Characters of War up at Wizards

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In a better world, backgrounds would have been part of the character creation rules in the core rules (just like the old Regional feats or the Savage Tide adventure path background feats should have been part of the core rules in the first place). Well, Iron Heroes got that one right.

Being as things are, I agree that the extra skill bonus are not a good idea, and they should work differently. My favorite would be to make these bonuses like racial bonuses or feat bonuses, so they don't stack with skill-boosting feats or racial abilities. This should keep the original modifier span of 4E intact, and still gives a few neat abilities.

 

[Runestar]

Also, another gripe I have with these backgrounds is that they may actually discourage "creativity".

As pointed out earlier, the backgrounds appear to offer the least benefits to those who should qualify for them the most readily. Likewise, depending on your character build, one particular background will always be superior to the rest, because of the mechanical benefits it grants.

Tell me people won't be thinking "Why the crap I am short-changing myself with this background when I could be getting more mileage out of another one", when in reality, they ought to be indifferent between them?

In short, these backgrounds don't seem to be accomplishing what they ought to do, while doing everything they shouldn't be capable of. It is just poor design overall, IMO.

 

[Ginnel]

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.

Absolutely spot on LT, this is why I will be vetting everything for the player characters coming from Dungeon or Dragon twice, same also applies to any 3rd party products.

Take the mechanical benefits away from these backgrounds and they'd be A-Ok

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

That doesn't actually work: high numbers getting higher are still a problem, even if some other number gets lower.

Why? Because once a number passes below a certain degree, it's either as bad as it can get (ie - who cares if I take another -10 to my ac when everything automatically hits me anyway!) OR it never gets used (take -10 to my melee attack rolls? Fine, I'll just stick with ranged).

Up to a certain point, tradeoffs are part of what makes the game fun. Your character plays differently based on what choices you make in creation. Willy nilly adding more of them after the game system has been completed and balanced is just asking for it to break.

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.

Except that the guy with 16 cha is paying a price for being good at intimidate that isn't paid by the guy with the background. Instead, mr "I've got a 10 cha" can pick up something else at 16 instead. He's got his intimidate for social situations, PLUS whatever else he picks up.

Incidentally, the roleplayer could simply make the 16 cha character and then play him as unlikeable and undiplomatic, or specify that he's being unassuming. It's not like a high charisma automatically means that everyone likes your character.

Limiting what mechanics lead to an optimal result is not necesarily a bad thing. It simplifies balancing the game and reduces the complexity of character generation. It also doesn't limit roleplaying: mechanics limit and enable storytelling - they don't force it.

Linking character creation mechanics to backstory is, however, a terrible thing. Suddenly people have to make story fit their build, or end up being penalised for not doing so. Suddenly no longer can they be a human swordsmith (sole benefit: being able to describe purchasing weapons as forging them...), because for some reason the only swordsmiths are dwarves. The rules say so. If they DO decide to be a dwarf swordsmith, because that swordsmith bit is important to them, they're missing out on some other +x bonus. They may not care, but they're still being penalised for roleplaying.

 

[Runestar]

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.

I can still see room for optimization, by basically taking hits on stats which don't matter to you anyways, while continuing to boost those stats which do. For example, if a rule were to allow me to take an -X penalty on one skill to augment another skill by X, I would just penalize a skill I know I will never be using, while improving a skill I know I will be relying on frequently. And if I know that said skill check is so poor that I will never ever succeed on it, then might as well lower it all the way. The end result is more lop-sided builds, which excel in one area really well while stinking at another really bad.

This was the case with flaws in 3e, which basically boiled down to 2 free (virtually) feats for everyone, because players were cherry-picking drawbacks which had little/no impact on their characters' core competencies.

Granted, it is not as good as getting a bonus for free, but done properly, any drawbacks can be mitigated until it is almost negligible. Heck, it may even be possible to turn a supposed disadvantage into a strength somehow (like M:TG).

It would appear that wotc has yet to fully comprehend the real shortcomings of 3e...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

M
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!

Not necessarily. Exception based design can also mean that there is more than one way to achieve the same effect. Take the Dwarven Weapen Talent feat and Weapon Focus, for example, or the multiclass feats and skill training.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Not necessarily. Exception based design can also mean that there is more than one way to achieve the same effect. Take the Dwarven Weapen Talent feat and Weapon Focus, for example, or the multiclass feats and skill training.

Currently any sensible DM will say "Well, you've written in your background that you're a blacksmith, you're in a major city and you want to make a suit of platemail. Pay me the base price of a suit of platemail and enjoy roleplaying out that you made it yourself".

Adding in a mechanic that says that characters who have the warsmith background are allowed to do that infers that normally other characters are not. At best, the addition of this rules text is redundant, stupid and confusing, and likely to cause arguments and disruptions. At worst it's intended, and Mr. Noonan really doesn't think that players should be allowed to roleplay without paying a mechanical cost to do so.

I really think this sort of garbage should be nipped in the bud, or we're going to end up with that 3.5 ed feat that allowed you to use bluff and sense motive to lie to someone and notice their reaction to the lie.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I can still see room for optimization, by basically taking hits on stats which don't matter to you anyways, while continuing to boost those stats which do. For example, if a rule were to allow me to take an -X penalty on one skill to augment another skill by X, I would just penalize a skill I know I will never be using, while improving a skill I know I will be relying on frequently. And if I know that said skill check is so poor that I will never ever succeed on it, then might as well lower it all the way. The end result is more lop-sided builds, which excel in one area really well while stinking at another really bad.

This was the case with flaws in 3e, which basically boiled down to 2 free (virtually) feats for everyone, because players were cherry-picking drawbacks which had little/no impact on their characters' core competencies.

Granted, it is not as good as getting a bonus for free, but done properly, any drawbacks can be mitigated until it is almost negligible. Heck, it may even be possible to turn a supposed disadvantage into a strength somehow (like M:TG).

It would appear that wotc has yet to fully comprehend the real shortcomings of 3e...

Well, backgrounds are not like the UA flaws. Let's hope they don't make that mistake again...

The only flaw system that is really fair is a system that only rewards you when the flaw comes into play in a meaningful way.
Don't hand out 10 build points or a feat (or whatever "currency" is used) for a character with hydrophobia. Give him an action point or XP if he encounters a (relevant) situation after he has encountered a situation where it matters.

Other flaws are okay if they come into play the moment you use a benefit you payed off with them. The superhero powers of Torg for Nile Empire/Tera characters had to be payed with an adventure cost measured in possibilities. (Think Hit Points, Action Points and XP in one). If you applied a flaw to your power (like, say - you needed to wait one round and make a check to activate your force field power), you reduced the adventure cost.
It also used the other flaw system. For example, you could create a flaw for your character like "unable to use violence against women/stymied when dealing with women". If you never encountered a women you needed to fight, nothing happens. If you end up in a conflict with them, you faced some penalties and add the end of the encounter gained a few possibilities. (If you survived )

I think the closest approach in 4E would be to reward such scenes with action points or bonus XP. (though I am leaning to the former.)

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

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.

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.

I'm not suggesting DM fiat or a house rule, any more than the people suggesting that this article be retconned out of existence or nerfbatted to irrelevance before the final copy is published in the complete magazine are suggesting a house rule. I'm suggesting the article and future articles like it be used to provide more options for creating a character, and if something breaks on the back end, they fix what breaks on the back end, not stop providing options.

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.

"Think about the children!"

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.

These are harmless, I'm going to stack them all? So dump an entire article becuase someone "just might" start stacking these bonuses.

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.

Despite allegations to the contrary, I consider myself, and the DMs I play with to be astute and experienced DMs. One of them is allowing the players to retcon our choice of these onto our existing characters, adjusting the fluff if we want, and I'll be allowing the same (it hasn't come up yet with the other). And the inexperienced DMs I've played with in the past have picked up on real problems quickly enough that I know that the, "Think about the children!" reasoning doesn't hold up.

Posts claiming that this entire article is broken and unbalanced seem to indicate that individual DMs and WotC do a far finer job of sieving out the good from the bad.

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.

I also advocate nipping the problem itself in the bud. But these backgrounds or untyped bonuses attached to them (or possibly soon to be typed "background bonuses" or whatever) themselves aren't a problem. There need to be more ways to achieve viable, good and optimal skill proficiency and backgrounds and untyped or newly typed bonuses provide that. The "potential problems" to use your term, are with how some high things might stack, not what things stack.

The player with a 10 in CHA and trained in Intimidate (such as a fighter or a 12 CHA Dragonborn fighter) does need the bonus, specifically, he needs it more than the 18 CHA Dragonborn (say a Warlord) whose bonus, as he is "optimized" is already, um, optimal. But, since I'm not advocating a house rule, you wouldn't need to justify it.

As an aside, I think sooner or later, people are going to have to face up to the fact that shifting to 4e because they didn't like all the splatbooks in 3.5 was a pretty crappy plan.

You can only write once, "Pick two skills and add them to your class list or pick one skill and add it to your class list and pick a language." And that doesn't fill up much of your writing quota, or make the background in any way useful for anyone that has a class related to their background.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The "potential problems" to use your term, are with how some high things might stack, not what things stack.

The more things that can stack, the higher they stack.

The player with a 10 in CHA and trained in Intimidate (such as a fighter or a 12 CHA Dragonborn fighter) does need the bonus, specifically, he needs it more than the 18 CHA Dragonborn (say a Warlord) whose bonus, as he is "optimized" is already, um, optimal. But, since I'm not advocating a house rule, you wouldn't need to justify it.

The dragonborn fighter is "optimized" already. He's optimized to be good at thumping people. The warlord is optimized to be good at social skills. Why should the fighter be good at social skills as well as his thumping skills?