Should Multiclassing give you more skills?

[The Zoat]

In vanilla 5e, multiclassing only grants you additional skill proficiencies if you go into Rogue, Bard or Ranger, the three classes which give you 3 skills when you choose them at level 1. In my view, this is a problematic situation, given that as it is those who multiclass into Wizard can't be proficient in Arcana, and those that multiclass into Bard can have one of Performance or Persuasion, but not both. To address this: I propose that all classes should grant 1 additional skill on multiclassing, based on the 'bare minimum' that would be expected from a member of that class.

Barbarian: Athletics, Intimidation or Survival
Bard: Any Skill and Performance, Persuasion or Arcana
Cleric: Religion, Insight or Medicine
Druid: Nature, Survival or Animal Handling
Fighter: Athletics, Intimidation or Perception
Monk: Athletics, Acrobatics or Stealth
Paladin: Athletics, Persuasion or Religion
Ranger: Any Ranger class skill and Nature, Survival or Stealth
Rogue: Any Rogue class skill and Stealth, Investigation, or Sleight of Hand
Sorcerer: Arcana, Intimidation, Persuasion
Warlock: Arcana, Deception, or Religion
Wizard: Arcana, Investigation or History

What do you think? While multiclassing is already a very viable option in terms of the combat pillar of the game, I feel like this change would also make attractive in terms of diversifying your characters abilities outside of combat as well.

[Hawkstar]

If you intend to multiclass, use your background to select the relevant skills. A multiclass character does not get more skill proficiencies than a single-class character.

[The Zoat]

If you intend to multiclass, use your background to select the relevant skills. A multiclass character does not get more skill proficiencies than a single-class character.

I understand that, but should such a thing not be possible? I don't understand why an Urchin Fighter who became an Eldritch Knight and then multiclassed into wizard shouldn't have Arcana proficiency.

[Potato_Priest]

I understand that, but should such a thing not be possible? I don't understand why an Urchin Fighter who became an Eldritch Knight and then multiclassed into wizard shouldn't have Arcana proficiency.

Roleplay Reason: Because they grew up on the streets and are only now learning about all this magic-y stuff. Advanced principles of magic, magic items, and common spells are not things that an urchin who has spent a couple weeks in a dungeon would know. You need college or a very un-urchiny upbringing to learn that kind of stuff, even if you can do the practical application part.

Real Reason: Because multiclassing is broke enough as it is.



This urchin could take a feat to devote themselves whole-heartedly to learning the fundamental theories of the magical arts if they so chose. The skilled feat is there for a reason.

[The Zoat]

Real Reason: Because multiclassing is broke enough as it is.

Is it really? Sure multiclassing helps a great deal in terms of allowing you to achieve interesting combat concepts like palasorc and EK-bladesinger, but it's impact on out-of-combat utility is fairly minimal, so I don't see the problem with throwing in some skills to help character concepts be easier to achieve.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Sure multiclassing helps a great deal in terms of allowing you to achieve interesting combat concepts like palasorc and EK-bladesinger, but it's impact on out-of-combat utility is fairly minimal.[/snip]Is it really? Multiclassing into something with a lot of non-combat utility like Ranger, Druid or Wizard already gives you all of that utility in addition to the combat-relevant parts of the class. Would your example of an Urchin Eldritch Knight who went into Wizard really pick up no out-of-combat utility from gaining three extra cantrips, ritual casting and 6 more wizard spells known? Getting all the class's features and also extra skill proficiencies would definitely be too strong, especially when most single class characters are limited to around four skills (two background, two class) and when the background system already give you a lot of flexibility for getting hold of the skills that are going to fit your concept.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you intend to multiclass, use your background to select the relevant skills. A multiclass character does not get more skill proficiencies than a single-class character.


This urchin could take a feat to devote themselves whole-heartedly to learning the fundamental theories of the magical arts if they so chose. The skilled feat is there for a reason.

These are the answers you're looking for. Maybe (clearly) not the answers you want, but they are indeed the answers you're looking for.

[Ninja_Prawn]

In my view, this is a problematic situation

I disagree, except that I sometimes wonder if multiclassing into rogue should give you two extra skills - I'm on the fence about that one.

But otherwise, giving people free skills for multiclassing is unnecessary from a mechanical perspective. I wouldn't say that multiclassing itself was broken, but it's certainly good enough. The whole idea is that there is some trade-off between power and flexibility, so adding more power (in the form of more skills) disturbs that balance. Sure, one skill proficiency isn't a huge deal, but that cuts both ways: not having a skill proficiency also isn't a big deal.

I also don't subscribe to your assertion that each class is 'expected' to have certain skills (from either IC or OOC perspectives). That is true neither in theory nor in practice; indeed it seems to me that the 5e books are written to specifically discourage this mindset. Not all wizards are college-educated academics, after all.

And as Potato_Priest says, there's already a feat for this exact thing.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

Roleplay Reason: Because they grew up on the streets and are only now learning about all this magic-y stuff. Advanced principles of magic, magic items, and common spells are not things that an urchin who has spent a couple weeks in a dungeon would know. You need college or a very un-urchiny upbringing to learn that kind of stuff, even if you can do the practical application part. In roleplaying terms, I very much agree with this. By way of a real world example, the difference between being able to cast spells vs. being proficient in Arcana is like the difference between being able to cook and being knowledgeable about the science and theory of cooking. Someone who can cook (cast spells) can follow a recipe and produce a batch of cookies that are what the recipe is intended to produce (cast a spell and have it produce it's intended effects). Someone who is knowledgeable about cooking (proficient in the arcana skill) can explain to you why the recipe calls for baking soda and how that's different from baking powder and what changing the amount of white vs. brown sugar would do to your cookies (explain how a spell works and what arcane powers it draws from or manipulates and why it requires the components it does).

It's entirely possible to have one without the other; I've known people who can make a fantastic meal but don't care a bit for the hows and whys of the steps they're following as long as they work and I've known people with amazing recall for facts and information who could explain all the ins and outs of the science behind a recipe, but you put them in a kitchen and they'll mix up the teaspoon and the tablespoon and then forget whether they've already added the salt.

[Tanarii]

I understand that, but should such a thing not be possible? I don't understand why an Urchin Fighter who became an Eldritch Knight and then multiclassed into wizard shouldn't have Arcana proficiency.
Because a Wizard / Sorcerer / Warclock is not required to get a proficiency bonus to Intelligence (Arcana) checks. Nor a Cleric / Paladin to Intelligence (Religion). Nor Druid / Ranger to Intelligence (Nature).

Just because you know how to use Arcane spells, doesn't mean you're any better at knowing about the Lore related to all magical (including Divine) spells. For Religion/Nature it's an even more ridiculous assumption.

For the exact same reason, there's no cause, other than RAW ability score of Intelligence, for a spellcasting class to be better at Lore checks than a Bard or Rogue. Being a magic user (Spellcasting or Pact Magic) doesn't have anything to do with a focus (aka proficiency) in some kind of Lore.

If you want your specific character to have a focus in a kind of Lore, regardless of their class, then slect the proficiency in it when you start, just like any any other character. The classes that get (1) one bonus skill proficiency when multiclassing are the classes where a bonus skill proficiency is considered a Class Feature. That's why they get more. Other than that, ever character defaults to four skills total.

Or take the Skilled Feat, if feats are available in your campaign.

[Cespenar]

Logically, one should be able to gain proficiencies in new skills by growing in levels. But it's D&D instead.

Dirty fix:

Reduce the starting number of skill proficiencies by 1 or 2. Gain an extra skill proficiency whenever your proficiency bonus increases.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Because a Wizard / Sorcerer / Warclock is not required to get a proficiency bonus to Intelligence (Arcana) checks.

Just because you know how to use Arcane spells, doesn't mean you're any better at knowing about the Lore related to all magical (including Divine) spells.

This here is truthery.

There is this common notion that you can't logically be a wizard without having proficiency in Arcana. You absolutely can.

[The Zoat]

Being a magic user (Spellcasting or Pact Magic) doesn't have anything to do with a focus (aka proficiency) in some kind of Lore.

If you want your specific character to have a focus in a kind of Lore, regardless of their class, then slect the proficiency in it when you start, just like any any other character. The classes that get (1) one bonus skill proficiency when multiclassing are the classes where a bonus skill proficiency is considered a Class Feature. That's why they get more. Other than that, ever character defaults to four skills total.

Or take the Skilled Feat, if feats are available in your campaign.

To begin with, being a spellcaster does have to do with skills in Arcana/Religion... some of the time, and it depends on the individual character. The idea that (of course) not every member of a class NEEDS a certain skill is why there's a choice after all. If you don't think your suddenly-divinely-empowered fighter-cleric should be proficient in religion that's fine, just take one of the other two options.

Secondly, yes, I do understand that the way skills work currently allows you to do that, but in my view its narrow nature can present niggling issues. For example, a former Criminal who has joined an order of mage-assassins (wizard x arcane trickster/thief/assassin) either forgoes one of acrobatics and athletics or misses out on arcana entirely. Certainly the preceding backstory is somewhat contrived for a human, but considering the extremely long elvish lifespan it's hardly impossible. In fact, another issue I have is that going from a unarmoured class to an armoured one always gives its full proficiency UNLESS it's heavy. This makes multiclassing and what to take at level 1 needlessly complicated, and is the main reason why most optimal fighter 1/x builds start with fighter, such as (current) optimal bladelock and combat abjurer.

As for the Skilled feat, it seems to me one of the most oddly-balanced feats in terms of its effect. While it takes 3 or 2 half-feats to get the armour of a fighter, it takes only one full-feat to match the skills of a bard. More than that, it is far more expedient to simply dip fighter for a level, rather than wait for 8th level at the very bare minimum just for a few points of AC. In general, the sacrifice of a single level far outstrips the sacrifice of one ASI... except as it comes to the Skilled feat. Additionally, the Skilled feat can often be obnoxiously inefficient, sure 3 skill proficiencies is a lot on paper but for a multiclassing bard/rogue/ranger it generally doesn't give you more than one or two proficiencies you really care about.

[Tanarii]

In general, the sacrifice of a single level far outstrips the sacrifice of one ASI... thats one of many reasons I don't allow multiclassing at all IMC. The bigger one is I wanted it to feel more grognardia / like BECMI. But also because often the sacrifice of a single level gets ridiculous gains in the short-term.

That aside, the main point is having the skill isn't a level one class feature for Wizards. Or other spell casters, remembering that Arcana covers all spells, not just Wizard or Arcane Spells. Whereas an extra skill or some portion of weapon / armor proficiency can (and is) considered a portion of the level one class feature for various classes.

[BW022]

I don't see why this is an issue. You can get pretty much any set of skills at first-level by selecting the correct class, race, and background.

Races Variant humans and half-elves can select one or more skills. Other races get additional proficiencies which (combined with backgrounds) can be used to gain any skill proficiency. A variant human or half-elf rogue can easily select Arcana for racial skill.

Classes A number of classes gain bonus skills -- nature cleric, knowledge clerics, certain bards, etc. These also work with backgrounds to gain additional skills of your choice.

Backgrounds "If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead." So, an elf rogue with stealth could select the urchin background and gain arcana from the duplicated stealth proficiency.

Additional Backgrounds There are a number of backgrounds from various setting books, such as the Sword Coast book. These add a lot of backgrounds which offer a lot more skill combinations, including some which allow selection of skills.

Custom Backgrounds You can work with your DM to create customs backgrounds.

Skilled You can always take the skilled feat to gain three skills or tools of your choice.

I haven't seen too many cases were you couldn't end up with at least two or three skills of your choice starting with almost any class.

[DivisibleByZero]

And don't forget that the Backgrounds in the PHB (and other sources) are only examples, and that players are encouraged to create their own BGs, which could literally have any proficiencies that you want so long as your DM doesn't veto it. And let's face it, and DM who vetoes a custom BG because he doesn't like the proficiencies that you chose is basically a jerk.

[Tanarii]

And let's face it, and DM who vetoes a custom BG because he doesn't like the proficiencies that you chose is basically a jerk.Or he's read the DMG, which discusses creating non-PHB backgrounds as part of the Dungeon Master's Workshop section on Creating New Character Options. The PHB seems to imply custom backgrounds are under player control, while the DMG does the exact opposite. OTOH rejecting something out of hand without a specific reason generally is kind of jerk-ish.

In my case, for example, wanting strong archetypes & backgrounds. Same reason I have players choose class skills AFTER they choose background skills, which means you can't choose one you already have then swap one out for any skill. Of course, players that don't like that can easily vote with their feet, since I run my sessions in game stores that also run AL games.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In my case, for example, wanting strong archetypes & backgrounds. Same reason I have players choose class skills AFTER they choose background skills, which means you can't choose one you already have then swap one out for any skill. Of course, players that don't like that can easily vote with their feet, since I run my sessions in game stores that also run AL games.
Why? Are skills really that important that it's worth that kind of restriction? In my games, I tell players to ignore the written backgrounds altogether-- just pick two skills, two tools/languages, and we'll come up with a fluffy background ability together.

[RickAllison]

Why? Are skills really that important that it's worth that kind of restriction? In my games, I tell players to ignore the written backgrounds altogether-- just pick two skills, two tools/languages, and we'll come up with a fluffy background ability together.

That is what the PHB explicitly says players can do. The only requirements for a background to be legal without an explicit houserule by the DM is a feature in the books or one agreed to by the DM, two skills, some combination of two languages or tool proficiencies from within the supplied backgrounds (no electricians' tools, for example), any desired personality traits (not restricted to those in the books), and the appropriate equipment/coin for whatever background title you think is applicable for your character. The DMG does not change that permission, only giving in-depth guidelines for creating new backgrounds rather than customizing ones in the book.

So if you want a feature not in the book or equipment, tools, or languages not in the backgrounds, you are reliant on the DM. Otherwise, the power is in the players' hands.

[Tanarii]

That is what the PHB explicitly says players can do. The only requirements for a background to be legal without an explicit houserule by the DM is a feature in the books or one agreed to by the DM, two skills, some combination of two languages or tool proficiencies from within the supplied backgrounds (no electricians' tools, for example), any desired personality traits (not restricted to those in the books), and the appropriate equipment/coin for whatever background title you think is applicable for your character. The DMG does not change that permission, only giving in-depth guidelines for creating new backgrounds rather than customizing ones in the book.

So if you want a feature not in the book or equipment, tools, or languages not in the backgrounds, you are reliant on the DM. Otherwise, the power is in the players' hands.
Nope. DMG disagrees with you, and puts custom backgrounds in the hands of the DM. So it's clearly not a house-rule, the two books seem to imply different things. (Not that it really matters unless you're claiming a "no house-rule" game, of course. But that's a silly claim to make ... even AL has house-rules.)

[DivisibleByZero]

That is what the PHB explicitly says players can do. The only requirements for a background to be legal without an explicit houserule by the DM is a feature in the books or one agreed to by the DM, two skills, some combination of two languages or tool proficiencies from within the supplied backgrounds (no electricians' tools, for example), any desired personality traits (not restricted to those in the books), and the appropriate equipment/coin for whatever background title you think is applicable for your character. The DMG does not change that permission, only giving in-depth guidelines for creating new backgrounds rather than customizing ones in the book.

So if you want a feature not in the book or equipment, tools, or languages not in the backgrounds, you are reliant on the DM. Otherwise, the power is in the players' hands.

Precisely.
For example, my current character is a customized Noble/Inheritor. I used the traits/bond/ideal/flaw from Noble as a base, changing them a bit but following the same concept. Then I took the Feature from Inheritor in SCAG (leaving the details up to the DM). My skills came from neither, and were simply two skills that I thought this particular character would have had.


Nope. DMG disagrees with you, and puts custom backgrounds in the hands of the DM. So it's clearly not a house-rule, the two books seem to imply different things. (Not that it really matters unless you're claiming a "no house-rule" game, of course. But that's a silly claim to make ... even AL has house-rules.)

No. What the DMG covers is how to create a specific BG for your own world. It doesn't step on the toes of anything the PHB says with regards to custom BGs.

"C u s t o m i z i n g a B a c k g r o u n d
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.)
Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."

Nothing in the DMG changes any of this. What the DMG does is expand upon it to explain that you, as the DM, might want specific customized BGs in your game.

[Tanarii]

No. What the DMG covers is how to create a specific BG for your own world.Precisely.
It doesn't step on the toes of anything the PHB says with regards to custom BGs.Except for everything in your previous sentence, which does exactly that. At least as far as backgrounds and customizing them being the sole province of players without consulting with their DM, and it being a "house rule" for the DM to say otherwise.


Why? Are skills really that important that it's worth that kind of restriction? In my games, I tell players to ignore the written backgrounds altogether-- just pick two skills, two tools/languages, and we'll come up with a fluffy background ability together.Because, as I said, I wanted strong (Class) Archetypes and Backgrounds.

[Naanomi]

I tend to follow AL rules (roughly) at my table, so I allow custom backgrounds. In general the 'special ability' of your background is much more important fluff-wise to the skills or starting equipment anyways.

As an aside, it is easy enough to multiclass around and get proficiency in every skill by level 7 or so if it is important to you

[Desamir]

Precisely. Except for everything in your previous sentence, which does exactly that. At least as far as backgrounds and customizing them being the sole province of players without consulting with their DM, and it being a "house rule" for the DM to say otherwise.

Per RAW, the DMG allows you to make a new background, and the PHB allows the player to customize it. There is no conflict.

Obviously you're welcome to restrict backgrounds from your players, just like you're allowed to ban classes or races, but that's homebrew by definition.

[Tanarii]

I homebrew quite a lot. But no, it is not homebrew for customizing a background to be considered anything other than the sole province of the Player without DM restriction. Sorry guys, you're just wrong on this one.

[DivisibleByZero]

Precisely. Except for everything in your previous sentence, which does exactly that. At least as far as backgrounds and customizing them being the sole province of players without consulting with their DM, and it being a "house rule" for the DM to say otherwise.

Nope.
You were responding while I was editing, so I'll post it here again:

No. What the DMG covers is how to create a specific BG for your own world. It doesn't step on the toes of anything the PHB says with regards to custom BGs.

"C u s t o m i z i n g a B a c k g r o u n d
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.)
Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one."

Nothing in the DMG changes any of this. What the DMG does is expand upon it to explain that you, as the DM, might want specific customized BGs in your game.

edit:
And just to make certain that you see it, the *ONLY* part of that which requires DM approval is if you can't find a feature that you like and want to make a new one. Every single other part of it is player agency territory.
The DMG does not change this. It simply gives guidelines for if the DM wants to *ADD* specific BGs for his or her own campaign.
Furthermore: "Each background presented later in this chapter includes suggested characteristics that you can use to spark your imagination. You’re not bound to those options, but they’re a good starting point."

[Desamir]

I homebrew quite a lot. But no, it is not homebrew for customizing a background to be considered anything other than the sole province of the Player without DM restriction. Sorry guys, you're just wrong on this one.

I'm not sure what to tell you, that's literally what the book says. It's totally unambiguous RAW. You're pointing at the book and saying "you're just wrong on this one." Can't help you there.

Again, removing the ability to customize backgrounds is like banning classes or races, it's something the DM is welcome to do to establish their setting. That is the purest definition of homebrew. It's not a dirty word.

I'm also not sure why this is controversial. Backgrounds, bonds, ideals, and flaws are key parts of player agency and really ought to stay that way.

[RickAllison]

Tanarii, could you please point out where there is a conflict of rules between the DMG and PHB? Because without a conflict of rules, the DMG does NOT override the PHB and in fact the PHB would override the DMG.

But that is not a problem. The DMG deals with Creating backgrounds. The PHB deals with Customizing backgrounds. The latter changes around the components that the former (and the book) provides. They are two different rules.

[Tanarii]

They are two different rules ... for the exact same thing. One tells the player how to do it, the other tells the DM how to do it. They aren't in conflict at all. They're both saying how to do the same thing. All that does is show that it's written to not be the eminent domain of either party.

Totally banning changes to the backgrounds outright as opposed to coordinating with the player, and requiring Background skills first before Class skills, like I do? Homebrew, or (at best) an edge interpretation. Claiming that the player reserves the right to make any customization they want and the DM does not have any say? Also homebrew / edge interpretation.

(As a side note, if I had a smaller group of players, I probably would coordinate with the player as opposed to just having a blanket ban to accomplish what I'm trying to accomplish. As it is I just made it a one-size-fits-all, for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is wanting to retain strong archetypes without having to spend a huge amount of time vetting each and every PC created.)

[DivisibleByZero]

Claiming that the player reserves the right to make any customization they want and the DM does not have any say? Also homebrew / edge interpretation.

And that's where you're wrong.
Customizing a Background
You might want to tweak some of the features of a background so it better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one, choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.)
Finally, choose two personality traits, one ideal, one bond, and one flaw. If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
If you can't find a feature that you like and you want to create a new one, that is the single thing that requires DM approval by the RAW.
The DMG has guidelines for creating new and more specific BGs.
CREATING A BACKGROUND
A well-crafted background can help a player create a
character that feels like an exciting addition to your
campaign. It helps define the character's place in the
world, rather than what a character is in terms of game
mechanics.
Instead of focusing on a generic character
background, such as merchant or wanderer, think
about the factions, organizations, and cultures of
your campaign and how they might be leveraged to
create flavorful backgrounds for player characters. For
example, you could create an acolyte of Candlekeep
background that is functionally similar to a sage
background, but which ties a character more closely to a
place and organization in your world.
A character with the acolyte of Candlekeep
background probably has friends among the
Avowed-the monks who maintain the great library
at Candlekeep. The character can enter the library
and consult its lore freely, while others must donate
a rare or valuable tome of knowledge before they are
allowed entry. Candlekeep's enemies are the character's
enemies, and its allies, the character's friends. Acolytes
of Candlekeep are generally regarded as learned sages
and protectors of knowledge. It's possible to envision
many interesting interactions as NPCs discover the
character's background and approach the character in
search of assistance.
To create your own background, follow these steps.
But those guidelines do not remove the player agency granted by the PHB. Instead, they grant the DM agency to create more specific, less generalized, Backgrounds. Just like the bolded portion spoilered above describes.

BG is player agency territory. The DM has agency as well, but in a different manner.
But what you're claiming is that the two books contradict each other. That isn't the case. They work in tandem, different approaches for what is essentially the same overall effect.
If you, as DM, want to create a Harper Agent BG, then the DMG tells you how to do it.
If you, as the player, want to create a Wanderer from a defunct Noble house, the PHB tells you how to do it.

[Tanarii]

And that's where you're wrong.Nope. Sorry. Completely right on this one.

We can keep saying this over and over again if we want though. :smallbiggrin:


BG is player agency territory. The DM has agency as well, but in a different manner.
But what you're claiming is that the two books contradict each other. That isn't the case. They work in tandem, different approaches for what is essentially the same overall effect.
If you, as DM, want to create a Harper Agent BG, then the DMG tells you how to do it.
If you, as the player, want to create a Wanderer from a defunct Noble house, the PHB tells you how to do it.
I am not saying they contradict each other. I'm saying they both give the exact same thing. One tells a player how to modify backgrounds, the other tells the DM to do it. Thus claiming one has sole providence is clearly either homebrew / an edge interpretation.

[RickAllison]

Totally banning changes to the backgrounds outright as opposed to coordinating with the player, and requiring Background skills first before Class skills, like I do? Homebrew, or (at best) an edge interpretation. Claiming that the player reserves the right to make any customization they want and the DM does not have any say? Also homebrew / edge interpretation.

Except they don't. The players get to choose whatever skills and personality traits they want (all the skills are represented anyway, and personality should not be dictated by mechanics anyway), and can select a combination of two languages or tools that are available via the created backgrounds. These changes are made to some existing background and they take the equipment that comes with it.

They can't take poisoner's kit proficiency (not on any of the approved backgrounds) or exotic languages (anything not Common, Dwarvish, Elvish, Giant, Gnomish, Goblin, Halfling, or Orc, per page 123) unless the DM gives permission. If the DM adds any tool proficiencies into the game, the players can only take it as a background if the DM allows or creates a background that implements it. Presumably if additional skills were added, they could also only be taken if the DM created a background, but that is up for debate as we don't have any examples currently. They can't alter the equipment of whatever background they are choosing to customize, so no one can just get thieves' tools from it because none of the backgrounds give those tools. If you take herbalism kit and the disguise kit proficiencies, you can't get both kits as only one background has herbalism kit and lacks the other.

[Desamir]

They are two different rules ... for the exact same thing. One tells the player how to do it, the other tells the DM how to do it. They aren't in conflict at all. They're both saying how to do the same thing. All that does is show that it's written to not be the eminent domain of either party.

Nope. One allows the DM to create new backgrounds out of whole cloth to provide the players with more options. The other allows the player to switch around proficiencies on their chosen background. The DM gets to add items to the menu, but in the end, the players get to choose their burger and their toppings. Look at the actual details of the rules, they're not "both saying how to do the same thing."


Totally banning changes to the backgrounds outright as opposed to coordinating with the player, and requiring Background skills first before Class skills, like I do? Homebrew, or (at best) an edge interpretation. Claiming that the player reserves the right to make any customization they want and the DM does not have any say? Also homebrew / edge interpretation.

That's a mischaracterization of our point of view. Nobody's saying that the DM doesn't have the final say over their game. What we are saying is that the book provides crystal clear RAW that during character creation, the player gets to choose the proficiencies for their background, without the DM's input. Obviously the DM has the right to reject any character concept they dislike--that's a social expectation and has nothing to do with the character creation rules as written.

[DivisibleByZero]

Nope. One allows the DM to create new backgrounds out of whole cloth to provide the players with more options. The other allows the player to switch around proficiencies on their chosen background. The DM gets to add items to the menu, but in the end, the players get to choose their burger and their toppings. Look at the actual details of the rules, they're not "both saying how to do the same thing."

This is 100% correct.
The PHB tells players they are allowed to mix and match BG parts to create the BG that they want. They are allowed to. Flat out. If they want to create a new Feature, then they need to work with the DM....
because....
The DMG tells the DM how to create new BGs, and the parts contained within.

They are not saying the same thing.
The PHB gives the players 100% agency with one tiny stipulation which requires DM approval.
The DMG says, "Hey, since we told the players that they can mix and match things, here's how you create new items for them to mix and match with if you want to."

[Tanarii]

Except they don't. The players get to choose whatever skills and personality traits they want (all the skills are represented anyway, and personality should not be dictated by mechanics anyway), and can select a combination of two languages or tools that are available via the created backgrounds. These changes are made to some existing background and they take the equipment that comes with it.Okay, customize within limits then. It's still telling the player how to do the same thing the DMG is telling the DM how to do ... make a custom background.

RAW is customization of backgrounds is possible by the PHB, or creation of new ones by the DMG. RAW is NOT that the Player has some inalienable "right" to that customization, that it's their sole domain and choice as to if they can customize a background.

Edit: In other words, it's distinctly different from choosing class skills.

Alternately, I can just keep saying the same thing: Sorry guys, you're wrong on this one. :smallyuk:

[DivisibleByZero]

Okay, customize within limits then. It's still telling the player how to do the same thing the DMG is telling the DM how to do ... make a custom background.

You still aren't seeing it.
The DMG and the PHB are not telling you how to do the same thing.
The PHB is telling players how to customize existing backgrounds while the DMG is telling the DM how to create entirely new ones from scratch.
Not the same thing. Not at all.
The burger analogy was a good one. The DMG tells the DM how to add new menu items. The PHB tells the players to order whatever they want from said menu.
Creating a new Feature is under the purview of the DM, which is why it is the *ONLY* thing that the PHB says requires working with the DM on while customizing existing BGs.

[Desamir]

RAW is customization of backgrounds is possible by the PHB, or creation of new ones by the DMG. RAW is NOT that the Player has some inalienable "right" to that customization, that it's their sole domain and choice as to if they can customize a background.

Edit: In other words, it's distinctly different from choosing class skills.

How exactly is it different from choosing class skills? I'm still trying to figure out your reasoning for this distinction, but it seems to be based in gutfeel rather than any tangible difference either of us can point at.

[Vogonjeltz]

I understand that, but should such a thing not be possible? I don't understand why an Urchin Fighter who became an Eldritch Knight and then multiclassed into wizard shouldn't have Arcana proficiency.

If they wanted Arcana that badly, they have two options:

1) Skilled Feat.
2) Start as a Wizard.

Wizards who MC into Fighter don't get Heavy armor proficiency, Fighters who MC into Wizards don't get the Wizard skill proficiencies. Fixing either requires a feat (or more multiclassing!). Seems legit.

Nor for that matter do Wizards have to have proficiency in Arcana, they could easily have selected a different skill proficiency.

[The Zoat]

If they wanted Arcana that badly, they have two options:

1) Skilled Feat.
2) Start as a Wizard.


I'm not sure why posters seem to think that I was not already aware of this when I proposed the change. As I have said, the Skilled feat is often egregious in that it's a full feat that often grants you too many skill proficiencies that you either have enough of or simply don't care about, which is why it's pretty much never recommended by optimization guides.

[Sigreid]

This is pure home brew, but my group allows players to spend gold and time as if learning a new tool to learn new skills during downtime.

[skaddix]

No but really there are two types of multiclassing the Dip which is 1-3 depending to get to Subclass Options which doesn't really negatively impact even if your campaign was to hit high levels heading towards 20.

And the more optimization multiclassing which will always be effective because it tends to spike at mid levels or around the point where most campaigns actually end so you will rarely go across . Thus losing your capstone (subclass one) is not really all that much of tax.

[The Zoat]

This is pure home brew, but my group allows players to spend gold and time as if learning a new tool to learn new skills during downtime.

I actually really like this idea, but a small 'flaw' is it doesn't let you get extra skills from being multiclassed from the beginning.

[Potato_Priest]

This is pure home brew, but my group allows players to spend gold and time as if learning a new tool to learn new skills during downtime.

We do that with almost all proficiencies. Weapons, next armor in order of heaviness, you name it.

[agnos]

Multi classing already provides pretty major benefits; in many cases where you want more skills it already offers more skills. Why expand this more? Generally speaking, a 1-2 level dip offers at least a feat in benefits (armor, proficiencies, Cantrips and spell kits, etc.). I see little to no reason to expand on this mechanically or flavorfully. Your rogue is a wannabe mage; so he got training in Arcana somewhere in his background right? I just don't find the argument compelling.

Fwiw, I and my local group are pretty loose about custom backgrounds so long as they include only:
1. Two skills
2. Two proficiencies
3. Roughly 40gp or less worth of fitting equipment
4. A background benefit from a printed background or something very close to it
I just don't see the point of heavily restricting something that is so barely fleshed out. Besides, most people want Perception trained when it will actually rarely make much of a difference for them.

[djreynolds]

If you were really nice, I might let you swap a skill for another. Lose athletics for arcana, or give up say sleight of hand for arcana.

Or just take a level of rogue and be done with it.

[The Zoat]

If you were really nice, I might let you swap a skill for another. Lose athletics for arcana, or give up say sleight of hand for arcana.


Actually, that's a pretty good compromise that doesn't really impact balance at all. Skill inflation was something I was worried about.

[Sigreid]

I actually really like this idea, but a small 'flaw' is it doesn't let you get extra skills from being multiclassed from the beginning.

No, it doesn't. That's why if one of my group says they intend to MC when starting a character I advise them to look at starting stuff and multi-class adds and decide what they think is to their best advantage.

[djreynolds]

Actually, that's a pretty good compromise that doesn't really impact balance at all. Skill inflation was something I was worried about.

Does it make sense? Does it flow?

Does the Eldritch Knight stop working out, and pour more of that work now into intelligence?

Say you are 3rd level EK and your proficiency bonus is +2 in athletics, could you leave that at +2 and the newly traded skill would start at +1 and eventually only go to +4 at 17th level.

You could take that eventual +6 in proficiency and break it up, 2 for athletics since you stopped training and the rest into arcana.

You are not as good as the wizard who trained in arcana all his life, but you are a little better than him with athletics

Lot of variables there for a fairer homebrew