Can down time rules be applied to backstories for the purpose of tools proficiencies?

[Aidamis]

Hello!

I'm finishing up a character sheet right now and since we have a DM who are pretty big on RP and character arcs I decided to treat him to something good and something they can exploit.

However given the character's history I was thinking whether it would be a stretch for the character to have more than one tool proficiency. Official rules say a tools proficiency can be learned in 250 days - can I ask for the time to be "included" in a character's past ?

Specifically: ex-sailor who dropped out to follow a priestess and train to become a Cleric, then spent a few years in pilgrimages including two years with druids (that's how I justify Magic Initiate on my Variant Human). Sailor already has Navigator's Tools.

Can I claim that the years of training with Druids have earned the character Herbalism kit proficiency? he already does have Medicine and served as a ship doctor, so I thought this is at least consistent. Plus Eilistraee clergy's doctrine includes helping out the poor so story-wise we can say the man was driven by the desire to better help the sick and if needed make Health potions and sell then to adventurers at market price or above, then give the profits away to charity, keeping only enough to make more, maintain his equipment/lab and eat well to not become sick and be useless.

If you were my DM, would you allow it? would you have me trade Navigator's Tools for Herbalism kit or can I have both?

Thank you very much

[Rowan Wolf]

Backgrounds are customizable you can exchange the navigation tools or vehicles (water) for any other tool or language proficiency. To get an additional proficiency you would have to talk to the DM.

[Aett_Thorn]

Backgrounds are customizable you can exchange the navigation tools or vehicles (water) for any other tool or language proficiency. To get an additional proficiency you would have to talk to the DM.

I agree with this. Customizing background proficiencies is actually RAW. There’s a section at the end of the background sections about it.

As for adding it ‘on top’ of your other proficiencies? No, I wouldn’t allow it. Otherwise, what’s to keep a hundreds-year old elf from just saying that they learned all proficiencies over their lifetime so far?

[Chronos]

Only if your starting gold is enough to cover the cost. Which it isn't. Learning new tools costs both time and money.

But hey, you can always ask your DM. Worst that can happen is that he says no.

[Tanarii]

Backgrounds are customizable by the player, per the PHB, but doing so is under DM purview, per the DMG. So it comes down to ask your DM.

Lots of people in this forum will try to convince you that you can customize the background without your DMs permission. I'd recommend against that. I've never met anyone offline who thought that way, and you might cause a table fight with your DM.

(Edit: if you're in official play, 'DM permission' was written into the character building document in advance. So you're clear.)


If you were my DM, would you allow it? would you have me trade Navigator's Tools for Herbalism kit or can I have both?
No in my main campaign, yes in a one shot. I have to be stricter IMC because it's open table, and I don't have time to review every background customization.

No to having both:
- that takes money as well as time
- the time spent pre-game is already included in class and background

[Danielqueue1]

It also costs 250 gp. If a character has that in starting gold I would allow it.

[No brains]

If you have more than 250 days and need more than 250 gold, use your pre-downtime to work your profession and earn 250 gold. That's the 250 IQ play.:smalltongue:

Of course: ask your DM, be considerate to the whole table, yadda yadda, your mileage may vary.

[Keravath]

Having two tool proficiencies is part of the standard rules for customizing a background. You give up a language to be proficient with a second set of tools.

"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."

So, as long as your DM is allowing customized backgrounds there is no problem with starting with two tool proficiencies as long as you don't also want to start with the extra language proficiency.

[JackPhoenix]

Backgrounds are customizable by the player, per the PHB, but doing so is under DM purview, per the DMG. So it comes down to ask your DM.

Lots of people in this forum will try to convince you that you can customize the background without your DMs permission. I'd recommend against that. I've never met anyone offline who thought that way, and you might cause a table fight with your DM.

(Edit: if you're in official play, 'DM permission' was written into the character building document in advance. So you're clear.)

Ignoring that you technically need DM's permission for absolutely everything, starting with what stat generation method will you get to use and what races and classes are available, they are right.

DMG talks about creating new background features, but switching proficiencies and gear is an option by default rules, with no need for any special permission, just like picking a race, class or a subclass.

[diplomancer]

Ignoring that you technically need DM's permission for absolutely everything, starting with what stat generation method will you get to use and what races and classes are available, they are right.

DMG talks about creating new background features, but switching proficiencies and gear is an option by default rules, with no need for any special permission, just like picking a race, class or a subclass.

Yes. Playing a Tiefling requires more of a DM permission than chosing two tool proficiencies for your background, but no one says "ask your DM to see if you can play a Tiefling"

[Tanarii]

DMG talks about creating new background features, but switching proficiencies and gear is an option by default rules, with no need for any special permission, just like picking a race, class or a subclass.That is not correct. The DMG section is about backgrounds. The entire things. Not just background features.

In the face of the DMG, they should have it clearer in the PHB by titling the Customizing Backgrounds section as Variant Rule: Customizing Backgrounds. That way some posters wouldn't try to view it as a bludgeon to wield against their DM.

Otoh that might not have made a difference. Some posters take the same attitude with Variant Humans, Variant Feats / Multiclassing, and Variant Ability Score Checks / Skill Proficiencies.

[JackPhoenix]

That is not correct. The DMG section is about backgrounds. The entire things. Not just background features.

You mean the section about creating new backgrounds at p.289? That has nothing to do with customizing existing backgrounds, beyond mentioning the DM may create "new" background by modifying existing one.... something players can do anyway.


In the face of the DMG, they should have it clearer in the PHB by titling the Customizing Backgrounds section as Variant Rule: Customizing Backgrounds. That way some posters wouldn't try to view it as a bludgeon to wield against their DM.

In the face of the DMG, there's no reason to change anything. Background customisation is as much of a variant rule as elves having differnt subraces, or classes getting ASI at 4th level.

[Aidamis]

Backgrounds are customizable you can exchange the navigation tools or vehicles (water) for any other tool or language proficiency. To get an additional proficiency you would have to talk to the DM.

Thanks! the swap will be my fallback option if they don't allow extra tools.

[Aidamis]

I agree with this. Customizing background proficiencies is actually RAW. There’s a section at the end of the background sections about it.

As for adding it ‘on top’ of your other proficiencies? No, I wouldn’t allow it. Otherwise, what’s to keep a hundreds-year old elf from just saying that they learned all proficiencies over their lifetime so far?

That's an excellent point. Thank you for your reply.

[Aidamis]

Only if your starting gold is enough to cover the cost. Which it isn't. Learning new tools costs both time and money.

But hey, you can always ask your DM. Worst that can happen is that he says no.

I completely forgot about the cost in gold! I'll likely make some adjustments then. Given that IRL chemistry/Pharmaceutics/Biologists/Medicine folks need expensive labs with expensive components and tools to train, then the cost is a given. I could have taken the Hermit background or started as a Druid, but that didn't fit my tastes and RP intent.

But I'll take your comment and the others into consideration and rewrite the backstory so that the tool proficiency was learned while the character was in the navy. Imho provided a rich enough home country the military brass would easily fund the education of a young motivated medic since there are so many benefits in investing in one.

[Aidamis]

Backgrounds are customizable by the player, per the PHB, but doing so is under DM purview, per the DMG. So it comes down to ask your DM.

Lots of people in this forum will try to convince you that you can customize the background without your DMs permission. I'd recommend against that. I've never met anyone offline who thought that way, and you might cause a table fight with your DM.

(Edit: if you're in official play, 'DM permission' was written into the character building document in advance. So you're clear.)


No in my main campaign, yes in a one shot. I have to be stricter IMC because it's open table, and I don't have time to review every background customization.

No to having both:
- that takes money as well as time
- the time spent pre-game is already included in class and background

Thanks I'd never do it without permission. Our GM is very chill, he even okays UA stuff and all that they ask for in exchange is honesty and working with him. Just recently we had a straightforward talk about Goodberry in Out of the Abyss and we both agreed to nerf it. As soon as it was adjusted, I got the green light to add it!

[Aidamis]

It also costs 250 gp. If a character has that in starting gold I would allow it.

Thanks. That's indeed a hefty cost. I'll try to swap Navigator for Herbalist and make it so that the character was trained by his employer who took on the cost.

I could try to pull the "rich family trick" but that would be just too "easy" and my character concept already involves someone from a destitute noble family. Pretty much their values and careers are their treasures - they won't just five 250 gold to one child when there are bills to pay and the father just got an idea to cocreate a business with his son-in-law.

[Aidamis]

If you have more than 250 days and need more than 250 gold, use your pre-downtime to work your profession and earn 250 gold. That's the 250 IQ play.:smalltongue:

Of course: ask your DM, be considerate to the whole table, yadda yadda, your mileage may vary.

Thank you! sounds good. I'll have to check out lore info on how much a low rank navy officer can be expected to earn in the Forgotten Realms setting.

[Aidamis]

Having two tool proficiencies is part of the standard rules for customizing a background. You give up a language to be proficient with a second set of tools.

"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."

So, as long as your DM is allowing customized backgrounds there is no problem with starting with two tool proficiencies as long as you don't also want to start with the extra language proficiency.

Thank you, I should've read this rule more closely. Therefore I theory I might keep (Athl, Perc), ship's passage from the sailor background, then Herbalist Kit and Navigator's Tools. While this sounds better than the original sailor, as long as the GM allows it... I'll still look into how to justify soaking up the material costs related with training the character in that way.

[Aidamis]

That is not correct. The DMG section is about backgrounds. The entire things. Not just background features.

In the face of the DMG, they should have it clearer in the PHB by titling the Customizing Backgrounds section as Variant Rule: Customizing Backgrounds. That way some posters wouldn't try to view it as a bludgeon to wield against their DM.

Otoh that might not have made a difference. Some posters take the same attitude with Variant Humans, Variant Feats / Multiclassing, and Variant Ability Score Checks / Skill Proficiencies.

Yes, I've already ran Variant Human by my GM just like every other player in my group did for their race. Classes-wise, we had a player who waltzed into the room explaining how their character was a Tomelock/Wizard with three levels in the former, expecting the GM to allow it. Turned out one of the houserules was "no multi until level 5" to keep the cheese at bay and make the game more about role playing and less about running excel sheets and see how to murderhobo faster. Thankfully we didn't have an argument, GM just sighed, politely stated the houserule and they agreed on a meeting out of the game to settle things.

[Aidamis]

You mean the section about creating new backgrounds at p.289? That has nothing to do with customizing existing backgrounds, beyond mentioning the DM may create "new" background by modifying existing one.... something players can do anyway.



In the face of the DMG, there's no reason to change anything. Background customisation is as much of a variant rule as elves having differnt subraces, or classes getting ASI at 4th level.

Yes, for variant rules = extra work for the GM. Although specific trumples general, the GM has to see who does what first and would it fit in the universe. Too many people take feats/multi for granted.

[HappyDaze]

Yes. Playing a Tiefling requires more of a DM permission than chosing two tool proficiencies for your background, but no one says "ask your DM to see if you can play a Tiefling"

I've been in a 5e Greyhawk game that did not include tieflings (nor dragonborn), so I disagree with your point.

[JoeJ]

I would allow you to swap a skill proficiency, tool proficiency, or language* you don't want for one that you do. I would not allow you to start with an extra proficiency or language that you gave up nothing for, because that's not fair to the other players.

*excluding Common.

[diplomancer]

I've been in a 5e Greyhawk game that did not include tieflings (nor dragonborn), so I disagree with your point.

You actually agree with my point. My point is that Tieflings are actually, by the book, optional, and customizing backgrounds is 100% a player's choice (specially switching around skills and tools/languages), not something that is "up to the DM".

That does not stop some DMs from not allowing it, of course, DMs are free to houserule their game as they feel best. If they don't allow it, don't use RAW as a bludgeon against them, this is not what D&D is about. Rather, point out to the DM that the player handbook fully allows it and ask again (the DM might not know that). If the DM says, ok, PHB allows that, but I prefer to play like this, respect it. But, by RAW, those DMs have no justification, unlike DMs who ban Tieflings, Dragonborn, Half-Elves, Gnomes or Half-Orcs.

Still, I have never seen, when someone is discussing on the internet a particular build that involves one of those races, the suggestion to "clear up with the DM first if those races are allowed". My point is that it is odd to suggest to players that they clear up with the DM customizing backgrounds, which is, by RAW, 100% their choice, while not suggesting the same thing to the player who wants to play a gnome.

For example, there is an active post right now in the forum about someone going "blind" into a Dragonlance campaign. The person is uncertain about class and race, and has indicated that they are thinking of playing perhaps a Tiefling, a Firbolg, or a Lizard-Man. Now, it is quite possible that they have already cleared race selection with the DM (and it's also possible that those races now exist in Krynn, my knowledge of the world ends with Dragons of Summer Flame). But no one in the thread so far has said: "Hey, have you cleared with your DM that those options exist?". It is sort of assumed by almost everyone that they do. Edit: Well, I did it now to save him from wasting his thoughts on what could be an impossible build :)

[Mjolnirbear]

Ok so a ton of DMs appear to be fairly restrictive.

I can understand "no tieflings" or "no drow" because maybe your world doesn't have them. I could understand "no artificers" since the theme might not work for every game. I cannot understand being restrictive about backgrounds.

Let's pick sailor. What if you want to play a sailor that can't swim? If you want to be a sailor of a skyship or a spelljammer, I could see you telling someone "no airship in my game" but if you want to play someone who can't swim why force them to take athletics?

In my opinion backgrounds are suggestions, ways to help your character fit into the world. A House Agent background from Eberron helps the player understand how the Houses work in Eberron. The background describes ways you can help your House, how you interact with it, suitable bonds and ideals, and even the gear reinforces the image of an Agent for a Dragonmarked House. It gives you ideas for building a personality and life. An Urchin background gives you flaws and bonds that suit such a background helping you to role-play the heck out of your PC. Soldiers have Gaming proficiency because soldiers have a lot of downtime and gaming sets are more kid-friendly than "spends a lot of time with camp followers". But what if your Soldier character dislikes playing games and prefers, iunno, embroidery? What if your House Agent is from Vadalis, looking for new creatures to mage breed; wouldn't survival fit better?

You can already take whatever skill you want by simply stacking proficiency. Take athletics as a barbarian and pick Soldier and you have any skill you want.

Why on earth would you say no to switching out a tool proficiency that did not otherwise conflict with your game?

Tools are, unlike skills, largely RP character support, unless your DM encourages crafting. So much so that I firmly believe thieves' tools should be a skill, and performance should be a tool.

I encourage taking tools, whatever tool your character wants. My houserules include the option to gain extra languages or tools based on a positive INT modifier.

All this to say there are some restrictive DMs here I probably wouldn't play with. If a player is interested enough in their character and role-play opportunities that they want this tool instead of that, I would agree unless somehow it conflicted with the game or setting in some way. Tools are, essentially, ribbons, and if they want an extra tool, or switch one out, I'll say yes to either, and this option is open to all my players.

[HappyDaze]

You actually agree with my point. My point is that Tieflings are actually, by the book, optional, and customizing backgrounds is 100% a player's choice (specially switching around skills and tools/languages), not something that is "up to the DM".

That does not stop some DMs from not allowing it, of course, DMs are free to houserule their game as they feel best. If they don't allow it, don't use RAW as a bludgeon against them, this is not what D&D is about. Rather, point out to the DM that the player handbook fully allows it and ask again (the DM might not know that). If the DM says, ok, PHB allows that, but I prefer to play like this, respect it. But, by RAW, those DMs have no justification, unlike DMs who ban Tieflings, Dragonborn, Half-Elves, Gnomes or Half-Orcs.

Still, I have never seen, when someone is discussing on the internet a particular build that involves one of those races, the suggestion to "clear up with the DM first if those races are allowed". My point is that it is odd to suggest to players that they clear up with the DM customizing backgrounds, which is, by RAW, 100% their choice, while not suggesting the same thing to the player who wants to play a gnome.

For example, there is an active post right now in the forum about someone going "blind" into a Dragonlance campaign. The person is uncertain about class and race, and has indicated that they are thinking of playing perhaps a Tiefling, a Firbolg, or a Lizard-Man. Now, it is quite possible that they have already cleared race selection with the DM (and it's also possible that those races now exist in Krynn, my knowledge of the world ends with Dragons of Summer Flame). But no one in the thread so far has said: "Hey, have you cleared with your DM that those options exist?". It is sort of assumed by almost everyone that they do. Edit: Well, I did it now to save him from wasting his thoughts on what could be an impossible build :)
Perhaps I should have mentioned that I don't allow custom backgrounds either.

[PhantomSoul]

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I don't allow custom backgrounds either.

I believe I now have to point out that the PHB fully allows it (but I can't ask again, since I didn't ask a first time) because by RAW there is no justification to require using an official (or otherwise existing) background.

[HappyDaze]

I believe I now have to point out that the PHB fully allows it (but I can't ask again, since I didn't ask a first time) because by RAW there is no justification to require using an official (or otherwise existing) background.

That's not what my players handbook says. Of course, my RAW includes all of the RAW--some of which is added in my own handwriting.

[PhantomSoul]

If a Player wanted to learn a Tool or Language as part of their backstory, I'd do as suggested above (they have to pay the cost from their starting gold), and make sure that they incorporated that Tool or Language into their backstory (where/how they learned). Granted, my group also has separate rules for learning in-game, so it's partly that it's an option that's otherwise available.

Custom backgrounds would require DM approval, and the player would have to show that existing backgrounds don't cover the desired feel.


That's not what my players handbook says. Of course, my RAW includes all of the RAW--some of which is added in my own handwriting.

Ah, the famous PHB 2.0! =D

[Greywander]

I'd allow it, but most characters aren't going to start with enough gold to pay for it. If using the XGtE variant downtime learning, it takes less time but costs the same amount of gold, with one caveat: the time it takes to learn is reduced according to your INT modifier, and the cost is per week spent learning, so this makes it cheaper as well. A character starting with an INT of 16 would only need to pay 175 gp for a language or tool, since it's 25 gp a week and they can learn in 7 weeks instead of 10. Each +1 from your INT mod reduces the time by one week, and thus the cost by 25 gp.

This could lead to an interesting house rule where instead of simply getting two languages/tools, you get 500 gp to spend on languages/tools, so if your INT is higher then you might be able to afford more. Thus, a character with INT 16 is just 25 gp shy of getting a third language/tool. I'd say with such a house rule you would be required to buy as many languages/tools as you could afford with that 500 gp budget (which seems like it might always be two, unless you somehow start with an 18 or higher INT), and anything left over can go into your pocket.

But maybe that's not such a good houserule (mostly because even INT builds won't quite reach a third language/tool without dipping into their regular starting gold). It was an interesting thought, at least.

[HappyDaze]

Ah, the famous PHB 2.0! =D

Far closer to a Day One Patch that I've used since... day one or so.

[diplomancer]

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I don't allow custom backgrounds either.
As I said, DMs are free to houserule their game as they feel best.

So the answer to the opening post is "No by RAW, yes if your DM allows it". The answer to the question "can you switch around tool proficiencies or languages in the backgrounds?" the answer is "Yes by RAW, no if your DM does not allow it" (if you feel it's necessary, you can add "this is a RAW disallowed by many DMs") and the answer to the question "By RAW, can I play a Tiefling even if my DM opposes it?" is no.