D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[James Gasik]

There are ten mechanical benefits to backgrounds right now. But nearly zero connect to the combat pillar so most people seem to ignore them.

Embracing the Mechanics of Backgrounds

When you embrace the mechanics of 5th edition Backgrounds you expand the variety of stories that can be told at your table.

fullmoonstorytelling.com

They don't even need to have combat utility. Like, if an Outlaw was stated to get advantage on Charisma checks made to interact with other criminal and shady types, there's no quibbling about what it does- the only question is, will it matter?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

One grants an obvious benefit that is not as easily subject to interpretation. If you have more hit points, you have more hit points.

The other says "it's possible, based on this ability, for it to matter a lot. But because there's no stated mechanical benefit, like advantage on Charisma checks when dealing with nobles or peasants, it's up to the DM's interpretation, and it might be meaningless."

but BOTH are mechanical benfits...one just needs more work with you and your DM

 

[James Gasik]

but BOTH are mechanical benfits...one just needs more work with you and your DM

Am I using the wrong term? I think "mechanical benefits" as something that has a clear impact on the rules of the game. Like, for example, the ability to scrounge for food if circumstances allow for it, as opposed to just magically creating food and drink with a spell.

 

[overgeeked]

Vs. 18 spent on the entire equipment chapter? But I digress.

Well, what equipment does is mostly solidly defined, so...

The beautiful part here is, so what if Backgrounds grant Feats? The DM can still make their rulings and say "no Feats 4 U". Just as they can allow or disallow them now.

Well, you've got it backwards. Feats are optional. The DM chooses to allow them.

Power creep only exists if the players allow it to.

LOL. What? The players don't design the game. The designers do. Power creep is in the hands of the designers. In the nearly 40 years I've played D&D I have yet to meet a single player to looks at a +1 vs a +2 and picks the +1. Players want more power.

What's the rebuttal to that?

To what? You haven't made an argument to rebut.

Players crying about their "expectations"? Can't see how that's any different from wanting their choice of Background to matter. More work on the part of the DM to figure out what to allow or exclude? We already have that all over the place in the system.

Well, yeah. That's how the game works. The players make their characters and the DM runs the game.

 

[overgeeked]

Am I using the wrong term? I think "mechanical benefits" as something that has a clear impact on the rules of the game. Like, for example, the ability to scrounge for food if circumstances allow for it, as opposed to just magically creating food and drink with a spell.

I'd say yes. Mechanics are generally the things set in specific numbers, +1 to attack is mechanics. You can scrounge food if circumstances allow is something up to the DM to interpret, so not mechanics. That's why most people call the background features "ribbon abilities". They're ribbons added to the present...for decoration...but aren't much use.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, what equipment does is mostly solidly defined, so...

Well, you've got it backwards. Feats are optional. The DM chooses to allow them.

LOL. What? The players don't design the game. The designers do. Power creep is in the hands of the designers. In the nearly 40 years I've played D&D I have yet to meet a single player to looks at a +1 vs a +2 and picks the +1. Players want more power.

To what? You haven't made an argument to rebut.

Well, yeah. That's how the game works. The players make their characters and the DM runs the game.

I include the DM and the people who run the characters as "players" as they are all playing a game, just assuming different roles.

What difference does "optional" mean? You can ignore core elements of the game if you choose, can't you?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Am I using the wrong term? I think "mechanical benefits" as something that has a clear impact on the rules of the game. Like, for example, the ability to scrounge for food if circumstances allow for it, as opposed to just magically creating food and drink with a spell.

I don't understand the difference between the two.

If I have a feature that says: You can forage for food for yourself and up to 10 other people.
and you have one that says: You can magically create food for yourself and up to 10 other people

those are 99% of the time the same thing. Just different fluff. if A DM puts us in a dead magic zone and yours doesn't work but mine does, or in a weird no food area where yours works but mine doesn't, that is all DM faint, and I would not expect either to be common

 

[James Gasik]

I'd say yes. Mechanics are generally the things set in specific numbers, +1 to attack is mechanics. You can scrounge food if circumstances allow is something up to the DM to interpret, so not mechanics. That's why most people call the background features "ribbon abilities". They're ribbons added to the present...for decoration...but aren't much use.

Maybe they weren't meant to be ribbons? Or maybe the current design team isn't happy with ribbon abilities?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd say yes. Mechanics are generally the things set in specific numbers, +1 to attack is mechanics. You can scrounge food if circumstances allow is something up to the DM to interpret, so not mechanics. That's why most people call the background features "ribbon abilities". They're ribbons added to the present...for decoration...but aren't much use.

i would think "I magically create food" and "I scrounge for food" are BOTH ribbon abilities but both interact with mechanics

 

[James Gasik]

I don't understand the difference between the two.

If I have a feature that says: You can forage for food for yourself and up to 10 other people.
and you have one that says: You can magically create food for yourself and up to 10 other people

those are 99% of the time the same thing. Just different fluff. if A DM puts us in a dead magic zone and yours doesn't work but mine does, or in a weird no food area where yours works but mine doesn't, that is all DM faint, and I would not expect either to be common

I've noticed a bias towards allowing magic to work when mundane approaches do not over the years. But obviously that doesn't apply to every DM or playgroup.

 

[overgeeked]

I include the DM and the people who run the characters as "players" as they are all playing a game, just assuming different roles.

Ah. See, that's a disconnect then. The players are the players, they control the player characters. The DM is the DM, they control everything else. The DM isn't a player in the same sense as the others. They're all playing a game together, yes. But player means a thing. Something that the DM doesn't do.

What difference does "optional" mean? You can ignore core elements of the game if you choose, can't you?

Well, if something is optional it's not pare of the core game. Flanking is optional, the designers don't assume it'll be used. Likewise, feats and multiclassing are optional, the designers don't assume it'll be used. Race and class are not optional, they're core elements of the game, the designers assume they'll be used.

 

[overgeeked]

i would think "I magically create food" and "I scrounge for food" are BOTH ribbon abilities but both interact with mechanics

The distinction being burning a spell slot to create the food. That's mechanical. You're paying a cost that's generally not open to DM interpretation.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe they weren't meant to be ribbons? Or maybe the current design team isn't happy with ribbon abilities?

the thing is some of them are already better ribbons then others... some backgrounds let you know people everywhere, others give you places to stay, others give you 3 hirelings, and others still give you some secrete insight into the world (and those are off the top of my head_

 

[Maxperson]

1) it means I may need more thne 3 hour sleep in last 48 hours...

what I mean is how is picking alert or toughness for a homemade background diffrent then choosing position of privilege or some other feature?

I don't think it is, other than perhaps being less fun. I just made a character with the Hermit background for a PbP game starting here, because it fit my concept. After I picked it was reading it through, I saw the feature that gave me some secret of the universe. That's fantastic, even if it's "The gods had green eggs and ham for the first breakfast." Much more fun than Alert or Toughness.

My point, though, was that you don't need to pick a background simply for the mechanics of what skills, tools, etc. it gives you. If I want a Monk whose concept is "Enforcer for the local thieves' guild," I'm not going to want the criminal background. I'm going to want to make up a Mafia background that gives me Persuasion and Intimidation, since that meets the vision I have for my character. A criminal who makes sure that the people being "protected" pay up.

Edit: Also, get some sleep!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've noticed a bias towards allowing magic to work when mundane approaches do not over the years. But obviously that doesn't apply to every DM or playgroup.

I see that as a DM bias though not a system bias.

I find it funny because some people say 'only magic can heal' but then say second wind doesn't count... and healing kits don't count

 

[James Gasik]

Ah. See, that's a disconnect then. The players are the players, they control the player characters. The DM is the DM, they control everything else. The DM isn't a player in the same sense as the others. They're all playing a game together, yes. But player means a thing. Something that the DM doesn't do.

Well, if something is optional it's not pare of the core game. Flanking is optional, the designers don't assume it'll be used. Likewise, feats and multiclassing are optional, the designers don't assume it'll be used. Race and class are not optional, they're core elements of the game, the designers assume they'll be used.

Yeah but just because Gnomes exist doesn't mean you have to use them.

 

[overgeeked]

I see that as a DM bias though not a system bias.

I find it funny because some people say 'only magic can heal' but then say second wind doesn't count... and healing kits don't count

Or rolling hit dice during a short rest...or full regeneration after a long rest.

 

[James Gasik]

I see that as a DM bias though not a system bias.

I find it funny because some people say 'only magic can heal' but then say second wind doesn't count... and healing kits don't count

Oh man, I recently had that argument with another poster when talking about Warlords. It got to the point that even when I found examples of a non-caster being able to heal allies (The Banneret), they just said "well I don't use that subclass, and they can't revive dying characters anyways, so obviously it's not the same".

 

[overgeeked]

Yeah but just because Gnomes exist doesn't mean you have to use them.

The category of race exists and it's a core element of the game. The designers assume you will pick a race as a matter of course, not that you will pick a specific race. That seems rather obvious, but sure...why not.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The distinction being burning a spell slot to create the food. That's mechanical. You're paying a cost that's generally not open to DM interpretation.

I don't know why it matters if it is a slot, but lets say it is an at will cantrip... does that change it?