Archetypes

WolfhillRPG said:

It seems like I need to adjust my understanding of the 5e rules. I didn't realize the level of diversity the backgrounds offered. It seems like the background defines the character more than the class now. thanks for the input.

Click to expand...

Azzy said:

I wouldn't say more. Backgrounds are just that—they define who the character was/is prior to their current adventures. Classes still define what you're capable of and your main abilities.

Click to expand...

I'd add that backgrounds, while not necessarily the major defining characteristic of a PC, can really serve to differentiate your PC from another PC with the same class or even the same Archetype. The small mechanical boosts they each provide certainly add to that differentiation.

As the PHB backgrounds are intended as samples, players should feel free to work with their DM to create their own. As long as it is comparable in power to others, it should be good to go.

I'd recommend doing a quick search for Backgrounds on www.DMsGuild.com -- lots of great free ideas to be gleaned. Enjoy!

DM Dave1 said:

In the end, though, it's not up to the books to make your concept work. It's up to you to make it work. Any 5e DM should be on board - 5e is as flexible as you and your DM want it to be. Remember 5e's basic premise: have fun!

Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. It's a sign of a good system that it can realize mechanically a concept a player has.

5e is decent at this. Heck, this particular concept could be done with straight rogue, with background and a different class, with multiclassing, etc. The concept of "Lawful good dwarf locksmith who loves traps" is not a deep concept, we can realize it several ways. Especially since unlike earlier editions you don't need to keep pumping skill ranks into it so it's something we can set up early and then take levels of other classes to realize further aspects of the character.

Heck, take Rogue 2 / Fighter X, with the Guild Artisan background to make the character as a legitimate locksmith and part of the guild. That gets someone with expertise in the appropriate skills / tools, avoid the "thief" subclass, and then end up more traditionally dwarf-like. Or really any other class.

The thing is, if someone makes a character who is only good at picking locks and disarming traps, what do they do if the adventure has no locks or traps?

Paul Farquhar said:

The thing is, if someone makes a character who is only good at picking locks and disarming traps, what do they do if the adventure has no locks or traps?

Click to expand...

They should talk to the DM and tell them they expected there to be some locks and traps in the adventure and ask them if they would add some, so they can play their character the way they imagined it.

Blue said:

I couldn't disagree more. It's a sign of a good system that it can realize mechanically a concept a player has.

5e is decent at this. Heck, this particular concept could be done with straight rogue, with background and a different class, with multiclassing, etc. The concept of "Lawful good dwarf locksmith who loves traps" is not a deep concept, we can realize it several ways. Especially since unlike earlier editions you don't need to keep pumping skill ranks into it so it's something we can set up early and then take levels of other classes to realize further aspects of the character.

Heck, take Rogue 2 / Fighter X, with the Guild Artisan background to make the character as a legitimate locksmith and part of the guild. That gets someone with expertise in the appropriate skills / tools, avoid the "thief" subclass, and then end up more traditionally dwarf-like. Or really any other class.

Click to expand...

I’m a little confused: you disagree with me by agreeing. Huh?

Perhaps my point was lost in the simplicity of my prior statement. Put another way, the books don’t serve up every particular concept, you the player most often need to pick and choose mechanical and fluff options to make your concept work.

Sounds like we’re more on the same page than your initial reaction would indicate.

WolfhillRPG said:

It seems like I need to adjust my understanding of the 5e rules. I didn't realize the level of diversity the backgrounds offered. It seems like the background defines the character more than the class now. thanks for the input.

Click to expand...

I would not say more but I would say they can be just as important or not important at all. My Warlock scout would not have Stealth or proficiency with thieves' tools with out a background. I had the options of Criminal, Urban Bounty Hunter, or Urchin to be functional act as a scout. Just like for your character thieves' tools are generally the "lock smith tools" where tinker's tools are us commonly the "gadget building tools" so as a Dwarf the background House Agent (Kundarak, dwarf house) with thieves tools and tinker’s tools proficiencies seems like a great fit however you could get by with anything that has thieves tools. All the ones I listed above but also Clan Crafter, Folk Hero, Guild Artisan / Guild Merchant, Uthgardt Tribe Member, House Agent (Medani, half-elven house) or House Agent (Tharashk, human and half-orc house). But you can always make your own background PHB p126 "Customizing a Background" select a back ground feature then "choose any two skills, and choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds." Then the equipment/gold form a background. So instead of Guild Artisan you could have "Lock and Trap Master" as a background then select proficiencies in investigation, perceptions, thieves tools, and tinkers tools. Custom Background is at the top on D&D Beyond if your using that.

I would also say races provide a lot of backstory options now. There are a lot more sub-race diversity than in previous editions now that they added the house races with Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron. That said, Human Variant's feat selection allows for the most variety which is why its the number one race pick. I used it to give my Warlock scout proficiency in perception (variant provides one skill) then prodigy survival + Expertise in perception, with warlock investigation and the previously mentioned stealth and thieves tools from urchin background I mentioned earlier, I had all the bases covered for a scout in a typically non-scout class. It just so happens Mark of warding dwarf race has House Kundarak (a dwarf house) with smith tools proficiency + "Master of Locks" ability which by chance makes a perfect fit for your stated goals. If you wanted to make a human lock smith, the human variant option would allow for skilled or prodigy feats to help you with that as well.

… Unfortunately, Some concepts are harder than others. Sure you could make an elf locksmith using a custom back ground but if you wanted a "fleeing apprentice" who was not trained enough to continue as wizard hiding for survival so playing as a rogue on the lamb as the class for example, the only race that really supports that would be human variant with magic initiate or ritual caster(wizard) feats. I wish they would make a variant option for all the races that allowed for a feat selection.

Example: Dwarf +1 con, 60ft Darkvision, Dwarven Resilience aka Poison resistance, Common and Dwarvish, Stonecunning and subclass features they could select a one feat of their choice. You can also claim a another dwarf subrace for story reasons. This still might make it better than human variant because darkvision and poision resistance are things it can't achieve and your getting at the cost of one +1 to a stat and on skill proficiency, but only getting +1 to con (which is universally useful) means if your point buy you don't get two 16 stats at level 1 making it less versatile for players who HAVE to have that 16 combat stat, so I suspect we would see both. Of course you have to reduce the +2 con to +1 because they could take a feat that adds +1 constitution and start with a 18 con on point buy which does seem a bit broken. At any rate this is just and example.

For comparison:
Human variant is +1 to two stats of your choice, one skill proficiency of your choice, and one feat of your choice.

DM Dave1 said:

I’m a little confused: you disagree with me by agreeing. Huh?

Perhaps my point was lost in the simplicity of my prior statement. Put another way, the books don’t serve up every particular concept, you the player most often need to pick and choose mechanical and fluff options to make your concept work.

Sounds like we’re more on the same page than your initial reaction would indicate.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree that if a game system can't mechanically realize you on-genre concept that it is 100% the player's fault, and 0% the system's fault. If I needed to give an all or nothing opinion I would reverse it, though the reality is much more shades of grey. If this is what you believe, then we're in sync and I'll throw in an apology for misunderstanding what you said.

As a related but separate point, 5e can do the LG Dwarven Locksmith concept pretty easily. Showing some goodness of system there. While that concept is not a "common adventurer" it is a straightforward and on-genre topic and I would be disappointed in a general fantasy RPG that had problems modelling that.

(*General means just that. You get to Warhammer Fantasy and being a locksmith might be not a starting career - but Warhammer has it's own feel, it's not standard fantasy.)

Hriston said:

They should talk to the DM and tell them they expected there to be some locks and traps in the adventure and ask them if they would add some, so they can play their character the way they imagined it.

Click to expand...

That doesn't actually accomplish anything.

A character who is supposed to help the party with traps who adds traps to the adventure is doing more harm than good.

In the specific case of traps I think it is a staple of D&D. Most adventures should have some.

Blue said:

I completely disagree that if a game system can't mechanically realize you on-genre concept that it is 100% the player's fault, and 0% the system's fault. If I needed to give an all or nothing opinion I would reverse it, though the reality is much more shades of grey. If this is what you believe, then we're in sync and I'll throw in an apology for misunderstanding what you said.

As a related but separate point, 5e can do the LG Dwarven Locksmith concept pretty easily. Showing some goodness of system there. While that concept is not a "common adventurer" it is a straightforward and on-genre topic and I would be disappointed in a general fantasy RPG that had problems modelling that.

(*General means just that. You get to Warhammer Fantasy and being a locksmith might be not a starting career - but Warhammer has it's own feel, it's not standard fantasy.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I’m with you on the shades of gray. I’m saying that 5e is very flexible and has lots of opportunity to create a concept with so many combos of race, background, classes. That’s why it’s ultimately up to the player to design their concept. The building blocks are provided in 5e as long as you and your DM realize the system is not rigid.

ad_hoc said:

That doesn't actually accomplish anything.

A character who is supposed to help the party with traps who adds traps to the adventure is doing more harm than good.

In the specific case of traps I think it is a staple of D&D. Most adventures should have some.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the confusing use of pronouns. My suggestion wasn't for the character to add traps to the adventure. It was for the DM to add traps to the adventure. I hope that clears things up.