D&D 5E Customizing Backgrounds Core Rule - Public Service Announcement

[Charlaquin]

This. If this thread was "PSA: Humans are core" people would be like "Yeah, and...?" But since it is something that seems like it should be a variant, people are responding with the equivalent of "So you are trying to sneak/force a standard human character into your game without specifically asking your DM if humans exist in their setting?"

To be fair, it is within the DM’s prerogative to decide that humans don’t exist in their setting. The DM should probably tell the players so before they start making their characters, and likewise DMs who don’t want to allow background customization should tell that to the players before character creation. But yeah, even “core” rules elements are subject to DM veto.

 

[CleverNickName]

Until today, it had never occurred to me that character Backgrounds could be so contentious. Certainly not to the point of needing "glowing text and...a beckoning melody." Why is it preferable to choose a background from a list, or preferable to create your own? Both seem like good ways to do it. Either way, you're going to need to check with your DM to get your character inserted into the setting and the story.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, under this situation, you technically still need the DM's permission. They still get to review your character. But you technically need the DM's permission to do everything.

You can't play a human without the DM's permission.
You can't play a fighter without the DM's permission.
You can't roll a single die without the DM's permission.
You can't play D&D without the DM's permission.

They're the referee. That's what that means.

"But you need permission," is just not a meaningful counter argument.

I can't quite agree for the very examples you've given and it goes back to my post (#2) on the first page. In your post, as DM, I could tell you no humans, no fighters, don't roll initiative or make a check until I ask you to roll, and even get the hell out of my house you aren't playing because you are late. Granted, I'd be a prick of a DM for it, but it is within the DM's purview.

Now, I completely agree for a good DM, all of this should be covered from the beginning, preferably before a lot of time was put into the character.

According to RAW, you don't need the DM's permission to customize your own background. It's the one thing in the entire game where you could (theoretically) show up with any combination of proficiencies and powers that you want, and the DM is supposed to just take it. Because that one section of rules is poorly written, and inconsistent with everything else in the book.

It's one of those cases where the RAW really should be ignored, and the rules for inventing your own Backgrounds should be put right next to the rules for inventing your own spells and feats, with the intention that they actually be used.

Yes, you do because you need the DM's permission for everything. The vast majority of the time the DM will say (most) everything goes, so it isn't an issue. For this, it shouldn't be either IMO but like when checking for races allowed or other things, I don't think it is unreasonable for the player to check, "I have an idea for a custom background, is that okay?"

 

[Phazonfish]

To be fair, it is within the DM’s prerogative to decide that humans don’t exist in their setting. The DM should probably tell the players so before they start making their characters, and likewise DMs who don’t want to allow background customization should tell that to the players before character creation. But yeah, even “core” rules elements are subject to DM veto.

Absolutely. But the point is that the DM's right to veto what they want goes without saying.

Not exactly.

First, it's in the rules. I don't think this particularly needs a PSA, any more than "Hey, you can play as a human" does. But then again, we've been playing with custom backgrounds since the beginning, and I guess I should not be shocked, at this point, that people fail to RTFM. Even five years in. ¯\(ツ)/¯


The pushback in this thread, IMO, started because of the usual divide between those who insist something must be in the game, and those who believe that the RAW are just a starting point for the table to play. It's kind of a divide that happens fairly often.

Again, I have yet to play a game of D&D where I haven't discussed my character with other people before starting play, so this whole, "You get to do what you want, and no one, I MEAN NO ONE INCLUDING THE DM CAN STOP YOU" is really foreign to me. YMMV.

I agree with you on just about everything here. I'm happy you posted this though, because it helped me find the phrasing I was looking for. I suppose what is baffling me here is that people here have been suggesting that "custom backgrounds are allowed" is not a safe starting place even though they are RAW and you should assume they are not allowed until you have explicit permission.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I have yet to play a game of D&D where I haven't discussed my character with other people before starting play, so this whole, "You get to do what you want, and no one, I MEAN NO ONE INCLUDING THE DM CAN STOP YOU" is really foreign to me. YMMV.

Pretty much this. The positioning of the OP gave me that "no one can stop you" vibe, which I just have a problem with in the context of cooperative play.

If it had been presented as, "Hey, can't get quite what you are looking for? Remember that, within the rules, you might be able to modify a background to get what you need! Talk to your GM about it!" and the whole discussion becomes different.

Framing matters.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Weiley31]

They look like they are pretty good at brewing up troubles with those skills and features though!

I agree with the OP though. Some DM's seem very put out by the very concept of NOT selecting one of the pre-written Backgrounds and resistant to customized backgrounds despite this very core rule.

I'm not saying "make it up and try to force a DM to let you do it because RULE", I'm saying, you can by the rules easily do it. It's right there in the rules, so I don't understand why some DM's I've seen/played with are SO resistant to the idea.

Same with duplicative features. If you get the same skill/tool from race/class/background you can choose ANY to get at that point. Some DM's are very resistant to that as well. Seem odd to me.

I honestly can see a DND Brewer character having high CHA.

Male DM: Suddenly, the evil Lich Lord Argosax interrupts your Town Square Tavern Party

Argosax: You fools, your mistake was gathering all in one spot. Now suffer my wra-

Dwarven Brewer: Shut up and drink!!! Rolls Persuade check

Argosax: But I don't want to drink, I WANT TO BE EVI-Brewer scores a Nat 20 roll plus CHA modifier

Everybody as Argosax starts downing the WHOLE keg: CHUG CHUG CHUG CHUG!!!


Male DM: This is why I stopped playing with you guys.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Now, a funny thing to me in all this, is our group has only been playing for about a year and a half, and maybe 20 PCs in that time, and every time we have simply used a background already in the books. No customization needed.

 

[Mark Finn]

I play with a lot of new players and so the backgrounds as written are a great framework for them, as there's an awful lot to process during character creation and session zero. Sometimes having those clearly-defined backstories are a good thing. And the backgrounds I've written up for my world follow that same model.

But for me, as a DM, I think they are one of the best things about 5th edition; they anchor the player character to the world, and give the DM hooks to use to drag the character into the overarching story. This is, I think, essential to the experience of playing great D&D and a simple mechanic to help both players and DMs utilize that is a good thing.

That said, I can't imagine a scenario where one of my players came to me and wanted to swap out Nature for Medicine or Artisan's Tools for Vehicles (Land) that I wouldn't, after listening to the reason, say, "Sure, go ahead, that makes sense." But that's the culture I've established at my table; I encourage them to be collaborators.