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

[I'm A Banana]

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.)

I'm with you on this one. I'm looking forward to meatier mechanical chunks that you can do with these. Not surprised they backed off of this for the "core" game, because it is pretty purely additive to a D&D experience, but it's the kind of addition I'd love to use!

PS: I heart that art.

 

[Sadrik]

These look like a really strong addition to the game. They will get younger players to think of the game as less a game of chess and more a conversation. I think many people with a lot of rp xp, can easily do this but with newer and at times simply certain players they can miss this whole portion of the experience of an rpg. Bravo.

 

[DMZ2112]

"Acolyte" is functionally meaningless.

Super semantic, but as long as we're arguing semantics: DEFCON1 kind of danced around this in his own response, but to put a fine point on it, a priest is specifically an officiant. I don't think the background should necessarily carry that baggage. An acolyte, by contrast, is merely a temple-worker. I think the latter noun encompasses the meaning of the former without proscribing religious callings other than the pulpit.

Priest is definitely a more recognizable word, but it is more recognizable because it carries unintended meaning. Players will see "Priest" and ignore the description, thinking, "I know what a priest is," and picturing a man in a white robe holding a chalice aloft while chanting in an ancient language. Players are more likely to read the description of an "Acolyte," even if they have a fundamental sense of what an acolyte is, which gives the background more breadth. Breadth is good.

 

[the Jester]

I'm liking what we've seen so far. I have to disagree with the comment that traits, flaws and bonds should carry much mechanical weight; that is basically forcing one playstyle on all games. Letting the dm decide how much TF&Bs impact the game is the right choice- as with alignment, there's no one right answer for all tables.

"Acolyte" is functionally meaningless.

I disagree, and think you're underestimating the vocabulary of gamers. In addition, if some don't know the word, there's nothing wrong with giving them a new term that (if they just read the background) is perfectly clear.

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.

The thing about 'priest' is that it is inclusive of both the village-guy-who-marries-you AND the cleric. It's a bigger term than the more specific ones (members of the cleric class and village-guy-who-marries-you).

 

[Sadrik]

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.

I don't agree with this. I think it is inferred that a low level knight might be a squire or he is simply a knight in training and he has not necessarily been "knighted" yet. That concept may not even exists in d&d. I think it more projects the tropes of heavily armored warrior with a shield and sword and lance and perhaps more adherence to duty than a typical soldier.

This can also be conceptually applied to every background. A background is not just what they did prior to adventuring and then their class takes over, it is not your level 0, it is what they do now and in the future too. So the term "background" may not be entirely right. Naming convention for a background should be what they become and not call them what they are at low level. Call it a knight and a priest because they will eventually be there. Much better than a squire and an acolyte

The priest vs. the acolyte, I can see them both existing. Why can only one of them exist anyway?

One other thing about backgrounds, I think settings can really be were backgrounds can shine. The backgrounds in Dark Sun vs the backgrounds in Eberon can be quite different with very little overlap. This is why I really like backgrounds. The plurality can exist without fundamentally changing the basics of the game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Yup, it's all a matter of perspective, and there's no real right or wrong answer. Both of our opinions can be seen in equal measure. So it ends up coming down to what the designers feel is most likely going to be the right answer for the most people possible, and their surveyed alpha playtesters probably were how they got their data. Could they be wrong? Sure. But they'll at least try their best to be right.

Speaking personally... I don't have nearly the same issue with Guide or Bounty Hunter because in both cases they don't appear to me to be jobs that require years of exclusive training plus the tap on the shoulder from a higher-up that grants the status to use that title. No one makes you a Guide. You guide people in whatever fashion, you call yourself a Guide. And there's no requirements on how much time or effort you put in to become it. By the same token, if you look at bounty boards and go after the people listed, you're a Bounty Hunter. There's no required training, there's no Bounty Hunter Guild that tells you you can't call yourself a Bounty Hunter until you've brought in X number of bounties, or anything like that. You go after bounties, you're technically a Bounty Hunter.

Whereas you don't get to just call yourself a Priest or call yourself a Knight. Those titles are granted to you. You have to go through the training required, and then someone of more import has to decree that you've earned the rank. You either are ordained, or you are knighted. And therein lies the difference to me. Priest and Knight are the rewards you get for your longer service to become those things... they aren't things you just do until you find another vocation.

Semantics? Absolutely. But it does possibly give an indication as to the direction the designers may be taking with the backgrounds when all is said and done. We shall have to wait and see.

 

[Kobold Stew]

a priest is specifically an officiant. I don't think the background should necessarily carry that baggage. An acolyte, by contrast, is merely a temple-worker. I think the latter noun encompasses the meaning of the former without proscribing religious callings other than the pulpit.

I do understand your position, I just don't agree with it, and the rhetorical colouring of "merely" points to your presuppositions. "Priest" carries different baggage than "acolyte", but neither are problem-free. I note that you combine "officiant" with "the pulpit", which is pretty religion-specific.

Priest is definitely a more recognizable word, but it is more recognizable because it carries unintended meaning. Players will see "Priest" and ignore the description, thinking, "I know what a priest is," and picturing a man in a white robe holding a chalice aloft while chanting in an ancient language.

This at least overlaps with the trait that you get when choosing the background, and so this is a good association...

Players are more likely to read the description of an "Acolyte," even if they have a fundamental sense of what an acolyte is, which gives the background more breadth. Breadth is good.

...rather than no association.

I agree that breadth is good. I believe I am arguing for a broader use of backgrounds than you are. The use of "acolyte" (whether as temple functionary (as you present it) or generic religious person (as presented above)) is limiting.

I suggest the societal function of "priest" (which I can take to be any religious functionary, in a term everyone will understand) should be divorced from the character class of Cleric.

I disagree, and think you're underestimating the vocabulary of gamers. In addition, if some don't know the word, there's nothing wrong with giving them a new term that (if they just read the background) is perfectly clear.

I'm not saying that gamers don't know the word. I am saying its a word that (in its normal sense) only makes sense if priests exist somehow. I'm also saying it's a word 95% of gamers would not use in a context independent of their games.

The thing about 'priest' is that it is inclusive of both the village-guy-who-marries-you AND the cleric. It's a bigger term than the more specific ones (members of the cleric class and village-guy-who-marries-you).

And this is exactly the step backward I am talking about. The huge benefit that the backgrounds introduced -- the thing that I am reluctant to lose -- is the separation of these two things: now the guy-who-marries-you doesn't have to be a cleric.

That is the breadth that the backgrounds introduced -- this association was no longer the default. It could still exist (did all of the cleric pregens have priest as their background? they might have), but the system allowed for other possibilities.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I don't agree with this. I think it is inferred that a low level knight might be a squire or he is simply a knight in training and he has not necessarily been "knighted" yet. That concept may not even exists in d&d. I think it more projects the tropes of heavily armored warrior with a shield and sword and lance and perhaps more adherence to duty than a typical soldier.

That's true. It could be inferred, absolutely. However, I think the argument at the time was that if there already was a title that meant that... the Squire... then why use a title that you had to infer anything with? Why not just use the actual term? Now in both your and Kobold Stew's case, I'm gathering that its because you feel Priest and Knight are just conceptually more interesting terms than Acolyte and Squire. Which I can't argue with at all. That comes down to personal taste and there's no right or wrong answer.

So then it comes down to just what the backgrounds are meant to imply. And Priest and Knight imply something different than Acolyte and Squire. So the question then has to be asked what ends up being more important to more people? The use of "more interesting" or "more widely useful" terms, or the use of words that are probably a bit more correct in terms of what the PCs actually when through to call themselves that? And like I just replied to Kobold Stew with... Priest and Knight are titles you just don't get... you have to have earned them and been granted them by higher ranking officials. Priest and Knight both imply a longer, more important and more successful term of service than Acolyte and Squire. So which way do the designers feel like the most people are going to want to go? And that's been their job to work out.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yup, it's all a matter of perspective, and there's no real right or wrong answer...

I agree

Speaking personally... I don't have nearly the same issue with Guide or Bounty Hunter because in both cases they don't appear to me to be jobs that require years of exclusive training plus the tap on the shoulder from a higher-up ...

Semantics? Absolutely. But it does possibly give an indication as to the direction the designers may be taking with the backgrounds when all is said and done. We shall have to wait and see.

I really don't think we're that far apart, and obviously the eventual choice will reflect what designers want in the game.

The only think I think we really differ on is the "tap on the shoulder from a higher-up".

This is the experience of the cleric, in every edition so far. A divine source (or sometime an equivalent) provide some supernatural ability (e.g. a cure light wounds spell) that accomplishes non-ordinary things.

Mini-miracles to order.

Some people so tapped are going to be priests. But with backgrounds they don't have to. Society recognizes that some people officiate at rituals and don't channel divine magic. For me, this broadens both the opportunities for every cleric out there, but it also broadens the place of religion in the (fictional) society that is the game world. Intersection is still possible, but it's not necessary.

I've found that has enriched my games; for me, it's one of the best improvements for individuating first-level characters we've been given. And, as I say, I'd be sorry to lose it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Now in both your and Kobold Stew's case, I'm gathering that its because you feel Priest and Knight are just conceptually more interesting terms than Acolyte and Squire. Which I can't argue with at all. That comes down to personal taste and there's no right or wrong answer.

For what it's worth, I don't think this is what I'm arguing, but I do see how you get there. I'm perfectly fine losing Knight (esp. if Noble already exists) as a background. I see no need for squire -- it's too much of a niche, and it implies the existence of Knights. Who are they? Most people, i expect, would say "fighters or paladins". And that's the connection I'm not interested in. I want backgrounds to separate character class from societal role.

I want the 1st level wizard an the 5th and the 15th all to be able to use their background in a meaningful way. It *matters* to the story if the wizard is a commoner or a noble or a bounty hunter or a thug, and it matters at every level. That's not true, for me, of squire or acolyte -- those terms would stop making sense by fifth level.