Can someone point me to a class/background skills exchange rate?

[Kurt Kurageous]

I have read elsewhere that there is a known equivalent exchange for the various abilities granted by class and background. D&D Beyond shows some of this in custom background creation. But I have not found a definitive or even a consensus with my feeble web searching.

This exchange rate would say things like "two ribbons/trinkets is one language is one tool proficiency is one half a weapon proficiency is half a skill proficiency is one fourth a feat/ASI."

Min/maxers would love this.

Who's got it?

[Unoriginal]

I have read elsewhere that there is a known equivalent exchange for the various abilities granted by class and background. D&D Beyond shows some of this in custom background creation. But I have not found a definitive or even a consensus with my feeble web searching.

This exchange rate would say things like "two ribbons/trinkets is one language is one tool proficiency is one half a weapon proficiency is half a skill proficiency is one fourth a feat/ASI."

Min/maxers would love this.


Kurt Kurageous, if there was such an "exchange rate", don't you think you would have already seen it in every single minmaxing thread?

Th only exchange thing is that if you already have a proficiency due to your race or class you can replace it with another proficiency, normally from the same category (ex: you already have Insight from your class you decided to take Arcana for your background)

[CheddarChampion]

As Unoriginal said, there's no such official thing.

You can more or less come up with one by comparing feats to ASIs to half-feats to Skilled to Prodigy. More or less. But nothing there will let you convert three of your background skills to an extra +2 to Dex.

[da newt]

pg 125 PHB - Customizing a Background

pg 287 DMG - Modifying a Class

pg 289 DMG - Creating a Background

pg 285 DMG - Creating a Race / Subrace

[nickl_2000]

General rule of thumb.

Background Feature - Something that comes up occasionally, but doesn't have a huge impact. Needs to be Exploration or Social tier of gameplay (as in never a combat feature).

Skills - 2 skills

Any 2 of:
Languages
Tool Proficiency
Instrument Proficiency
Vehicles
Gaming Set

Gear ~= 25gp

So, effectively a
Known Language = Tool Prof = Instrument Prof = Vehicle Prof = Gaming Set Prof



As a side note I don't include any backgrounds in this assessment that give access to spell because I think those are completely ludicrous and overpowered.

[OldTrees1]

The custom background rules don't have a universal exchange rate. There are exchange rates within a slot but not between slots.

See nickl_2000 post right above this for those exchange rates.

It is similar to why characters have Race + Background + Levels instead of being able to exchange backgrounds and races at a N:M ratio.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The only thing I know of is PHB p125, at the top right under Proficiencies. Basically you pick your race and class and class skill/tool proficiencies first, then choose a background. If your background gives you any redundant proficiencies, you automatically get to trade those for another of exactly the same type.

So if you go Rogue/Criminal, both get thieves' tools proficiency, so you get to replace one of those with any other tool proficiency of your choice. Or say you want to make an Acolyte Cleric with Survival and Perception proficiency, you can pick Insight and Religion for your Cleric proficiencies and when you gain those same ones from Acolyte you can pick Survival and Perception to replace those.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Thanks to the forum. All great stuff, all in rules.

Kurt Kurageous, if there was such an "exchange rate", don't you think you would have already seen it in every single minmaxing thread?

Th only exchange thing is that if you already have a proficiency due to your race or class you can replace it with another proficiency, normally from the same category (ex: you already have Insight from your class you decided to take Arcana for your background)

I am definitely seeking unofficial stuff. As a DM I can change creation rules.

[LudicSavant]

I have read elsewhere that there is a known equivalent exchange for the various abilities granted by class and background. D&D Beyond shows some of this in custom background creation. But I have not found a definitive or even a consensus with my feeble web searching.

This exchange rate would say things like "two ribbons/trinkets is one language is one tool proficiency is one half a weapon proficiency is half a skill proficiency is one fourth a feat/ASI."

Min/maxers would love this.

Who's got it?

This is in the Player's Handbook, and it's not even a variant. You can just customize backgrounds as you like, switching out tool proficiency or languages for other tool proficiencies or languages, and switching out skill proficiencies for other skill proficiencies, and switching out features for other features.

[OldTrees1]

I am definitely seeking unofficial stuff. As a DM I can change creation rules.

Well,
2 lesser proficiencies (tool, language, vehicle, instrument, gaming) = 1 skill proficiency
1 lesser proficiency = 100 starting gp
1 ribbon feature = 1 cp

[Man_Over_Game]

Couldn't you just do that with feats?

And then compare the versions of feat-esc power levels from races to something like the Variant Human to solidify your ideas.

There's a feat that grants you skills, and one that grants you weapon proficiencies, and even one that grants you HP.

And we also know that languages = tool proficiencies, according to the custom background creation rules. Add in other things that directly tie into these base values (Like Linguist), and you can start making a pretty good foundation.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Well,
2 lesser proficiencies (tool, language, vehicle, instrument, gaming) = 1 skill proficiency
1 lesser proficiency = 100 starting gp
1 ribbon feature = 1 cp

Keep going. We should be able to figure out what 1 point of ASI is, given the half feats.

We should be able to say that the variant human with two points ASI plus tool plus skill compares to human with six points ASI compares to tiefling with 3 points and infernal legacy + darkvision and so forth.

Ultimately we should be able to prove or disprove the balance of the races. Which would open the door to new races/combinations, and evaluating WOTC published races.


Couldn't you just do that with feats?

And then compare the versions of feat-esc power levels from races to something like the Variant Human to solidify your ideas.

There's a feat that grants you skills, and one that grants you weapon proficiencies, and even one that grants you HP.

And we also know that languages = tool proficiencies, according to the custom background creation rules. Add in other things that directly tie into these base values (Like Linguist), and you can start making a pretty good foundation.

MoG, I think you get where I'm going exactly. To get there, we need a consensus or someone from WotC who knows what they are not telling us.

[Man_Over_Game]

Keep going. We should be able to figure out what 1 point of ASI is, given the half feats.

We should be able to say that the variant human with two points ASI plus tool plus skill compares to human with six points ASI compares to tiefling with 3 points and infernal legacy + darkvision and so forth.

Ultimately we should be able to prove or disprove the balance of the races. Which would open the door to new races/combinations, and evaluating WOTC published races.



MoG, I think you get where I'm going exactly. To get there, we need a consensus or someone from WotC who knows what they are not telling us.

Don't really need that. Just have a point system that starts with the weakest form of value.

Tool/Language = 1 point. (Custom Background)

Linguist earns 3 languages, a minor benefit and an ASI, so we can assume a feat is worth ~3 points and an +1

Skilled earns 3 tools or skills, but we can assume skills are more valuable. Estimating that skills are worth 2 points each (just a guess for the sake of making an example), this feat is worth anywhere between 3-6 points (with the player having to opt for the 3 point value, meaning that it's worth 6 points with some weaker choices to add options for the player).

Combining both, we can determine that a feat is worth roughly 6 points, and that a +1 is worth 3 points (which makes sense, since your alternative to a feat is a +2).

Using this logic, you could theoretically exchange all of the background proficiencies for a feat or ASI. (That's not entirely accurate, as ASI's/Feats synergize with one another, so they gain value the more you have, which is not generally true of tools/proficiencies, which is probably why they forced you into getting proficiencies from your background rather than your choice of feat. Dividing your features into chunks that don't work together keeps your power level stable with the rest of the table).

From there, you could hypothesize something like the Mobile feat is worth a total of 6 points, spending 1 point on the useless Disengage/Terrain factor, and dividing the other 5 points on which of the two features generally gets more value. The Disengage is generally more relevant, so 10 speed is worth 2 points while Disengaging from an enemy you attack is worth 3 points. This then correlates to the Swashbuckler feature, so that we can eventually piece together a gauge on how much value Rogue subclass features should have. Eventually, you can get to a point where you can determine how much Disengage is discounted by if you condition a requirement to attack a creature you're running from, which gives you an estimate on how much something's value should adjust when you condition an attack for it.

Just start small and build your foundation to expand outward. Not all of the numbers are going to be perfect, but it will at least give an estimate as to what SHOULD be happening (for the sake of balance). For example, if skills are 2x as expensive as a tool, they should be 2x as valuable/relevant (which does seem to be somewhat true).

[LudicSavant]

Linguist earns 3 languages, a minor benefit and an ASI, so we can assume a feat is worth ~3 points and an +1

No, no you definitely can't assume that at all, since Linguist is a feat that's below the competitive curve. It would be like saying that we can assume the value of Find Familiar from the value of Illusory Script.

You also can't assume that certain resources are (or even should) be equally good at doing all things; this is why you can't assume (as you seem to have realized) that Tool and Skill proficiencies are worth the same even though they're interchangeable within the context of Skilled. You also can't assume that anything that improves your ability to scale vertically has a linear cost increase (for example, you can't assume that it costs the same point buy to go from 10 to 12 as it does to go from 12 to 14... and indeed it doesn't).

Backgrounds are very crucially and intentionally designed to be better at non-combat features, skills, and "horizontal" scaling and provide very little "vertical" scaling. Whereas if you could use them to, say, get a combat feat, it would enable you to "stack high, rather than wide" and put yourself above curve at a single role.

[Man_Over_Game]

No, no you definitely can't assume that at all, since Linguist is a feat that's below the competitive curve. It would be like saying that we can assume the value of Find Familiar from the value of Illusory Script.

You also can't assume that certain resources are (or even should) be equally good at doing all things; this is why you can't assume (as you seem to have realized) that Tool and Skill proficiencies are worth the same even though they're interchangeable within the context of Skilled. You also can't assume that anything that improves your ability to scale vertically has a linear cost increase (for example, you can't assume that it costs the same point buy to go from 10 to 12 as it does to go from 12 to 14... and indeed it doesn't).

Backgrounds are very crucially and intentionally designed to be better at non-combat features, skills, and "horizontal" scaling and provide very little "vertical" scaling. Whereas if you could use them to, say, get a combat feat, it would enable you to "stack high, rather than wide" and put yourself above curve at a single role.

Yeah, but that basically resolves to just "give up". Nah.

There's a difference between saying "This system is coming up with flaws in these distinct areas, so we need to reconsider something to address them", and "There's no point in doing that, since there are flaws here and here".

I made this from a model that I kinda just whipped up in 10 minutes between two feats and some off-hand guesswork on the value of tools/languages. It was also taken from the perspective of skills as a foundation, and (I've talked about this a lot, won't spam about it again), but you can't really compare skills to combat mechanics as they almost never interact and they solve different problems. They don't even compete in the same design space (you don't generally choose to use a skill or attack, you generally need to do one or the other), and the only reason they ever really meet is because they have comparable costs (one feat vs. another, or one class feature grants combat stuff while another gets skills, etc), so they can't be compared.

What that means is that you could develop a different foundation from the perspective of combat (using something like damage or HP or AC or something) and develop a separate model.

You could either keep them separate (so the utility model only works for utility features), or you could simply just average them once both are complete (so if one model treats Mobile as worth 6 points while another sees it as 8, it's worth roughly 7).

Or you can just use a foundation that is consistent, such as the assumption that feats should have the same cost and worth (variation is expected, but it's a sound and consistent foundation to start from).

[OldTrees1]

Keep going. We should be able to figure out what 1 point of ASI is, given the half feats.

Wait, why? ASIs are not part of Backgrounds.

If you want to evaluate races, why not start with them? Also note that ASIs to the Nth stat have diminishing returns but the Nth ASI to the same stat has slightly increasing returns.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wait, why? ASIs are not part of Backgrounds.

If you want to evaluate races, why not start with them? Also note that ASIs to the Nth stat have diminishing returns but the Nth ASI to the same stat has slightly increasing returns.

Nah, he's saying that an ASI is worth +2 points stat points, a Half-feat is worth +1 and (whatever the feat powers are), so we can figure out what those side features are as a sum. For example, we know that the total of nonstat features you get from Actor all total to the equivalent of +1 to a stat, which means you can start breaking down how much certain things are worth compared to stats (such as 1/3 of a +1 or something), until eventually you can get to a point where you can decide that ~2 skills is worth a +1 or something.

[LudicSavant]

Yeah, but that basically resolves to just "give up". Nah.

Do you think people are telling you to give up on doing math if they tell you you solved an equation wrong?

It's not telling you to give up. It's telling you to make a better model, and avoid unsound principles.

What you're presenting here is called a false dilemma. The choice isn't between 'accept the assumption' and 'give up.' There's also the additional choice of re-examining your assumptions and coming up with a stronger model.

For example, instead of using Linguist or Skilled as the measuring stick for the generalized value of feats, you could choose ones that are on the competitive curve.

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you think people are telling you to give up on doing math if they tell you you solved an equation wrong?

It's not telling you to give up. It's telling you to make a better model, and avoid unsound principles.

What you're presenting here is called a false dilemma. The choice isn't between 'accept the assumption' and 'give up.' There's also the additional choice of re-examining your assumptions and coming up with a stronger model.

For example, instead of using Linguist or Skilled as the measuring stick for the generalized value of feats, you could choose ones that are on the competitive curve.

Lol, you're right, I basically edited the same thing into that response.

Come up with several models with different foundations, then figure out where the weak points are and either keep the foundations separate at those weakpoints (so you aren't running into the pointlessly losing game of comparing combat features to noncombat features), or just average the models together.

[LudicSavant]

Lol, you're right, I basically edited the same thing into that response.

Come up with several models with different foundations, then figure out where the weak points are and either keep the foundations separate at those weakpoints (so you aren't running into the pointlessly losing game of comparing combat features to noncombat features), or just average the models together.

Sounds good.

So a few things I'd take into account when making a model:

- The balance of a given resource should be determined by options on the competitive curve for said resource.

- Sometimes there are increasing or decreasing returns for getting more of a given resource. For example, a +2 is often better than a +1/+1 (which is why Point Buy scales the way it does, and why normal humans are lame). For another example, each additional cantrip known is worth less than the last (e.g. knowing Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade is not twice as good as knowing Booming Blade). Often it is the case that 'vertical scaling' has increasing returns and opportunity costs while 'horizontal scaling' has decreasing.

- For any 'generalized resource' in 5e, they tend to be better or worse at doing certain roles, sometimes intentionally. Backgrounds tend to be better at providing skill proficiencies, tool proficiencies, and ways to gather information or influence NPCs to help you in modest ways.

- Backgrounds generally don't provide much 'vertical scaling' and doing so would increase the cap for pretty much anything, since it's a place you couldn't invest in those kind of things before.

[Unoriginal]

Keep in mind there are rules to use downtime to learn languages and tool proficiencies, and rules to learn Feats by training with a special teacher during downtime too.

[nickl_2000]

Keep in mind there are rules to use downtime to learn languages and tool proficiencies, and rules to learn Feats by training with a special teacher during downtime too.

Where are the rules to learn a feat by training? I don't remember those? Are they DMG?

[Unoriginal]

Are they DMG?

Yep. In the section about special rewards.

[king_steve]

Where are the rules to learn a feat by training? I don't remember those? Are they DMG?

I think Unoriginal was referring to the DMG Chapter 7 Marks of Prestige Training



Training

A character might be offered special training in lieu of a financial reward. This kind of training isn’t widely available and thus is highly desirable. It presumes the existence of a skilled trainer

...

A character who agrees to training as a reward must spend downtime with the trainer (see chapter 6 for more information on downtime activities). In exchange, the character is guaranteed to receive a special benefit. Possible training benefits include the following:


The character gains inspiration daily at dawn for 1d4 + 6 days.
The character gains proficiency in a skill.
The character gains a feat.

[Unoriginal]

I think Unoriginal was referring to the DMG Chapter 7 Marks of Prestige Training

I was indeed, thanks for the quote.

[nickl_2000]

Yep. In the section about special rewards.


I think Unoriginal was referring to the DMG Chapter 7 Marks of Prestige Training

Thanks to both of you. I see now that it's a special reward that also requires downtime training. Not a "normal" training activity that can be used during all downtimes.

[Unoriginal]

Thanks to both of you. I see now that it's a special reward that also requires downtime training. Not a "normal" training activity that can be used during all downtimes.

Indeed. It's essentially a training montage with a special teacher.

[Man_Over_Game]

I would have much rather have made "downtime leveling" a thing, where your life experience slowly teaches you things based on how much time/gold you spend. So that someone who spends their time in a magic circus, they might gain the Actor feat during that time while someone who went on duty in the Badlands got Tough for their troubles.

[nickl_2000]

I would have much rather have made "downtime leveling" a thing, where your life experience slowly teaches you things based on how much time/gold you spend. So that someone who spends their time in a magic circus, they might gain the Actor feat during that time while someone who went on duty in the Badlands got Tough for their troubles.

Pay to Win D&D?

[Man_Over_Game]

Pay to Win D&D?

It already is, except now it applies to those who are spending time/gold on family or vices. Personally, I'd like an option where this was how you leveled, with time-lapses.

[Unoriginal]

I would have much rather have made "downtime leveling" a thing, where your life experience slowly teaches you things based on how much time/gold you spend. So that someone who spends their time in a magic circus, they might gain the Actor feat during that time while someone who went on duty in the Badlands got Tough for their troubles.

Do you mean making the PCs level up due to downtime, or having downtime just give you bonus feats or proficiencies but not otherwise affecting your level?

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you mean making the PCs level up due to downtime, or having downtime just give you bonus feats or proficiencies but not otherwise affecting your level?

Sorry, I realize it's unclear.

Make it so that if a player is allowed "downtime training", he can get the same thing even when not "training", like just contributing towards their personal plots or something. Otherwise it's pushing a bias that states that your heroes don't get to spend time enjoying the things they're risking their lives for. That the only reason you kill and get money is for the enjoyment of murder and money.

I also like the idea of having a leveling milestone system that had you level between time lapses. The concept of time-lapses/downtime is kinda poorly implemented in 5e, and doesn't do much to encourage it organically for most tables.

[x3n0n]

I would have much rather have made "downtime leveling" a thing, where your life experience slowly teaches you things based on how much time/gold you spend. So that someone who spends their time in a magic circus, they might gain the Actor feat during that time while someone who went on duty in the Badlands got Tough for their troubles.

Side note: DMG p131 has a variant rule with similar name but different intent; after earning XP, you can require mandatory downtime training to actually level up.