D&D 5E Traits, Flaws, and Bonds L&L May 5th

[The Myopic Sniper]

I would prefer d20 rolls on these charts for each type of trait just to show the expanse of what can be done within each background to new players and a few counter-intuitive examples for experienced players who are in a rut. Still, it looks like a good framework, I think at one point they were giving out mechanical rewards (action points) for roleplaying these traits, it looks like that idea has been dropped. That would be easy enough to houserule as a module for groups who don't mind metamechanics.

 

[pukunui]

I think at one point they were giving out mechanical rewards (action points) for roleplaying these traits, it looks like that idea has been dropped. That would be easy enough to houserule as a module for groups who don't mind metamechanics.

I'm pretty sure Mike mentioned the Inspiration mechanic fairly recently, so I think it's still going to be in the game.

 

[Kobold Stew]

and suspect Acolyte of being the new Priest.

I really hope this is not the case -- it would be a big step backwards for what backgrounds represent.

"Priest" "Guild Thief" and "Soldier" (others too, but those are the big three) are crucial backgrounds to have, because they say -- clearly -- that these things exist in the world separate from Clerics, Rogues, and Fighters. The separation of background and class was so enriching: one could have a Wizard Solider, a Cleric Guild Thief, a Rogue Priest.

For me, this was a huge advance. Clerics now did not need to be the one who would conduct weddings in the village, for example. For the first time, there was a mechanic that separated your place in society from the class you chose, and it has led to some fantastic role-play opportunities for me and my players.

To lose that would be a shame. Some might think it's just a matter of language, but my point stands even if acolyte is otherwise word-for-word what's there for Priest. Plain language is important here -- no one uses the word acolyte in ordinary speech; it's functionally meaningless in social contexts. Backgrounds need to be labels that are instantly comprehensible.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You are both right and not:

Although I share your preference of the name priest, for the same reasons you mention, as a profession you take independant from class, I believe strictly as background, priest is a bit too much. It sounds as if you are done and you will never go out adventuring. So for the Players handbook, acolyte seems the better term.

I do sincerely hope though, that suggestions for NPCs in the DMG will include Priests, that are just build by using the acolyte background combined with a generic NPC class (standard character of race XXX)

So I assume Priest (Human, background acolyte) should suffice as a descriptor fo a human priest.

 

[TerraDave]

This is just meh for me. I may try it out but my games are more about big picture stories (such as defeating the big bad guy(s)) than about personality quirks of the PCs.

These can be fun...but I agree they could also just be ignored, or downright disruptive.

I will push for fun, but with the caveat/reminder to the players that their personality and goals can and should evolve over the course of the campaign.

 

[Kobold Stew]

"Acolyte" is functionally meaningless.

If you say to a person on the street, (for example), "Imagine a world without *Priests*" (or *soldiers* or "Bounty hunters* or *spies*, etc.) that serves as a trigger for the imagination. We know what it is. If we instead say "Imagine a world without *acolytes*"?

Backgrounds should be an add-on to class. The "Priest" (at whatever level of experience) is the guy or gal to whom the villager go to get married, etc. It's such a richer world when it's not always the village cleric.

 

[DEFCON 1]

"Acolyte" is functionally meaningless.

If you say to a person on the street, (for example), "Imagine a world without *Priests*" (or *soldiers* or "Bounty hunters* or *spies*, etc.) that serves as a trigger for the imagination. We know what it is. If we instead say "Imagine a world without *acolytes*"?

Backgrounds should be an add-on to class. The "Priest" (at whatever level of experience) is the guy or gal to whom the villager go to get married, etc. It's such a richer world when it's not always the village cleric.

As a counter to your argument... the Priest to me sounds like a vocation that a character should still have. Whereas Backgrounds (which I have come to understand them) are leanings that your character had prior to becoming an Adventurer. To be a Priest (to me) means you've gone through the long and rigorous process of actually becoming ordained. Most people who are Priests actually work *as* priests in their respective churches-- it's not just a casual thing they did growing up before going on to become a Fighter or a Wizard or whatnot.

Whereas an Acolyte of Pelor means that you are still a devout follower of Pelor but not actually employeed by the church. Perhaps you've spent time working within the temple, or you volunteer, you were raised in it, or you just are exceedinly devout in your personal time. But in any case... you haven't actually become a fully ordained and a functioning employee. You were still more than able to spend most of your time learning combat or magic or music or whatever it was that gave you your Class, which is the primary descriptor of what it is you do. If you were an Acolyte *and* you then became actually ordained... that's where having the Cleric as your Class comes in.

This is the same reason why many people had problems with the Knight background way back when in the very early playtest packets. Being an actual Knight seemed way too advanced in learning and status for someone who starts the game as a 1st level adventurer. Earning that title should have been a big deal, and not something a character just casually did in their past prior to becoming a Fighter or Barbarian or Wizard. Had the background been Squire it wouldn't have caused the same consternation, because it was much more believable a character might have been a squire prior to becoming a Fighter or a Paladin. But to have been a Knight and then become a Bard? Felt more like a demotion than a part of a character's history.

So I happen to agree that Backgrounds should try and avoid using terms that imply longer-term work or study in the field as that seems to run counter to what the Backgrounds are meant to imply. A Commoner feels like she could go on to become a Ranger. A Noble feels like he could go on to study Wizardry. A Priest feels like she should actually be a functioning Priest within the church... and not someone who forsook her path to then become a Rogue. At least, that's how I feel about it.

 

[sidonunspa]

This is just meh for me. I may try it out but my games are more about big picture stories (such as defeating the big bad guy(s)) than about personality quirks of the PCs.

You should try doing both...

I commonly do the same "big picture" story but I make sure to seed the campaign with subplots that take place along side the main story.

Subplots are inspired by personality quirks, don't fight them.. use them, weave them into the story... side adventures now have meaning, or maybe... as fate would have it... the goals are alined...

 

[sidonunspa]

I like the general idea. I was a bit disappointed by the description of these as "non-mechanical" aspects of character generation, and as mere "roleplaying guidelines". I think there is a lot of scope to use these to build mechanical systems on - for instance, when you're about to realise your "bond", or when you're forced to violate your "ideal", then things in the game have become a Big Deal, and it would be nice for this to be reflected somehow in the mechanics. (Eg in either case you can reroll one roll in the situation; but if you're violating your ideal then if you fail a roll the GM can also introduce some sort of complication into the situation to reflect that.)

Go all FATE with them..... come up with some fate point system where the players can gain points if they follow their quirks/flaw/ect.

Not hard to do..

If 5e is open I fully intend to write up a system with an expanded flaws system and put that puppy up on RPG now.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks for this.

To be a Priest (to me) means you've gone through the long and rigorous process of actually becoming ordained. Most people who are Priests actually work *as* priests in their respective churches-- it's not just a casual thing they did growing up before going on to become a Fighter or a Wizard or whatnot.

This certainly can be part of it, but I don't think it needs to be the totality. Junior priests, senior priests, new ones and experienced ones. All are fine. Whatever training one needs, it can be done by the time you are twenty. In a preindustrial society, I expect the standards are different than today. It's *exactly* what a background should provide -- a place in society when a character is not adventuring.

Whereas an Acolyte of Pelor means that you are still a devout follower of Pelor but not actually employeed by the church. Perhaps you've spent time working within the temple, or you volunteer, you were raised in it, or you just are exceedinly devout in your personal time. But in any case... you haven't actually become a fully ordained and a functioning employee.

See, for me, this is even worse. You should be able to be a devout follower of Pelor regardless of your background. Anyone should be able to choose to be devout without needing to make it a background choice. What we had before gives us that -- a deepening and enriching of what we know about the character, while still allowing the greatest range of rp options.

This is the same reason why many people had problems with the Knight background way back when in the very early playtest packets.

I think the Knight had other problems as well, but fair enough.

A Commoner feels like she could go on to become a Ranger. A Noble feels like he could go on to study Wizardry. A Priest feels like she should actually be a functioning Priest within the church... and not someone who forsook her path to then become a Rogue. At least, that's how I feel about it.

That works for commoner and noble, (and artisan, soldier, thug?) but not for most of the others.

The guide doesn't stop guiding; the bounty hunter doesn't stop having access to the bounty boards; the spy maintains contacts; the priest maintains a nominal connection with a church.

We can go round and round on this -- we don't need to agree. I love the richness of the plain-language backgrounds that integrate the character into society, and would be sorry to lose it.