D&D 5E Assassins, Spies, and Support Personel

[doctorbadwolf]

I would if the player became attached to them.

More likely, they would be waved good-bye to in the first session, and never seen again.

Anything "mechanical" about friends and allies is a fundamentally bad idea. They come from backgrounds and plot events, they don't materialise out of thin air when a character hits a certain level.

I hope you would tell the player when picking their background that they might as well pick a different background feature?

But if allies can come from background, why not from Background?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Mildly critical is not the same as "dismissive". If you share an idea, you have to accept not everyone will think it is wonderful.

Notice how I’m discussing your disagreement.

I know the difference between disagreement and disrespect. The other poster was being dismissive, not “mildly critical”.

 

[Guest User]

Anything "mechanical" about friends and allies is a fundamentally bad idea. They come from backgrounds and plot events, they don't materialise out of thin air when a character hits a certain level

While I agree with the sentiment in your statement, it is also not difficult to "write in a new character" into a story.

In 3e I had a PC Aasimar take the Cohort feat at 16-ish level. The campaign had been ongoing for years, and the PC had previously joined a knightly organization of "Earthbound Angels", (indeed this aspect was a large part of the PC's 'character').

So while yes, from one perspective the Cohort did "materialise out of thin air",
it was also quite easy to accept that the PC was mentoring a young Hound Archon, whom had joined the PC's service as their squire.

Sometimes, people do just enter your life, after all.

 

[Umbran]

I’m a bit at a loss, then. I responded with a reasonable level of rebuke to an unnecessary post dismissive of the thread topic.

I quote you from the OP: "Am I just going wacky and none of this is a good idea?" Dismissing your notion seems pretty explicitly on the table. So, a response of, "The rules already have this covered..." is a reasonable, in-bounds response.

Moreover, I think your notion of "rebuke" of folks in what is supposed to be a casual, friendly discussion... is a thing you might want to reconsider.

And that's all I have to say on the matter. I'd rather not clutter up your thread any more with this.

 

[Ashrym]

I’m a bit at a loss, then. I responded with a reasonable level of rebuke to an unnecessary post dismissive of the thread topic.

I am the other poster and I was not being dismissive. Backgrounds do have things like contacts for rogues, locations / people for sages, and military ranking for soldiers.

Pointing that out saves duplicated work with unnecessary rules over simply building NPC"s and locations that are already part of backgrounds.

I thought your response was rude when I gave my opinion and disengaged from continuing the conversation because of it. Perhaps letting you know that your comment appeared rude and that it's not okay to be dismissive of opinions by using sarcasm was done to help keep the thread civil? ;-)

Of the two of us, I wasn't being the dismissive one.

 

[Oofta]

I’m a bit at a loss, then. I responded with a reasonable level of rebuke to an unnecessary post dismissive of the thread topic.

Maybe I missed something, but how was I (or anyone else) dismissive of the topic? I mean, I disagree like many other posters have said, this should not be an individual reward tied to a class. I pointed out what I see as flaws. Patrons and helpful allies can be a fun part of the game, I just don't think they fit as a class reward. Pretty much the same things other posters have stated.

Start the group with a patron or even multiple patrons for different people. Make setting up a personal retinue a goal of the character. Those are all things I can see working and fit with your core concept. If you want to have a discussion, let me know. If you just want to accuse me of being dismissive I'll ignore your comments from now on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am the other poster and I was not being dismissive. Backgrounds do have things like contacts for rogues, locations / people for sages, and military ranking for soldiers.

Pointing that out saves duplicated work with unnecessary rules over simply building NPC"s and locations that are already part of backgrounds.

I thought your response was rude when I gave my opinion and disengaged from continuing the conversation because of it. Perhaps letting you know that your comment appeared rude and that it's not okay to be dismissive of opinions by using sarcasm was done to help keep the thread civil? ;-)

Of the two of us, I wasn't being the dismissive one.

Well, if that wasn’t your intent, fair enough.

However, pointing out the existence of rules that the other person absolutely cannot possibly be unaware of, and indeed references in the process of explaining the idea, absolutely comes across as dismissive.

The question is whether a feature that currently exists for a couple backgrounds would be fun as part of a class, not whether such a thing can be done or how to do it.

 

[Ashrym]

Well, if that wasn’t your intent, fair enough.

However, pointing out the existence of rules that the other person absolutely cannot possibly be unaware of, and indeed references in the process of explaining the idea, absolutely comes across as dismissive.

The question is whether a feature that currently exists for a couple backgrounds would be fun as part of a class, not whether such a thing can be done or how to do it.

A DM does it by writing up NPC's. Players roleplay discussions with those NPC's to build contacts. Backgrounds have existing starting points all ready.

You are both reinventing the wheel and limiting the open ended application of that wheel.


Cheers

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A DM does it by writing up NPC's. Players roleplay discussions with those NPC's to build contacts. Backgrounds have existing starting points all ready.

You are both reinventing the wheel and limiting the open ended application of that wheel.


Cheers

We are literally talking about applying an existing mechanical element to an additional part of the game.

In no possible way is that “reinventing the wheel” nor does it in any way restrict literally anything, on any level, ever.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I hope you would tell the player when picking their background that they might as well pick a different background feature?

It's not uncommon. Retainers usually look after the family estate. If the adventure doesn't involve the family estate, then they are not going to appear. Just like a character with the Sailor background may never find themselves anywhere near the sea.

If a player asks, I am happy to give them hints as to what might be relevant to the adventure. And if they want a faithful Jeeves/Passepartout/Bunter/Pennyworth who can accompany them on an adventure without dying in the first encounter then sidekicks do the job.

But if allies can come from background, why not from Background?

Eh? The main point of Background Feature is to give the character allies/associates. They may or may not be relevant, but hopefully between the party members somebody is going to know someone who can help.

I know the difference between disagreement and disrespect. The other poster was being dismissive, not “mildly critical”.

Evidently not. The post you responded to so rudely was a perfectly respectful observation that a character's associates usually are determined by their background.