NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 4452809" data-attributes="member: 5890">The mechanics presented are "take this background, gain these nifty (or not so nifty) bonuses". The article is explicitly tying fluff to mechanic. Your argument here sounds suspiciously like an Oberoni fallacy: just because you can change the rules, doesn't stop them from being bad.The channeling feats are being enabled by your choice of backstory, not proscribed. Further there is a plethora of alternatives that are all well balanced.Other people have already pointed out that the biggest mechanical benefit to be gained from these backgrounds comes from choosing a background that goes against type. Gaining a martial weapon proficiency, for example, is useless for a fighter.He specifically dared people to find the mechanical advantage in an article that was entirely about mechanics. He knows that powergaming exists, and seems to be determined to not learn anything about it. That's pretty much the definition of wilfully ignorant.It has a benefit that is mechanically superior to a feat (because a feat gives a 'feat' bonus). Meanwhile in the same article, there is a background that is significantly weaker than a feat (it's about a quarter of a feat, if that). The tradeoff for having one is that you don't have the other.This is unbalanced, no two ways about it.For a good long while, I've been reading rulebooks and subsequently guessing that his name would be on the list of credits because of the poor quality of certain mechanics, and in very certain ways. He's been making the same mistake repeatedly for a long time, handing out significant mechanical benefits for roleplaying choices (not for good roleplaying - simply for deciding to follow a certain story), and I'm not the only person who's complained about them in the past.You're making an incorrect assumption in your determination of balance: you're assuming that by choosing this with his 'only background benefit', he's actually missing out on something.Mechanical benefits have mechanical costs. Roleplaying is free. There is no mechanical benefit to the player claiming that his character located the ore, mined it, refined it, forged it and then crafted it if he's still paying full price for it. It's exactly the same as the wizard choosing to cast "force doves" instead of "magic missile": a change of flavour and nothing more.Do your players often deliberately roleplay in such a way as to run contrary to the story they've been writing for themselves?And no, of course it doesn't become less important. Incidentally, the crafter can be a contributer to someone who DOES have ritual casting's item creation ritual... or whatever.Ah, slightly more useful then. Forgive me for my oversight.Still significantly less powerful than a feat.Yup, and that's why people don't take them.If, on the other hand, you described your character as slightly bookish and the DM forced you to take skill focus: history as your 1st level feat, you'd be getting screwed. That's what these backgrounds do.</blockquote>

Verification