Background benefits?

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, this is a bad idea, I think.

Most people have a reasonable idea of what they're building by the time they pick a background. They'll have chosen a race and a class, possibly chosen a name and even mostly settled on what the character can do - the weapons he wields, etc. When you're chosing a background people may already have a rough idea of what they want. If all the backgrounds merely grant a class skill or a +2 bonus, then this step devolves into "hey, this character wants bluff - but he's a wizard, hmm, let's see" and picking whatever possibly inappropriate background.

The backgrounds as the PHB2 presents them don't inspire any ideas, they're just a way to distribute skills a little more flexibly. Their monotony rejects the notion of actually browsing through these things for anything but mechanical benefit. And, suddenly, if you think you've found a background that seems fitting roleplaying wise but whose associated skills just don't mesh, you're kinda pushed into "selecting" another background. And it's quite clear many of these backgrounds are quite amusing, but the one or two associated skills only vaguely cover the flavor.

I think the associated language benefit works for regional backgrounds. Predefined associated skills are almost certainly nonsense. Fortunately it's usually not a big issue since your class probably covers most of them - but that doesn't mean I like the mechanic at all.

Backgrounds should either be at least interesting enough to browse - or they shouldn't limit selection of associated skills. Don't impose non-sensical roleplaying backgrounds on skill choices, which is what PHB2 backgrounds effectively do: instead, let people pick a background and choose an associated skill themselves - or make sure the backgrounds' benefits are varied enough to be interesting.

I think you're mischaracterizing backgrounds. Lets look at the mechanics of it. A PC gets to choose at least the following elements: Geography, Society, Birth, Occupation, and Racial (some books may have other elements and each campaign will likely also have Regional). That is either 5 or 6 elements of which they can choose one or more. Every one of these has at least one associated skill and possibly a language. The player thus has 5-6 skills to choose from for his character. If he doesn't find something appropriate he can simply make something up that works for him. That means no 'shopping' necessary. The skills just give little hints to say this or that might be cool and appropriate for his character concept. Once you've worked through that list you WILL have whatever you wanted. Its not going to work out that the player picks something FOR the skill. He picks something interesting, it gives him a skill he can use and probably the one he would most like to focus on for that matter.

Personally I've found that it works out quite well. I've gotten FAR more detailed and interesting backgrounds from the players using this than I had in the past. Honestly most of the people I play with would do some level of background anyway, but the PHB2 system does kick them in the brain cells some and give them stuff to think about. I tell them to write a paragraph about their character and point them at PHB2 and they generally don't even write down the 'choices' they made, they just say what the character did before, etc and that they get +2 on whatever skill for whatever reason. I don't question this or try to get them to nail down that it is from "Geography" or "Region". I don't really care. It just works.

 

[eamon]

Perhaps backgrounds are organized like that in principle - but the books and character builder don't expose that very naturally. And if you really encourage taking enough backgrounds and otherwise picking a different skill, well, then we're kind of arriving at the same spot via differing routes. Anyway, I much prefer backgrounds along these lines - though admittedly those are a bit more work. In any case, my dislike of the associated skill principle is clearly a minority view...

Cheers!

 

[Ryujin]

Our usual DM places a pretty high premium on role play. If you have a rather extensive background, which he can use for adventure hooks etc., then he generally gives some sort of extra bonus for it. You might start with a Masterwork item, more money, or even a very minor magic item. Sure, you can take a mechanically advantageous background with him but unless you take some time to explain WHY it applies to your character, it's all that you're going to get.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

... And if you really encourage taking enough backgrounds and otherwise picking a different skill, well, then we're kind of arriving at the same spot via differing routes ... In any case, my dislike of the associated skill principle is clearly a minority view...

(Above quote editted for clarity)

And I think that you've basically focused in on the issue here - that you have a tool that works equally well as a role playing "benefit" and as a mechanical "benefit".

Take for example the shaman I made. He's an adult trapped in a 8 year old's body (he's human, but I'm using the gnome race to represent this). As such, I thought bluff would be an appropriate skill - he would have gotten very good at pretending to be a kid. However, bluff isn't on the Shaman's skill list. Now, I could have just blown my first level feat on it, but looking through the backgrounds, the "Cursed" Birth background let me take it, and fit well into my character concept. I did, however, choose that background specifically because it gave "bluff", and I could easily have worked the idea of the background into my character without the mechanical benefit of getting a relevant skill without having to spend a feat for it.

Now, is the fact that the rules let me do this a good thing? I can easily see how opinions could vary, even on the exact facts I gave. I'm not even sure - I mean, I certainly was glad not to "waste" my only feat at first level on what is essentially a role playing buff, but I can see the danger of essentially allowing characters to choose whatever background they want simply for the mechanical benefit.

Or to sum up, I think this is definite YMMV territory.

 

[Voadam]

We played the first game of our new group on Friday. I'd read through the PH I and recreated an old 2e/3e character as a level 11 ranger multied into wizard for this campaign, using a skill training feat to pick up diplomacy to show his politics and merchant background for his time as a merchant prince and political adviser. When the DM walked me through inputting the character into his DDI account he said he'd save me a feat by giving me a non-PH alt wizard multiclass feat that gave two skills (including nature which I had previously taken as a class pick) and a background to make diplomacy a class skill (which then used the freed up nature slot pick). He kept the DDI sheet after the game so I have no idea what the background was. I know he just skimmed the list to give me one that gave me diplomacy as a class skill.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Backgrounds can be good or bad, but it largely depends on the player and what material they have access to.

Some of those Forgotten Realms backgrounds are WAY too powerful, such as the aforementioned Auspicious Birth/Bad Moon backgrounds. And yes, I realize that the benefit they give is about the same as Toughness, but that's exactly the problem. It's as good as Toughness, which is a feat, and Toughness will still stack with it! (Someone else did the math earlier, but basically, if CON is a dump stat then this background will increase your HP almost the same as Toughness)

With the other backgrounds though, the benefits are more minor. +2 to a skill is less than Skill Focus or Skill Training (+3 and +5 respectively). Similarly, picking an additional skill to add to your class list is less powerful than Skill Training because it only adds it to your class list, and does not increase your overall number of skills. And the final benefit, learning a new language, is only a third as strong as the Language feat.

So in all the PHB2-style backgrounds, the mechanical benefit is minor...although I would probably say that +2 to a skill is the strongest. How your players use these though is up to them. If they just pore through looking for the best mechanical benefit, then you can call that "bad" if you want, but I would say to challenge them to come up with a reason for it. For a Dragonborn Fighter in one campaign I picked the Geography: Mountains background due in large part to the +2 to Athletics it gave. However, I then incorporated this into my character's background and said that his clan used to serve a White Dragon back in the days of Arkhosia. After the fall this clan went back to living up in the cold mountains where their dragon lord came from. So even though it started as a mechnical choice, I crafted it to fit my character (also, there are other backgrounds that could've given me a +2 to Athletics, but I specifically chose this one because the others didn't fit my character concept).

In another campaign I'm playing a Dragonborn Sorcerer, and I took the exact opposite approach. I saw the Dragon Bound Arcanist background in the PHB Races: Dragonborn book and just thought there was a lot of RP potential there. It also happens to work well mechanically for my character, since I'm not putting points into INT, but would still like to have a high Arcana (the background gives a +2 to Arcana, plus I have Sorcerous Vision, which is why I want a high Arcana score...I might even get skill focus later).

The point is, whatever criteria you use to choose your backgrouns, what you get out of them is up to you and your group. Holding players accountable to come up with a reason for that background choice, as well as not assuming that just because they bump a main skill (like my Sorcerer and Arcana) it means they took it for purely mechanical reasons, are both important.

 

[Herschel]

Some of those Forgotten Realms backgrounds are WAY too powerful, such as the aforementioned Auspicious Birth/Bad Moon backgrounds. And yes, I realize that the benefit they give is about the same as Toughness, but that's exactly the problem. It's as good as Toughness,

A: Those are Scales of War backgrounds, not Forgotten Realms. The Realms have Impiltur and Thay for Wisdom and Intelligence, respectively.

B: It's NOT as good as toughness for at least 2/3 of a character's "life". Toughness scales, backgrounds don't.

C: Also, base HP is a bad measurement because of SURGES. As I showed above, a 14 Con with no background is better than a 10 Con with the background because of the number of surges available makes up for the difference in base HP.

They aren't that powerful if you actually look at them objectively, which too many interweb weenies don't.

 

[Dredly]

A: Those are Scales of War backgrounds, not Forgotten Realms. The Realms have Impiltur and Thay for Wisdom and Intelligence, respectively.

B: It's NOT as good as toughness for at least 2/3 of a character's "life". Toughness scales, backgrounds don't.

C: Also, base HP is a bad measurement because of SURGES. As I showed above, a 14 Con with no background is better than a 10 Con with the background because of the number of surges available makes up for the difference in base HP.

They aren't that powerful if you actually look at them objectively, which too many interweb weenies don't.

B - it scales in the Char Builder, as your highest stat goes up so does your HP. Toughness "scales" 5 points / tier, its not hard to get the same results out of the background

C. Surges aren't that useful if you don't have someone that can let you spend them standing nearby.

 

[Herschel]

A: Scales is in the character builder, yes. I play in a Scales campagn and we use them. Highest attribute doesn't rise as quickly as toughness does. Post-heroic, if not sooner, toughness comes out ahead.

B: You don't need a leader to spend surges but yeah, if you have a lame party without a decent leader it makes things a bit more interesting. But, spending a second wind and 3ish surges following encounters for frontliners in a three+ combat day still requires more than the basic surge allotment.

The common life of something ike this is a bunch of yahoos screaming "It's broken!/It's the suxx0rs!" when looking at it on paper. Then actual, thoughful analysis and playtesting is done and it turns out it works just fine without being the abomination a bunch of people tried to claim it was.

 

[luide]

Main issue is that backgrounds shouldn't be close to feats in utility sense.
PHB II is pretty much spot on there. +2 skill is about perfect:
Between 40% and 67% of a feat utility, depending on are you trained on that skill or not.

Adding skill to class skills is bit on the weak side, I think it would work better if it added +1 to the skill also.

A: Scales is in the character builder, yes. I play in a Scales campagn and we use them. Highest attribute doesn't rise as quickly as toughness does. Post-heroic, if not sooner, toughness comes out ahead.

This is the problem. It should not be comparable to Toughness even at heroic, even in optimised situation.
2-3 extra hp would be fine ( +2 per tier).

IMO Windrise Ports was bad idea from start. If multiclassing is balanced on one only being able to take one MC feat, allowing second one for marginal cost doesn't sound like a smart thing to do.