Rebalancing Background features

[Mr Adventurer]

So, I assume that Background features are supposed to be broadly balanced against each other. But it definitely seems like some are better balanced than others. What changes do you think are warranted?

Here's one of mine:

Urchin: the feature should apply to all cities, not just your home city. As it stands, this feature is at best moderately useful in a campaign set in your city, and marginally useful in a campaign that sometimes visits your city. If the campaign doesn't, it's worthless.

[Bunny Commando]

You should take into consideration the whole background, not just the feature. E.g. a proficiency in Perception is more useful than a proficiency in Performance,a proficiency in the thieves' tools is more useful than a proficiency with a gaming set and so on.

While I do agree that the Urchin background doesn't have a particularly useful feature unless your game is set in your character's city if you take a look to its proficiencies: for tools you have the thieves' tools and the disguise kit, for skills you have Sleight of Hand and Stealth. The thieves' tools and Stealth could be quite useful in almost any kind of adventure and IMHO the Urchin is quite good as a background even if you never stay in your character's home city.

[Mr Adventurer]

You should take into consideration the whole background, not just the feature.

I don't think the rest of the game does this, so I don't think we should here. Hence the scope of this thread, as mentioned in the OP.

Balancing skills against each other and/or skill selections for Backgrounds is reserved for a separate exercise.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think the rest of the game does this, so I don't think we should here. Hence the scope of this thread, as mentioned in the OP.

Balancing skills against each other and/or skill selections for Backgrounds is reserved for a separate exercise.

But the game does.

A Ranger's subclass gives a lot more than a Rogue's subclass or a Fighter's-because the Fighter and Rogue have a more potent base chassis.

[Rara1212]

You should take into consideration the whole background, not just the feature. E.g. a proficiency in Perception is more useful than a proficiency in Performance,a proficiency in the thieves' tools is more useful than a proficiency with a gaming set and so on.

While I do agree that the Urchin background doesn't have a particularly useful feature unless your game is set in your character's city if you take a look to its proficiencies: for tools you have the thieves' tools and the disguise kit, for skills you have Sleight of Hand and Stealth. The thieves' tools and Stealth could be quite useful in almost any kind of adventure and IMHO the Urchin is quite good as a background even if you never stay in your character's home city.

Thing is, you are free to build your own background by picking between the existing features, taking 2 skills, and choosing 2 languages or tools, as well as taking one of the existing backgrounds equipment.

So, the background features stand sort of alone against each other

[OldTrees1]

I expect rebalancing background features is easiest to do at each campaign. When you know the context of the campaign then you will know if something like Soldier will come up.

So how could they be better designed to facilitate that table base rebalancing? What if there are more background features that are related but different. Then the player can, with DM's help, choose the background feature that will be relevant to both the character and the campaign.

For example: Urchin might have a local feature (home turf), a genre feature (urban tricks), and an abstract feature (urchins that survive can endure a lot).

[Neorealist]

Whomever mentioned that the custom background makes this moot has the right of it: any character can select any background feature independent of skill and tool/language proficencies.

Not that there isn't merit in balancing the features themselves, just not on the basis of the other granted perks for any given one.

[Bunny Commando]

Thing is, you are free to build your own background by picking between the existing features, taking 2 skills, and choosing 2 languages or tools, as well as taking one of the existing backgrounds equipment.

So, the background features stand sort of alone against each other

True. And the PHB also says that you can work with your DM to create a completely new feature. You have a lot of freedom, which is good.
But if your goal is to balance something, I believe you should take a different approach than "you may do whatever you want". The Urchin background as is doesn't need a buff of its feature, IMHO.
I concede that by itself the feature is not particularly exciting, but I still think that one should consider the whole package if she's interested in having a balanced background.

[TigerT20]

So, I assume that Background features are supposed to be broadly balanced against each other. But it definitely seems like some are better balanced than others. What changes do you think are warranted?

Here's one of mine:

Urchin: the feature should apply to all cities, not just your home city. As it stands, this feature is at best moderately useful in a campaign set in your city, and marginally useful in a campaign that sometimes visits your city. If the campaign doesn't, it's worthless.

It already does.


Feature: City Secrets
You know the secret patterns and flow to cities and can find passages through the urban sprawl that others would miss. When you are not in combat, you (and companions you lead) can travel between any two locations in the city twice as fast as your speed would normally allow

'the city' just seems to mean cities in general, like how you would say 'the jungle' or 'the desert'.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

First of all, the Urchin background feature doesn't say anything about it only working in your home town. It says you understand city layouts in general and can use that knowledge to quickly navigate through any city.

I'm running Out of the Abyss and one player selected the Acolyte background. I strongly recommended he pick one of the campaign-specific background features, or just swap it for a different background feature, since there's not much chance he'll ever find a temple to his deity or its pantheon in the underdark. He kept it anyway, as he didn't really care enough about its usefulness to swap it and it was a defining part of his character. The game also has an urchin who was able to use their background feature to outrun and lose the drow tailing them in Gracklstugh.

Some players don't really care about their background feature's usefulness and want to keep it as it's a part of their character. Even if a background feature is weak, it will still appeal to someone, and they'll still find ways to use it. Players who do care about having a useful background feature have the option to swap it out for one that's more relevant to the campaign anyway.

[Amnestic]

I dislike Outlander a fair bit because it's not got any RP hook potential attached to it. It doesn't lead anywhere, it doesn't provoke anything like Acolyte's Shelter of the Faithful or Folk Hero's Rustic Hospitality.

It basically exists to say "if one of you has this you can skip the survival checks to find food for your party" which is kinda...dull. If I had to change it I'd probably remove the find food bit and add something like
"You are well experienced at finding secluded lodges and shelters used by other wilderness travelers. If there is one in the area, you can guide your party to it."

It doesn't guarantee safe shelter, but it does open the door for DMs to slot in the same sort of 'shelter plot hook' that you get with some of the other backgrounds.

Urchin's also not very interesting in general even if you can use it in multiple cities. Is city travel speed a big issue in a lot of campaigns? eh...probably not. I don't necessarily want background features to all be some variation of "You can get assistance from [relevant background connection" but whatever they do should be prompt some intrigue from the party when done.

[Dienekes]

But the game does.

A Ranger's subclass gives a lot more than a Rogue's subclass or a Fighter's-because the Fighter and Rogue have a more potent base chassis.

I know that’s the ideal but I’m curious if that actually holds up. I mean Gloomstalker is clearly great. But I’m not sure if I consider Hunter stronger than Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight, or Echo Knight.

[MaxWilson]

So, I assume that Background features are supposed to be broadly balanced against each other. But it definitely seems like some are better balanced than others. What changes do you think are warranted?

Here's one of mine:

Urchin: the feature should apply to all cities, not just your home city. As it stands, this feature is at best moderately useful in a campaign set in your city, and marginally useful in a campaign that sometimes visits your city. If the campaign doesn't, it's worthless.

You're allowed to propose your own background features to the DM as part of background customization, and I'd agree that in a campaign where there isn't just one major city, your revised Urchin feature would be a better choice than the PHB Urchin feature.

I still don't love this background feature. I'd suggest instead devising a background feature that lets you access adventure hooks, like Bounty Hunter: you have a reputation for getting dangerous jobs done. People come to you with professional commissions to capture criminals, hunt down dangerous animals, etc. During downtime, you can ask the list what commissions you have been offered recently, and the DM will give offer you two or three foes to pursue and the reward associated with each. If you accept a commission, you may choose for the DM to skip the pursuit and jump straight to the climactic confrontation with the bad guy in question, or to play it out as a full adventure with the entire party.

[Segev]

I think few Background features - Hermit's being a glowing exception - directly imply plot-hook fodder. (Hermit's is tricky because it's very open-ended, but figuring out where it's power level should sit is very hard.)

Criminal gives you a contact, at least, but that's more likely to come up as info-gathering on the current plot hook, not as a new hook.

Charlatan only implies a plot hook if the DM goes out of his way to use it as such, and by that token literally any Background Feature can be used as a hook. Even Urchin's default one: "As you travel the back alleys and over the rooftops to shortcut your way across the city, you come across this mysterious clue that is nestled in this out-of-the-way place."

The trouble with Rustic Hospitality and Child of the Streets is that both are kind-of boring, unless the DM goes out of his way to make them interesting. I think that's why the focus on "they should give plot hooks:" anything that makes them interesting probably is one. Traveling across a city in half the time is rarely, if ever, going to even matter, and finding shelter is something anybody can do if there is shelter as obvious as a house. (This is a similar problem for the Acolyte, really.) Now, the Rustic Hospitality thing is handy if the party needs to lie low, but that is... well, maybe I just haven't played the right games, but I've never heard of that really being an issue that couldn't be handled by camping in the woods at the very worst. (And you can't tell me PCs aren't adept campers.)

Background features need an "active mode." Something that players can actively say, "I'm invoking this to bring it to prominence." The Acolyte's stated to be able to get free or cheap lodgings, but in theory he should be able to do more than just that. Get healing for his friends, get religious advice, even use it to pass messages along (and be asked to carry messages to temples as he travels). The Urchin should probably have bolt-holes and the like. If inventory management was ever an issue, I'd suggest he have means of ensuring he had stashes he could get to quickly. Or maybe just make it more directly a plot hook thing, but honestly, "I'm an Urchin so I listen to the streets' rumor mills," probably doesn't need a feature to make it happen.

The Outlander might be more interesting if, instead of auto-foraging, he could name a creature type native to the region and call for an encounter with it, based on him knowing how to hunt it down. The party still has to somehow deal with the creature, but he can bring about the encounter.

[Amnestic]

Background features need an "active mode." Something that players can actively say, "I'm invoking this to bring it to prominence." The Acolyte's stated to be able to get free or cheap lodgings, but in theory he should be able to do more than just that. Get healing for his friends,
For the record, they do get free healing:


You and your adventuring companions can expect to receive free healing and care at a temple, shrine, or other established presence of your faith, though you must provide any material components needed for spells. Those who share your religion will support you (but only you) at a modest lifestyle. You might also have ties to a specific temple dedicated to your chosen deity or pantheon, and you have a residence there.

With how easy it is to heal it's not such a big deal but I could see it being *very* useful for gritty realism/slow healing variant rules.



The Outlander might be more interesting if, instead of auto-foraging, he could name a creature type native to the region and call for an encounter with it, based on him knowing how to hunt it down. The party still has to somehow deal with the creature, but he can bring about the encounter.

That would be unique and interesting. I'm not sure of how much useful application it has 'generally' but it's a cool enough niche that people would want to use it. I do think it would probably prompt a lot more "what can I make out of this creature's body" questions.

But I'm a fan of those questions.

So I like it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I third(?) the confusion about the Urchin one--it never says anything about being restricted to one city. No more than Rustic Hospitality applies only to your home community.
---------
I'm a proponent of the following:

1. Background features stay small and mostly passive. Keeping the explicit features just ribbons saves having to worry about balancing them (which isn't really possible with custom backgrounds and background features).
2. DMs pay way more attention to background when distributing plot hooks, deciding who an NPC will talk to, trust, or confide in, giving out "common knowledge" (ie no-roll-needed information), etc. Background should mean as much or more for non-combat things as does class or ability scores. Sure, you dumped CHA and the (Urchin) bard has expertise in Persuasion. But he's an urchin, and the nobles can smell the stink of the streets on him (metaphorically). So they're not going to cozy up to him as much as they might to you. This may manifest as lower DCs, better initial attitudes, or just a tendency of the NPCs to talk to you, not him. Your status is a boon in talking to them, while his is a barrier. Not an insurmountable one, but a barrier. This forces everyone to be involved and imposes actual choices beyond "I want those particular skills." The same applies to knowledge stuff--the Sage who has specialized in the history of some obscure tribe is going to know much more about that tribe than someone else who happens to have a higher general Intelligence (History) result. The Sage would get a high "floor", while the guy who's good with general History but doesn't (based on background and backstory) know much about this obscure thing would have a different one. Or the information gets channeled through the Sage--the check represents the other guy asking the right questions to remind the Sage of what he'd temporarily forgotten. Etc.

Basically, the character's background is an open invitation to hook them into the world. And not just through the explicit "character sheet buttons". This can and should go deeper than just the label. You can pull in actual setting-specific knowledge about what someone from <X> with background <Y> would know or how people would react to them. As part of this, I fully support custom backgrounds going way more specific than the generic ones. Not just "Urchin", but "Street Rat of Waterdeep's <X> District" or "Street Rat of the wharfs of Luskan". Not just "Noble", but "Black sheep of upper nobility in <location>" or "Scion of name-rich but currency-poor family in <location>".

Both choices might have the same features, but the implied knowledge and attitudes will be quite different. And so will the reactions of the people around them.

Does this take DM involvement in character creation? Absolutely. Does this require player buy-in for the setting? Absolutely. But I'd claim both of those as features, not bugs.

[Neorealist]

Sure, you dumped CHA and the (Urchin) bard has expertise in Persuasion. But he's an urchin, and the nobles can smell the stink of the streets on him (metaphorically). So they're not going to cozy up to him as much as they might to you.

Not sure that balancing background features around in-campaign profiling is the best approach here?

Not to say it doesn't exist, but would suggest minimizing that rather than enshrining it in balance efforts.

[Anonymouswizard]

I honestly think that 5e's Background system would have been better if the focus had been on the elements rather than completed backgrounds. It's pretty clear that Backgrounds give two Skills, two Tools or Languages, and one Feature, and I think they should have just stated that that's what your background gave you and given you a list of Features each with their own suggested backgrounds (partially because I've not yet seen a game where background finangling was disallowed, my favourite being a Witch I made who had Rustic Hospitality from being a wandering healer).

As it is a book with another twenty or thirty generic(ish) backgrounds with more Features would be great, with the understanding that they should be equal. Sure, some would give more useful Skills or Tools by default, but swapping those out is basically encouraged by the rules anyway. The feature should be the defining point of a Background and why you take it, and in my mind should be as character defining as a Feat.

[MaxWilson]

I honestly think that 5e's Background system would have been better if the focus had been on the elements rather than completed backgrounds. It's pretty clear that Backgrounds give two Skills, two Tools or Languages, and one Feature, and I think they should have just stated that that's what your background gave you and given you a list of Features each with their own suggested backgrounds (partially because I've not yet seen a game where background finangling was disallowed, my favourite being a Witch I made who had Rustic Hospitality from being a wandering healer).

This is exactly what they did, according to the PHB. Background customization is not an optional rule, it's just plain old vanilla RAW.

PHB page 36:

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. You can either use the equipment package from your background or spend coin on gear as described in chapter 5. (If you spend coin, you can’t also take the equipment package suggested for your class.) Finally, 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.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is exactly what they did, according to the PHB. Background customization is not an optional rule, it's just plain old vanilla RAW.

:smallconfused:

I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying the pre-built backgrounds shouldn't have been there in the first place. Tey are very much not 'you maybe pick two skills, two tools or languages, and one feature from the following list'.

[MaxWilson]

:smallconfused:

I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying the pre-built backgrounds shouldn't have been there in the first place. Tey are very much not 'you maybe pick two skills, two tools or languages, and one feature from the following list'.

But you said you wanted features and suggested backgrounds. What you got is features embedded in suggested backgrounds. I don't see a difference.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

But Urchin gets a pet mouse and is therefore the best Background, Checkmate.

[Anonymouswizard]

But you said you wanted features and suggested backgrounds. What you got is features embedded in suggested backgrounds. I don't see a difference.

Presentation matters (as does giving multiple background suggestions per feature).

[bid]

You should take into consideration the whole background, not just the feature.
Meaningless. The listed backgrounds are samples.

You can match any 2 skills, any 2 tool/language, and whichever background feature you like. Working with your DM is only required when you want to invent a background feature.


Which comes down to this: discuss with the DM on how to extend the city secret feature to extend it for travel campaigns.

[cutlery]

:smallconfused:

I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying the pre-built backgrounds shouldn't have been there in the first place. Tey are very much not 'you maybe pick two skills, two tools or languages, and one feature from the following list'.

I think those are there for easy character creation; much like the quick start boxes for each class.

A sea of skill and tool and feature choices would be too much (even if they all are essentially available).

[HappyDaze]

Meaningless. The listed backgrounds are samples.

You can match any 2 skills, any 2 tool/language, and whichever background feature you like. Working with your DM is only required when you want to invent a background feature.


Which comes down to this: discuss with the DM on how to extend the city secret feature to extend it for travel campaigns.

Working with your DM is required for anything in that DM's world. If the DM doesn't want to use something in the book, it's not going to happen in that DM's game. Your choice is to accept it or find another game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not sure that balancing background features around in-campaign profiling is the best approach here?

Not to say it doesn't exist, but would suggest minimizing that rather than enshrining it in balance efforts.

I'm confused. What you quoted isn't an attempt to balance the features. The features are all just ribbons, and should be treated as such (effect on balance == minimal). Instead, DMs should let the backgrounds influence the fiction of the scenario directly. That's something that inevitably will be campaign-by-campaign, situation-by-situation. It makes the background choice more relevant outside of the mere mechanical effects (proficiencies and features)--instead of crafting a background to get the "optimal" features and proficiencies, you'd craft one that makes sense in the world and for the character and then have to deal with the effects of that choice as reflected in the fiction.

It's a hard fact that an urchin and a noble shouldn't act the same. And people shouldn't react to them the same way. They shouldn't know the same things (ab initio anyway). That's what it means to actually be a character and have a real background, not a mechanical entry on your character sheet. It's there to help you roleplay. Do you play the awkward noble who is thrust into social situations (and get benefits for playing to the character you've created (low CHA + noble background)? Or do you just wall off that part except for the number boosts and make backgrounds irrelevant (which is the standard way).

I value character immersion in the setting more than almost anything. Characters who don't fit the setting and have no connections to the world around them are anathema to me. The actual mechanical effects are meh. Let the backgrounds themselves be the plot (more precisely world-interaction) hooks and play into that. Don't relegate all the non-character-sheet stuff to nothingness. Mechanical-only balance is bound to fail, and bound to drain the life out of the game. 4e's fluff/crunch distinction was, for me, one of its major misteps. It focused all the attention on the mechanical representation, not the fiction layer where the life of the game is. If I want a complex, balanced mechanical layer and don't care about the fiction, I'll play an MMO. The one big advantage TTRPGs have is that they can immerse the character and the players into the fiction itself with more than just buttons to press. It can make them come to life.

[MaxWilson]

Working with your DM is required for anything in that DM's world. If the DM doesn't want to use something in the book, it's not going to happen in that DM's game. Your choice is to accept it or find another game.

The difference is, if you make up your own class with d20 hit dice and don't tell the DM about it, you're cheating. You knew better. But if you follow the PHB to assemble a variant Baker background with Perception and Persuasion proficiency, Chef's Tools, Dwarvish, and the background feature taken from Guild Merchant, and don't tell the DM, you aren't cheating, you're just following the character creation process. If the DM wants to prevent that they have to _tell_ you that they're changing the rules.

[OldTrees1]

:smallconfused:

I'm not saying it's not, I'm saying the pre-built backgrounds shouldn't have been there in the first place. Tey are very much not 'you maybe pick two skills, two tools or languages, and one feature from the following list'.

Creating pre-built backgrounds might have helped the authors come up with the background traits.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Creating pre-built backgrounds might have helped the authors come up with the background traits.

Yeah. Coming up with context-free, context-independent traits is...extremely hard. Super ultra heavy duty hard. And likely to be super imbalanced. Context gives shape, context gives ideas. And there's the escape hatch of "work with the DM to make your own."

I'll be honest. I don't use the sample ones except as reference. Instead, when helping a player I ask a series of questions to determine who they were and what kind of background (lower-case) fits best. Given a choice of race and knowing the world, I can narrow down first the region where they likely grew up and then the range of occupations. Some of the questions are open-ended, others are limited-selection (there aren't any dragonborn from outside of one nation, for instance). Then if a Background fits well, we use it. Otherwise we write our own, picking one of the features.

But the number of times I've had the features actually matter is...zero? One? Maybe? Over 6+ years and 30+ players. The information that went into creating the backgrounds comes up all the time. The personality comes up all the time. But the features? They're eminently forgettable all of the time.

[bid]

Working with your DM is required for anything in that DM's world. If the DM doesn't want to use something in the book, it's not going to happen in that DM's game. Your choice is to accept it or find another game.
So you have to ask for every little thing, from "can I be a vuman, can I be a warlock" to "can I know the sleep spell, can I wield a greatsword"?

That's a good starting point for an antagonist DM. And a good ending point for your involvement in the non-campaign.


As MaxWilson stated, you use PHB as is unless the DM explicitly changes the setup. And that's not "working with" until you ask for an exception to his changes.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So you have to ask for every little thing, from "can I be a vuman, can I be a warlock" to "can I know the sleep spell, can I wield a greatsword"?

That's a good starting point for an antagonist DM. And a good ending point for your involvement in the non-campaign.


As MaxWilson stated, you use PHB as is unless the DM explicitly changes the setup. And that's not "working with" until you ask for an exception to his changes.

"Working with the DM" is called playing the game. Not asking for permission, but talking with them about your character and integrating them into the world (which is held in his head). Characters made collectively (at least in conference with the DM) always fit the world and the story better than those made in isolation IMX.

[Segev]

So you have to ask for every little thing, from "can I be a vuman, can I be a warlock" to "can I know the sleep spell, can I wield a greatsword"?

That's a good starting point for an antagonist DM. And a good ending point for your involvement in the non-campaign.


As MaxWilson stated, you use PHB as is unless the DM explicitly changes the setup. And that's not "working with" until you ask for an exception to his changes.

"Working with the DM" is called playing the game. Not asking for permission, but talking with them about your character and integrating them into the world (which is held in his head). Characters made collectively (at least in conference with the DM) always fit the world and the story better than those made in isolation IMX.

I think there's a disconnect between you two, here.

Bid seems to be assuming that what's being said is that everybody has to run every decision by the DM as he's making it, sitting there with every single jot and tittle on the page being written down in front of the DM, with his permission. PhoenixPhyre seems to be saying that you should collaborate with the DM and run the broad strokes by him, including any signature or obviously important parts of the character. And Background would be important to working into his game.

I think PhoenixPhyre is being reasonable, but that he's reacting to bid as if bid were denigrating what PhoenixPhyre is saying. In fact, bid is not addressing what PhoenixPhyre is saying; they're talking past each other. (At least, this is my perception.)

It is reasonable - as bid is insinuating if I understand him correctly - to assume that you can, after talking to the DM about your character, go build him at least somewhat on your own, and only come to the DM if you have major questions or you're done and want to go over the completed PC with him. Even just hand it to him for him to look over. It is also reasonable to expect that you will need to get a final approval from the DM, and that it's helpful to bring up your big choices as you go so the DM knows what you're doing and can speak up if anything seems off.

In this vein, if the player and DM have already agreed upon the backstory/role/whatever-you-call-it of the character, how he fits in, what he's been doing, etc., and the player decides that he wants the Pirate background feature but to use the Criminal or Charlatan skill proficiencies, he's not "cheating" to not mention this to the DM when he makes the choice. He's following the guidelines for character creation. He isn't even cheating if he fails to point it out to the DM, though the DM is well within his rights to ask about it if he can't figure out where the skill proficiencies came from. And if the DM really doesn't want to allow those proficiencies for some reason, or doesn't like the Background feature, he's free to ban either, but it's not like the player just made something up and tried to pass it off.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there's a disconnect between you two, here.

Bid seems to be assuming that what's being said is that everybody has to run every decision by the DM as he's making it, sitting there with every single jot and tittle on the page being written down in front of the DM, with his permission. PhoenixPhyre seems to be saying that you should collaborate with the DM and run the broad strokes by him, including any signature or obviously important parts of the character. And Background would be important to working into his game.

I think PhoenixPhyre is being reasonable, but that he's reacting to bid as if bid were denigrating what PhoenixPhyre is saying. In fact, bid is not addressing what PhoenixPhyre is saying; they're talking past each other. (At least, this is my perception.)

It is reasonable - as bid is insinuating if I understand him correctly - to assume that you can, after talking to the DM about your character, go build him at least somewhat on your own, and only come to the DM if you have major questions or you're done and want to go over the completed PC with him. Even just hand it to him for him to look over. It is also reasonable to expect that you will need to get a final approval from the DM, and that it's helpful to bring up your big choices as you go so the DM knows what you're doing and can speak up if anything seems off.

In this vein, if the player and DM have already agreed upon the backstory/role/whatever-you-call-it of the character, how he fits in, what he's been doing, etc., and the player decides that he wants the Pirate background feature but to use the Criminal or Charlatan skill proficiencies, he's not "cheating" to not mention this to the DM when he makes the choice. He's following the guidelines for character creation. He isn't even cheating if he fails to point it out to the DM, though the DM is well within his rights to ask about it if he can't figure out where the skill proficiencies came from. And if the DM really doesn't want to allow those proficiencies for some reason, or doesn't like the Background feature, he's free to ban either, but it's not like the player just made something up and tried to pass it off.

I agree, mostly. Players are free to create custom backgrounds. But I have a personal hatred for the idea that "working with the DM" is equal to "asking the DM for permission on everything," which is what I read in the post I quoted. I wanted to clarify that the two are very different. That "working with the DM" is not a pejorative term. It's the game itself. I agree that asking for permission for everything (Mother May I) is obnoxious and unnecessary. But that and "working with the DM" aren't the same.

[Segev]

I agree, mostly. Players are free to create custom backgrounds. But I have a personal hatred for the idea that "working with the DM" is equal to "asking the DM for permission on everything," which is what I read in the post I quoted. I wanted to clarify that the two are very different. That "working with the DM" is not a pejorative term. It's the game itself. I agree that asking for permission for everything (Mother May I) is obnoxious and unnecessary. But that and "working with the DM" aren't the same.

Right. I think that bid might understand that, and thus have perceived what he was arguing against to be "Mother May I" and people - such as yourself - who were correcting him as promoting "Mother May I" while denying that's what it was, rather than trying to explain the difference. Sorry if I overstepped. I just...felt like I was watching a conversation that was going to end up heated because neither side realized there wasn't that much disagreement after all.

I could, of course, be wrong. Such is the hazard of trying to interpret text on the internet. :smallredface:

[bid]

Right. I think that bid might understand that, and thus have perceived what he was arguing against to be "Mother May I" and people - such as yourself - who were correcting him as promoting "Mother May I" while denying that's what it was, rather than trying to explain the difference. Sorry if I overstepped. I just...felt like I was watching a conversation that was going to end up heated because neither side realized there wasn't that much disagreement after all.
No, you are right to clarify that.

Since I said "work with DM to define a new feature", I used a meaning limited to direct negotiations. But yeah, I agree that a campaign is a team effort where everyone is trying to share the fun.


And yes, PhoenixPhyre reply to my last post cleared that up. I'm glad the disagreement was only for the term and not the end result.:smallredface:

[Mr Adventurer]

OK, so. Huh. I am not sure why I think the Urchin feature applied to only one city. But I am glad that it does not! That puts it way up in my estimation.

There's been some good debate about whether feature balance needs to happen, but as others have said I think the fact that the other elements of a background are negotiable means that they really ought to be.

I think there are two elements of a good background feature. One is its applicability, and one is its gameability.

Applicability is, if you like, the mechanics.

Outlander is a good example: it is basically a bypass for a couple of specific mechanics (getting lost , and finding food). They typically don't need much thought to be useful (though the DM will often have to look to make space for their circumstances to be relevant).

Gameability is how "cool" something is independently of the mechanics, and how much narrative impact the feature can easily bring to bear on the shared story. These typically require a lot of investment from the player and DM both to be meaningful.

Hermit is what I think of as the poster child for this: "you learn something unique and powerful" sounds [I]awesome, but unless the DM comes to the table with something for it, it may as well not exist.

I think something like Criminal occupies a bit of both spaces well: you can always use it to send messages (when there's a network available), but if you don't work with your DM on who your contact is, then there's a missed opportunity for a more fully-detailed contact that you can draw on and use to further the plot in other ways than being a messenger.

So, ideally, all features would have both.

As a starting point: what sort of change could we make to Outlander to give it more narrative heft?

[Segev]

Hermit is difficult because “powerful, but not mechanically at least as good as a cantrip,” is very hard to pull off. And then there is the question of whether it should be limited like that. “I know the secret language of beasts,” is pretty much a spell always on, for example.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, the Sage background feature also has plot hook potential. "You don't know what this ancient artifact does, but there's a scholar you've heard of in Waterdeep who studies things like this; he'd probably know". Presto, the party has a hook to draw them to Waterdeep.

[Mr Adventurer]

Hermit is difficult because “powerful, but not mechanically at least as good as a cantrip,” is very hard to pull off. And then there is the question of whether it should be limited like that. “I know the secret language of beasts,” is pretty much a spell always on, for example.

Agree, Hermit needs a lot of work as-is. The rest of the text gives some ideas about how to implement it's gameability, but there's nothing in there for mechanics.

"It might be a great truth about the cosmos, the deities, the powerful beings of the outer planes, or the forces of nature. It could be a site that no one else has ever seen. You might have uncovered a fact that has long been forgotten, or unearthed some relic of the past that could rewrite history. It might be information that would be damaging to the people who or consigned you to exile, and hence the reason for your return to society."

All highly campaign- and/or plot- specific stuff that the DM needs to actively include into the game.

What sort of thing might we add to Hermit to give it a bit of mechanical usefulness? Perhaps something about avoiding random encounters when camped?


For what it's worth, the Sage background feature also has plot hook potential. "You don't know what this ancient artifact does, but there's a scholar you've heard of in Waterdeep who studies things like this; he'd probably know". Presto, the party has a hook to draw them to Waterdeep.

Yes, I absolutely love Sage for exactly this reason. A mystery-loving Sage could theoretically drive an entire campaign arc with the need to travel to distant cities to track down legendary academics. It's a really good example because it's really easy to use, too, since you can just fit a sage with a tidbit of knowledge relevant to whatever your plot is wherever you need them to be. Contrast the void of Hermit...