[4e] Characters of War backgrounds

[MammonAzrael]

http://www.wizards.com/files/366_Characters_of_War.pdf

This one concerns me a little. It says in the opening paragraph that these are intended to be role-playing aids, so power gamers shouldn't see much use out of them, since the bonuses are small. Then I start reading through and all I can think is..."huh, now I can have any skill on any skill list, and with a bonus too! And since when is a +3 bonus to a skill a small one?

Gritty Sergent, Auspicious Birth and the like I see as being quite popular, as well as Detective/Missing Master. Don't forget these backgrounds are completely free.

Oh, and do the two item creation ones let you make magical items? Hmmm...

For RPing, these are great.

Also, has anyone tried any of the various modules WotC has been posting? Are they any good?

[Tengu_temp]

Bear in mind that these are setting-specific. The DM has full rights to ban them from his game if he doesn't feel like having them.

I see them as pretty well-balanced with each other, myself. Well, those that give access to two skills and +1 to them are weaker than the others, but some character builds would use them too.

[MammonAzrael]

Bear in mind that these are setting-specific. The DM has full rights to ban them from his game if he doesn't feel like having them.

That is true, and I guess if the DM allows them then he won't be troubled by them. None of them are as bad as some of the FR background stuff.

...but what is this Scales of War setting? I've never heard of it before.

[ColdSepp]

It's a campaign path being published in Dungeon. I think the second part of it came out last month.

[ghost_warlock]

I kinda like these, possibly abusable but they don't seem overly powerful. Most do exactly what they're supposed to - provide your character with some background in the form of skill training you otherwise couldn't get at the expence fewer trained skills from your usual class list.

For instance, I hope to talk my DM into using them for the KotS game I'm starting tonight. My character is a star-pact warlock with a military history who originally had Religion and Thievery trained because I simply ran out of other warlock class skills I thought were approriate - his Cha is 10 and he was never meant to be a "face."

Since he's currently on the run from his former employer, a powerful extra-planar entity, so I plan on taking the Silent Hunter background and refluffing it to fit a somewhat paranoid character who's trying to keep from being found. Perception and Stealth fit the character so much better than Religion and Thievery, since he's more likely to blast a lock than try to pick it and, since he's pledged his soul to the stars there's not much reason to become particularly knowledgeable about religion.

On the Run from the Devil might fit the fluff better, but (once again) Bluff isn't particularly useful for the character since it's already a class skill he doesn't want.

[FoE]

It's a campaign path being published in Dungeon. I think the second part of it came out last month.

The first PDF was called "Rescue at Rivenroar," and the second one was "Siege of Bodrin's Watch." Both adventures have the PCs involved in some large-scale conflict.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Hmm... these seem like they'd kill any semblance of balance you'd get from the DMG 42 DC list. Most of these seem to give you Skill Training & Focus for free, and that bonus stacks with actually taking Skill Focus. So now a min/maxer could get, say, and Intimidate of +15 at first level (Background + Skill Focus + 18 CHA) which means an effective +5 v. Will for the combat-usage of Intimidate... which is extremely good.

So the +3's seem a bit high, while the +1's seem reasonable-ish. I'm not a big fan of giving mechanical advantages for backgrounds anyhow, but even with that caveat, these seem to put unnecessary strain on the system.

[ghost_warlock]

Hmm... these seem like they'd kill any semblance of balance you'd get from the DMG 42 DC list. Most of these seem to give you Skill Training & Focus for free {snip}

No. The backgrounds add the specified skills to the character's list of class skills, they don't automatically give training in the skills. The character doesn't actually have any more trained skills than they otherwise would without the background.

Example: Warlocks have Arcana, Bluff, History, Insight, Intimidate, Religion, Streetwise, and Thievery as class skills. They can select four skills as trained from these. If a character selected the Silent Hunter background, Perception and Stealth would be added to the list of class skills and the character would gain a +1 bonus to Perception and Stealth checks. The character would still only be able to select four trained skills, however; say Arcana, Intimidate, Perception, and Stealth.

[Starsinger]

http://www.wizards.com/files/366_Characters_of_War.pdf

This one concerns me a little. It says in the opening paragraph that these are intended to be role-playing aids, so power gamers shouldn't see much use out of them, since the bonuses are small. Then I start reading through and all I can think is..."huh, now I can have any skill on any skill list, and with a bonus too! And since when is a +3 bonus to a skill a small one?

The most important part, is that everyone is expected to have one if you're using them. This isn't like the Wizard selecting an illusion spell from the web enhancement, which only effects the Wizard directly.

[Oracle_Hunter]

No. The backgrounds add the specified skills to the character's list of class skills, they don't automatically give training in the skills. The character doesn't actually have any more trained skills than they otherwise would without the background.

Oh. Well, it still does give free skill focus that stacks with actual Skill focus. I'm looking at Wandering Duelist specifically, though that's mostly because Intimidate is a potential Diplomancy for the 4e.

Reading over the list again, I guess it's not that bad. Mostly +1's (though an extra untyped +1 on Initiative from Gritty Sergeant is pretty good) and a couple +2's.

Yeah, the Wandering Duelist is disconcerting. I'd go +1 Bluff and +1 Intimidate instead, with adding either Bluff or Intimidate to the class list. That allows Fighters to boast, which seems good for a Duelist.

[Starbuck_II]

Oh, and do the two item creation ones let you make magical items? Hmmm...

1) Warsmith: lets you create mundane weapons and armor stuff (for full price). It also lets you learn rituals for Creation, but you still need to buy the rituals. It just counts as if you had Ritual castingh feat for those rituals.


2) Imbuer: You can create implements (2 days) and wonderous items (4 days): still pay full price to do so. It also lets you learn rituals for Creation, but you still need to buy the rituals. It just counts as if you had Ritual casting feat for those rituals.

Basically, if you don't want to have Ritual Casting feat; having these backgrounds will be useful.

They seem overall balanced since everyone is expected to use one in a campaign that uses them.

Although, Arcane Student who Saw too Much: +1 to a variety of save end effects. That seems pretty strong.

[Fiendish_Dire_Moose]

I'm liking these. Might have to run them by my DM.

[ghost_warlock]

Oh. Well, it still does give free skill focus that stacks with actual Skill focus. I'm looking at Wandering Duelist specifically, though that's mostly because Intimidate is a potential Diplomancy for the 4e.

Reading over the list again, I guess it's not that bad. Mostly +1's (though an extra untyped +1 on Initiative from Gritty Sergeant is pretty good) and a couple +2's.

Yeah, the Wandering Duelist is disconcerting. I'd go +1 Bluff and +1 Intimidate instead, with adding either Bluff or Intimidate to the class list. That allows Fighters to boast, which seems good for a Duelist.

Yeah, a couple of them add +3 to a single skill or the odd bonus to something else, such as freebie Ritual Caster for certain types of effects or a bonus to certain kinds of saving throws.

Intimidate, Endurance, Religion, History, and Streetwise can net a +3 bonus from a backgound. I'd expect the updated version when the .pdf is compiled to nerf that to +2, though none of those are probably as troublesome as Intimidate. But, at least, there's precedent for saying certain NPCs are simply immune to Intimidate - I think it's one off the examples of a Skill Challenge from the DMG, some prince or something. Trying to Intimidate him actually nets the group one automatic failure for the Skill Challenge. May or may not help for the issue with combat usage.

I'm liking these. Might have to run them by my DM.

Yeah, I think they're like a better-implemented version of Traits from 3.5.

Now, we just have to wait and see if/how long before Wizards releases the 4e version of Flaws...so many of my builds could benefit from an extra feat @ 1st-level. (I'm thinking they'd do flaws like these backgrounds - one per character).

I'm not very creative, so the only way I can think of to balance flaws so they don't get out of hand with min/maxing is to make them penalize Trained skills and defenses. Any other thoughts?

Something like:

Select two skills in which you are trained. You take a -2 penalty in each of the trained skills you selected.

or

Select one defense, other than AC. You suffer a -2 penalty to that defense.

[Oracle_Hunter]

But, at least, there's precedent for saying certain NPCs are simply immune to Intimidate - I think it's one off the examples of a Skill Challenge from the DMG, some prince or something. Trying to Intimidate him actually nets the group one automatic failure for the Skill Challenge. May or may not help for the issue with combat usage.

Yeah, but the combat-usage of the Intimidate skill says nothing of that. It's a 1/Encounter Intimidate v. Will attack that can force bloodied opponents to surrender. If they're hostile (which is almost always the case) then the check is at -10... but that's all she wrote. You could arbitrarily declare that such-and-such monsters never surrender, but that's the kind of DM Fiat which I find distasteful.

EDIT:

I'm not very creative, so the only way I can think of to balance flaws so they don't get out of hand with min/maxing is to make them penalize Trained skills and defenses. Any other thoughts?

Okay, I hate "flaws" because they absolutely encourage munchkinism due to their very existence. However, if you must have them, you usually see them in two flavors:

1) RP Penalties - you are required to do something that limits your sphere of actions from a character perspective. Oaths, Codes of Honor, Addictions and the like fall into this category. Usually, a failure to comply with these kinds of flaws imposes a stiff mechanical penalty (so, in 4e, a -1/3/5 to checks, depending on intensity of the flaw) but normally you don't suffer these penalties.

2) Mechanical Penalties - the worst kind, because they directly result in min/maxing; you pick flaws with bonuses you need and penalties in areas that you weren't going to use anyways. For 4e, these will probably be narrowly drawn but stiff (ex: -5 to Acrobatic checks that require Balance) or broadly drawn but light (ex: -2 to Perception, or -1 to AC).

Hopefully the "flaws" system won't involve giving "points" to players that they can use however they like. A flat trade-off is probably the best one can hope from a flaws system.

Examples

Spoiler

Show

- Nearsighted: -1 to Perception checks that involve sight, but a +1 to Perception checks that involve sound. Cannot be corrected.
- Reckless: -1 to AC and Reflex, but +1 to Initiative.
- Academic: -1 to all Armor Check Penalty skills, +1 to all Knowledge skills

These give marginal benefits for marginal penalties, so min/maxing doesn't net very much.

[ghost_warlock]

Yeah, but the combat-usage of the Intimidate skill says nothing of that. It's a 1/Encounter Intimidate v. Will attack that can force bloodied opponents to surrender. If they're hostile (which is almost always the case) then the check is at -10... but that's all she wrote. You could arbitrarily declare that such-and-such monsters never surrender, but that's the kind of DM Fiat which I find distasteful.

Yeah, maybe house rule an additional -5 penalty for Solos, -3 for Elites, and an additional -1 penalty for every level higher the target is over the PC.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Yeah, maybe house rule an additional -5 penalty for Solos, -3 for Elites, and an additional -1 penalty for every level higher the target is over the PC.

Too much bookkeeping. I'd rather just bump the Intimidate bonus down to +1 and give a +1 to Bluff too (and addition of Bluff or Intimidate to the skill list). Nice flavor and it makes it a more useful background for a Fighter.

[Knaight]

Yeah, but the combat-usage of the Intimidate skill says nothing of that. It's a 1/Encounter Intimidate v. Will attack that can force bloodied opponents to surrender. If they're hostile (which is almost always the case) then the check is at -10... but that's all she wrote. You could arbitrarily declare that such-and-such monsters never surrender, but that's the kind of DM Fiat which I find distasteful.

EDIT:


Okay, I hate "flaws" because they absolutely encourage munchkinism due to their very existence. However, if you must have them, you usually see them in two flavors:

2) Mechanical Penalties - the worst kind, because they directly result in min/maxing; you pick flaws with bonuses you need and penalties in areas that you weren't going to use anyways. For 4e, these will probably be narrowly drawn but stiff (ex: -5 to Acrobatic checks that require Balance) or broadly drawn but light (ex: -2 to Perception, or -1 to AC).

They don't encourage munchkinism, except among certain players. That and there are a lot of them that could work fine. For instance flaws that limit skills, such as taking a trait that you were from the desert, giving something like a +3 bonus to endurance while not getting level bonus or trained bonus to swim. They work to make characters more unique.

[Oracle_Hunter]

They don't encourage munchkinism, except among certain players. That and there are a lot of them that could work fine. For instance flaws that limit skills, such as taking a trait that you were from the desert, giving something like a +3 bonus to endurance while not getting level bonus or trained bonus to swim. They work to make characters more unique.

So why not take a flaw without taking an additional bonus? You can walk with a limp without also getting +1 to hit. This is why flaws are munchkin-y; if someone really just cared about character-by-deformity, they would just take the deformity. And non-deformity "flaws" can just be strictly RP'd.

[Knaight]

Heres the thing though, lets say I have a character that lived in the desert. Swimming is out, but it makes sense that they would be better adapted to living without as much drinking water, and good at identifying mirages. So I take Can't use Athletics for swimming, Good at surviving without much water(uses half as much as normal, or +3 to resist dehydration), notices mirages easily(+2 to perception to see through mirages, and illusions). Done, and it fits the character well. Totally odd ones don't necessarily, such as taking a +1 to hit for limping. The bonus is needed for the character.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Heres the thing though, lets say I have a character that lived in the desert. Swimming is out, but it makes sense that they would be better adapted to living without as much drinking water, and good at identifying mirages. So I take Can't use Athletics for swimming, Good at surviving without much water(uses half as much as normal, or +3 to resist dehydration), notices mirages easily(+2 to perception to see through mirages, and illusions). Done, and it fits the character well. Totally odd ones don't necessarily, such as taking a +1 to hit for limping. The bonus is needed for the character.

That sounds better modeled by a sub-race system than through flaws. Besides, if you publish a flaw system, doesn't that mean everyone has the same range of flaws? Where's the uniqueness?

But yeah, I know that some people like the idea of flaws = uniqueness (I used to, too) but after experience with games like Deadlands and Shadowrun, it's hard to see them as anything aside from min/maxing tools. RP flaws are easy to use without a flaw system, and really those are what matters. If you want to make a character who grew up in the desert, why not just act like you did, instead of worrying about finding mechanical ways to show it?

[Knaight]

The last thing we need are more subraces, plus there are any number of races that live in the desert, so it would be a template to work well anyways. Granted most of that could be handled by skill splitting(basically the player chooses where to split the skills so if someone just wanted athletics they could have it, but if they wanted to specify that they were better at climbing than swimming, then they would note that by athletics. If with endurance they were better at surviving without water than holding their breath, they would note that by endurance. If they were better at seeing mirages than noticing current, tides, water power etc., they would note that by perception. The restriction would have to be that they were equally important. I might be able to trace down the fudge list article which describes this much better, but the point is that having this, as well as open flaws and advantages really helps make a character unique.

And in a system where its easy to simulate, you don't worry about finding mechanical ways. In this case, just split the skills up as they make sense, and maybe add a few more custom flaws and gifts. For instance this particular character might have an affinity with certain animals(right now as it comes together in my head I want to say camels and cobras. And only backtrian(how is that spelled anyways) camels, and the character might also have trouble talking, and never manages to put the right words together. So a character from the desert who spends a lot of time with animals because of being shunned by people for not understanding taboos and such, and with mechanics that actually back it up.

[Totally Guy]

I've got a warlord the party in my game and the character feels a little underpowered, maybe it's just lack of tactical thinking but if that grievance comes from the player today I'm going to present this supplement.

Plus the character has a war background which is something I wasn't prepared for or have much knowledge of so I can use this just so I can "get" the character concept. So far in my head the character is "that paladin from 3.5" but I'm willing to just say I've been too quick to judge after just 1 session.

[Saph]

I can't help laughing when I read things like "Power-games beware! You'll search in vain for significant advantage!" You'd think they'd have learned not to tempt fate like that. :P

- Saph

[bosssmiley]

Freebie background feats to ensure the character has a meaningful place in the gameworld beyond "I'm a badass with a mysterious past and no family"? Nice to see them making a reappearance for 4E.

Of a first look the bonuses on offer seem fun to have, but generally insignificant enough that you can hand them out at 1st level as party favours.

Yoinked for my own (3.T) game, which already has similar from a couple of old Greyhawk articles in proper (dead tree edition) "Dragon" magazines and from "Races of War".