Skill/Tool/Language Proficiencies

[Expired]

In regards to skill, tool, and language proficiencies, which ones are your prominent choices when creating new characters using the Custom Background rules presented in the PHB? Does the class you choose affect your choice? Are some proficiencies better than others? If so, why? If not, why not?

Also, for those tables that rule Acrobatics/Athletics and Investigation/Perception properly, do you take both? What about if you have to choose one or the other, which is more important? And how important is Stealth proficiency to you?

Here are my prominent choices (in descending order of importance):

Skills
Perception
Investigation
Insight
Acrobatics/Athletics
Stealth
Persuasion
Deception
Intimidation

Tools
Herbalism Tools
Thieves' Tools
Disguise Kit
Forgery Kit
Poisoner's Kit

Languages
Common
Draconic
Undercommon
Giant
Orcish
Goblin
Abyssal
Aquan
Primordial

Importance of skills/tools/languages change depending on the character and background (e.g. Arcana, Investigation, and Stealth are mandatory for an AT Rogue, while Deception, Insight, Persuasion, and Intimidation are essential for any party face).

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I don't have a favourite skill/tool/language.
I use the custom background to make it more relevant to the character.

My last one is a kobold fighter who work as an assassin in Force Grey in Waterdeep.

I took Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Thieves' Tools and a Poisoner's Kit.

Another one is an acolyte zealot barbarian of the goddess of fun. I gave him Brewer's Supplies as a tool proficiency(and stealth+survival as he is hunting dinosaurs in chult).

[ImproperJustice]

Mason’s Tools can be surprisingly useful when exploring dungeons. Lots of lore you can get from statues, stonework design, door design, etc...

Also gives you a nice bonus if you need to tear through a wall, widen a gap, or weaken a structure.

Another odd one that our Ranger and Shadow Monk found useful was Cobbler’s Tools.
Turns out when tracking you can get some extra info about folks through their shoes.

[Dime]

0/100 players I’ve asked use custom backgrounds, which I find interesting as at least half of those folks otherwise try to optimize their characters.
I use custom backgrounds now. I found I was taking backgrounds for optimization reasons and that was messing with how I wanted to RP.

[Expired]

I use custom backgrounds now. I found I was taking backgrounds for optimization reasons and that was messing with how I wanted to RP.
This is exactly why I use custom backgrounds, too. It lets me optimize but still create a character relevant to the campaign and one with a background I will enjoy RPing.

[Addaran]

The one that's really amazing and that is harder to get outside of background is thieve's tool. Any dex character can take care of it, if you need that role taken care of.

For the rest, i just take what is in line with my character. There's not a single specific skill i want on every character i take. I'm very partial to stealth if i'm not wearing heavy armor though.

I'll often try to have at least one social skill too.

[DrKerosene]

This is exactly why I use custom backgrounds, too. It lets me optimize but still create a character relevant to the campaign and one with a background I will enjoy RPing.

I think there may be a grey area where some tweaking is done with one of the official backgrounds. Specifically to one of the objects given, or the names/locations of an area, or something where Players don’t think they have a custom background even if they end up with an additional feature (like the “Contact” one) that isn’t actually listed on their character sheet.


Personally, I’m a fan of the Cooking Utensils for a toolkit.
You can add +1HP to the total a PC gets back by spending Hit Dice during a short-rest. I had this on a Chef-Druid who spammed Goodberry (great for not “wasting” healing) and used the Healer feat to slather “healing honey” onto people. I did so much healing for PCs before, during, and after short rests. Really saved a lot of money on healing potions, and saved a lot of “downtime” on not crafting healing potions either.

I can see a Bard using the Cooking Utensils combined with a Song Of Rest to really play up a loving motherly role.

[Expired]

I think there may be a grey area where some tweaking is done with one of the official backgrounds. Specifically to one of the objects given, or the names/locations of an area, or something where Players don’t think they have a custom background even if they end up with an additional feature (like the “Contact” one) that isn’t actually listed on their character sheet.


Personally, I’m a fan of the Cooking Utensils for a toolkit.
You can add +1HP to the total a PC gets back by spending Hit Dice during a short-rest. I had this on a Chef-Druid who spammed Goodberry (great for not “wasting” healing) and used the Healer feat to slather “healing honey” onto people. I did so much healing for PCs before, during, and after short rests. Really saved a lot of money on healing potions, and saved a lot of “downtime” on not crafting healing potions either.

I can see a Bard using the Cooking Utensils combined with a Song Of Rest to really play up a loving motherly role.
Choosing a custom background is allowed (it's not even an optional or variant rule) as long as it follows the rules written in the PHB. As a DM, I encourage my players to choose them because they can create characters that are more relevant to the story being told.

I agree. The Cook's Utensils are very fun to RP with and it's even better if you're willing to experiment with killed creatures.

[BloodBrandy]

Depending on your downtime, Jewelers Tools could be the best for increasing your money.

By the rules for crafting in Xanathar's Guide, in order to craft something you need materials in value equal to half the sale value. Therefore, the usual price for something you made would be twice what it cost to make, at least, given a week's time. Now for most things (Armor, weapons, etc) since you have material lost to wast (Leather cut offs, metal slag, etc.) but gold is gold

Therefore, in one week you could turn 50g into a piece of jewelry worth at least 100g

[Zhorn]

As a DM, I always try to make a player's tool proficiency useful.
Knowing this, last year one of my players tried to throw a curve ball in having a character with proficiency in cobbler's tools (talking about it with them later, they said they expected it to be completely useless and I'd be unable to give them any benefit from it).
Turned into a valuable skill with the amount of information they could gather from studying the conditions of people's shoes, the tracks the left behind, the quality of their make betraying attempts at disguising as being form a higher or lower economic class, etc.

If an adventure has built in rules for their use, some skills will just be better than other, but as a DM you can make other tools useful too if your players know they can attempt to make use of them, be it with rulings on the fly, or supplying a handout of things they could use it for in session 0.

[Tanarii]

Choosing a custom background is allowed (it's not even an optional or variant rule) as long as it follows the rules written in the PHB.It's allowed if the DM gets involved. And that's not some nebulous "everything requires DM approval" statement. Per the DMG custom backgrounds are something the DM creates.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's allowed if the DM gets involved. And that's not some nebulous "everything requires DM approval" statement. Per the DMG custom backgrounds are something the DM creates.

A friend of mine made a custom background, Smuggler, shortly before Ghosts of Saltmarsh was published. IMO, his custom was better than the published one.

[Maelynn]

It's allowed if the DM gets involved. And that's not some nebulous "everything requires DM approval" statement. Per the DMG custom backgrounds are something the DM creates.

Not true, the DM only comes in when the player "can't find a feature that matches with your background". The rest of the paragraph on custom backgrounds (PHB p 125-127) describes that a player can mix&match to their own desire, as long as they follow the rules as laid out. (edit: where the DMG is a guide to create a custom background from scratch, the rules in the PHB state that a player can customise their own without DM approval)

To answer the OP's question, both as a player and as a DM I hardly see customised backgrounds - most of the people I play with find a way to work one of the given backgrounds into their character with only a few changes to personality/ideal/bond/flaw. Not for a lack of roleplaying or fleshing out their character, but because the ones in the PHB have always been sufficient.

I myself have tweaked a feature once for my Dwarf Barbarian, who was a master brewer (the clans were divided by profession and he was held in high regard in his clan) with the Guild Artisan background. Since the clan didn't have any guilds in the world, the DM suggested we use a feature akin to the Entertainer one: tavern- and innkeepers would recognise me or the seal on my ring and offer free meal/lodgings, possibly in exchange for some tips on beer brewing/storing/pouring or a sample of my own.

[ScoutTrooper]

I haven't found a GM to let me do a custom background, and as a GM none of my players have asked. I'd love to collab on one, it would help add lore to the world, and easily allow me to play something off that PC.

When I build a PC, I usually find some niche, or some backwards strategy that's not exactly Meta. Something that I can build a personality around and create this unique character for myself and everyone at the table. Usually I start with Race, read up on culture, pick a class (regardless of synergy), start the backstory to explain how this happen. And it's usually in that, I'll find a published background that fits.

Current PC
Kobold, Ranger, Urban Bounty Hunter
Backstory tl;dr - Tribe got wiped out on Oman's lsle by giants, escaped with one other tribe-kin. Found work as a useful scout/ambusher for a group of bounty hunters/mercs.

[Tanarii]

Not true, the DM only comes in when the player "can't find a feature that matches with your background". The rest of the paragraph on custom backgrounds (PHB p 125-127) describes that a player can mix&match to their own desire, as long as they follow the rules as laid out. (edit: where the DMG is a guide to create a custom background from scratch, the rules in the PHB state that a player can customise their own without DM approval)
If you're going to accuse me of falsehoods, you should have probably left off "without DM approval." The PHB says no such thing.

It's possible to read the language in the PHB, taken alone and without the context of the DMG, as a permission slip to just go ahead and do it. It absolutely does not explicitly say "without DM approval"

[OldTrees1]

Perception

Then ones that seem expected for the class
Arcanist - Arcana
Cleric / Paladin - Religion
Druid / Ranger - Nature

Then ones for what I want them to do
Dungeoneer - ThievesDungeoneer's Tools, Investigation, Stealth, Arcana, Religion, Nature

Then mobility
Strength - Athletics
Dexterity - Acrobatics
OR vice versa if I want generalist instead of specialist

[elyktsorb]

I love the Poisoner's Kit, I just seem to be attracted to underutilized/underdeveloped things in this game.

[Wizard_Lizard]

These are my top five.
SKILLS
Performance
Deception
Stealth
Perception
Acrobatics

TOOLS
Some form of musical instrument, probably Viol
Tinkers tools
Disguise Kit
Playing Cards
Alchemists supplies

LANGUAGES
Common (DUh)
Draconic
Sylvan
Celestial
Deep Speech.

[Maelynn]

If you're going to accuse me of falsehoods, you should have probably left off "without DM approval." The PHB says no such thing.

It's possible to read the language in the PHB, taken alone and without the context of the DMG, as a permission slip to just go ahead and do it. It absolutely does not explicitly say "without DM approval"

Of course it doesn't explicitly state that, because the PHB works the other way around - you as a player can do everything mentioned in there in order to create your character, unless a DM's approval or input is needed - in which case it will explicitly say so. The PHB says no such thing? The very introduction states that it's the player who creates a character. Not a word about a DM's interference, until the points where it becomes relevant for them to have a say.

There is always the matter of a DM having the last say in whether or not they want specific elements of a character in their campaign, but such limitations are house rules and irrelevant for character creation in general. Just because I won't allow evil-aligned players in my campaign, doesn't mean someone cannot create an evil-aligned character.

[firelistener]

Of course it doesn't explicitly state that, because the PHB works the other way around - you as a player can do everything mentioned in there in order to create your character, unless a DM's approval or input is needed - in which case it will explicitly say so. The PHB says no such thing? The very introduction states that it's the player who creates a character. Not a word about a DM's interference, until the points where it becomes relevant for them to have a say.

There is always the matter of a DM having the last say in whether or not they want specific elements of a character in their campaign, but such limitations are house rules and irrelevant for character creation in general. Just because I won't allow evil-aligned players in my campaign, doesn't mean someone cannot create an evil-aligned character.

This is correct. The intention from the PHB is to allow the custom backgrounds without any input from the DM. It's why custom backgrounds are legal in Adventurer's League games, which have notoriously strict rulings compared to the average home game of 5e.

[Tanarii]

This is correct. The intention from the PHB is to allow the custom backgrounds without any input from the DM.Please provide a citation for "without any input from the DM".


It's why custom backgrounds are legal in Adventurer's League games, which have notoriously strict rulings compared to the average home game of 5e.Its allowed in AL because there is specifically a rule in the AL character creation document which allows it.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you're going to accuse me of falsehoods, you should have probably left off "without DM approval." The PHB says no such thing. It's possible to read the language in the PHB, taken alone and without the context of the DMG, as a permission slip to just go ahead and do it. It absolutely does not explicitly say "without DM approval" It has been my experience that people who tend to have an adversarial relationship with DM's, or have had them in the past, tend to take the position that you are responding to. I have found that chargen works best when it is a collaborative effort by both the player and the DM, so that the character fits into the game-world. (AL is a bit of an outlier, but your citation of the provisions there were IMO well timed).
Please provide a citation for "without any input from the DM". Its allowed in AL because there is specifically a rule in the AL character creation document which allows it.

Bottom Line: in the world of D&D 5e, it is a Best Practice for the Player and the DM to do chargen as a collaborative process. (And it was true in previous editions as well).

With that said, nobody will come knocking at one's door and arrest anyone for failing to apply that best practice. The consequences (if any) will be born by the DMs and Players at that table.

@Maelynn

but such limitations are house rules
No, they are not. Please don't confuse DM rulings with house rules. (My sig even has a pithy quote about that (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=22280274#post22280274))

[Tanarii]

Bottom Line: in the world of D&D 5e, it is a Best Practice for the Player and the DM to do chargen as a collaborative process. (And it was true in previous editions as well).

With that said, nobody will come knocking at one's door and arrest anyone for failing to apply that best practice. The consequences (if any) will be born by the DMs and Players at that table.
True. Custom backgrounds are contentious enough they fall into one of the many Session 0 things to be discussed.

I was explicit in my campaign character creation document, precisely because AL allows it and so many of my first tables were also AL players. It's like multiclassing and feats. It doesn't really matter if it's an optional rule or not an optional rule or whatever: best to be explicit.

[Terebin]

Please provide a citation for "without any input from the DM".

Its allowed in AL because there is specifically a rule in the AL character creation document which allows it.

I think maybe where people are getting crossed wires is two different kinds of custom backgrounds.

PHB has rules for customizing backgrounds:
"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."
The AL player's guide affirms that this is RAW, not even a variant rule like vhuman or feats. This is what the rule for backgrounds is.

DMG has rules for creating new narrative backgrounds - with new features and equipment packages.

[Aaron Underhand]

Both vehicles (land) and vehicles (sea) come up surprisingly often.. I've always had value from these...

[firelistener]

I think maybe where people are getting crossed wires is two different kinds of custom backgrounds.

PHB has rules for customizing backgrounds:
"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."
The AL player's guide affirms that this is RAW, not even a variant rule like vhuman or feats. This is what the rule for backgrounds is.

DMG has rules for creating new narrative backgrounds - with new features and equipment packages.

Yes, this is what I was trying to clarify, but you probably put it better. This is page 126-127 in the PHB for anyone interested.

[JackPhoenix]

Depending on your downtime, Jewelers Tools could be the best for increasing your money.

By the rules for crafting in Xanathar's Guide, in order to craft something you need materials in value equal to half the sale value. Therefore, the usual price for something you made would be twice what it cost to make, at least, given a week's time. Now for most things (Armor, weapons, etc) since you have material lost to wast (Leather cut offs, metal slag, etc.) but gold is gold

Therefore, in one week you could turn 50g into a piece of jewelry worth at least 100g

That's not how things work. You can make up to 50gp worth of product in a week, and it'll cost you up to 25 gp in material. It doesn't matter what are you making, and what material you're using. There's no waste.

[Maelynn]

@Maelynn

No, they are not. Please don't confuse DM rulings with house rules. (My sig even has a pithy quote about that (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=22280274#post22280274))

Hmm, I have to admit that I was convinced that 'no evil PCs at my table' would be a house rule rather than a ruling. It's not an interpretation of the rules, nor a specific occasion that a DM would need to rule on at that moment, but a set rule that goes for the entire campaign. Could you give some examples of house rules so that I can get a better understanding of the difference?


I think maybe where people are getting crossed wires is two different kinds of custom backgrounds.

PHB has rules for customizing backgrounds:
"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."
The AL player's guide affirms that this is RAW, not even a variant rule like vhuman or feats. This is what the rule for backgrounds is.

DMG has rules for creating new narrative backgrounds - with new features and equipment packages.

Yes, thank you. I mentioned it in my first comment, but it was too easily overlooked. Thanks for the emphasis, it was the point I was trying to make. A player can customise existing backgrounds as much as they want, as long as they're using components from existing backgrounds. Switching elements around in such a way doesn't make a character invalid. It's only when you want to create new (aspects of) backgrounds that a DM comes into the equation, as per the DMG.

[Tanarii]

I think maybe where people are getting crossed wires is two different kinds of custom backgrounds.

PHB has rules for customizing backgrounds:
"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."
The AL player's guide affirms that this is RAW, not even a variant rule like vhuman or feats. This is what the rule for backgrounds is.

DMG has rules for creating new narrative backgrounds - with new features and equipment packages.
There is no confusion. This is just the excuse used by folks trying to force their DMs to allow them to use custom backgrounds without their DM's input. Which the PHB doesn't say at all.

[Segev]

There is no confusion. This is just the excuse used by folks trying to force their DMs to allow them to use custom backgrounds without their DM's input. Which the PHB doesn't say at all.

The trouble is that the same logic you're using here could be used to say the following:

This is just the excuse used by folks trying to force their DMs to allow them to use inappropriate backgrounds without their DM's input.
This is just the excuse used by folks trying to force their DMs to allow them to play Thief-Rogues without their DM's input.
This is just the excuse used by folks trying to force their DMs to allow their cleric to cast revivification on the Zealot barbarian the round after he died without their DM's input.

"Custom backgrounds" are presented as much as the default as any existing background, or any printed spell, or any printed class and subclass. That's where people are disagreeing with you, because you're insisting that DM Input is needed since it isn't explicitly stated it's not. So, if you agree that DM input is needed at all stages of the PHB, such that a cleric may not prepare nor cast revivification without a DM's input/approval, then you're right in the sense Hermes Conrad says is the best kind of correct. But then, you hopefully will agree that custom backgrounds require no more explicit DM approval than any non-custom backgrounds, because they're presented with exactly the same amount of requisite DM input called for.

[Tanarii]

No, I'm insisting DM input is the standard because the DMG literally tells the DM how to create backgrounds. Yet despite that, some folks are trying to force a "player only hands off" standard on the DM community.

[Segev]

No, I'm insisting DM input is the standard because the DMG literally tells the DM how to create backgrounds. Yet despite that, some folks are trying to force a "player only hands off" standard on the DM community.

Then you're either insisting that, because the DMG tells the DM how to make classes, players can't choose classes in the PHB...or you're going to have to accept that the DMG is giving rules for creating backgrounds from scratch, and is a different, DM-only prerogative than the option to make a "customized" background by mix-and-matching features, personalities, and proficiencies from existing backgrounds.

What's in the PHB is for players to use. If any of it requires DM approval without saying so, then all of it does. The optional rules that players are noted to need permission to use are (primarily) multiclassing and feats. The option to pick-and-choose features, proficiencies, etc. from backgrounds is not one of the things thus noted. So if that requires "DM input," so does picking your spell selection for your sorcerer, or even choosing to play a dwarf.

The DMG doesn't say, unless you can cite for me where it does to prove me wrong, that the rules on creating custom backgrounds in it invalidate the rules allowing players to mix and match features and proficiencies to build their own backgrounds modularly. Unless I am grossly misremembering (which is possible; I'm AFB and haven't read that bit in a long while), the rules in the DMG for the DM making custom backgrounds describe things like inventing new features, which is the primary reason those rules are "with DM input."

[Edenbeast]

What's in the PHB is for players to use. If any of it requires DM approval without saying so, then all of it does. The optional rules that players are noted to need permission to use are (primarily) multiclassing and feats. The option to pick-and-choose features, proficiencies, etc. from backgrounds is not one of the things thus noted. So if that requires "DM input," so does picking your spell selection for your sorcerer, or even choosing to play a dwarf.

The PHB is the basic and main book for both DM's and players. Want more DM support, get the DM, want more monsters, get the MM. It all starts with the PHB, and is not player territory only. I agree with Tanarii that custom backgrounds are to be discussed with the DM. You seem to overlook chapter 1, so before this turns into a shouting contest about who's right, here is a reminder:

PHB page 13 (last sentence) - start of page 14:

Your character's background describes where he or she came from, his or her original occupation, and the character's place in the D&D world. 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.

Seems to me that the DM's "approval" is needed for an additional or custom background. Note that approval is not explicitly stated, but that the DM should somehow be involved in the process. I personally have nothing against customising, although most players I've seen actually just pick from the standard PHB ones. The problem arrises when someone starts cherry picking, and there's no coherent background. It's a background, not just an extra set of skills and tool/language proficiencies. It has to tie into the story, and most of all make sense as a background. For example when a player likes the criminal background, but instead of Deception they wish to be proficient in Athletics because they see their character climbing on buildings and jumping across roof tops. I'm fine with such an argumentation.

[DrKerosene]

The option to pick-and-choose features, proficiencies, etc. from backgrounds is not one of the things thus noted. So if that requires "DM input," so does picking your spell selection for your sorcerer, or even choosing to play a dwarf.

Cool, I guess the next time I’m a Player my new custom background will give me proficiency with Thieve’s Cant, Druidic, Thieve’s Tools and I’ll leave off the fourth thing so I can add the Revenant ability from the Ravenloft UA stuff.
It’s not like I can currently remember UA saying it needs DM permission. (wink)




What's in the PHB is for players to use. If any of it requires DM approval without saying so, then all of it does.
I think you might be on to something here...

Chapter 9 Dungeon Master Workshop, starting on page 285 of the DMG:
-Creating New Character Options
“If the options for player characters in the Player's Handbook don't meet all the needs of your campaign, consult the following sections for advice on creating new race, class, and background options. “

-Restricting Class Access
“... you can root it more firmly in the world by associating the class with a particular race or culture.”
“You decide how flexible you want to be in allowing a player character to break these restrictions.”
“As always, it's better to say yes and use the player's desire as an opportunity to develop the character's story and that of your world, rather than shutting down possibilities.”

-Substituting Class Features
“If one or more features of a given class don't exactly fit the theme or tone of your campaign, you can pull them out of the class and replace them with new ones.”

-Page 289 starts the section on Creating Backgrounds:
“As the DM, you aren’t limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual.”
“To create your own background, follow these steps. “
-Step 4. Include Starting Equipment
“At your discretion, it might also contain a useful map. “
-STEP 5. Settle On A Background Feature
“Choose an existing background feature or create a new one, as you prefer. “
“A background feature should avoid strict game benefits, such as a bonus to an ability check or an attack roll.”

None of this sections gives me the impression a DM’s hands are tied about having to allow a custom background that a Player created. It looks like the DM can say random specific things are not allowed in a campaign.

[DeadMech]

Cool, I guess the next time I’m a Player my new custom background will give me proficiency with Thieve’s Cant, Druidic, Thieve’s Tools and I’ll leave off the fourth thing so I can add the Revenant ability from the Ravenloft UA stuff.
It’s not like I can currently remember UA saying it needs DM permission. (wink)

I can not find this revenant ability. When I google ravenloft UA I get the gothic heroes UA that list the revenant subrace option and nothing mentioning a background. So I'd prolly block you from using if just on the basis that if I can't find it I can't

But your options picked would be against the rules because you are meant to pick 2 skill proficiencies and a combination of 2 languages or tool proficiencies.

[DrKerosene]

But your options picked would be against the rules because you are meant to pick 2 skill proficiencies and a combination of 2 languages or tool proficiencies.



You might want to tweak some of the features of a background to better fits your character or the campaign setting. To customize a background, you can replace one feature with any other one,... finalIy, 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.

Yes, a Player would have to ask a DM for permission to swap in a Tool or Language Proficiency to replace a Skill, and also the lack of a fourth granted Proficiency.

So, for a more compliant strawmaning of not needing DM permission to swap features, I’ll go with Athletics, Arcana, Druidic, Thieve’s Cant, with the Ship’s Passage feature from Sailor to comply with having that ribbon feature too.

[DeadMech]

So, for a more compliant strawmaning of not needing DM permission to swap features, I’ll go with Athletics, Arcana, Druidic, Thieve’s Cant, with the Ship’s Passage feature from Sailor to comply with having that ribbon feature too.

Kay go ahead. What do I care? Oh no~ the player took two super obscure languages that may or may not come up in a game and two skills they wanted?

Like I get it, they are all over the place thematically but if the player thinks that exact combination of things is what best represents their character who am I to say otherwise? It's not my job as DM to micromanage how the players play their characters.

Maybe their background is some sort of globe trotting thrill seeking secret hunter.

Maybe they are a second generation adventurer and grew up around their parent's party and learned a variety of stuff from their parents as well as Uncle "Stickyfingers" and Auntie Luna Brightmoon.

[Terebin]

If the DM has certain constraints for character creation, I generally have the expectation that it's on the DM to communicate those constraints. Without that, I have the expectation that I can make choices about character options freely according to the rules in the PHB. Race, subclass, spell choice, skills etc. I think I would find it more reasonable for a DM to put constraints on background selection (we're playing members of a military force, so pick Soldier, Noble, or Sailor) than "you aren't allowed to customize backgrounds."

It sounds like we just disagree, and that's fine. 5th edition is a big game.

[DrKerosene]

Kay go ahead. What do I care? Oh no~ the player took two super obscure languages that may or may not come up in a game and two skills they wanted?

Well, if you consistently brought a PC with such a background to a bunch of different DMs/groups, I would expect that someone would eventually try to argue that Druidic and Thieves’ Cant are class features, and/or they don’t have any precedent for being given by any official backgrounds so far. Which should definitely require DM approval.

Though if everyone thinks Thieves Cant is a vanilla language and not a cipher or method of coding, and Druidic doesn’t have any uniqueness from being a secret language, then those don’t seem like class features so much as niche proficiencies.

[Segev]

Well, if you consistently brought a PC with such a background to a bunch of different DMs/groups, I would expect that someone would eventually try to argue that Druidic and Thieves’ Cant are class features, and/or they don’t have any precedent for being given by any official backgrounds so far. Which should definitely require DM approval.

Though if everyone thinks Thieves Cant is a vanilla language and not a cipher or method of coding, and Druidic doesn’t have any uniqueness from being a secret language, then those don’t seem like class features so much as niche proficiencies.

Sure. And I'm sure if you consistently brought a necromancer with minions into every game, eventually somebody would comment that evil characters aren't welcome and that minions slow down the game.

Not every character works in every game, even with the PHB baseline.

Somebody quoted the rules in the DMG about restricting access to PHB items as if this disproved my point. It actually agreed with it: if the PHB is all going to require DM input, then IT ALL REQUIRES DM INPUT.

This doesn't make "custom backgrounds" as described in the PHB stand-out special, is my point. They require exactly as much DM input as the "standard" backgrounds, or, indeed, the classes and races.

"Exactly as much" doesn't necessarily mean "none." I'm arguing for consistency, here, not for a specific level of DM input.

So, if you said, "Hm, I guess everything in the PHB does require DM input," and expected that to be a killer for the argument that custom backgrounds aren't different from non-custom backgrounds in terms of level of DM input...sorry, you're showing more about your belief in how much DM input is required than about mine. I was just arguing for consistency. I don't actually care what that consistency is so much as that it's there. I mean, a DM has final authority over anything in his game. So if he's going to go against what I consider the default, I need to discuss his rules and rulings anyway so I know what they are. I just want him to be consistent in how he applies things, or at least very clear where there are exceptions.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

For Optimization I'd personally be looking at Perception and Athletics/Acrobatics whichever is more useful to the build. Tools would be Thieves Tools and either Tinker Tools or a relevant language.

That said, I never optimize, I use the background to fill in gaps in my character idea. I also have a tendency to not always associate background was "What you did before" but it could be another facet of "What you do now" or even something that came up after your started your class. (IE you're a Paladin because you felt that calling or trained in a certain group and THEN became an Acolyte of the church).

So for my Party Leader/Military Leader Hexblade/Paladin his background ended up being Insight, Investigation, Sylvan due to setting and Tinkering tools to represent small repairs on armor, weapons, etc.

The Party Scholar and magical expert who grew up on the streets took Stealth, Acrobatics, Primal to represent more of her studies and Thief Tools from the street thief history.

On the other hand I have an artificer who's been all over the place and his background was used for Wood Carving tools and Herbalist Kit (since he picked Alchemist for his third Artificer). Skills were Medicine and Insight to represent a doctor type background.

[DrKerosene]

Not every character works in every game, even with the PHB baseline.

Somebody quoted the rules in the DMG about restricting access to PHB items as if this disproved my point. It actually agreed with it: if the PHB is all going to require DM input, then IT ALL REQUIRES DM INPUT.
Glad to see you understand the point, that it all requires DM input. Especially with adjudication and maintaining verisimilitude for the group.



I don't actually care what that consistency is so much as that it's there. I mean, a DM has final authority over anything in his game. So if he's going to go against what I consider the default, I need to discuss his rules and rulings anyway so I know what they are. I just want him to be consistent in how he applies things, or at least very clear where there are exceptions.

It seems you’re glossing over new players, where a DM should check (before the game starts) that someone didn’t just show up to Session-1 with a photo-copy of the CR16 Planetar (despite agreeing to a normal Aasimar build). As well as probably doing follow-up to make sure a Shadow’s strength drain wasn’t treated as a permanent change, etc.

If you’re in a long-term group of people familiar with each-other and the game (and with the same DM), then I’d still expect that DM to go over character sheets at least once to look for things to tailor the game around. So, either way, I’d expect a DM to go over everyone’s sheet, and not with perfectly identical scrutiny forever. This obviously includes backgrounds, customized or not. I don’t see how your position of “no DM oversight” wouldn’t result in some issue, sooner or later.



Since you say you don’t care if a DM always gives PC sheets a careful combing before each session, a single once-over before the cmapaign, or never checks them, as long as you can assume consistency, I feel like this is a pointless discussion for us, as you just want a consistent DM. You already know the answer for you is to ask your DM.



Also, your necromancer example doesn’t have the potential of having stolen class features from two different classes.

[Segev]

Glad to see you understand the point, that it all requires DM input. Especially with adjudication and maintaining verisimilitude for the group.Right. What you seem to be missing, if I parse you correctly, is that the whole reason I weighed in is that it seemed people were arguing that custom backgrounds (as specified in the PHB) required DM permission when non-custom ones did not. This would be the lack of consistency I was opposing.


It seems you’re glossing over new players, where a DM should check (before the game starts) that someone didn’t just show up to Session-1 with a photo-copy of the CR16 Planetar (despite agreeing to a normal Aasimar build). As well as probably doing follow-up to make sure a Shadow’s strength drain wasn’t treated as a permanent change, etc.

If you’re in a long-term group of people familiar with each-other and the game (and with the same DM), then I’d still expect that DM to go over character sheets at least once to look for things to tailor the game around. So, either way, I’d expect a DM to go over everyone’s sheet, and not with perfectly identical scrutiny forever. This obviously includes backgrounds, customized or not. I don’t see how your position of “no DM oversight” wouldn’t result in some issue, sooner or later.I don't see how this is relevant to my actual point, and I'm not sure what you think my point is that you're arguing against, here. I'm happy to concede what I understand you to be saying is true; it isn't something I was ever arguing against nor even discussing in this thread. Unless I am grossly misunderstanding what you're saying here.


Since you say you don’t care if a DM always gives PC sheets a careful combing before each session, a single once-over before the cmapaign, or never checks them, as long as you can assume consistency, I feel like this is a pointless discussion for us, as you just want a consistent DM. You already know the answer for you is to ask your DM.Isn't "ask your DM" the answer for pretty much any real gameplay question?



Also, your necromancer example doesn’t have the potential of having stolen class features from two different classes.I find the "class feature" ribbons you're bringing up to be unconvincing niches to protect. I can tell you how I'd run such things at my tables, and when I'd even bother to ask a DM if I could do such a thing, but I hardly find them to be particularly broken.

To specify: I'd permit it if the character had a neat reason to know them. It wouldn't be a balance, but a verisimilitude concern for me. I would ask a DM about it if I thought my character really should know them for background reasons; I genuinely don't expect them to come up at all in 80% of campaings. And in 15% of those where it does, I expect it to be useful maybe once, and a point of interest otherwise only if I push for it.

[DrKerosene]

Right. What you seem to be missing, if I parse you correctly, is that the whole reason I weighed in is that it seemed people were arguing that custom backgrounds (as specified in the PHB) required DM permission when non-custom ones did not. This would be the lack of consistency I was opposing.

Well, strictly using the non-custom background options should be short and vague enough to fit in most settings without issue.

Between someone trying to pilfer class features, fabricating/writing-in a bunch of super powerful allies, or just writing several pages of irrelevant backstory, it’s still going to take longer to parse and consider a customized background.

Just writing out a custom background story could still have (non-mechanical) issues. Pretend a DM says“This campaign is going to be on Athas in the Dark Sun setting. All the official core PHB options are allowed, but the race lore, how magic works and is viewed, etc, should all be different.”

It would be fine (mechanically) to build a Dragonborn Nature Cleric with the Inheritor background. But saying their human parents were the heroes from the Red Hand Of Doom adventure, where they killed an avatar of Tiamat, and so Bahumet blessed them with a dragonborn child (the PC), would still be a problem in a few ways.

Such as how dragons don’t exist on Athas, Gods don’t exist in the Dark Sun setting, dragonborn are replaced by drey, and the verdant green valley of the RHoD adventure wouldn’t really fit into the apocalyptic desert setting either. Parents stopping an invasion could be kept, but too many custom details don’t work.

Edit: removing some Â

[Segev]

Well, strictly using the non-custom background options should be short and vague enough to fit in most settings without issue.

Between someone trying to pilfer class features, fabricating/writing-in a bunch of super powerful allies, or just writing several pages of irrelevant backstory, it’s still going to take longer to parse and consider a customized background.

Just writing out a custom background story could still have (non-mechanical) issues. Pretend a DM says“This campaign is going to be on Athas in the Dark Sun setting. All the official core PHB options are allowed, but the race lore, how magic works and is viewed, etc, should all be different.”

It would be fine (mechanically) to build a Dragonborn Nature Cleric with the Inheritor background. But saying their human parents were the heroes from the Red Hand Of Doom adventure, where they killed an avatar of Tiamat, and so Bahumet blessed them with a dragonborn child (the PC), would still be a problem in a few ways.

Such as how dragons don’t exist on Athas, Gods don’t exist in the Dark Sun setting, dragonborn are replaced by drey, and the verdant green valley of the RHoD adventure wouldn’t really fit into the apocalyptic desert setting either. Parents stopping an invasion could be kept, but too many custom details don’t work.

Edit: removing some Â

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this in any way disagrees with what I said, but it sounds like you think it does. So please don't think I'm being flippant when I say, "Yes, and...?" I agree with what you're saying here. I don't see it as in any way operating to cross purposes with what I was saying.

If you were just agreeing and elaborating, I apologize for misconstruing your intent as argumentative.

[DrKerosene]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how this in any way disagrees with what I said, but it sounds like you think it does. So please don't think I'm being flippant when I say, "Yes, and...?" I agree with what you're saying here. I don't see it as in any way operating to cross purposes with what I was saying.

If you were just agreeing and elaborating, I apologize for misconstruing your intent as argumentative.


Right. What you seem to be missing, if I parse you correctly, is that the whole reason I weighed in is that it seemed people were arguing that custom backgrounds (as specified in the PHB) required DM permission when non-custom ones did not. This would be the lack of consistency I was opposing.


"Custom backgrounds" are presented as much as the default as any existing background, or any printed spell, or any printed class and subclass. That's where people are disagreeing with you, because you're insisting that DM Input is needed since it isn't explicitly stated it's not. So, if you agree that DM input is needed at all stages of the PHB, such that a cleric may not prepare nor cast revivification without a DM's input/approval, then you're right in the sense Hermes Conrad says is the best kind of correct. But then, you hopefully will agree that custom backgrounds require no more explicit DM approval than any non-custom backgrounds, because they're presented with exactly the same amount of requisite DM input called for.

I figured this tangent started at “PHB Custom Backgrounds require no DM input”, and moved to “Custom Backgrounds shouldn’t require any more DM input than normal Backgrounds or other parts of your character”.

Custom Backgrounds as present in the PHB are “change one thing, or work with your DM”. I pointed out with new players (or groups) that one change could be someone taking a class feature and putting it in their background without DM input. Or making a change that is technically not permitted by RAW.

I’m also saying that a Customized Background can still require plenty of consideration just due to the story content, even if it’s not because of the mechanical composition being problematic. Writing in powerful allies, irrelevant lore, impossible heritage, some kind of mary-sue chosen one complex, etc.

Where if someone presented a “by the PHB steps” core-only PC with no notable customization (not even using gold for purchasing equipment, just starting gear), that would require much less consideration or polishing to fit into one setting or another.

I’m not saying you should suspect munchkins, or assume every Player will get something wrong. Just that the more customization a Player uses, the more attention/considering a DM will probably need to put in.

I’m not surprised there are DMs who will give no consideration to any customization, but I would probably be disappointed as a Player.

You can want WotC to formally announce which season of AL rules are the official standard, and DMs would be expected clarify any ways a given campaign will deviate from those AL guidelines, but I don’t expect that kind of announcement to be well received in a broad sense.

[Segev]

I figured this tangent started at “PHB Custom Backgrounds require no DM input”, and moved to “Custom Backgrounds shouldn’t require any more DM input than normal Backgrounds or other parts of your character”.

Custom Backgrounds as present in the PHB are “change one thing, or work with your DM”. I pointed out with new players (or groups) that one change could be someone taking a class feature and putting it in their background without DM input. Or making a change that is technically not permitted by RAW.

I’m also saying that a Customized Background can still require plenty of consideration just due to the story content, even if it’s not because of the mechanical composition being problematic. Writing in powerful allies, irrelevant lore, impossible heritage, some kind of mary-sue chosen one complex, etc.

Where if someone presented a “by the PHB steps” core-only PC with no notable customization (not even using gold for purchasing equipment, just starting gear), that would require much less consideration or polishing to fit into one setting or another.

I’m not saying you should suspect munchkins, or assume every Player will get something wrong. Just that the more customization a Player uses, the more attention/considering a DM will probably need to put in.

I’m not surprised there are DMs who will give no consideration to any customization, but I would probably be disappointed as a Player.

You can want WotC to formally announce which season of AL rules are the official standard, and DMs would be expected clarify any ways a given campaign will deviate from those AL guidelines, but I don’t expect that kind of announcement to be well received in a broad sense.
My own expectation, in general, is that I can use anything in the PHB unless told otherwise, but then I have to run the whole finished product past the DM. I fully expect to discuss my background and why I have it, regardless of whether it's custom or not. I expect generally that there won't be any issues with what I built, but that it's possible there could be things that need polish, or which create unexpected issues with the setting, game, or party as the DM and other players envision it.

None of this changes based on whether I "customize" my background or not, or use "gp" rather than "kit" to get equipment. And that's all I'm saying: the customized background rules are there, not presented as something you need to ask your DM about more than any other thing presented in the book, and thus should not be assumed to be a sticking point that definitely needs greater call-out than anything else.



Note: I do expect to need to ask before multiclassing or using feats; those are expressly called out as optional rules. (I would honestly hope the DM says up front if he is or is not using them.)