Skills and Proficiency

[stewstew5]

I recall seeing in the rulebook that if you gain proficiency in something from two sources, you may change one into a proficiency of the same type (saving throw to saving throw, skill to skill, tool to tool). Is this anywhere, or did I dream it up?

If it is in the book, could you RAW pick a background with similar skill proficiencies as your class and pick a proficiency that’s on neither list? (E.g. go paladin, pick athletics/religion, acolyte background, pick insight/arcana)

[JeenLeen]

I don't have an actual answer, but I'll bounce some ideas.


I recall seeing in the rulebook that if you gain proficiency in something from two sources, you may change one into a proficiency of the same type (saving throw to saving throw, skill to skill, tool to tool). Is this anywhere, or did I dream it up?

I also have that idea from somewhere.
Though I think, with saves, it should probably go "good save" with "good save". Like, proficiency in Intelligence, Charisma, and Strength saves go together as one group, with the better saves as another group. Though that is mechanically complex enough, and extra Save proficiencies rare enough, that I doubt that's actually the rule.


If it is in the book, could you RAW pick a background with similar skill proficiencies as your class and pick a proficiency that’s on neither list? (E.g. go paladin, pick athletics/religion, acolyte background, pick insight/arcana)

I would think this would only apply when your only choices are something you already had. I think all classes have 4+ skills, so you are unlikely to get the circumstance where your Background skills completely rule out your Class skills.

On the other hand, I could see it being well and good if, say, a Warlock who already had Persuasion proficiency took the Beguiling Presence (or whatever it is) invocation that gives Persuasion and Deception, and apply the Persuasion to a different skill. (Note: might have that invocation wrong, but gives the idea.)

[nickl_2000]

This only applies to backgrounds (phb 126) it says.

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, it only applies to skill and tools. RAW says that you can choose on that is on neither list. RP wise it makes more sense to choose something that is fitting to the character instead of just picking the "best" from an optimization standpoint.

[stewstew5]

This only applies to backgrounds (phb 126) it says.

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, it only applies to skill and tools. RAW says that you can choose on that is on neither list. RP wise it makes more sense to choose something that is fitting to the character instead of just picking the "best" from an optimization standpoint.

But can you do it as in my example, or as Jeenlewn thinks only if your other options are blocked off?

[nickl_2000]

But can you do it as in my example, or as Jeenlewn thinks only if your other options are blocked off?

RAW says you can pick a different proficiency of the same kind. So, there is nothing in the rules stopping you from picking whatever you want.


As a side note though, AL may have specific rules about this. I am not sure since I don't play it.

[OverLordOcelot]

I recall seeing in the rulebook that if you gain proficiency in something from two sources, you may change one into a proficiency of the same type (saving throw to saving throw, skill to skill, tool to tool). Is this anywhere, or did I dream it up?

If it is in the book, could you RAW pick a background with similar skill proficiencies as your class and pick a proficiency that’s on neither list? (E.g. go paladin, pick athletics/religion, acolyte background, pick insight/arcana)

It's true for skills, languages, and tools, not saves; if you take resilient (wis) when you're already proficient in wisdom saving throws you don't get to pick another save to be proficient in. RAW you can customize a background to whatever proficiencies you want as long as you stick to 2 skill and 2 tool/language proficiencies (might be just tools? I forget and don't have a lookup handy). You could just be an acolyte that studied insight and arcana in the first place.

[OverLordOcelot]

As a side note though, AL may have specific rules about this. I am not sure since I don't play it.

AL character creation explicitly allows custom backgrounds, so you can get whichever two skills you want without having to engage in 'forced to pick another' games.

[Willie the Duck]

If it is in the book, could you RAW pick a background with similar skill proficiencies as your class and pick a proficiency that’s on neither list? (E.g. go paladin, pick athletics/religion, acolyte background, pick insight/arcana)


But can you do it as in my example, or as Jeenlewn thinks only if your other options are blocked off?

Yes, your specific example is expressly allowed. Fighters selecting Athletics and Perception, then picking the sailor background and getting two <any> skills is a common example. As others have mentioned, skills gained in other fashions do not have the same luxury unless those specific avenues of acquiring skills have a similar qualifier.

[Naanomi]

Applies to tools and stuff as well (Hermit Druids or Urchin/Criminal Rogues for example)

[Greywander]

This only applies to backgrounds (phb 126) it says.

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, it only applies to skill and tools. RAW says that you can choose on that is on neither list. RP wise it makes more sense to choose something that is fitting to the character instead of just picking the "best" from an optimization standpoint.
I believe this is the answer you're looking for, as far as RAW is concerned.

If you're interested in expanding on this idea, I use a houserule that says if you get to choose between several options, and then later gain the same option you chose from another source, you can go back and re-choose the first option from the set that was available to you at the time. To give a couple of examples:

If you start as a fighter and take the Defense fighting style, them MC to paladin and decide you want TWF, you can take Defense as your paladin style and re-choose you fighter fighting style to get TWF.
If you play as a warlock and take EB as one of your starting cantrips, then take Spell Sniper, you can take EB as your Spell Sniper cantrip and go back and re-choose a different warlock cantrip instead.
If you start as a wizard proficient in Arcana, then MC into Knowledge cleric and get proficiency and expertise in Arcana, you can go back and choose a different wizard skill to be proficient in.
In a slightly different vein, if you learn a cantrip as one class, then MC to a different class that can also learn that cantrip, you can "transfer" the cantrip to the new class and re-choose a cantrip from the old one. For example, a wizard that takes Mage Hand, then MCs to warlock, takes Mage Hand as a warlock cantrip, and chooses a different wizard cantrip to replace it (since wizards have more to choose from).

Basically, I don't like having to plan out builds so meticulously just to prevent doubling up, so instead of doubling up you get to retroactively rebuild your character so that the doubling up does not occur but you otherwise end up with the same build.

The important part of this houserule is choice: If you double up on an ability, but never had a choice of other options, you're stuck with it. Even when you can go back to make a different choice, you're limited to the options you had to choose from at the time. As an example of the former, rogues don't have a choice about proficiency with thieves' tools, so if they gain that proficiency from another source, they can't choose to be proficient in a different set of tools instead. As an example of the latter, the wizard with Arcana proficiency who MCs to Knowledge cleric for Arcana expertise can only choose from the list of wizard skills to replace their Arcana proficiency.

[Tanarii]

The important part of this houserule is choice: If you double up on an ability, but never had a choice of other options, you're stuck with it. Even when you can go back to make a different choice, you're limited to the options you had to choose from at the time. As an example of the former, rogues don't have a choice about proficiency with thieves' tools, so if they gain that proficiency from another source, they can't choose to be proficient in a different set of tools instead. As an example of the latter, the wizard with Arcana proficiency who MCs to Knowledge cleric for Arcana expertise can only choose from the list of wizard skills to replace their Arcana proficiency.So under your house rule, if a Rogue Charlatan, who starts with Thieves Tools, Disguise Kit, and Forgery Kit, becomes and Assassin at third level and gains Disguise Kit and Poisoner's Kit, they cannot go back and choose any Tool because they've doubled up on Disguise Kit?

[Coffee_Dragon]

So under your house rule, if a Rogue Charlatan, who starts with Thieves Tools, Disguise Kit, and Forgery Kit, becomes and Assassin at third level and gains Disguise Kit and Poisoner's Kit, they cannot go back and choose any Tool because they've doubled up on Disguise Kit?

Taking Charlatan is a choice, isn't it?

I don't see anything on PHB 125 saying the rule only applies to background sources, the only restriction is skills and tools. So an elf who gets Perception from any other source gets a replacement, while a rogue who takes Resilient (Wis) and later gets Slippery Mind does not, nor can a mountain dwarf who gets light and/or medium armour from a class get an upgrade.

I would personally add a house rule to this: "If you have a free choice from a limited set of proficiencies, you may not pick ones you already have (in order to bounce) as long as there are ones in the selection you don't already have." This prevents for instance a nature cleric from getting any proficiency from Acolyte of Nature through bouncing (they would likely have at least one of the listed proficiencies from the cleric base).

[Tanarii]

Taking Charlatan is a choice, isn't it?
Didn't read to me like his house rule allowed going back and changing Backgrounds due to a dup tool prof.

[DarkKnightJin]

The PHB says that you can sub out Skill proficiencies for others that fit your character better.
Say, Acrobatics instead of Athletics for a Dex-based Soldier character.
And I think you also get relatively free choice of tool/instrument proficiency and languages.
As long as you don't get more than 2 tools or languages from the background, you can mix and match.

Your Noble didn't play a game, but instead studied another language? That's fine. The Background options in the PHB are explicitly stated to be examples. Templates to help inspire you to flesh out your character.

To help avoid making Generic Human GWM Fighter #7 and all that.

[Greywander]

Didn't read to me like his house rule allowed going back and changing Backgrounds due to a dup tool prof.
Rather than treating a background as a set package of specific skills, tools/languages, gear, and ribbon feature, I prefer to think of it as choosing each of those independently. So yes, if you started as a Charlatan and then when Assassin rogue, you could go back and choose different tools or languages to replace the disguise and forgery kit proficiencies, just as you could have chosen different tools or languages if you had used a custom background (custom backgrounds are RAW, as well). Background is a choice, and with custom backgrounds it's a flexible choice that lets you switch out part of a background (like tools and languages) while keeping the rest of the background (like the ribbon, skills, and gear).

[Tanarii]

just as you could have chosen different tools or languages if you had used a custom background (custom backgrounds are RAW, as well).
RAW with DM approval, but since you're the DM that's kind of a given since you're the one making the statement.

[Greywander]

Well, it's my houserule, so I suppose tautologically that means I must be the DM if it is in effect. Though I'd hope in a scenario where I'm a player I could convince the DM that such a houserule made sense and should be implemented into their game.

As for custom backgrounds, they are RAW. It's not an optional or variant rule (the listed backgrounds are even referred to as "sample backgrounds", implying they are just a few of many possible permutations), so I wouldn't think that you'd need to get DM approval before making a character with a custom background. Of course, the DM has the final say in everything, so technically everything is with DM approval, and the DM has the power to override the RAW (this is what houserules are), but it's not possible to discuss rules and builds and whatnot in any useful capacity if you're approaching it from a perspective that the DM can ban anything from their game. This is why, "Ask your DM," is such a useless response to rules questions, even if it is definitely something that a player should do (in some cases, the person asking is the DM, so it's even less helpful).

In order to have a productive discussion about the rules, we have to have a set of rules that are "probably allowed at most table" and rules that "might be allowed, but make sure you ask first". We can assume that the former are always in effect (e.g. when getting build advice), even though some table might ban or change them. The latter fall in the more speculative category of, "If your DM let's you do this, then here's what you can do with it," but always carries the assumption that you have to ask first, before e.g. building a character that uses those more speculative rules. But for the former, the onus is on the DM to inform you that it isn't allowed, rather than on you to ask if it is.

Point is, custom background should fall into that first category. Technically, feats are an optional rule, but most people seem to treat those as default (again, with the caveat that a DM can ban them, but the assumption is that they won't unless they specifically say so). According to the RAW, you're more justified to assume that custom backgrounds will be allowed than you are to assume feats will be allowed. But what's actually more important? What the rules say, or how the rules are consistently used? It can be a tricky thing, for sure.

I would be surprised if a DM didn't allow custom backgrounds, and I'd be curious to hear their reasoning for doing so. Well, let me rephrase that; I'd be surprised if a DM actually had a good reason to ban custom backgrounds. There's a lot of bad DMs out there, so I wouldn't actually be too surprised to hear that one had banned custom backgrounds for terrible reasons. Heck, I've heard of a DM that banned spellcasters just because they didn't like them, and then proceeded to have a spellcaster DMPC.

[Tanarii]

As for custom backgrounds, they are RAW. It's not an optional or variant rule (the listed backgrounds are even referred to as "sample backgrounds", implying they are just a few of many possible permutations), so I wouldn't think that you'd need to get DM approval before making a character with a custom background. Of course, the DM has the final say in everything, so technically everything is with DM approval, and the DM has the power to override the RAW (this is what houserules are), but it's not possible to discuss rules and builds and whatnot in any useful capacity if you're approaching it from a perspective that the DM can ban anything from their game. This is why, "Ask your DM," is such a useless response to rules questions, even if it is definitely something that a player should do (in some cases, the person asking is the DM, so it's even less helpful)
.
Custome backgrounds are explictly under the perview of the DM. See your DMG. Players shouldn't expect they dont need DM approval for them.

[OverLordOcelot]

Custome backgrounds are explictly under the perview of the DM. See your DMG. Players shouldn't expect they dont need DM approval for them.

The player's handbook on p125 explicitly states that you can customize backgrounds with no mention of it being an optional rule or needing approval other than for creating new features - that is, it clearly and unequivocably states that you can change the skills and tool proficiencies/languages of a background. Conversely, if you actually see your DMG you will see that there is nothing in it that contradicts what the PHB states on P125. It's as reasonable for a player to customize backgrounds as it is for them to select what skills their class gives them proficiency in.

[Aquillion]

It actually says different things in different places, hence the confusion.

PHB 13:

Your DM might offer additional backgrounds beyond the ones included in chapter 4, and might be willing to work with you to craft a background that's a more precise fit for your character concept.

PHB 125, on the other hand, has a much lengthier description of how to customize 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 to proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds.
It also notes that:

lf you can't find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one...which I take to mean that you're allowed to assemble a new backgrounds from the bits and pieces of the existing ones per the rules in the first quote, but must ask your DM if you want a background to offer any specific thing not offered by an existing background.

One odd observation: Tool proficiencies might seem obviously better than languages, but from a strict rules standpoint you can learn tool profiencies in play by spending time and money; there is no such rule for languages. I suspect most DMs would let you learn languages this way if you asked, though.