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

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Actually... when I said 'tapped on the shoulder', I didn't actually mean to imply being granted divine spellcasting, I actually meant someone within the church hierarchy saying that you're been granted the rank of Priest. I read Priest not as just someone who is devout or overly religious or helps out around the temple... but as an actual job you're granted. Someone who specifically has gone through seminary, done their years of service after that, and then the hierarchy determines they have fulfilled the requirements to now become a priest of the church.

Semantically, to me it's all a matter of length of time and requirement to become what it is the background is. And if it seems like the background should be an end to itself and not just something you are or do as you wile away the hours towards your true job of whatever your class ends up being... then to me it's probably not the best term to use.

 

[Thaumaturge]

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

If they give each background these many options, I think it'll be trivial to mine the other backgrounds for additional flaws, ideals, and traits that fit. If I'm playing an Acolyte and don't like a flaw I see there, I might dip into Noble. Maybe my Acolyte left his noble house for the church, but not before picking up a bad habit (ha) or two.

A d20 roll for each of these charts would probably take up too much space in the books.

Though it is ripe for extension through web articles and supplements.

Thaumaturge.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

I understand what you're saying... and indeed agree with you that there is a "rookie" (for lack of a better term) feeling towards the terms Acolyte and Squire (the same way I feel like there's too much of a "professional" feeling towards Priest and Knight). And that it does feel conceptually odd for a 15th level Fighter to also be a Squire. I grant you that wholeheartedly.

So perhaps then it just comes down to what exactly the background is meant to imply? And if the background is meant to be someone who has grown up or spent time in the church or in a heavily religious way prior to becoming a Rogue or Paladin, or Barbarian... what is a potentially better term than either Acolyte or Priest (if there is one?) That's a good question.

 

[Thaumaturge]

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.

If I translate backgrounds into modern terms, I think of my background as "English major" (or maybe "Student"). Those things still matter to me 15 years later—they're a vital part of who I am. But their influence has waned as I've taken levels in Husband, Father, and Writer.

I think the same is true of any of the backgrounds discussed here. A 1st level acolyte wizard is fresh from being an acolyte, and his background carries that weight. A 15th level acolyte wizard was still an acolyte in his church, but he's also a grand wizard with his own tower, spells he has created, a kingdom he has saved, and a title or two added to his name.

It seems like backgrounds *should* fade away as characters interact with the world and grow. The commoner is still a commoner, but the 15th level commoner fighter is also the royal general. At some point he should learn which fork to use at a formal meal.

Thaumaturge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

I don't think that's ever really been the case, though. In 4e, PC classes were specifically for heroic PC's, never for NPCs, so the guy-who-marries-you was almost NEVER a cleric (his skills were pretty much whatever the DM wanted them to be). In 3e, NPC classes such as Adept or Expert filled much the same role (anyone who could train up Religion, probably). In 2e and earlier, various 0-level NPC's would have been doing the wedding ceremonies of most people according to the core rules (though certainly there's probably some waffling on the topic -- IIRC, at least one cleric spell in 2e was the "use this spell do to a priestly ceremony" spell).

In 5e, background don't seem to fill that role of "profession." People conducting weddings and brises and blood sacrifices to Krom need not be clerics (the class), or Acolytes (the new background), or Priests (the old background). I imagine the default will be something like, "You probably don't need a mechanical game element to determine who can do religious rites."

What might fill that role of profession in games that want it for PC's, I'm wagering, is the downtime system. If your character -- be they Throg the Actolye-Barbarian, Tommy the Soldier-Cleric, or Esther the Squire-Warlock -- wants to also be the person doing weddings and funerals and naming ceremonies, they can dedicate their downtime to that. NPCs have pretty much 100% "downtime" so an NPC who is going around doing weddings is just going to spend their time doing that. (Tentatively, this might allow for things like a low-WIS/low-INT bumbling local priest who suuuuucks at his job and has no real training in it, but who nonetheless is the only dinkus for the job).

So if Esther wants to bless people's union in the unspeakable name of the Things Beyond The Stars and the Blood Knight of Rigel 7, she spends her downtime doing that (possibly even as a Priest). And Tommy spends his downtime leading people through the wilderness he once campaigned in as a medic, so he's a Guide. And Throg spends his downtime policing the border, speading the word of Krom, and putting down rebellions, so he's a Knight in his downtime.

It's just a matter of definition:

• Backgrounds represents your background before you became an adventurer -- your fundamental training.
• Class is your skillset as an adventurer -- what you're improving and working towards while killin' goblins.
• Profession is what you do other than adventure -- what you spend your time away from the dungeon doing. (This could overlap with Crafts -- makin' stuff -- and other downtime activities) NPC's don't typically get a class, they're just Background + Downtime, thus solving the problem of the 20th-level commoner: dirt farmers don't get levels, they just get some basic skills, and a loose mechanic for how they do them on the daily.

That's me extrapolating a bit from the downtime mechanic to include profession-based activities, but I think that's a reasonable use of downtime. So anyone can perform these religious rites (though presumably someone with a high INT or WIS would be better at them) just by spending their time doing it, Cleric or Acolyte or otherwise.

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.

My impression is that, as a background, these things are about this history of the character -- I grew up on a farm, or I was raised as a princess, or I had a reality TV show and a mullet, or I was raised on the mean streets of Waterdeep. These are all things that, by the time the character is played, are historical. The character learned to grow crops, or learned courtly ettiquette, or learned how to track people down, or learned how to wear ice and drink Cristal. Maybe they still do these, maybe not, that's not what the Background is saying.

If it's something that is about the character's present state, that is more like their profession, and thus more about their downtime -- I go back to the farm to harvest every autumn, or I still have to come back and hear peasants whine at me a few weeks out of the year, or I find people in hiding for local guards all the time, or I go back to my roots and live in my dirty tenement by the docks to keep it real.

That need not be true, though. A "commoner" background, by level 1, might be in the character's history entirely. Maybe they were knighted because they killed a few goblins raiding the farm and now they spend their downtime keeping the peace. A "noble" background, by level 1, might be over. Maybe they lost all their wealth due to some Game of Thrones-style Red Wedding and now the character is a Rogue who lives by her wits and her daggers and her ability to impersonate the wealthy. A "bounty hunter," by level 1, might be another lifetime. Maybe they exhibited pity, let one criminal escape because it reminded them of their son, and now live under a cloak of infamy while they seek the true meaning of Justice as a paladin. A "thug," by level 1, might be ancient history. Maybe their beautiful singing voice got them noticed by a wealthy patron who took them from the hood and made them rags to bitriches, and now they're a first level bard who performs shows in their downtime.

Background is historical, not necessarily current, is the impression I get.

 

[DMZ2112]

the rhetorical colouring of "merely" points to your presuppositions.

"Merely" here simply means that the appelation "acolyte" does not carry the additional meaning of "priest."

I note that you combine "officiant" with "the pulpit", which is pretty religion-specific.

Officiant is certainly not; it's a legal term. If you don't like "pulpit," "altar" is a sufficient substitute. A priest is the guy behind the altar "doing religion." Acolyte does not imply those responsibilities.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

I agree with this. Perhaps in cases like this they can call the background Squire/Knight, and Acolyte/Priest. I think that is inferior to simply knight and priest though. Because at some experience level the DM will confer on the character the full title of knight or priest, what if they don't make that a big portion of the game because they are dungeon delving for 5 character levels? Also a wizard knight, is a lot different than a fighter knight, these things make me think more about a knight's order and not a specific I am a knight because my lord granted me that title and I wear armor and shield. A knight's order is more tasked with a duty and the wizard has as much of a place in that order as a fighter. I like the term knight meaning part of an order of knights, the specific function and role in that organization may be a squire, or a questing knight, or a researcher, or eldritch knight even.

 

[RevTurkey]

I like these tables. Nobody has to use them if they have their own ideas for quirks and flaws and if players want to develop their character backgrounds as they play then that is also okay...but for some fast random inspiration, even for experienced roleplayers to break habits, I think this is a useful and fun approach. Bravo Wizards for trying something different not directly related to number crunching. Even if players ignore this, even new players will see that the possibilities in a tabletop rpg are vast and your imagination is key to having a good time rather than just dice rolling, choosing cool powers and collecting 'stuff'. A nice idea to put this in the rules. I don't have to use it but it's there if I fancy.

 

[the Jester]

Actually... when I said 'tapped on the shoulder', I didn't actually mean to imply being granted divine spellcasting, I actually meant someone within the church hierarchy saying that you're been granted the rank of Priest. I read Priest not as just someone who is devout or overly religious or helps out around the temple... but as an actual job you're granted. Someone who specifically has gone through seminary, done their years of service after that, and then the hierarchy determines they have fulfilled the requirements to now become a priest of the church.

YMMV, but this is far too limiting of a definition for me. It leaves out the guy who tends the shrine outside the tiny village, who has never gone more than ten miles from home. I have no problem with that guy as a priest (or, for that matter, as a cleric).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Thanks all for your engagement here. It's good to see.

So perhaps then it just comes down to what exactly the background is meant to imply? And if the background is meant to be someone who has grown up or spent time in the church or in a heavily religious way prior to becoming a Rogue or Paladin, or Barbarian... what is a potentially better term than either Acolyte or Priest (if there is one?) That's a good question.

I agree -- this is the question. For me it's how the character connects t the world around them; what stops them from being murder hobos, if that phrase can be used neutrally.

It seems like backgrounds *should* fade away as characters interact with the world and grow. The commoner is still a commoner, but the 15th level commoner fighter is also the royal general.

As you know, in the play test rules background confers the bulk of a character's skills, some proficiencies, and a trait. You are using background to be something much weaker than that. I too have been a student, a father, a gamer, a writer, but none of that is serving the mechanical function that we are discussing.

I don't think that's ever really been the case, though.
<snip>
In 5e, background don't seem to fill that role of "profession." People conducting weddings and brises and blood sacrifices to Krom need not be clerics (the class), or Acolytes (the new background), or Priests (the old background). I imagine the default will be something like, "You probably don't need a mechanical game element to determine who can do religious rites."

Read the trait associated with priests. "Temple services" are what this background gives you -- that is, exactly, the specific hook into society that is unique to this background.

I recognize that the default might change, but going from the play test materials, I think the answer is clear.

What might fill that role of profession in games that want it for PC's, I'm wagering, is the downtime system. If your character -- be they Throg the Actolye-Barbarian, Tommy the Soldier-Cleric, or Esther the Squire-Warlock -- wants to also be the person doing weddings and funerals and naming ceremonies, they can dedicate their downtime to that. NPCs have pretty much 100% "downtime" so an NPC who is going around doing weddings is just going to spend their time doing that. (Tentatively, this might allow for things like a low-WIS/low-INT bumbling local priest who suuuuucks at his job and has no real training in it, but who nonetheless is the only dinkus for the job).

Absolutely, I want the backgrounds to be able to include this.

It's just a matter of definition:

• Backgrounds represents your background before you became an adventurer -- your fundamental training.
• Class is your skillset as an adventurer -- what you're improving and working towards while killin' goblins.
• Profession is what you do other than adventure -- what you spend your time away from the dungeon doing. (This could overlap with Crafts -- makin' stuff -- and other downtime activities) NPC's don't typically get a class, they're just Background + Downtime, thus solving the problem of the 20th-level commoner: dirt farmers don't get levels, they just get some basic skills, and a loose mechanic for how they do them on the daily.

With this list, I see backgrounds embracing both of what you call backgrounds and profession.

A priest is the guy behind the altar "doing religion." Acolyte does not imply those responsibilities.

With slight modification, I agree: A priest is the guy or gal who may be found behind the altar "doing religion". Acolyte does not imply those responsibilities.

The OED's first definition of priest is exactly this: "A person whose office is to perform public religious functions."

Sadrik's proposal

Perhaps in cases like this they can call the background Squire/Knight, and Acolyte/Priest. I think that is inferior to simply knight and priest though. <etc.>

meets my objections.

My end desire is for the background to matter to the character throughout his or her career. From the get-go backgrounds have done this for me -- they have driven me to think in terms of unique combinations for interesting characters and have provided mechanics that mark that character as unique as a result. A noble rouge knows different things than the thug rogue or the priest rogue or the soldier rogue, as well she should.

It's an easy but important choice, made early in the career that helps individuate each character. That's precisely the richness that I want in the game; my point is nothing more.