Characters of War up at Wizards

[Umbran]

I know this. This is why I posted it here after the post got deleted over there.

Yes, well, zillah, perhaps you should go and review The Rules for posting on EN World.

Rule #1 is "Keep it civil" - we expect posters on EN World to be civil and polite. We expect you to treat your fellow posters and their ideas with respect, whoever they are, and whatever you may think of them - and yes, some of them are WotC employees, and we expect you to threat them with respect, too.

If you've any questions about The Rules, please feel free to e-mail any of the moderators. Our e-mail addresses are found in a thread stickied ot the top of the Meta forum.

 

[Saeviomagy]

A PC is going to be teh uber with getting Nature added to his class list with a +2 bonus and getting an additional language? A martial weapon proficiency and +1 to initiative makes a character the shizznit? And what kind of pathetic powergamer is spending so much time on the ground that getting a fourth death save is making him all warm and tingly? Is +2 to saving throws (note that's saving throws, not FORT/REF/WILL defense) when you're more than 5 squares away from your allies really going to make a character unstoppable?

IMO, these go a long way toward adding back some of what was lost in 4e in regard to flexiility in character creation.

It's clear you don't understand the least bit about optimization either. Go take a tour of the old optimization boards. Notice how the most crazy numbers are made up of lots of tiny incremental additions.

Take enough saving throw bonuses and suddenly sehanine's reversal becomes incredibly powerful. Already you can get it up to a 1/4 chance to reflect the effect (human, first aid, move away from allies). More bonuses only pushes you closer to the day it becomes a guaranteed effect.

Edit: Sehanine's reversal requires a natural 20, but having a +5 to saves is still pretty nice.

+3 unnamed bonus to a skill? Pushes the intimidomancer build that much closer to auto-intimidating any bloodied foe.

Need I go on?

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

It's clear you don't understand the least bit about optimization either. Go take a tour of the old optimization boards. Notice how the most crazy numbers are made up of lots of tiny incremental additions.

I know, but I don't care what crackpot one-trick pony can be made on the optimization boards.

Need I go on?

Not really, it's quite clear you spend more time obsessing over the optimization boards than actually playing the game, where little things like this enhance play and aren't a problem.

Trying to balance the entire game off of the most optimized single-dimensional character builds only makes well-rounded characters no longer viable.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I know, but I don't care what crackpot one-trick pony can be made on the optimization boards.

Not really, it's quite clear you spend more time obsessing over the optimization boards than actually playing the game, where little things like this enhance play and aren't a problem.

Trying to balance the entire game off of the most optimized single-dimensional character builds only makes well-rounded characters no longer viable.

Mr Noonan, is that you?

Anyway - the article does effect the other end of play. Putting an ability that allows you to craft weapons, for instance, suggests that such is not possible without that ability. No longer can you simply say "My character was a blacksmith's apprentice, so he can make his own weapons": Now he has to be a dwarf and get the background ability to go with it, or it's good bye roleplaying with no mechanical benefit!

 

[Runestar]

Not really, it's quite clear you spend more time obsessing over the optimization boards than actually playing the game, where little things like this enhance play and aren't a problem.

So your point is that it will not pose a problem because you won't be playing those optimized characters?

In that case, haven't you all but admitted that they can result in balance issues? Especially since they require you to ignore/sidestep an issue in order to declare that it is not problematic, rather than proclaiming that it does not exist at all.

I personally think that if there are any outstanding issues with these backgrounds, it is better to point them out, so that players and DMs are in a better position to make informed decisions as to whether they wish to include them in their games, as well as the likely/possible ramifications of doing so (or not), instead of sweeping it under the carpet. It won't do anyone any good this way, IMO.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Trying to balance the entire game off of the most optimized single-dimensional character builds only makes well-rounded characters no longer viable.

Well, another problem: Remember Stalker0's analysis of skill challenges and the errata of the skill tables (pg. 42)?

Well, with additional stacking bonuses, the spread between specialised and non-trained characters becomes even more pronounced.

A non-trained character has +1/2 level + ability mod.
A trained character has +1/2 level + ability mod + 5.
A skill focused character has +1/2 level + ability mod +8.
With the right background, a focused character has +1/2 level + ability mod +11.

Assuming that a specialised character has also a higher relevant ability score, there's easily an additional +2 to +4 in there (compared to the non-trained character) - for a total difference of +13 - +15.

On a d20... that's a huge difference. The spread between trained and non-trained characters in 4E was minimised by introducing the flat +5 for trained and +3 for skill focus. Every new bonus draws us closer to the situation we had in 3E - that trained characters either auto-win or non-trained auto-lose.

The design tenet of 4E was, however, that everybody should be able to have a shot at it, otherwise you have the trained character playing, the others waiting.

The additional skill bonuses are getting us closer to exactly that.

Cheers, LT.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

So your point is that it will not pose a problem because you won't be playing those optimized characters?

No.

In that case, haven't you all but admitted that they can result in balance issues? Especially since they require you to ignore/sidestep an issue in order to declare that it is not problematic, rather than proclaiming that it does not exist at all.

No.

I personally think that if there are any outstanding issues with these backgrounds, it is better to point them out, so that players and DMs are in a better position to make informed decisions as to whether they wish to include them in their games, as well as the likely/possible ramifications of doing so (or not), instead of sweeping it under the carpet. It won't do anyone any good this way, IMO.

I never took issue with anyone pointing out an outstanding issue with any of these backgrounds. I took issue with the specific quote I responded to which broadly attacked the entire article, and gave specific examples of where that quote is in error. If someone finds something that is broken with an optimized character, and suggests fixing it in a way that doesn't penalize non-optimized characters (total bonus caps per level for example), I'll laud it as a great idea.

But the current arguments are in effect in favor of requiring choice-limiting optimization. If you can get +3 from background that stacks with your skill training and skill focus and have a CHA of 10, for a scary characters that isn't very likable or diplomatic (or is completely unassuming until he wants you to feel threatened), you'll have the same Intimidate bonus as someone that has a CHA of 16 without the background. If it isn't broken if the +3 is from CHA, it isn't broken if it comes from the background.

If a game-braking problem arises when you have a CHA of 18 and are a race that has a Skill Bonus along with Skill Training, Skill Focus and the background (and whatever else), then the solution is a cap on maximum total bonuses, or changes to the skill that breaks at a certain level (or the powers that rely upon it), rather than a limitation on stacking or reduction in the bonus that only serves to limit how you get to a high, but balanced number. i.e. Fix what is broken, not what is working (multiple ways to build an effective character). Just saying X doesn't stack with Y or reducing the bonus to Z is a lazy way out.

Note that having multiple ways of getting to the optimal, balanced number is pretty much the antithesis of what many optimizers want - to be able to say they found the "best" way with the highest number. But I'd rather have fun in the game than fun on the boards.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Do these backgrounds cost a feat to take, or are they just free? Anyone can start with one w/o any additional cost?

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course it is powercreep. You're getting something for nothing.

And of course it is a problem. Just think about when we have ten or twenty similar articles, all granting free bonuses that stack.

The most constructive way I can use to show this is to talk about the proper way of doing things like this.

Any character who wants a background like this must pay for it by giving up something else. Whether that is his or her free feat at first level, 50 gp, or by taking a permanent decrease of your highest attribute by two points I don't know.

The point is that 1) this will provide a definite baseline to compare all the backgrounds against (instead of trying to balance background A against all of backgrounds B, C, D... Z) as well as 2) it will (theoretically) preserve game balance - new monsters and adventures don't have to take into account the possibility of the PCs being given cool stuff like this, because they have paid for it by a corresponding decrease in power elsewhere.

David Noonan is flat-out wrong in that his article isn't for power-gamers. And he shows an alarming lack of insight into game balance for a designer.

Simple as that!


Z

PS. Either that, or introducing backgrounds which give no tangible in-game powers. Yes, I realize that Wizards can't do that, because the believe their customers will only buy stuff that gives them extra bonuses for their characters. But in the rest of the rpg world, that would be a real option, that would enhance roleplaying possibilities just as much, and would have avoided the thorny concepts of balance and creep altogether!

 

[Runestar]

MyISPHatesENWorld, your solution is not without its merits, but I ultimately still favour any solution which reduces the incidence of DM fiat to a minimum, or if possible, can do away with it altogether.

The issue here is not so much that the DM cannot apply the houserule you have proposed (impose a cap on how high a skill check may go at any 1 level), but that he should not have to. Do bear in mind that there may be people who subscribe to dragon but may not frequent these forums (or the one at Gleemax), and as such remain unaware of any potential problems these background traits may pose. It does not help that the article is prefaced by the designer proclaiming how insignificant these bonuses are, and his comments can be construed as an outright challenge to try and break them. And indeed, some players just might start stacking these bonuses, thinking them harmless as purported.

For every astute DM who realizes the implications of allowing these background traits, there are likely many others less experienced who do not. DnD should be designing an internally consistent ruleset which players and DMs alike can readily just pluck out of the book and use as is without having to playtest it first to find out if they are okay or problematic, rather than flooding us with a ton of options containing both useful and crappy material, and putting the onus of sieving out the good from the bad wholly on the DM's shoulders.

As such, I advocate nipping the problem in the bud. Likewise, I see no way of justifying to my players why the character who probably doesn't need an intimidate bonus gets one (the one with 10 cha in your example), while the character who would likely appreciate such a boon (ie: the 18cha dragonborn) can't get one.