[Playtest 2] Background names and flavor seem wrong

[variant]

Just looking over the backgrounds, most of them seem off. Commoner and Noble fit as they attest someone's actual background. However, the rest simply don't fit as they seem more like Specializations.

Some suggestions on changes I would make would be Priest becoming Priest Acolyte, Thief becoming Street Rat, Knight becoming Knight's Squire, and Artisan becoming Artisan's Apprentice.

 

[TrippyHippy]

My major question is how cross pollinating they are in relation to the different Classes. Could you have a Wizard Thug, or a Rogue Priest for example?

 

[variant]

My major question is how cross pollinating they are in relation to the different Classes. Could you have a Wizard Thug, or a Rogue Priest for example?

Which is a symptom of the issue. You could, however, have a Street Rat that became a Wizard or a Priest Acolyte that became a Rogue.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I agree some of the names could be changed.

Priest -> Devotee
Thief -> Guttersnipe
Knight -> Squire

I'm ok with Artisan though.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I like the names the way they are. *shrug*

 

[variant]

I agree some of the names could be changed.

Priest -> Devotee
Thief -> Guttersnipe
Knight -> Squire

I'm ok with Artisan though.

These might be better.

 

[DogBackward]

Some characters may not be fresh out of childhood. You can be a Knight for a long, long time before you take up the mantle of adventurer. Or, y'know... you could just be reading too much into the word "Background". If you're really worried about people getting confused... since we have Specializations now, we could just call Backgrounds Themes.

 

[variant]

Some characters may not be fresh out of childhood. You can be a Knight for a long, long time before you take up the mantle of adventurer. Or, y'know... you could just be reading too much into the word "Background". If you're really worried about people getting confused... since we have Specializations now, we could just call Backgrounds Themes.

It takes a lot of training and experience to obtain knighthood. A knight would have levels. A background is something you should be prior to obtaining levels. Otherwise it's not a background.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It takes a lot of training and experience to obtain knighthood. A knight would have levels. A background is something you should be prior to obtaining levels. Otherwise it's not a background.

A knight would not necessarily have levels, because 'levels' are an artificial game construct meant to imply how much 'adventuring' a character has done in the game. Which is why lords and kings and high priests and whatnot are not always given 'levels' in certain game settings.

If you don't like the term 'knight' because of what it implies for how you see a newly adventuring character, that's one thing... but there are no rules within the game about what non-adventuring characters or NPCs have to have in terms of 'classes' or 'levels' (if any). That is purely up to the DM and who he needs stats for.

 

[variant]

A knight would not necessarily have levels, because 'levels' are an artificial game construct meant to imply how much 'adventuring' a character has done in the game. Which is why lords and kings and high priests and whatnot are not always given 'levels' in certain game settings.

If you don't like the term 'knight' because of what it implies for how you see a newly adventuring character, that's one thing... but there are no rules within the game about what non-adventuring characters or NPCs have to have in terms of 'classes' or 'levels' (if any). That is purely up to the DM and who he needs stats for.

Not in any D&D setting that has ever been published with the Dungeons & Dragons logo.