Characters of War up at Wizards

[Mad Hamish]

It's all about opportunity cost. Without the backgrounds, you might need to spend a feat (skill training) to get that skill as trained skill, if the skill isn't on your class list. With the backgrounds, you can get it as one of your selected skills, potentially saving you a feat.

Cheers, LT.

Yeah, but you are dropping another skill to get it.

I don't see it as equivalent to a feat and, in many cases, if I was GMing and a player asked me to swap a skill like that I'd allow it anyway.

 

[keterys]

Adding a skill to your class list is definitely worth a lot less than actual skill training. I actually imagine that a high percentage of DMs would allow you to do things like say 'Hey, can I play more of an urban ranger, with Streetwise instead of Nature?'

 

[Derren]

Adding a skill to your class list is definitely worth a lot less than actual skill training. I actually imagine that a high percentage of DMs would allow you to do things like say 'Hey, can I play more of an urban ranger, with Streetwise instead of Nature?'

Yes, but another +3 to a skill you would boost anyway for free is not. And neither are the rerolls and save bonuses for example.

 

[keterys]

Yes, but another +3 to a skill you would boost anyway for free is not. And neither are the rerolls and save bonuses for example.

Well, yeah - hence my extensive writeup converting things to worth a feat each. Totally in agreement this is poorly balanced, all the more sad since it taunts powergamers to find actual bonuses in the article... but I'd like it if they were worth a feat each, thereabouts. I'm okay giving out a free feat to make people feel like their background matters more.

 

[Nail]

In fact, let's just give a full array of 18s, No! 20s! to every character. And skill focus and training in every skill! etc. etc.

Sign me up!

 

[Pickles JG]

Mr Noonan, is that you?

Anyway - the article does effect the other end of play. Putting an ability that allows you to craft weapons, for instance, suggests that such is not possible without that ability. No longer can you simply say "My character was a blacksmith's apprentice, so he can make his own weapons": Now he has to be a dwarf and get the background ability to go with it, or it's good bye roleplaying with no mechanical benefit!

If you want to be able to craft weapons you simply say "I have the weaponsmith background." You get an added benny too.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Skills are linked to attributes. That suggests that the designers disagree with you.

No, otherwise there wouldn't be additional ways to improve a skill outside of attribute bonuses. Linking skills to an attribute allows for an easy method of reflecting a general aptitude, nothing more.

Allowing individual bonuses to skills that can (as one aspect of their utility) make up for attribute bonuses allows you to reflect a specific aptitude that can approach the general aptitude. A background bonus (untyped or retyped to background - which, since backgrounds have been 'pick one' things, seems redundant, much like creating a paragon path bonus type would be) simply reflects another avenue to improving a specific skill.

A naturally scary guy (+3 to Intimidate from background) that isn't good at Diplomacy, Streetwise or Bluff and doesn't shrug off WILL attacks or the kind of guy that can run forever and never gets sick (+3 Endurance) that doesn't have a metric ton of HP and healing surges and the ability to shrug off FORT attacks should be able to develop that talent (Skill Training) and work really hard at maintaining an intimidating presence or take exceptional care of his health (Skill Focus) just as well as a guy that has a general +X bonus to a number of skills from an attribute.

If we take your tack, then we can basically kiss goodbye to any penalties for dumping stats: because after all, why should your character be bad at anything he wants to do?

Hyperbole, please stop mis-characterizing my tack. Being able to expend different resources in order to achieve a desired level in a skill in no way eliminates all of the drawbacks inherent in not having improved that ability.

Why should a character have to be bad at all of his class powers and abilities and be good at a bunch of skills related to an attribute by being forced to raise an entire attribute just to reach a high level in a single (in this case a class) skill? Particularly when a character can, by virtue of having a high primary or secondary attribute for their class, be as good at an untrained, non-class skill or better at a trained, non-class skill than the character for which it is a trained, class skill (but associated with a non primary or secondary attribute for the class for which it is a class skill).

After all: that halfling artful dodger (who actually DOES have a worse intimidate than your guy who took skill training and focus) shouldn't have to suffer with bad fortitude saves and hitpoints just because he dumped his strength and con, right? So lets introduce freebies that bump them back up to the equivalent of 16+. And let him make his OAs based on dex while we're at it?

More hyperbole, and inaccurate - look again at what I wrote regarding the comparison between the artful dodger (and remember to figure in the attribute bonuses the Artful Dodger will gain while improving his class abilities and powers as well) and what contributed to "significantly more frightening" in that example.

A background isn't a freebie, it's an additional, flexible, resource granted to each player that allows him to better flesh out his character. You get one, not an unlimited number, and other players get one as well so there is no disparity. And, there are backgrounds which do allow you to use your highest stat to be used to determine Hit Points, at the opportunity cost of not using your background to compensate for something else (and, there are also feats that allow you to improve your hit points, healing surges, and FORT defense). Investing attribute points for the sole purpose of raising a single skill, to the detriment of your classes powers and abilities should not be the only way to reach an optimal level in a skill, particularly a class skill.

In fact, let's just give a full array of 18s, No! 20s! to every character. And skill focus and training in every skill! etc. etc.

A jump from hyperbole into rubbish.

Your example fighter has chosen to make his charisma the worst stat that he has. There should be a cost to doing that. There's certainly benefits to him doing so. In this case the cost is that he has to take skill focus to catch up to the charismatic guy who is also trained in intimidate.

No. In this case the cost is selecting a background that adds +3 to Intimidate rather than a different background to use with Skill Focus to close some of the gap between the fighter and the CHA-focused character that is also trained in Intimidate and using Skill Focus. And, as an aside, odds are the Fighter's worst stat is an 8, probably INT.

It costs him more than it costs the charisma focused character to reach the same (and still usually not the same) skill value. What allowing the background bonus to stack does is allow a character to pay the cost to reach a more optimal skill level.

There is a difference between cost, which balances the game and "penalties" or punishment. The single background benefit you receive is a fair cost for a +3 bonus to a single skill that can help (note help, you need both a background and skill focus to compare to a truly CHA-focused character, particularly if they have a racial bonus and you don't), offset not having a high score in the attribute associated with that skill.

Now, if you want to penalize or punish a player for "dumping" CHA by barring any way to pay a fair and reasonable cost to develop his Intimidate skill, that's a really crappy way to look at something that is supposed to be fun.

But, if you think that one +3 skill bonus not being used in conjunction with skill focus is so awful, you're probably going to be opposed to background abilities being beneficial in any way, not just this way.

I think the background abilities are fine, and a welcome addition. The bonuses help players flesh out their characters. They can help a Dragonborn Fighter excel at Intimidate or a Dwarf Rogue excel at Endurance to reinforce their racial heritage. Or they can be refluffed to reflect a specific area of talent or atypical history or aptitude for another character. And, they do it without punishing players for making characters that are good at their class powers and abilities. If that means the Intimilock or whatever can make a bloodied Orcus surrender on a 3+ rather than a 6+, good for him, bad for Orcus.

 

[silentounce]

In other news, I crunched the numbers last night, when running my game session, on the difference between dying after three failed saves versus four. To simplify the numbers, it effectively gives the PCs a +5 on death saves. A bit overpowered, no? Also, it also gives party members at least one extra round to get to them to heal them. My players and I were looking through all the backgrounds last night and laughing at the comment about the stuff not being for power gamers. It's obvious that they didn't do the math on many of these new abilities, not that they appear to do math at all when designing something new and figuring how it fits into the system.

Regardless of all of that, the players talked me into letting them select backgrounds because they were only going to pick things that fit their character and not stuff just because it had a munchkinny cool bonuses. Plus I made a few off limits, e.g. the one above, I forget what it's called, that gives you an extra death save.

In the end we were all happy, and it helped them flesh out their characters a bit more, even though the guys that I play with normally don't have problems in that area.

 

[CubeKnight]

A background isn't a freebie, it's an additional, flexible, resource granted to each player

You do realize that if you're getting something (a resource) that you can choose (flexible) for free (additional), it *is* a freebie?

 

[keterys]

A +5 on death saves is quite a bit more useful since it will allow you to get a 20+ frequently.

I also think a +3 or so to death saves would be a more than reasonable feat.