Characters of War up at Wizards

[Saeviomagy]

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 am actually: I don't think that directly rewarding roleplaying with mechanical benefits in this way is a good idea because it always ends up screwing someone for no good reason. Either the good roleplayer is screwed because he takes mechanically inferior roleplaying rewards, the bad roleplayer gets screwed because he's just there to kill the monsters or the powergamer who wants to roleplay ends up not being able to because he likes a particular mechanical advantage, which restricts his backstory.

I'm against the specific article because it's written by a man who publishes a list of awful and unbalanced game mechanics and then challenges powergamers to find anything they can use to their advantage.

I'm disagreeing with you because you seem to think that handing out freebie bonuses isn't unbalancing, that someone who is charismatic has no right to be better at social skills than someone who isn't and that somehow the mechanical advantages of dumping charisma are equal to the ability to buy armor from a forge instead of a shop.

 

[silentounce]

Your second and third paragraphs are spot on.

However, your first paragraph can be said about many choices made in a game system. A roleplayer may like to RP a "fighter" with a low strength but a high dex. Problems like this have been mentioned before about 4e and are usually answered with, well, have him play a ranger or rogue instead.

And as for this statement, "the powergamer who wants to roleplay ends up not being able to because he likes a particular mechanical advantage, which restricts his backstory", well, I can't say that I feel sorry for this guy. If he really wants to RP then he'll take the back story he wants. If he's too tempted to go for power, well, it's hard to have it both ways. You know, have your cake and eat it, too.

But in all, like I said, I agree with your sentiment in this thread but I've tried to keep from being drawn into the back and forth that's been going on without really accomplishing anything.

 

[James McMurray]

An extra death save is only overpowered if your goal is to kill the PCs. If you're looking to have a fun and balanced game where players are challenged but not overpowered, there's a lot more worrisome things out there than "I've got another round or two before I die."

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

I am actually: I don't think that directly rewarding roleplaying with mechanical benefits in this way is a good idea because it always ends up screwing someone for no good reason. Either the good roleplayer is screwed because he takes mechanically inferior roleplaying rewards, the bad roleplayer gets screwed because he's just there to kill the monsters or the powergamer who wants to roleplay ends up not being able to because he likes a particular mechanical advantage, which restricts his backstory.

Rubbish. The good roleplayer doesn't always take mechanically inferior choces, the bad roleplayer who is just there to kill monsters loses nothing in taking any background because none of them prevent him from killing monsters, and you can always change fluff around a mechanic since no background has a requirement. If backgrounds would screw people in your game, it is because of you, not the mechanic itself.

I'm against the specific article because it's written by a man who publishes a list of awful and unbalanced game mechanics and then challenges powergamers to find anything they can use to their advantage.

I find the mechanics to be neither awful nor unbalanced. But from this you're saying that an article that contained a list of awful and unbalanced mechanics that didn't include a challenge would be OK?

I'm disagreeing with you because you seem to think that handing out freebie bonuses isn't unbalancing, that someone who is charismatic has no right to be better at social skills than someone who isn't and that somehow the mechanical advantages of dumping charisma are equal to the ability to buy armor from a forge instead of a shop.

You're disagreeing with me because it is easier to mischaracterize what I 'seem to think' and rail against those mischaracterizations to attempt to make your views look valid than it is to actually support your point.

We're talking about the specific bonuses in this article, not some imaginary host of freebies. These specific bonuses (of which a character gets a single one) aren't unbalancing.

A character with a high charisma score is better at social skills than someone that doesn't have a high charisma. And by default will be better at all social skills. But, that doesn't mean he has a "right" to always be better at each social skill regardless of the comparative resources expended to improve a specific social skill on another character.

How are you getting "the mechanical advantages of dumping charisma" out of this? You really believe that +3 to Intimidate from a background is the same as the mechnical benefit of having a high CHA? Let's take a look...

CHA 10, background providing a bonus of +3 to Intimidate:
+3 to Intimidate

CHA 20, not selecting a background providing a +3 bonus to Intimidate
+5 to Intimidate, +5 to Bluff, +5 to Streetwise, +5 to Diplomacy, +5 to CHA based powers, +5 to CHA based class abilities, +5 to WILL defense, and the option to take any background.

or even CHA 16, not selecting a background providing a +3 bonus to Intimidate
+3 to Intimidate, +3 to Bluff, +3 to Streetwise, +3 to Diplomacy, +3 to CHA based powers, +3 to CHA based class abilities, +3 to WILL defense, and the option to take any background.

But, even if you feel that +3 to Intimidate is mechanically better than being able to make weapons and armor, and cast creation rituals without needing the ritual caster feat, that doesn't make the backgrounds any more unbalanced than skills themselves, feats or powers, all of which have varying degrees of utility.

 

[silentounce]

An extra death save is only overpowered if your goal is to kill the PCs. If you're looking to have a fun and balanced game where players are challenged but not overpowered, there's a lot more worrisome things out there than "I've got another round or two before I die."

This is not true. If you were looking to kill the PCs then death saves don't really matter at all because you could just have the monsters hack at or coup de grace downed players until they reached the autokill point. Nice try with the wrongbadfun retort though. Both fun and balance are subjective, fun obviously more so.

Anyway, knowing that they have another round before they could die changes the game, could change their tactics, etc. And ultimately, it amounts to having more than one extra round or two. You're right, there are more troublesome things in this Dragon article, but that doesn't mean that this isn't overpowered by itself. In other words, X being more broken than Y does not mean that Y is not broken at all.

I was just pointing out the problems with this specific background because it came up in my game. If you think it will fit fine in yours without changing anything, you're welcome to it.

 

[doctorhook]

In the article, the background "Vet Who Can't Let Go" should provide the following benefit:

You add the better of a d20 or 10 to your Heal bonus to determine your check result when making a Heal check to use First Aid or Treat Disease on a beast. If any beast that you've treated with a Heal check (successfully or not) during this encounter dies, you are dazed until you take a short rest.

 

[Saeviomagy]

And as for this statement, "the powergamer who wants to roleplay ends up not being able to because he likes a particular mechanical advantage, which restricts his backstory", well, I can't say that I feel sorry for this guy. If he really wants to RP then he'll take the back story he wants. If he's too tempted to go for power, well, it's hard to have it both ways. You know, have your cake and eat it, too.

He's a powergamer. He prefers playing for mechanical advantage over story. That's his roots. The fact that he's even starting to care about story is a good thing: making him go in opposition to his roots is only going to stall that transition.

Rubbish. The good roleplayer doesn't always take mechanically inferior choces, the bad roleplayer who is just there to kill monsters loses nothing in taking any background because none of them prevent him from killing monsters, and you can always change fluff around a mechanic since no background has a requirement. If backgrounds would screw people in your game, it is because of you, not the mechanic itself.

The good roleplayer makes a choice based on story. With the rest of the mechanics, there's some flexibility between story and mechanics: you can justify having a feat in multiple ways, you can flavour powers how you like etc. Write up the story, pick something that's good and that fits it, and you're gold. Noone's forcing you to take sehanine's reversal just because you decided your character would worship sehanine: you can ignore it as a terrible feat and choose something else.

But when you directly tie backstory to mechanics, you screw over the guy who writes his story without looking at the mechanics. Especially if you tie backstory to mechanics in a a way that, as others have pointed out, makes a character more powerful the more unlikely his backstory is. Imagine if every cleric and paladin of sehanine was forced to take sehanine's reversal?

I find the mechanics to be neither awful nor unbalanced. But from this you're saying that an article that contained a list of awful and unbalanced mechanics that didn't include a challenge would be OK?

At least then you could argue that the fact that the abilities could be easily powergamed was an oversight. Once the author throws down that challenge, he proves himself to be wilfully ignorant, a character trait I dislike intensely.

How are you getting "the mechanical advantages of dumping charisma" out of this? You really believe that +3 to Intimidate from a background is the same as the mechnical benefit of having a high CHA? Let's take a look...

CHA 10, background providing a bonus of +3 to Intimidate:
+3 to Intimidate

or even CHA 16, not selecting a background providing a +3 bonus to Intimidate
+3 to Intimidate, +3 to Bluff, +3 to Streetwise, +3 to Diplomacy, +3 to CHA based powers, +3 to CHA based class abilities, +3 to WILL defense, and the option to take any background.

For the fighter, whom does not have bluff or diplomacy on his skill list, who does not have any cha based powers or class abilities and who has some good reasons to increase his wisdom, you can cut this list down to:

+3 to intimidate, the option to take another background. Each class/path has one score that they get no benefit from: With a simple background, the fighter has 2.

But, even if you feel that +3 to Intimidate is mechanically better than being able to make weapons and armor, and cast creation rituals without needing the ritual caster feat, that doesn't make the backgrounds any more unbalanced than skills themselves, feats or powers, all of which have varying degrees of utility.

"making weapons and armor" has no mechanical benefit over "buying weapons and armor", with the exception that it actually takes longer to make them than to buy them. You still have to be somewhere with a forge, and somewhere that you can buy the raw materials.

That, incidentally, is why the DM should not be stingy about letting PCs just create their own non-magical items in this manner regardless of any background: They gain no real benefit from doing so, except the ability to roleplay. The fact that it's now codified into a mechanic that some characters may not have is just one of the many ill-thought out rules that prevents roleplaying in an article supposedly created to support it.

The ability to cast creation rituals without the feat is also an incredibly minor ability: since you cannot disenchant items, you must buy your raw materials, which cost the price of the item you are creating anyway. Additionally items that are your level and below are the weakest magical items that you own: found magical items are supposed to be useful, and come up to 4 levels above you.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

The good roleplayer makes a choice based on story. With the rest of the mechanics, there's some flexibility between story and mechanics: you can justify having a feat in multiple ways, you can flavour powers how you like etc. Write up the story, pick something that's good and that fits it, and you're gold. Noone's forcing you to take sehanine's reversal just because you decided your character would worship sehanine: you can ignore it as a terrible feat and choose something else.

There is flexibility in this mechanic as well. These are backgrounds published for the Scales of War adventure path, that's why it is called "Heroes of War - Backgrounds for your Scales of War Hero". The backgrounds presented are ways to tie characters to that setting, so the fluff is written with that setting in mind. Nothing prevents you from changing the fluff of the background to use in your setting (or in the Scales of War setting - the article specifically mentions making the setting your own). The background mechanic itself is more flexible than other mechanics, with no mechanical pre-requisites. Nothing is forcing you to take Forest Warden because you are an elf ranger from the forest, and nobody is preventing you from taking Forest Warden because you aren't.

But when you directly tie backstory to mechanics, you screw over the guy who writes his story without looking at the mechanics. Especially if you tie backstory to mechanics in a a way that, as others have pointed out, makes a character more powerful the more unlikely his backstory is. Imagine if every cleric and paladin of sehanine was forced to take sehanine's reversal?

Your example is flawed, Sehanine's Reversal is a mechanic tied to a backstory - it has a hard requirement of "must worship Sehanine" - by your reasoning, that screws the cleric who created his his story without looking at the mechanics and chose a different deity, but wants to take Sehanine's reversal.

All "unlikely" backstories aren't more powerful in relation to the character that chooses them. And, everyone's opinion on the unlikeliness of a backstory is going to differ.

At least then you could argue that the fact that the abilities could be easily powergamed was an oversight. Once the author throws down that challenge, he proves himself to be wilfully ignorant, a character trait I dislike intensely.

His definition of powergaming and/or to what degree it is acceptable (check page 9 of the DMG - powergaming isn't automatically badwrongfun) and his boundaries of what is and isn't balanced probably differ from yours. That doesn't make him "willfully ignorant."

Since you've expressed that a background with a benefit mechanically identical to a feat is overpowered even if not stacked with a feat and you've complained about the existence of a background benfit you've described as having no mechanical benefit, there is really nothing he could have written that you wouldn't have complained about unless it had no mechanics at all.

So, if you're going to dislike him, be honest and dislike him just because he wrote something you don't like instead of ascribing a negative character trait to him.

For the fighter, whom does not have bluff or diplomacy on his skill list, who does not have any cha based powers or class abilities and who has some good reasons to increase his wisdom, you can cut this list down to:

+3 to intimidate, the option to take another background. Each class/path has one score that they get no benefit from: With a simple background, the fighter has 2.

The fighter also has Streetwise (CHA) on his skill list, as well as History (INT) and it is possible that he doesn't have WIS raised above a 10 or 11, depending on his racial and other bonuses. But, using your statement that a 16 CHA only provides a Fighter with +3 to Intimidate, even if it were the only non-Primary/Secondary/Tertiary attribute-associated skill, +3 to Intimidate still shouldn't cost 5 or 10 attribute points out of a 22 point buy to attain for the Fighter. Allowing him to purchase +3 to Intimidate with his only background benefit is a fair cost and having the option to take a that benefit isn't unbalanced. And, it allows the player to get better at Intimidate without having to be more charismatic and better at Bluff, Diplomacy and Streetwise, which may be inconsistent with his character concept and/or background.

"making weapons and armor" has no mechanical benefit over "buying weapons and armor", with the exception that it actually takes longer to make them than to buy them. You still have to be somewhere with a forge, and somewhere that you can buy the raw materials.

That, incidentally, is why the DM should not be stingy about letting PCs just create their own non-magical items in this manner regardless of any background: They gain no real benefit from doing so, except the ability to roleplay.

The fact that it's now codified into a mechanic that some characters may not have is just one of the many ill-thought out rules that prevents roleplaying in an article supposedly created to support it.

So, a player in your campaign can determine where ore is located, is able to recognize it, knows how to pan for it or mine for it, can refine it, knows how to forge the metal into an alloy suitable for his purpose if necessary and craft any metal item he needs regardless of his backstory? And that same character can locate and season woods, then craft them into any item as well. And he can do all the things involved in making silk rope, glass lanterns, posions, acids...

I'm sorry, I'm not buying that you run your games that way. It is far too inconsistent with what you've expressed thoughout this thread.

And if you really do believe that every player being able to make any item despite their background aids roleplay, why is that aspect of roleplay no longer important once they need magical weapons, armor, implements and neck slot items and have no real reason to craft non-magical items of that nature?

The ability to cast creation rituals without the feat is also an incredibly minor ability: since you cannot disenchant items, you must buy your raw materials, which cost the price of the item you are creating anyway. Additionally items that are your level and below are the weakest magical items that you own: found magical items are supposed to be useful, and come up to 4 levels above you.

You can disenchant items. Disenchant Item is a creation ritual. So, it allows you perform a subset of the abilities granted by Ritual Caster feat and you can take it without having skill training in Religion or Arcana, in addition to knowing how to craft the items that you enchant. And, the benefit is specific, so a Fighter, for example, doesn't have to know a lot about all aspects of magic or religion, or be able to use a host of other rituals, which would be otherwise inconsistent with his backstory.

But, regardless, Skill Focus: History is weaker than Skill Focusretty Much Anything Else as well as almost all other feats. These backgrounds are no less balanced with each other than feats, skills or powers.

 

[Saeviomagy]

There is flexibility in this mechanic as well. These are backgrounds published for the Scales of War adventure path, that's why it is called "Heroes of War - Backgrounds for your Scales of War Hero". The backgrounds presented are ways to tie characters to that setting, so the fluff is written with that setting in mind. Nothing prevents you from changing the fluff of the background to use in your setting (or in the Scales of War setting - the article specifically mentions making the setting your own). The background mechanic itself is more flexible than other mechanics, with no mechanical pre-requisites. Nothing is forcing you to take Forest Warden because you are an elf ranger from the forest, and nobody is preventing you from taking Forest Warden because you aren't.

The mechanics presented are "take this background, gain these nifty (or not so nifty) bonuses". The article is explicitly tying fluff to mechanic. Your argument here sounds suspiciously like an Oberoni fallacy: just because you can change the rules, doesn't stop them from being bad.

Your example is flawed, Sehanine's Reversal is a mechanic tied to a backstory - it has a hard requirement of "must worship Sehanine" - by your reasoning, that screws the cleric who created his his story without looking at the mechanics and chose a different deity, but wants to take Sehanine's reversal.

The channeling feats are being enabled by your choice of backstory, not proscribed. Further there is a plethora of alternatives that are all well balanced.

All "unlikely" backstories aren't more powerful in relation to the character that chooses them. And, everyone's opinion on the unlikeliness of a backstory is going to differ.

Other people have already pointed out that the biggest mechanical benefit to be gained from these backgrounds comes from choosing a background that goes against type. Gaining a martial weapon proficiency, for example, is useless for a fighter.

His definition of powergaming and/or to what degree it is acceptable (check page 9 of the DMG - powergaming isn't automatically badwrongfun) and his boundaries of what is and isn't balanced probably differ from yours. That doesn't make him "willfully ignorant."

He specifically dared people to find the mechanical advantage in an article that was entirely about mechanics. He knows that powergaming exists, and seems to be determined to not learn anything about it. That's pretty much the definition of wilfully ignorant.

Since you've expressed that a background with a benefit mechanically identical to a feat is overpowered even if not stacked with a feat and you've complained about the existence of a background benfit you've described as having no mechanical benefit, there is really nothing he could have written that you wouldn't have complained about unless it had no mechanics at all.

It has a benefit that is mechanically superior to a feat (because a feat gives a 'feat' bonus). Meanwhile in the same article, there is a background that is significantly weaker than a feat (it's about a quarter of a feat, if that). The tradeoff for having one is that you don't have the other.

This is unbalanced, no two ways about it.

So, if you're going to dislike him, be honest and dislike him just because he wrote something you don't like instead of ascribing a negative character trait to him.

For a good long while, I've been reading rulebooks and subsequently guessing that his name would be on the list of credits because of the poor quality of certain mechanics, and in very certain ways. He's been making the same mistake repeatedly for a long time, handing out significant mechanical benefits for roleplaying choices (not for good roleplaying - simply for deciding to follow a certain story), and I'm not the only person who's complained about them in the past.

The fighter also has Streetwise (CHA) on his skill list, as well as History (INT) and it is possible that he doesn't have WIS raised above a 10 or 11, depending on his racial and other bonuses. But, using your statement that a 16 CHA only provides a Fighter with +3 to Intimidate, even if it were the only non-Primary/Secondary/Tertiary attribute-associated skill, +3 to Intimidate still shouldn't cost 5 or 10 attribute points out of a 22 point buy to attain for the Fighter. Allowing him to purchase +3 to Intimidate with his only background benefit is a fair cost and having the option to take a that benefit isn't unbalanced. And, it allows the player to get better at Intimidate without having to be more charismatic and better at Bluff, Diplomacy and Streetwise, which may be inconsistent with his character concept and/or background.

You're making an incorrect assumption in your determination of balance: you're assuming that by choosing this with his 'only background benefit', he's actually missing out on something.

So, a player in your campaign can determine where ore is located, is able to recognize it, knows how to pan for it or mine for it, can refine it, knows how to forge the metal into an alloy suitable for his purpose if necessary and craft any metal item he needs regardless of his backstory? And that same character can locate and season woods, then craft them into any item as well. And he can do all the things involved in making silk rope, glass lanterns, posions, acids...

I'm sorry, I'm not buying that you run your games that way. It is far too inconsistent with what you've expressed thoughout this thread.

Mechanical benefits have mechanical costs. Roleplaying is free. There is no mechanical benefit to the player claiming that his character located the ore, mined it, refined it, forged it and then crafted it if he's still paying full price for it. It's exactly the same as the wizard choosing to cast "force doves" instead of "magic missile": a change of flavour and nothing more.

And if you really do believe that every player being able to make any item despite their background aids roleplay, why is that aspect of roleplay no longer important once they need magical weapons, armor, implements and neck slot items and have no real reason to craft non-magical items of that nature?

Do your players often deliberately roleplay in such a way as to run contrary to the story they've been writing for themselves?

And no, of course it doesn't become less important. Incidentally, the crafter can be a contributer to someone who DOES have ritual casting's item creation ritual... or whatever.

You can disenchant items. Disenchant Item is a creation ritual. So, it allows you perform a subset of the abilities granted by Ritual Caster feat and you can take it without having skill training in Religion or Arcana, in addition to knowing how to craft the items that you enchant. And, the benefit is specific, so a Fighter, for example, doesn't have to know a lot about all aspects of magic or religion, or be able to use a host of other rituals, which would be otherwise inconsistent with his backstory.

Ah, slightly more useful then. Forgive me for my oversight.

Still significantly less powerful than a feat.

But, regardless, Skill Focus: History is weaker than Skill Focusretty Much Anything Else as well as almost all other feats. These backgrounds are no less balanced with each other than feats, skills or powers.

Yup, and that's why people don't take them.

If, on the other hand, you described your character as slightly bookish and the DM forced you to take skill focus: history as your 1st level feat, you'd be getting screwed. That's what these backgrounds do.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

The mechanics presented are "take this background, gain these nifty (or not so nifty) bonuses". The article is explicitly tying fluff to mechanic. Your argument here sounds suspiciously like an Oberoni fallacy: just because you can change the rules, doesn't stop them from being bad.

The only rule text is the benefit itself, nothing prevents you from changing fluff. If the backgrounds are available to you, the only rules requirement to select any is to select that background in lieu of another background.

The channeling feats are being enabled by your choice of backstory, not proscribed. Further there is a plethora of alternatives that are all well balanced.

The cleric of any other deity is proscribed from taking Sehanine's Reversal if he isn't a cleric of Sehanine. Backgrounds aren't proscribed from any character. There is only one rule a a background, the mechanical benefit. Everything else is fluff, and fluff can be changed.

Feats aren't all well balanced, by the same standard to which you are holding backgrounds to each other. You state this later in your post saying that some feats are so bad that people don't take them.

Other people have already pointed out that the biggest mechanical benefit to be gained from these backgrounds comes from choosing a background that goes against type. Gaining a martial weapon proficiency, for example, is useless for a fighter.

Well, since you get that benefit from Gritty Sergeant, and a Rogue or Cleric could just as well have previously served in the military as a fighter, even with the default fluff, that doesn't go against type. Maybe the issue isn't that they go against type as much as some people's view of an appropriate "type" being more much more limited than others.

A character's type should be what the player wants that character's type to be. I don't expect a certain type from any particular race or class combination. Backgrounds are a tool to allow a player to make a particular class and race combination into the type he or she wants it to be.

He specifically dared people to find the mechanical advantage in an article that was entirely about mechanics. He knows that powergaming exists, and seems to be determined to not learn anything about it. That's pretty much the definition of wilfully ignorant.

He said there wasn't significant advantage to be gained from the abilities. If you think getting any mechanical benefit to be overpowered, then you would consider all of these significant advantages. But that is your opinion. If you took his written article as a challenge or personal affront, I just don't get that.

It has a benefit that is mechanically superior to a feat (because a feat gives a 'feat' bonus).

Wrong. The fighter is gaining the same mechanical benefit when +3 to Intimidate is gained from a background as when +3 to Intimidate is gained from a feat because since you can only have one background, it doesn't need a 'type' to prevent it from stacking with another background benefit. Because you can have more than one feat, you need to have a 'feat' limitation on the bonus to keep it from stacking with the benefits of other feats.

Meanwhile in the same article, there is a background that is significantly weaker than a feat (it's about a quarter of a feat, if that). The tradeoff for having one is that you don't have the other.

This is unbalanced, no two ways about it.

No background in here is significantly weaker than all feats. You admit as much as this below in regard to the balance of Skill Focus:History. It is no more unbalanced than anything else in the game.

For a good long while, I've been reading rulebooks and subsequently guessing that his name would be on the list of credits because of the poor quality of certain mechanics, and in very certain ways. He's been making the same mistake repeatedly for a long time, handing out significant mechanical benefits for roleplaying choices (not for good roleplaying - simply for deciding to follow a certain story), and I'm not the only person who's complained about them in the past.

You equate mechanics you don't like to poor mechanics, regardless of their mechanical merit, so you're still just disliking him because you don't like what he wrote. People have complained about pretty much everything, that doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

Out of curiosity, are you complaining about the Forgotten Realms regional benefits? It's almost the same mechanic but actually does force a specific benefit on you based upon your backstory. Do you blame David Noonan for those too? Did he somehow get complete editorial control over everything WotC publishes? Or does he write stuff and everyone at Wizards looks at it and says, "Boy this sucks but Dave is a nice guy so let's publish it..."

You're making an incorrect assumption in your determination of balance: you're assuming that by choosing this with his 'only background benefit', he's actually missing out on something.

No. You're isolating my example from the proper context of all players in a group being able to select one background, and backgrounds thus being a limited and finite resource. To get a background benefit, he has to be able to select a background. Since there are no mechanical requirements for selecting a background, he has the opportunity to take any background. If he chooses to expend that resource to gain +3 to Intimidate, he can't spend that resource in another way. He has other viable options and by gaining this benefit, he is foregoing other potential benefits, so he will be paying a fair cost for the benefit he receives from his choice.

Mechanical benefits have mechanical costs. Roleplaying is free. There is no mechanical benefit to the player claiming that his character located the ore, mined it, refined it, forged it and then crafted it if he's still paying full price for it. It's exactly the same as the wizard choosing to cast "force doves" instead of "magic missile": a change of flavour and nothing more.

Gaining access to resources the environment doesn't normally provide is a mechanical benefit. You're granting it via roleplay/backstory rather than the mechanics of travel and social interaction (or acquisition via combat). So your personal resolution system for acquiring raw materials or crafting a weapon is in fact tying roleplay/backstory to mechanical benefit.

Do your players often deliberately roleplay in such a way as to run contrary to the story they've been writing for themselves?

We aren't talking about my players, we're talking about what you said - that players should be allowed to make anything they want rather than buying it, and the implication that you would allow them to do so, which is inconsistent with the attitudes toward "type" you've displayed throughout this thread. By your question, you've proven my point.

And no, of course it doesn't become less important. Incidentally, the crafter can be a contributer to someone who DOES have ritual casting's item creation ritual... or whatever.

And if the player wants to roleplay being a contributer to someone who does have ritual casting, that works. If he actually wants to be able to make magic weapons and armor, he's S.O.L.

Ah, slightly more useful then. Forgive me for my oversight.

Still significantly less powerful than a feat.

For a player that wants to play a dwarf fighter that can craft weapons and armor, including magical weapons and armor, but doesn't care about using any other rituals, being able to select a background that gives him that ability is worthwhile. It lets him do what he wants to do without spending two feats (Ritual Caster and Skill Training:Arcana or Religion) to do so.

In your campaign, where you would allow the player to make weapons and armor, but not magical weapons and armor, he would have to pay two feats to make magical weapons and armor even though you say that the benefit he is getting is worth about a quarter of a feat. So, if he really wants to be able to make weapons and armor, he takes the background rather than two feats. For that player, it is like getting 2 feats. Is it an optimal choice? No, but it is more optimal than spending 2 feats.

Yup, and that's why people don't take them.

People take sub-optimal feats. But people are just as free to not take these.

If, on the other hand, you described your character as slightly bookish and the DM forced you to take skill focus: history as your 1st level feat, you'd be getting screwed. That's what these backgrounds do.

No, that's what these backgrounds would do if your DM used them to screw you. Nothing in the article suggests that and there is no mention of anyone being forced to select any particular one.

Now, in the Forgotten Realms, if you say you're from X region, you get X regional benefit, but that's the Forgotten Realms and regional benefits.

Look at this stuff honestly. Wizards has a background mechanic. It provides one of a number of set formulaic benefits. It takes a couple paragraphs of material, if that, and a chart to sum it up. They can sell us one article called "Backgrounds" describing the possible benefits with a couple examples, or they can churn out a bunch of backgrounds with the fluff changed for every adventure path, campaign setting, megamodule, or whatever, plus throw together quick filler articles whenever they're short an article for Dragon. So far, they're it looks like their choosing the latter, though, I wouldn't discount the raw background mechanic itself coming in PHB II or something (and them still churning out a load of backgrounds because they are so easy to throw together)...just change the name and add a couple paragraphs of fluff...

Grumpy Old Man
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: +1 to Intimidate, +1 to History, add both skills to class list.

Nosy Old Woman
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: +1 to History, +1 to Perception, add both skills to class list.

Sewer Cleaner
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: +1 to Dungeoneering, +1 to Endurance, add both skills to class list.

Peeping Tom
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: +1 to Stealth, +1 to Perception, add both skills to class list.

Drill Sergeant
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: +3 to Intimidate, add skill to class list.

Lawyer
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: +2 to Bluff, Speak Language (Abyssal)

Jeweler
[Insert 2 paragraphs of fluff]
Benefit: You can craft rings and neckslot items, provided raw materials are available. It still costs as much as it would if you had purchased what you made. You can also use creation rituals.