Balancing background proficiencies... why not give armor or a weapon.

[Dankus Memakus]

So whilst tossing around ideas in my head I thought "why would giving armor or weapon proficiencies in backrounds break the game?" I mean for one, gladiator already gives you the trident so one weapon isn't a big deal it wouldn't unbalance the game, would armor? I mean a monk loses certain abilities when wearing heavy armor...same with barbarian. And with other classes heavy armor becomes quite MAD with its strength requirement. Medium armor can be replicated quite easily with spells and light armor....eh not worried about that destroying the game. Does anyone think it would be game breaking? If Of course if a pc wanted an armor proficiency id force them to have a story why and its gonna be the only thing I'd give them for a background. Also do rules prevent this? This is completely speculation, i have not done this nor do I plan to.

Edit: has anyone done this? Races allow it so i don't see it being too destructive so someone probably attempted it right?

[Zalabim]

There is no precedent for backgrounds giving proficiency in weapons or armor. It would be trading a feature that can provide a strong impact on the narrative in exploration, discovery, or society, for a small boost in combat. It's not really game breaking, it's just wrong.

[JellyPooga]

There is no precedent for backgrounds giving proficiency in weapons or armor. It would be trading a feature that can provide a strong impact on the narrative in exploration, discovery, or society, for a small boost in combat. It's not really game breaking, it's just wrong.

As the OP mentions, there is precedent in the Gladiator variant of the Entertainer Background, granting proficiency in an "exotic" weapon. While I doubt I'd ever use the option, if it were on the table, I see no reason why it couldn't be on that table. It's not going to break the game by any stretch of the imagination. Give a good reason why that proficiency is part of that Background and I'd be happy, same as any other proficiency.

[Azgeroth]

if you could get armour proficiency from a back ground, you would negate the need to multiclass dip, or take a feat.

that might sound good, but as either of those options costs your character part of its development, getting it in a background essentially gives it for free. thats bad.

[mephnick]

As the OP mentions, there is precedent in the Gladiator variant of the Entertainer Background, granting proficiency in an "exotic" weapon. While I doubt I'd ever use the option, if it were on the table, I see no reason why it couldn't be on that table. It's not going to break the game by any stretch of the imagination. Give a good reason why that proficiency is part of that Background and I'd be happy, same as any other proficiency.

A trident is one thing, granting armor or shield proficiency is another. The weapons in 5e are all largely similar, so granting proficiency in one is fairly pointless. People take entire dips and feats simply to get armor and shield proficiencies. Giving those to backgrounds is WAY too strong.

[Zalabim]

As the OP mentions, there is precedent in the Gladiator variant of the Entertainer Background, granting proficiency in an "exotic" weapon. While I doubt I'd ever use the option, if it were on the table, I see no reason why it couldn't be on that table. It's not going to break the game by any stretch of the imagination. Give a good reason why that proficiency is part of that Background and I'd be happy, same as any other proficiency.

No, there isn't. The gladiator variant gives you a Trident (or Net, or other cheap unusual weapon) in its equipment package.

[Lombra]

Every arcane caster would pick that background for shield or armor proficiency if it were given, specially if multiclassing isn't allowed. The combat pillar is such a bug deal to many that getting a boost there overshadows exploration and social interaction. That said, if in your campaign the three pillars are equally valued, it may be fine, because the character trades one or two not-combat related features to get a push in combat.

I wouldn't overextend to heavy armor or shields tho, a level 1 wizard with chainmail and shield could be a bit too much for the first tier of play.

Even dwarves only give medium armor proficiency, and it's a race, a way more restrictive type of "character variable", which means that if races don't do it, more general features like backgrounds shouldn't either.

Hardly game breaking tho, simply unfair to an extent.

[Naanomi]

I wouldn't do it at all, but if I did it would be light armor or a simple weapon only... something to make a caster a bit more flavorful but nothing changing the basic math of the classes

(And as noted above, Gladiator doesn't grant a weapon proficiency)

[Logosloki]

Not for armour. Maybe giving up a skill proficiency for shield. I already allow for one weapon proficiency as a freebie because weapons are more or less flavour. If you wanted, you could a player to choose a weapon proficiency (and gain said weapon) in lieu of a tool proficiency.

In my mind where, where weapons are concerned, the classes that need them already have them and the classes that don't need them receive restrictions based on tradition. Giving a player a weapon (and proficiency) for their background is a non-issue to me.

Shields are nice to have but they have their own restrictions. I see it fair that a player gives up a skill for a skill.

[Tanarii]

I don't like it. Backgrounds are focused on non-combat, so to speak. That's why none of them do it. Not even the Gladiator, Knight or Soldier backgrounds, where it would be incredibly appropriate.

Although I must say Wizard Knights feel a little funky, so I can see the motivation to do it. :smallwink:

[rbstr]

Just echoing others at this point, basically:

No way on armor. Weapons are pretty much fine though.
Classes pretty much either get the weapon profs they'll want to use or the weapon prof isn't really that useful to the class. Some clerics are the only ones on the top of my head where you get and want to use a martial weapon but can't use the others that are damage-die equiveleing. Like you can use a warhammer but not a Longsword.
I guess low-level casters might appreciate a longbow?

I'm not sure about shields. My gut says no. Mostly because of casters - a Wizard doesn't really suffer for the loss of one hand since the other one will have a focus or be free.

[Sigreid]

You're talking about giving a feat as one small part of a background.

[JellyPooga]

No, there isn't. The gladiator variant gives you a Trident (or Net, or other cheap unusual weapon) in its equipment package.

Huh. So it does. I've been failing at reading comprehension since I first saw that (then again, I only ever read it once, 'cos the concept doesn't interest me).

[Tanarii]

You're talking about giving a feat as one small part of a background.
Using Feats as the baseline, 3 skills is worth:
4 weapon proficiency and a +1 attribute bonus
or
1 level increase in armor proficiency and a +1 attribute bonus

I don't like the idea personally, but that might be a way to baseline the value.

[Sigreid]

Using Feats as the baseline, 3 skills is worth:
4 weapon proficiency and a +1 attribute bonus
or
1 level increase in armor proficiency and a +1 attribute bonus

I don't like the idea personally, but that might be a way to baseline the value.

Yeah, I don't much care what people do at their table , except to help me think through what I might want to do. I just thought I would try to provide a reference, though a half feat is more accurate as all of the armor proficiency feats also give a +1 attribute.

[Joe the Rat]

Armor proficiency gives you proficiency with at least three different things. (and that's light).
Weapon proficiency gives you one thing, which while comparable to others of similar attributes, is still just one thing. Potter, Carpenter, and Metalsmith all can make pots. That doesn't mean you can use a hammer and saw to work a block of silver into a tureen.

Replacing a tool proficiency with a single weapon proficiency for a background shouldn't be excessive. Though to parallel with the racials, having a limited selection may be in order (a "militant noble" type background might require a sword, "raised by elves" requires something from the elven weapon training list, as befits their intensely hostile culture, etc.).

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'd be cautious about including Weapon Proficiency in a background, especially the Martial Weapons. The list of Martial Melee Weapons offers much better options than the Simple Melee Weapons list, so if I'm playing a class that only gets Simple Melee Weapon proficiency, a Background that offers a single Martial Weapon proficiency (depending on which one) might become an automatic pick if I want to use a better weapon.

[Sigreid]

I'd be cautious about including Weapon Proficiency in a background, especially the Martial Weapons. The list of Martial Melee Weapons offers much better options than the Simple Melee Weapons list, so if I'm playing a class that only gets Simple Melee Weapon proficiency, a Background that offers a single Martial Weapon proficiency (depending on which one) might become an automatic pick if I want to use a better weapon.

Similarly most of my wizards would be all in for light armor.

[N810]

or you could just make a wizard...
and take 1 level of barbarian ...
for proficiency in all weapons and all armor (except heavy armor).

Considering this having 1 weapon proficiency in your background seems rather tame.

[rbstr]

That's a ridiculous comparison.

[Chronos]

It's not like the existing backgrounds are particularly balanced against each other, to begin with. Compare Noble with Urchin, for instance: How often does History come up, compared with Stealth or Sleight of Hand? How often is a gaming set or one additional language relevant, compared to Thieves' Tools? The Urchin background is already nearly as good as a dip in Rogue.

And be careful trying to balance by comparing feat equivalents: The Hill Dwarf features (over what all dwarves get) are equivalent to one feat, while the Mountain Dwarf features are equivalent to two feats, and yet for most characters Hill Dwarf is better.

[mephnick]

: How often does History come up, compared with Stealth or Sleight of Hand? .

I don't think I've ever asked for a SoH check outside of an arcane trickster player. History is used every session. ymmv

[Tanarii]

I don't think I've ever asked for a SoH check outside of an arcane trickster player. History is used every session. ymmv
That was my first thought too. I don't see things related to Sleight of Hand attempted very often. Trying to recall the history of something a character might feasibly know? Not as common as Arcana or Nature, but easily on par with Religion, and far more common than Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Animal Handling. Possibly even more common than Insight or Cha checks, depending on what kind of game is being run.