional "variant" monster with non-standard abilities; a troll that is only vulnerable to frost damage, a super-tough enemy that is extremely vulnerable to sunlight, an outsider that only looks like an undead, etc).

[Gritmonger]

My point being, I would love to hear some examples of how 'no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon' results in '*DAMAGES*' or 'the complete lack on knowledge skills may actually kill them.' Maybe I should start a new thread to avoid derailing this one, as this is fairly off topic.

Right now, and folks in my campaign should look away:

Cult of Xammux in my game is a bunch of alchemists turning miscibility into a creature science, and making owlbears and such. To do this, they have charged circles, which must first be deactivated or used, and then destroyed. The first few ones they ran into were religion checks, because they were legacy circles created by the cult in days of old. The newer ones are the current cult's own invention, and require some arcana checks instead. In either case, a failure on the roll to deactivate or destroy can result in some rather explosive consequences.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Actually, thinking about it more, it's really nice for the whole party to have sneak. It's awesome, because usually, scouting or sneaking missions mean that the rogue goes on his own, and gets killed (or derails the session) if he gets noticed. With the whole party having sneak, you can have a stealthy party go together, and have cool infiltration missions that would be difficult to have otherwise.

[hymer]

Actually, thinking about it more, it's really nice for the whole party to have sneak. It's awesome, because usually, scouting or sneaking missions mean that the rogue goes on his own, and gets killed (or derails the session) if he gets noticed. With the whole party having sneak, you can have a stealthy party go together, and have cool infiltration missions that would be difficult to have otherwise.

Cast Pass without Trace, and suddenly everybody's a ninja. Even the clumsy paladin in full plate has a chance. :smallbiggrin:

[mephnick]

My point being, I would love to hear some examples of how 'no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon' results in '*DAMAGES*' or 'the complete lack on knowledge skills may actually kill them.' Maybe I should start a new thread to avoid derailing this one, as this is fairly off topic.

I mean it's hard if your group has memorized the bestiary, hence why I mess around with my monsters a lot. But there can be pretty significant dangers if you don't know certain creatures can poison/paralyse you. Or that an ice devil is also immune to fire as well as cold. Or invisibility won't save you from being attacked. Or even in general how powerful a creature is. If all you know about the enemy is that they are big snakes with human faces, or the name naga, you might be boned when those spirit nagas start dominating, teleporting and blighting your party. You might be especially boned if you don't realize they come back to life in a few days if you won't wish them away.

It works best in campaigns where you heavily punish meta-gaming.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Cast Pass without Trace, and suddenly everybody's a ninja. Even the clumsy paladin in full plate has a chance. :smallbiggrin:



True, but that's not viable for the first 2 levels.

[xyianth]

snip


snip


snip

Honest questions, from one DM to another, are these custom designed situations meant to be passable by a party without the required skills? Are there not other ways around the problem other than rolling high on a given knowledge check? If you knew that your party was terrible at knowledge checks, would you still use these threats?

DMs can always kill players whenever they feel like it. Designing a lethal situation that there is no way around and requires a certain skill/ability that the party doesn't have is fundamentally no different from declaring rocks fall and everyone dies, it is just slower. For the unique monster traits, are there not ways to win without that special knowledge, or if not at least some hints scattered about on how to solve it? For the exploding circles, couldn't the party track down a cultist and persuade/intimidate the information out of him/her? Or perhaps the information might be found through investigation and side quests?

Full disclosure, I don't usually run printed adventures or linear campaigns. I tend to design a sandbox campaign world and layer stories into it. As a result, just about every necessary thing plot-wise can be solved multiple ways. I also tend to end campaigns before 17th level because I have never been able to constrain 9th level spellcasting well enough to not break the campaign world. I also freely admit that I started with 3.0, so 2e and earlier is mostly unknown to me. It is very possible that my style of DMing is what makes some of these skills less effective.

[mephnick]

Honest questions, from one DM to another, are these custom designed situations meant to be passable by a party without the required skills? Are there not other ways around the problem other than rolling high on a given knowledge check? If you knew that your party was terrible at knowledge checks, would you still use these threats?

DMs can always kill players whenever they feel like it. Designing a lethal situation that there is no way around and requires a certain skill/ability that the party doesn't have is fundamentally no different from declaring rocks fall and everyone dies, it is just slower. For the unique monster traits, are there not ways to win without that special knowledge, or if not at least some hints scattered about on how to solve it? For the exploding circles, couldn't the party track down a cultist and persuade/intimidate the information out of him/her? Or perhaps the information might be found through investigation and side quests?

Full disclosure, I don't usually run printed adventures or linear campaigns. I tend to design a sandbox campaign world and layer stories into it. As a result, just about every necessary thing plot-wise can be solved multiple ways.

I mostly run my setting as a sandbox as well, but I have random encounter tables that include some weird things. If something weird shows up (like a couple of spirit nagas) that's the encounter whether they know what a spirit naga is or not. It's up to them to determine whether the encounter is too dangerous or not. Often, knowledge skills can make this a lot easier. Of course they can socialize their way out of the situation if possible. If they are aware of the threat, say someone hires them to kill a spirit naga, they can always attempt to research beforehand.

I definitely don't do it to kill my players, I'm not a big fan of arbitrary PC death. However, if the players have decided that knowledge is for nerds and they don't know what they're getting into, I don't save them either. It's only a lethal situation if they've made it so, or if they've gotten very unlucky. Knowledges can offset both of those to a degree.

[Naanomi]

Even if one monkeys with background double up skill rules, one can still pick skills by doubling up racial and background (half-orc soldier? Goliath sailor?) or just picking one of the race/class options that grant any skills. As if anyone needs more incentive to play a Varient human, if it becomes one of the few ways to nab perception for many classes...

Personally I like the flexibility in the skill system; don't have to bend over backwards too far to make a sneaky cleric or sociable fighter or whatever

[BootStrapTommy]

Is there a reason people are mechanically picking their Background after they have made their class choice, other than that is the order they appear in the PHB?

I guess to me, your background is likely the genesis of your class, so I grab my class with a background in mind. You know, roleplaying reasons. So the whole "My background has skills I already chose for my class" thing seems a tad strange. Are you guys not thinking ahead when you build your characters or what?

Anyway, custom Backgrounds are RAW. But so are custom Spells. But I wholly support custom backgrounds. Cause not every Hermit is gunna be skilled in Religion. That's silly.

[mephnick]

Is there a reason people are mechanically picking their Background after they have made their class choice, other than that is the order they appear in the PHB?


Well, your class is going to matter a whole lot more than your background. People sit around saying "I should try a bard next campaign.", not "I should try a folk hero next campaign."

[SharkForce]

Honest questions, from one DM to another, are these custom designed situations meant to be passable by a party without the required skills? Are there not other ways around the problem other than rolling high on a given knowledge check? If you knew that your party was terrible at knowledge checks, would you still use these threats?

not all of them are going to cause death. many of them will just cause extreme inconvenience. but sure, you could find out about them other ways... but you probably won't until you know to ask. it's generally speaking better to know before you need to know, rather than having a hard time and deciding that maybe you'd like to know more about how to defeat a certain monster or whatever.

[Naanomi]

So the whole "My background has skills I already choose for my class" thing seems a tad strange. Are you guys not thinking ahead when you build your characters or what?
Sure I am; I'm thinking 'as a bard, if I am a performer (a background often fitting a bard and with skills I likely took already) I will be rewarded by flexibility in my skill choices'

[BootStrapTommy]

Sure I am; I'm thinking 'as a bard, if I am a performer (a background often fitting a bard and with skills I likely took already) I will be rewarded by flexibility in my skill choices'
Meanwhile I'm thinking "wizards should be antisocial. Bitches love antisocial. The Hermit Wizard trope! But why would he need Religion and Medicine? How bout Arcana and History? Oh, and herbalism kits now useless. How bout a gaming set? Oh, I know! 5e D&D! Hey, can my discovery be that the whole cosmos is just a giant 5e D&D game, and my character is actually controlled by some uber geek named Tommy?"

[cobaltstarfire]

Is there a reason people are mechanically picking their Background after they have made their class choice, other than that is the order they appear in the PHB?


Both mechanically and fluff wise I tend to pick my background last to fill in any holes for the character that I couldn't get with their race/class.

Like my current character is a fighter who got pushed into cleric by circumstances. But she started life ranging the outskirts of her clans settlement hunting and repelling intruders. So I gave her the Outlander background.


My backup characters probably are going to need custom backgrounds though, because the existing ones don't really help fill in the holes appropriately.

[themaque]

Meanwhile I'm thinking "wizards should be antisocial. Bitches love antisocial. The Hermit Wizard trope! But why would he need Religion and Medicine? How bout Arcana and History? Oh, and herbalism kits now useless. How bout a gaming set? Oh, I know! 5e D&D! Hey, can my discovery be that the whole cosmos is just a giant 5e D&D game, and my character is actually controlled by some uber geek named Tommy?"

he stands like a statue, he becomes part of the terrain.
He feels all the goblins, but he always plays it clean.
he plays by intuition, the dice land where they fall.

Deaf. Dumb, and Blind oracle sure casts a mean fireball.

[BootStrapTommy]

he stands like a statue, he becomes part of the terrain.
He feels all the goblins, but he always plays it clean.
he plays by intuition, the dice land where they fall.

Deaf. Dumb, and Blind oracle sure casts a mean fireball. Goes without saying, but you're my hero.

[Myzz]

How important do yall feel the standardized (2 Skills + 2 Languages/Tools) is?

Would the following be acceptable in most cases:

3 Skills

1 Skill + 4 Languages/Tools

0 Skills + 6 Languages/Tools


Here are a few I was thinking of for Homebrew:

You served as an apprentice in a small town or village in one of the following fields:

1. Blacksmith
2. Brewer
3. Carpenter
4. Cook
5. Mason
6. Potter
7. Weaver
8. Woodcarver

You gain proficiency in Insight and Investigation, as well as the tools of your trade and the tools of another listed trade or a musical instrument of choice.
-Feature – Chore Master: You understand the daily grind of working class. You can find shelter for yourself in exchange for a few hours of work. With a full days work you could also earn a small wage as well as room and board for yourself.



You served as a Scout to a military unit. You specialized in spying on troops movements, while being on your own or with a very small unit. You gain proficiency in History, Perception, and Stealth.
-Feature – Wanderer (PHB 136)



You served as a Scribe in a small town or village where library collections were unavailable. You copied contracts and other legal documents, as well as letters of correspondence for the illiterate. You are proficient in History, as well as Alchemist Tools, Calligraphy Tools and Forgery Kit. In addition you know one language of choice.
-Feature – Ink Specialist: You have worked with many inks and dyes. You have advantage on Intelligence (History) checks to determine where specific inks and dyes originate, as well as advantage on checks to find and harvest sources of inks and dyes.


You served as a Translator in a large town or city. You are proficient in Insight, as well as Calligrapher’s tools. In addition you know 3 languages of choice.
-Feature – Influential Contact: while working as a translator you have met many important people from all over the world. You can find help all over the world from various contacts, although the help they can provide is minor in nature (an audience with a noble or judge, passage on a Naval ship, a spot in a traveling caravan as a guard or wagoneer, etc…)


As you can see I strayed from the standardized 2+2... but these seem to make sense...

[xyianth]

snip

I love the apprentice, scribe, and translator options; and I don't think they are unbalancing in the slightest.

I am confused by the military scout background though. I understand why perception is included, and the wanderer feature makes perfect sense. I can even see an argument for including stealth as the second skill, despite my hesitance to put those two skills together due to how potent they are. What does history have to do with being a scout? Why not a disguise kit, or survival/animal handling skill?

[Myzz]

I love the apprentice, scribe, and translator options; and I don't think they are unbalancing in the slightest.

I am confused by the military scout background though. I understand why perception is included, and the wanderer feature makes perfect sense. I can even see an argument for including stealth as the second skill, despite my hesitance to put those two skills together due to how potent they are. What does history have to do with being a scout? Why not a disguise kit, or survival/animal handling skill?

History is for recognizing Battle Standards, Lords, Noble Houses etc... I thought about minimizing the access to History and make only Intelligence (history) checks that apply to Standards, Banners, and Noble Houses... But decided that just putting it as History is easier...

[Pex]

It could help if you remind the players that not everyone needs to be stealthy. If the party needs to be stealthy in a given situation as long at least half the party makes it everyone makes it.

[Gritmonger]

Honest questions, from one DM to another, are these custom designed situations meant to be passable by a party without the required skills? Are there not other ways around the problem other than rolling high on a given knowledge check? If you knew that your party was terrible at knowledge checks, would you still use these threats? <snip> For the exploding circles, couldn't the party track down a cultist and persuade/intimidate the information out of him/her? Or perhaps the information might be found through investigation and side quests?

Full disclosure, I don't usually run printed adventures or linear campaigns. I tend to design a sandbox campaign world and layer stories into it. As a result, just about every necessary thing plot-wise can be solved multiple ways. I also tend to end campaigns before 17th level because I have never been able to constrain 9th level spellcasting well enough to not break the campaign world. I also freely admit that I started with 3.0, so 2e and earlier is mostly unknown to me. It is very possible that my style of DMing is what makes some of these skills less effective.

Yes, the whole point of the circles was that they were mysteries that could either be attacked head-on (and cause damage) or researched and figured out in another way, allowing for "safer" deactivation and destruction. Had one character figure out half the equation (how to break one) but hadn't puzzled out the rest ("newer" circles use energy instead of astral for a power source, so breaking an astral-fueled circle just causes an astral disjunction if done improperly (and gates in an evil outsider on a 1, but that's another story...) while breaking the energy-fueled circles causes an explosion - but you can set it off at range if you're careful.

[SharkForce]

It could help if you remind the players that not everyone needs to be stealthy. If the party needs to be stealthy in a given situation as long at least half the party makes it everyone makes it.

sure, but it's a heck of a lot easier to get half the party to make the check if everyone is at least moderately competent.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Because of the latent fears of every DM that "Mary Sue" will be the background of choice.

[kaoskonfety]

My point being, I would love to hear some examples of how 'no one knowing the ancient history origin of the dungeon' results in '*DAMAGES*' or 'the complete lack on knowledge skills may actually kill them.' Maybe I should start a new thread to avoid derailing this one, as this is fairly off topic.

History tells you of the sorcerer from a few centuries back who holed up here and dominated, charmed and stole the souls of all who came to challenge him before he vanished without a trace. Provided what may be the undead sorcerer (sorta a lich?) spell list (or several key/favorite pieces of it). Or that dwarven architects of the time favoured time locked drowning traps with the release mechanisms hidden on statues (drastically reducing the thieves perception/disarm DC and/or search time). Or that the heart chambers of the tomb of Zartaha the Mad were ordered to be filled with golems made from the flesh of his enemies (he had many enemies).

Arcana tell you this is a green dragon of the eastern continent, known for their weaker limbs (but still you know: dragon), less resilient hide, swifter flight speed and more potent magical abilities generally focusing on poisons, fog generating and weather control magics. It is more critical than usual you get it in a relatively enclosed space for the fight. The runes etched around the entry way are obscure necromantic sigils and may be part of a soul trap.

And so on. Making these relevant is a bit more work of the DM but if you keep an eye open for chances it shouldn't be too hard, I personally am more inclined to reward taking such skills rather than punish not taking them.

As for the party opting to wait till they get back to town to have X magical thing looked at cause no one knows what it is: that just hindered them slightly to moderately as they cannot use it "today". This goes up to: changing "complex deadly" fight into "challenging but simple" if its the "magguffin of big boss weakness" they are all too ill-educated to recognize (a Hag Covey's eye is a personal favourite, a liches phylactery, a key stone to a planer portal the boss is summoning dudes with all come quickly to mind).

The same way as stealth, but less directly (and less risky), giving an information and combat preparedness edge (or just lets you tell them "no, it is a cursed place beyond your power, go around".

If you let them know "if you take various knowledge/non-thief tool skills I will make them matter" they are more likely to take it in general and they as a party might look to see who has the "space to spare" on the skill list for the odds and ends. (assuming the party sits down together to make "a party", otherwises it's a bit Prisoners Dilemma).

If you need to: take down a list of the parties not-so obviously-useful skills and go over the planned adventure and jot in notes relevant to the "fluff" skills - you'd be amazed how little work it takes to make the historian front and centred while delving long forgotten crypts. Or you could watch some Indiana Jones for tips. Or just to watch Indiana Jones, cause ya.

[BootStrapTommy]

^This. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html)

[Chronos]

Quoth the OP:

Why does everyone always act like the default backgrounds are the only options when custom backgrounds are not only in the PHB, the are less 'optional' than feats and multiclassing? It just annoys me when I see people suggest that someone should 'get a background with x' when in the PHB it states you can just pick any two skills and any two languages/tools that relate to you character's backstory.
Wait, I don't get it... You point out that custom backgrounds are a valid option, and then you complain that people are taking custom backgrounds into account? When someone says "get a background with Thieves' Tools" instead of saying "Get Urchin or Criminal", this is exactly why: "A background with Thieves' Tools" might be one of those, or it might be a custom background, but the important point is that it has Thieves' Tools.

EDIT:
Oh, and about the order in which people design characters, class or background first: My current character (which I will eventually get to play, damn it!) sort of went in both directions at once. I wanted something scholarly to hook into the campaign the way I wanted to, and I wanted something thiefy because I usually play skillmonkeys and it seemed a good way to start a new edition with something I was familiar with, but it took me a while to decide between bard/urchin and rogue/sage (I eventually decided on the latter).

[themaque]

Wait, I don't get it... You point out that custom backgrounds are a valid option, and then you complain that people are taking custom backgrounds into account? When someone says "get a background with Thieves' Tools" instead of saying "Get Urchin or Criminal", this is exactly why: "A background with Thieves' Tools" might be one of those, or it might be a custom background, but the important point is that it has Thieves' Tools.

I think his problem is people saying "You want thieves tools, better get this ONE background or there is no way".

[Tenmujiin]

I think his problem is people saying "You want thieves tools, better get this ONE background or there is no way".
Basically this. I see people suggesting that urchin and criminal should be taken than saying "try and get thieves tools from your background.

[Chronos]

Ah, OK. The way you worded the OP, it looked like you were making the opposite complaint.

Though, to be fair, if I were to come up with the exactly optimum custom background for a roguish character, it't probably look identical to the Urchin, or nearly so. Two of the best rogue skills, the single most useful tool, and another relatively useful tool? What would I even want to change?

[Magic Myrmidon]

Ah, OK. The way you worded the OP, it looked like you were making the opposite complaint.

Though, to be fair, if I were to come up with the exactly optimum custom background for a roguish character, it't probably look identical to the Urchin, or nearly so. Two of the best rogue skills, the single most useful tool, and another relatively useful tool? What would I even want to change?

Mainly because you probably want those skills, but to NOT be an urchin. For example, I actually want to be a noble. This noble is actually the spymaster for the king, but nobody would ever know that. So I would want everything the urchin has (except the background feature, probably). A noble is hardly an urchin.

[eastmabl]

sure, but it's a heck of a lot easier to get half the party to make the check if everyone is at least moderately competent.

From a DMing standpoint, I will often rely on "group checks" for stealth test done in unison. I figure out who player is in the middle, bonus wise, and they roll the check for the group. I figure that the stealthy characters and the clangy characters offset and just go with median.

It really helps speed up game play with a single roll. It also entails less planning of how players will move across certain areas.

(For example, in one group the bonuses to Stealth are +7, +3, +1, 0 [Dis] and -1 [Dis]. Instead of slowing up play because three characters stand a good chance of succeeding and two characters have a limited chance at succeeding, I just use the median. If you add up the bonuses/penalties, it comes out to about the same as is).

[archaeo]

Mainly because you probably want those skills, but to NOT be an urchin. For example, I actually want to be a noble. This noble is actually the spymaster for the king, but nobody would ever know that. So I would want everything the urchin has (except the background feature, probably). A noble is hardly an urchin.

Is this often a problem, though? Isn't it easy enough to say, "Pick urchin or create your own background using urchin as a template?" If I was your DM in this example, I'd cheerfully tell you that your former spymaster could have everything the urchin does, including the background feature, and you could call it a noble, and all would be well, right?

I really can't imagine DMs being so strict as to disallow some creative background tinkering. It's possible 5e does players a disservice by providing such detailed default backgrounds; it sort of disguises the fact that they're incredibly simple and easy to make.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Is this often a problem, though? Isn't it easy enough to say, "Pick urchin or create your own background using urchin as a template?" If I was your DM in this example, I'd cheerfully tell you that your former spymaster could have everything the urchin does, including the background feature, and you could call it a noble, and all would be well, right?

I really can't imagine DMs being so strict as to disallow some creative background tinkering. It's possible 5e does players a disservice by providing such detailed default backgrounds; it sort of disguises the fact that they're incredibly simple and easy to make.

Oh, sure, it's easy to handle, and a lot of groups would do that, I'm sure. I was mainly responding to the "why would I even want to change" part.

And I think this topic shows that every table is really different with this sort of thing. A lot of people wouldn't want that, since the book says "noble" has different skills and equipment. I've personally had a heck of a time trying to refluff things with numerous DMs (especially when it comes to weapons. A lot of DMs seem to have a problem with using greatsword stats, but calling it a greataxe, for example. Will never understand why.)

I'm particularly vocal about refluffing, basically.

[Myzz]

Oh, and about the order in which people design characters, class or background first: My current character (which I will eventually get to play, damn it!) sort of went in both directions at once. I wanted something scholarly to hook into the campaign the way I wanted to, and I wanted something thiefy because I usually play skillmonkeys and it seemed a good way to start a new edition with something I was familiar with, but it took me a while to decide between bard/urchin and rogue/sage (I eventually decided on the latter).


you can envision your character from any directions you want. Mechanically the system is set up that you choose Race, then Class, then background. Its step by step in the character creation pages at the beginning of the PHB. Then those steps are then laid out in that order within the book itself...

The reasoning behind the mechanics making a difference, is that if your Race or class skills double up with background skills the whole skill list opens up to you for selecting new skills. IF class selection was last, you'd mechanically be limited to what skills were available to that class. Theoretically, if you chose a class skill that was the same as a racial skill, then you'd ONLY be able to choose another class skill.

Skill choices within a class are limited. Skill choices among backgrounds are unlimited...

[Vogonjeltz]

That says "would" not "could". If your background gives you a skill and your class offers the same skill, the obvious answer is to choose a different class skill that isn't already given by your background. If the term was "Could", then you very well could just choose any skill you like simply by having the option of having two skills that are the same but the fact that it says "would" suggests that that clause only comes into play when you don't have the option.

Wow, fantastic catch!

Here are the forced proficiency conflicts (race/class + background):

Rogue + Criminal (thieve's tools)
Druid + Hermit (Herbalism kit)
Elf + Sailor (Perception)
Half-Orc + Soldier (Intimidation)
Rogue + Urchin (Thieve's Tools)

That rule seems to specifically refer to these.


This is a perfectly logical way to handle it, but the RAW is that you select background after class. Since background skills are fixed, (unless you customize it, which results in a different fixed state) the difference between would and could is meaningless. Please note, I agree with you on how it should work, which is why I changed it to work that way. My inner rules lawyer just doesn't believe that is how it is described to work.

The combinations I've posted work that way, so that suggests to me that this is specifically the issue they're avoiding.


Mainly because you probably want those skills, but to NOT be an urchin. For example, I actually want to be a noble. This noble is actually the spymaster for the king, but nobody would ever know that. So I would want everything the urchin has (except the background feature, probably). A noble is hardly an urchin.

There's a variant to the Criminal background: Spy that does this better, it even has contacts for information gathering which is much more Spymaster like.

[Naanomi]

Rogue + Criminal (thieve's tools)
Druid + Hermit (Herbalism kit)
Elf + Sailor (Perception)
Half-Orc + Soldier (Intimidation)
Rogue + Urchin (Thieve's Tools)
Goliath + Sailor as well

[kaoskonfety]

Basically this. I see people suggesting that urchin and criminal should be taken than saying "try and get thieves tools from your background.

Sarcasm all the way down... but:
Examine the life choices you could have made that lead up to you attacking a gibbering mouther with a sword.

Review the list of backgrounds.

Realize you were probably a criminal and/or a street urchin at some point in there, if not currently.

Profit.

[xyianth]

Wow, fantastic catch!

Here are the forced proficiency conflicts (race/class + background):

Rogue + Criminal (thieve's tools)
Druid + Hermit (Herbalism kit)
Elf + Sailor (Perception)
Half-Orc + Soldier (Intimidation)
Rogue + Urchin (Thieve's Tools)

That rule seems to specifically refer to these.



The combinations I've posted work that way, so that suggests to me that this is specifically the issue they're avoiding.

Order matters though. Because you select background after class, any skills/tools you selected as part of your class are now skills/tools you are proficient in. If you then select a background that duplicates those proficiencies: you 'would' gain those proficiencies twice. This then triggers the rule that lets you select any other skill/tool. You could of course select a different background, but your class and all related decisions are already done. This isn't a big deal RAW, since the rules let you customize your background as you see fit anyway.

If the order was instead race->background->class, you would still potentially run into issues between race and background, but when it came time to select class skills, it only 'could' overlap based on which choices you pick from a limited list. This is a much stronger indication that you should pick other class skills as opposed to any other skills you want. Unfortunately, this isn't the order used.

And, just as a reminder, I mostly agree with you on how it should work. I specifically changed it to work that way in my campaigns. I'm simply stating that such a change is, in fact, needed as the RAW doesn't work that way.

[Magic Myrmidon]

There's a variant to the Criminal background: Spy that does this better, it even has contacts for information gathering which is much more Spymaster like.

Well, sure, but I can go for a while on exceptions to the background. My noble executes his contacts in order to keep his nobility from being questioned, so I want the noble perk.

The point is, I could relatively easily justify a different set of skills for any background. Maybe I want to be an outlander, but I was the resident storykeeper. I should probably have history and perform, not survival and (whatever else there is). Sage doesn't work, though, since I wouldn't know libraries or research methods.

[Vogonjeltz]

Goliath + Sailor as well

Aye, good pickup.


Order matters though. Because you select background after class, any skills/tools you selected as part of your class are now skills/tools you are proficient in. If you then select a background that duplicates those proficiencies: you 'would' gain those proficiencies twice. This then triggers the rule that lets you select any other skill/tool. You could of course select a different background, but your class and all related decisions are already done. This isn't a big deal RAW, since the rules let you customize your background as you see fit anyway.

If the order was instead race->background->class, you would still potentially run into issues between race and background, but when it came time to select class skills, it only 'could' overlap based on which choices you pick from a limited list. This is a much stronger indication that you should pick other class skills as opposed to any other skills you want. Unfortunately, this isn't the order used.

And, just as a reminder, I mostly agree with you on how it should work. I specifically changed it to work that way in my campaigns. I'm simply stating that such a change is, in fact, needed as the RAW doesn't work that way.

Oh wow, yeah, agreed then. I guess it surprises me that they wouldn't have ordered it the other way to avoid that overlap. It seems odd that they put character construction in a non-chronological order sense. (Background would occur prior to class).


Well, sure, but I can go for a while on exceptions to the background. My noble executes his contacts in order to keep his nobility from being questioned, so I want the noble perk.

The point is, I could relatively easily justify a different set of skills for any background. Maybe I want to be an outlander, but I was the resident storykeeper. I should probably have history and perform, not survival and (whatever else there is). Sage doesn't work, though, since I wouldn't know libraries or research methods.

Executing all their contacts doesn't seem practical. Also prone to backfiring (someone at sometime will have told their mate that they were having dealings with person X, and then the rumors will begin to fly).

You could probably also try to get milage out of the Charlatan's secret identities where it's refluffed so your secret is the peasant identity you use to suss out information.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Sure, it's impractical, and stupid, really, but making characters with flaws is thing that people often encourage. Charlatan would be cool for that, but then I wouldn't really be getting the respect I should be getting as a noble, because I wouldn't have the noble feature.

...

I just realized I'm not entirely sure what I'm arguing against, I won't be playing this character. :p