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

[GravyFingerz]

For now.

Wow. I wasn't the hugest WotC fan historically, but that is a paranoid response.

 

[Mistwell]

For now.

First, I doubt that was your intent behind what you posted. It wasn't you speculating about something - you assumed that something already existed it seemed. I'm guessing you hadn't even read the article when you posted?

If you had, then they wrote an article outright saying "here are some non-mechanical things", and your honest reaction wasn't just to make up "there will be mechanical benefits", but then you jumped another step beyond that and claimed there would be an imbalance in the mechanical benefits offered and you were actively worried about it?

No. Just no. That's completely fabricating stuff, and then putting a fabrication on top of your fabrication, just to crap on something for the game. You're not even pretending to discuss what they wrote anymore. That would mean we've now officially gotten to the point where there is nothing they can write that you won't crap on - because you've just admitted you will simply make up something bad, and then something else bad on top of that, no matter what they say.

So, I think it actually looks better if you just say you hadn't read the article and thought it was saying something about mechanical benefits it hadn't. Because the alternative - that looks much worse.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

First, I doubt that was your intent behind what you posted. It wasn't you speculating about something - you assumed that something already existed it seemed. I'm guessing you hadn't even read the article when you posted?

If you had, then they wrote an article outright saying "here are some non-mechanical things", and your honest reaction wasn't just to make up "there will be mechanical benefits", but then you jumped another step beyond that and claimed there would be an imbalance in the mechanical benefits offered and you were actively worried about it?

No. Just no. That's completely fabricating stuff, and then putting a fabrication on top of your fabrication, just to crap on something for the game. You're not even pretending to discuss what they wrote anymore. That would mean we've now officially gotten to the point where there is nothing they can write that you won't crap on - because you've just admitted you will simply make up something bad, and then something else bad on top of that, no matter what they say.

So, I think it actually looks better if you just say you hadn't read the article and thought it was saying something about mechanical benefits it hadn't. Because the alternative - that looks much worse.

Flaws and Traits have existed in D&D before so it's nothing new. I'm confident they will introduce mechanics eventually and it will turn into what's happened with Pathfinder's trait system, there will be must have traits that you will be encouraged to take.

 

[Ichneumon]

Flaws and Traits have existed in D&D before so it's nothing new. I'm confident they will introduce mechanics eventually and it will turn into what's happened with Pathfinder's trait system, there will be must have traits that you will be encouraged to take.

The only 'mechanics' you might see is a FATE-style module allowing points to be earned and spent via portrayal of personality aspects. Which will be optional, so only groups choosing to use it will be affected.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I skipped a few pages here, but I want to chime in with my support for "acolyte" rather than "priest."

The main reason is that I like backgrounds as something that could point at, but not require, actually being established in your life/career.

What about the young hero who sets off adventuring when he is an apprentice blacksmith (for instance)? Fantasy fiction is full of heroes who aren't already established professionals. It is, in fact the norm.

When backgrounds imply you were already established in life prior to taking up adventuring, they urge a style that I really dislike. Adventurers are much more likely, at least as I see it, to be people who started off adventuring instead of finishing formal training to become an established member of society, rather than after. Rarely are adventures a group of merchants, innkeepers, sages, and others who decide at some point in their adult life to head out in search of fame and fortune. They are much more likely to be teenagers thrust unwittingly into a life of adventure.

So I prefer if background can allow either interpretation. If you are a priest, then you once were an acolyte, since it is a normal path along the way. But if you are an acolyte you didn't necessarily become a priest. Maybe you got disillusioned and become a rogue. Or maybe your background was "street urchin" but you got religion and became a priest (perhaps a cleric).

Backgrounds ought to say who you were before you became established, so that you can say that a character was or was not established in the direction the background would have pointed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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).

Well, I wasn't trying to put out one strict definition of 'Priest' in the game per se. I'm sure there are many ways to become priests in the respective worlds that have them. But rather, it's idea of using 'priest' as the catch-all term for anyone who has any religious connection whatsoever-- that's what I was suggesting I don't agree with.

Is the guy who tends the shrine outside the tiny village a 'priest'? I wouldn't say he is necessarily. He might be the one in charge of its care, and might be the most devout person in the village... but even as I look at 'priest' in wikipedia, it says it's someone who is authorized to perform the sacred rituals of a religion. Which is how I personally see it, and goes along with my other posts to Kobold Stew. Priest is a job you are granted by a higher authority in the hierarchy. You've been authorized to be called one. So that guy who cares for the roadside shrine might be a priest... but he also might be just an adept. Or acolyte. Or not even have any divine occupation whatsoever.

At the end of the day... my only real point is that to me personally, a Priest has a higher position in the religious hierarchy than many other people who would claim to have a religious background. It's not something a person can just say they are. A person can say they're a Follower of a god. They can be a Devotee. An Adherent. With a bit of actual study and/or work, maybe an Acolyte or an Adept. But Priest? That requires more work and then someone else granting them the authority to be one and carry out its work. In my opinion of course.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think anything I've said prevents those stories.

Nothing requires you to use your background in downtime, but it's always available to you (unless you have made a choice that excludes it, i.e. as a result of your role-playing).

Is your view is that a character's background should give them a thing they can do on their downtime, and they can also do other things on their downtime if you want?

Seems like kind of a pointless distinction, then. If downtime actions are always open to anyone who wants to do them (provided they have the time), what does it matter if it's tied to a background or not? It doesn't matter what your background is, anyone can perform weddings/funerals/birth rites, or manage a farm, or craft a clockwork wonder, or make a weapon, or brew a potion, or whatever...clearly, your background can point you in a direction, but its not like you need any prerequisite box on your character sheet filled out to go around doing weddings for people in the village, if that's what you want to do. Mechanically, all that might mean is that you don't make much coin doing it.

I was thinking more that these are separate moving parts: you choose the "Acolyte" background if you're playing with backgrounds, and the "Priest" profession if you're playing with downtime mechanics, and you have both the basic skills of one raised in the church and you can dedicate your downtime to doing priestly things like weddings. That way, your current profession need not match your past skill set, but it can.

If all downtime actions are NOT always open to anyone who wants to do them (meaning, it takes some prerequisite other than time to do a particular action -- only a Priest can perform religious rites during their downtime, only a Smith can make metal items during their downtime, etc.), then putting your downtime options in your background precludes the kind of story changes I was talking about (someone who had an
Acolyte background could only be a Priest as a profession, and could not be a blacksmith, which is linked to some other background, such as Laborer or Commoner). It seems like we're both agreed that this isn't a great result.

Or is the idea that you can either do something related to your background during your downtime, or do nothing? Because then it seems obvious that this is the second option, essentially -- you have a "useuless" background if your story doesn't make use of the specific thing your background lets you do.

If we're going with the first possibility, that all downtime actions are open to anyone, then there's no real point in housing downtime actions within the background because it doesn't really matter anyway -- anyone can do whatever. Makes more sense to house these options in a way that doesn't imply that only Priest-background characters can do weddings. Which then reaffirms that background are only historical elements, not ongoing character elements. They give base abilities, not current options.

If we're going with some flavor of the second possibility, that certain downtime actions are only available to those with a specific "profession," then putting those professions in with backgrounds limits the potential to tell stories about questioning Acolytes and fallen Nobles and Commoners who rise above their station. If we wanted to give these characters useful options, we'd have to allow them to "swap professions" anyway, so why wed these things to backgrounds if they're not really part of the background mechanics?

I dunno, this is a lot of words about spitballing stuff. But I don't see a lot of value in marrying a character's profession to their background -- these are distinct character elements in my mind, so it makes sense to choose BOTH.

 

[the Jester]

Well, I wasn't trying to put out one strict definition of 'Priest' in the game per se. I'm sure there are many ways to become priests in the respective worlds that have them. But rather, it's idea of using 'priest' as the catch-all term for anyone who has any religious connection whatsoever-- that's what I was suggesting I don't agree with.

Is the guy who tends the shrine outside the tiny village a 'priest'? I wouldn't say he is necessarily. He might be the one in charge of its care, and might be the most devout person in the village... but even as I look at 'priest' in wikipedia, it says it's someone who is authorized to perform the sacred rituals of a religion. Which is how I personally see it, and goes along with my other posts to Kobold Stew. Priest is a job you are granted by a higher authority. You've been authorized to be one. So that guy who cares for the roadside shrine might be a priest... but he also might be just an adept. Or acolyte. Or not even have any divine occupation whatsoever.

At the end of the day... my only real point is that to me personally, a Priest has a higher position in the religious hierarchy. It's not something a person can just claim to be. A person can say they're a Follower of a god. They can be a Devotee. An Adherent. With a bit of actual study and/or work, maybe an Acolyte or an Adept. But Priest? That requires more work and then someone else granting them the authority to be one and carry out its work. In my opinion of course.

The problem I have with this is that it assumes that all faiths have a hierarchy. Which they don't in the real world; therefore, there's no reason that they should in my fantasy world.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Looks good to me although I'd prefer the tables to be larger. d12 tables would be better and give the poor d12 something else to do.

It wouldn't be D&D if the d12 weren't mostly neglected!

 

[DEFCON 1]

The problem I have with this is that it assumes that all faiths have a hierarchy. Which they don't in the real world; therefore, there's no reason that they should in my fantasy world.

But would they use the title 'Priest' then?

Honestly, I don't know. Do real world non-hierarchical religions or devotions use the word 'priest' to define someone who works in it? Or do they use other terms of religious membership (because of the idea that 'priest' is usually define as someone ordained and authorized to perform the rituals of the religion?) Maybe there are? If so, it'd be something new that I'd learn.

Like I said... this is just what comes into my mind when I see the word 'priest', and really it's all semantics when you get right down to choosing which arbitrary terms to attach to these rather arbitrary traits in the D&D game. Truth be told... the game could list the background as 'Acolyte' or 'Priest' or 'Adherent' or 'Disciple' or 'Pope' or 'Generic Religious Person' and it wouldn't effect me all that much. I'd understand the concept they were trying to get across and would work with it regardless of whatever arbitrary religious term they attached to it.