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

[Panda-s1]

Maybe it's time for another thread on inspiration.

It really is a great mechanic, but .... when it's rewarded on the DM side, it just gets forgotten too often. IME.

I tried doing the whole, "Players can reward other players," but that was THE WORST. No one would do it. It was like asking someone to write their own recommendation.

I'm thinking maybe just hand it out.

I really enjoy that the traits, bonds, ect. have such a prominent place on the character sheet, and I like to give out inspiration, but I do find it hard to remember. A bigger problem with my group is that once I do give it out, they will all sit on it for ages. We reached the end of tier 1 with every player having unused inspiration, and from there on I declared that any unused inspiration is lost at the end of a story arc.

With inspiration, I've been giving it to players at end of a successful session. The traits, bonds, etc. are just used to help players craft their characters.

my DM has the solution of just letting people have more than one inspiration. he started doing this 'cause he kept giving it out when people already had one. he also used to have a restriction on how many you got, but I think he gave up on that. ironically I don't think anyone in our current game has ever had more than one inspiration at a time.

Yep. The way I frame it to my players is that you get any 2 skills, and a total of 2 between any standard languages and tool proficiencies. The backgrounds listed are just examples of thematic combinations. For Background Features, pick one from any of the example backgrounds, and for starting equipment take the equipment from the background your feature comes from.

that sounds like a real Grand Slam :U

....I'll see myself out

(do they even sell the Grand Slam anymore?)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

See, and I wonder if you have this reaction because you weren't familiar with the rule, if none of your players has exercised it (to your knowledge), or if you're just not used to expecting players to be able to do it. Because when I read the first post, I don't see this as the framing at all. I think it's very clearly framed as, "I can't believe my new players consistently don't know that custom backgrounds are presented as the normal rule and not an option or variant."

You're not surprised when a player wants to play a wood elf or a mountain dwarf or maybe even a drow elf. You're not surprised if they play a Dex fighter or a Str fighter. If they take Find Familiar and choose a spider or an owl. If they play a light cleric or a life cleric. Players are free to choose all these things, and while, yes, a DM can ban or restrict them, I don't think it's normal to do so.

Why is background customization really any different? Is my difference in reaction that I already knew about the rule and we have played that way since 2015 or so when we discovered it?

Yes, yes, sure, you might run a campaign with no warlocks, or where drow are kill on sight, or where spider familiars are seen as evil, or where there are no light deities, and the same might be true for an arbitrary background. But I don't think that's the reaction you're describing here. I think you're saying that you expect your players to treat custom backgrounds as a variant or optional rule. That your players have no reason to assume that a custom background is allowed, while, I assume, the standard backgrounds are conversely allowed without question. I guess I just don't see why.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why is background customization really any different? Is my difference in reaction that I already knew about the rule and we have played that way since 2015 or so when we discovered it?

I think part of the issue might be with the way the background section was laid out in the PHB.

If the text earlier had said creating a background instead of choosing a background, and led with the idea of you get two skills, two languages and/or tools (or vehicles), etc. and then offered the sample backgrounds (emphasizing the are just samples), that might have helped with the idea of building your own is the default and the rest are just samples.

As it stands, the customizing section at the end of the text seems more an afterthought for people who aren't happy with the backgrounds offered.

 

[MiraMels]

Also worth noting, the rules for customizing backgrounds read

choose a total of two tool proficiencies or languages from the sample backgrounds.

which is not the same as "any tool proficiency". There is exactly one tool listed in Chapter 5 that appears nowhere in the sample backgrounds, and that is the poisoner's kit.

You can not, rules-as-written, gain proficiency in the poisoner's kit from your background, custom or no.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Also worth noting, the rules for customizing backgrounds read which is not the same as "any tool proficiency". There is exactly one tool listed in Chapter 5 that appears nowhere in the sample backgrounds, and that is the poisoner's kit.

You can not, rules-as-written, gain proficiency in the poisoner's kit from your background, custom or no.

Interesting. The sidebar would indicate otherwise:

since they say Artemis would have "proficiency with the tools of thievery and poison."

Maybe Criminal original offered it and later removed it?

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Interesting. The sidebar would indicate otherwise:
View attachment 118292
since they say Artemis would have "proficiency with the tools of thievery and poison."

Maybe Criminal original offered it and later removed it?

Or maybe Miramels is pulling some blackbelt level lawyer-fu that most people would just ignore because it doesn't ultimately matter.

 

[MiraMels]

Or maybe Miramels is pulling some blackbelt level lawyer-fu that most people would just ignore because it doesn't ultimately matter.

Ah yes, the black-belt level legal technique of "reading the rules and then doing what they say".

Of course it doesn't matter, its an incredibly easy detail to over look, and your DM can easily rule otherwise if you wanted that particular proficiency. I pointed it out because it seemed in the spirit of the thread. It's a rules-wrinkle that took me years to notice. I run with it, personally, because I like the story the rules are telling—that only Assassins and characters who go out of their way to gain that proficiency via downtime or feats are the ones who know how to handle and craft poisons.

 

[Umbran]

See, and I wonder if you have this reaction because you weren't familiar with the rule

I've been playing an Artificer with a customized Spy background for a couple of months, and I helped my wife put together a background for her character for the same game.

So, I'm pretty sure I'm familiar with the rule, thanks.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*