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

[Umbran]

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

Not quite correct. The rules also say, "If a character would gain the same proficiency from two different sources, he or she can choose a different proficiency of the same kind (skill or tool) instead."

This option is not limited to "tools found in another background".

So, if you are a rogue and take the Criminal background, both of which give you proficiency with thieves' tools, you can then take the Poisoner's Kit for your background instead.

 

[Panda-s1]

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:
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?

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.

man this seems like the sort of thing they'd try to errata or at least clarify, and by the sounds of it no one's ever really bothered to ask WotC about it.

is anyone willing to do that? does anyone even know how?

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.

I mean, I was fishing for a better explanation than what had been given, not snark.

 

[ccs]

man this seems like the sort of thing they'd try to errata or at least clarify, and by the sounds of it no one's ever really bothered to ask WotC about it.

is anyone willing to do that? does anyone even know how?

It's not terribly hard to contact Wizards/Mearls/etc. So yeah, people know how.

But is it really worth it? Afterall, if it's an issue, your groups could just solve it for yourselves.

 

[Umbran]

I mean, I was fishing for a better explanation than what had been given, not snark.

Two hints:

1) Don't "fish" for things - that's passive-aggressive.

2) Don't start with the premise, "To disagree with me, my opponents are likely ignorant." It is only a half-step off from, "My opponent must be crazy or stupid," and is effectively ad hominem - it is based on the person arguing, rather than the content of the argument. In addition, is assumes the correctness of your position, rather than establishes it through evidence or reason.

 

[HarbingerX]

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?

I'd guess that's an error and it did originally have thievery and poisoner but then they swapped poison out for a gaming kit when they made assassin get poison as a class ability.

 

[Panda-s1]

It's not terribly hard to contact Wizards/Mearls/etc. So yeah, people know how.

But is it really worth it? Afterall, if it's an issue, your groups could just solve it for yourselves.

every issue is an issue a group can solve themselves, that's not the point

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Salthorae]

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.

That's not what the rules are telling you. That's how you're interpreting them though, which is fine.

The rules say you can create a background with any two languages/tool proficiencies. I can think up a number of backgrounds that would align with training in poisons before becoming an adventurer.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Two hints:

1) Don't "fish" for things - that's passive-aggressive.

2) Don't start with the premise, "To disagree with me, my opponents are likely ignorant." It is only a half-step off from, "My opponent must be crazy or stupid," and is effectively ad hominem - it is based on the person arguing, rather than the content of the argument. In addition, is assumes the correctness of your position, rather than establishes it through evidence or reason.

Can you please not read my posts in the least favorable light possible? If you really don't like the questions I'm asking, why not just ignore my questions? Why bother calling me passive aggressive and accusing me of making personal attacks?

I know nothing about your games. I have no way to know if you knew about this rule. My point is that your response to OP's post here is alien to me:

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.

Let me rephrase: Your reading is so far off from my reading that I would like to understand how you arrived at that interpretation, and I was asking for why that's your interpretation of both OP's post and the custom background rule. In my mind, your second paragraph is not significantly different than OP's post. I just don't see it and I am confused.

Yes, one way I could imagine having this reaction would be to have no knowledge that the rule exists and suddenly stumbling across this post telling people that it's ridiculous that people don't know that this is how the rules read. I do not think that about you or your game, but I do think that a DM who wasn't aware of the rule might react this way to being told that it's RAW. That's why I specifically asked why the way I did:

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?

No, I'm not trying to say that you must be reacting that way because you're stupid and I know everything. I'm saying that I don't understand the resistance to this rule and I don't understand this reading of the first post.

From my view, I've asked you for an explanation and you've responded, in so many words, "Stop attacking me."

If I've offended you, then I apologize. I am not attacking you. It feels to me like you're twisting my words. Do you think I'm sea lioning? That I'm trying to say you must be stupid? I am doing neither. I genuinely do not understand.