D&D 5E Salior Variant: Bad Reputation

Werebat

Explorer
"No matter where you go, people are afraid of you due to your reputation. When you are in a civilized settlement, you can get away with minor criminal offenses, such as refusing to pay for food at a tavern or breaking down doors at a local shop, since most people will not report your activities to the authorities."

Is it just me, or is this variant just begging players to play total douchebag characters? What's to stop them from running around smashing every shop window in town for the fun of it? It says right there in print that they can get away with it!

"I NEVER pay for food! I just walk into the inn and TAKE some!"

"I kick in every door in the town!"

"Does this town have a well? That's my new toilet!"

Regardless of what it says in the text, people who act like this -- even really imposing ones who most folks won't challenge -- are going to end up on the wrong side of the law eventually. But the text doesn't say that they get three actions like this per day, or ten, or twenty. It implies that there are NEVER any consequences for the character so long as they keep their offenses to "minor" ones (whatever that means), because no one will ever report them to the authorities.

Would it be unreasonable to rule that someone WOULD report the Donny the Grass Ogre to the authorities if they engaged in so much douchebaggery in a short period of time that they wouldn't reasonably be able to figure out which victim reported them?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It says "most people will not report you..." It also does not say anything about the authorities being afraid of you. If the PC is abusing it, they should suffer the consequences.

A smart player will use this to get away with chasing a bad guy through a China shop without having to pay for the damages, getting past the doorman at a swanky soirée they weren't invited to, or something clever.
 

Not unreasonable at all. It says "most people will not," not "nobody will," so the player can't even complain.

As a player I would be a little bit annoyed if I couldn't usually get away with it, because then what's the point of the background feature? But if I kick in every door in town, punch some old ladies, kill all the cats and dogs, and then pollute the town well, and eventually someone quietly fingers me and the sheriff comes to arrest me... it's not like I can complain that I didn't get my mileage out of the feature, can I? I pushed it waaaaay farther than the DM would have let anyone else get.
 


The Background features are role-playing hooks, not mechanical features. Apply common sense.



That being said, yes, it is license to be a jerk and do things the other PCs can't.
 



This is why you should include a sprinkling of retired adventurers in your towns' populations. Not only are they a decent source of tales, advice and lore, but also the players never know for sure whether that curmudgeonly barkeep or trader they're cheating may be higher level than they are.
 

This is why you should include a sprinkling of retired adventurers in your towns' populations. Not only are they a decent source of tales, advice and lore, but also the players never know for sure whether that curmudgeonly barkeep or trader they're cheating may be higher level than they are.

Unless the PC is a Battlemaster!
 

This is why you should include a sprinkling of retired adventurers in your towns' populations. Not only are they a decent source of tales, advice and lore, but also the players never know for sure whether that curmudgeonly barkeep or trader they're cheating may be higher level than they are.

This is something I really like about the Wilderlands. It's a dangerous world where only the fittest survive. If someone reached 40 years, you can be sure that he has seen and survived things. You might mess with the average peasant, but the innkeeper will surely have a few levels in a class.
 

Remove ads

Top