Example 1: A character selects Background (gambler) as his background feat. I would consider the character trained in all things gambling. If ever the character needed to make a Gambling skill check then it would work just like any normal 4E skill check.
Example 2: A character selects Background (farmer) as his background feat. I would consider the character trained in all things farming. I might give the character a bonus on Diplomacy checks when talking with farmers, or not.
Example 3: A character selects Background (sailer) as his background feat. I would consider the character trained at sailing. I might give the character a bonus on Nature checks for navigating and things related to water. Or if generous I could give the character a bonus on Diplomacy checks when talking with sailors. Or I could give no bonus and leave it as a roleplaying and development tool for the game.
Either way, it gives players an opportunity to define an interest or character concept to their characters without introducing a mechanic that has very little or no benefit to the game.
Thoughts? Ways to improve this concept? Etc.
Another nice thing is if a player has a background idea but hasn't/can't come up with a feat idea, they can work with the DM to come up with something.
Overall I like it, I'll probably steal this for use in my games
Sounds like a supped-up skill focus. What's the rank adjustment of it?
I would just consider the character "trained" in the particular profession, craft, or hobby. I would also implement the Skill Challenges whenever the skill comes up in play. Everything else would be ad hoc. I do not see any compelling reason to develop it in any detail. I am intending it to be used as background filler for the players. It should have very little, if any, mechanic benefit but it will have a great deal of benefit in developing plot hooks and getting players more involved and interested in their characters and the game.
I'll be using it in all of my games... except that I won't be installing any new mechanics at all, and won't make it mandatory to take one.
Oh, wait... guess that means I'll just be using a brief character description and some actual role-playing to signify things like "was a farmer" or "likes to gamble"
what's next, suggesting that we design personality feats that people can pick out 3 to 5 of so that there is a system attached to someone saying "my character is an easy going guy, and loves to drink so much that he dabbles in brewing his own alcohols from unique things like distilled gelatinous cube"?
what's next, suggesting that we design personality feats that people can pick out 3 to 5 of so that there is a system attached to someone saying "my character is an easy going guy, and loves to drink so much that he dabbles in brewing his own alcohols from unique things like distilled gelatinous cube"?
I think the point here was that there was previously a game mechanic to handle "fluff"/background skills, and now there is not. While you are obviously comfortable living without a mechanic, some of us are wanting some kind of stopgap solution analogous to the "secondary skills" of 1st/2nd ed. AD&D.
I like the OP's idea. As my first 4e character (in development, natch ;) )comes from a sailing background, I just want to be able to sail, navigate, and maintain a ship. This sounds like a Wisdom-based skill to me.
I think the point here was that there was previously a game mechanic to handle "fluff"/background skills, and now there is not. While you are obviously comfortable living without a mechanic, some of us are wanting some kind of stopgap solution analogous to the "secondary skills" of 1st/2nd ed. AD&D.
I like the OP's idea. As my first 4e character (in development, natch ;) )comes from a sailing background, I just want to be able to sail, navigate, and maintain a ship. This sounds like a Wisdom-based skill to me.
Well... I guess i just feel like fluff" for the character should be chosen in a more free-form type of way. Let me try and give an example here.
Example 1: (example of what I don't like)
Player: "I would like to have a seafaring background to my character. He grew up in an archipelago dwelling community so he spent so much time on various ships that navigating the waters is as easy as breathing to him"
DM: "then you want to take this background feat that I made up and use it on Sailor so that there is a mechanical representation of what you just told me, which may or may not result in me asking you to roll dice"
Example 2: (example of what I hate)
Player states same thing as above
DM: "then you are going to have to be worse at stuff in general so that we can quantify exactly how good you are at sailing, which may or may not result in me asking you to roll dice"
Example 3: (example of what I like)
player states same thing as above
DM: "Good. We aren't going to make anything up that will require a new skill or feat for that, so let's say it is as easy as breathing so it goes unrolled and mechanically non-present. Keep in mind that acrobatics for balance, athletics for climbing rigging, endurance for running a ship under-crewed, nature for navigating, diplomacy or intimidate for commanding a crew and perception for being a look-out basically covers all things I can think of you possibly doing on a ship... so you might want to pick out which ones you are good at and train in those skills"
no new skill just to exist even though it doesn't do anything I can't easily and logically assign to an existing skill
no new feat to cover anything (at the expense of a "real" feat or not)
no new mess at all, and 100% "fluff" present.
You know, it would be quicker to designate a background feat... say it is trained, it goes up like other skills... and then simply apply the appropriate attribute mod when a situation related to the background occurs. Yeah? Not every sailor is the same, for instance. Just cuz he has a knack and technique for climbing rigging doesn't mean he is an all around athletic guy.
And yes, seven skills. If you are the captain of a ship, but could pretty much sail the whole thing by your onesies.
I just don't think making up extra systems to represent "background" abilities is worth the effort... at best you are just throwing around words that don't have a system anyways so it is just like saying "i'm a sailor" and being a sailor because of it.
at worst it's a feat that gives you +2 to 7 skills... but only when it is limited to the background situation.. which the player would probably try to make sure their character is in... so then it becomes a free bonus to every relevant skill.
I'll definitely say at this point, I'm still unconvinced that a background feat/skill system is anything more than an unnecessary complication of the system that is already fairly represented with the existing rules.
BACKGROUND Skill
Every player in the game may take one "Background Skill" representing knowledge from their life before they became an adventurer. This skill does not overlap any other established skill, and mostly represents trivia, knowledge, and small talents picked up over time.
There are three types of Background Skills
1. "Crafts" represent the character's ability to build and construct things. Craft skills may include, but are not limited to, things like blacksmithing, ropemaking, fletching, weaving, leatherworking, winemaking, and cooking. Craft is an INT based skill.
2. "Professions" represent the character's ability to hold a non-adventuring, service-based occupation. Profession skills may include, but are not limited to, things like Sailor, Innkeeper, Farmer, Fisherman, Teacher, and Undertaker. Profession is a WIS based skill.
3. "Performances" represent the character's skill at the arts, ranging from performance art to fine art. Performance skills may include, but are not limited to, things like Sing, Oration, Stringed Instruments, Percussion Instruments, Dance, Paint, Sculpt, and Bonsai. Perform is a CHA based skill.
HOW TO USE THEM: Roll a skill check. If you roll good, you do good. If you roll bad, you do bad. If you can roleplay out your use of the skill in a way that is in character, particularly interesting, entertaining, or otherwise cool, you may get rewards from the DM if he feels like it, ranging from a few points of bonus roleplaying XP to a bonus on your next skill check. Particularly cool uses of a Background Skill may even net you a bonus Action Point.
I'm not sure where complication comes into it. Figuring out each relevant skill for a situation is more difficult than saying one of the six attributes, adding 5 to the modifier and then adding 1/2 the PCs Lv, then rolling a die. If you wanted it to be even faster you could call it a saving throw with a +1.
In the end, I think it is better to have some established information pertaining to EXACTLY what a PC can do. Player claims his character can do all sorts of wacky stuff... then you make him choose between all of that to represent what he is actually skilled at.
Moreover... I'm sort of wondering how you can argue against a DM using this system. It is their campaign, if he/she feels it fits than so be it.
yes, saying "just add 5+1/2 level to whatever the DM says is relevant" is less work for the DM than picking out which skill that already exists would fit the purpose best...
But then there is more time spent with the DM going "I don't think that is relevant to the background you provide" and the player going "well why not?" because the system would have to be codified at least as strictly as normal skills are or it might cause debates/hard feelings over what it actually can/can't do.
Also, where did I say I was arguing that no DM should use this? I don't remember saying anything except (basically) "I don't get why that would be necessary," "the system already covers that," and "what's next, making me choose personality traits for a mechanical effect?"
My argument isn't against adding background flavor to characters in a way that matters to the game, which is the intent of this house rule to begin with, it is simply that the execution of any new addition to the system should actually fit into the system and not jut be a stapled-on extra bit of fat that is supposed to serve a purpose but instead just bogs the game down.
You are right in that player's will say their character can do all sorts of whacky things, but where is the actual limit? Do you suggest that this background feat (of which I understand you can only have one) is sufficient enough to say "my character was trained in the kings army, spend time as a blacksmith before transferring to the royal armada, which brought him to port here after a few years so that he may seek great fame and adventure." ?
I say it isn't, but that existing skills can cover it well enough. Endurance (for long hours and rigorous training, toughing it in the forges, and for "hauling the yard lines" or what have you all day), Athletics (the military trains mobility, and climbing all over a ship), maybe perception (if he happens to have good senses or was a look out type), and maybe nature (for navigating if that was his specialty, and basic survival training)
What would the background feat give me? nothing? or would it just give me a bonus as if I had a trained skill, but only in certain situations? would I get to pretend I'm trained in climbing while on a ship? when climbing rope? not while climbing anything else?
that's my argument... so far it seems the background feat either does absolutely nothing (which means it doesn't need to be around) or it gives you benefits like 3-5 skill training feats, but only sometimes (which means it's way out of whack)
Why bother making them spend a feat? Why not just make a houserule that players can choose 1 to 2 Background keywords, and assume they are competant in that area of interest and the subskills that are associated with that background. That was already what my plan was.
Why not just leave it as is? you did, after all, basically suggest doing the exact same thing as the OP but with different words.
And that still leaves me asking what exactly "competent in that area of interest and the associated subskills" entails.
1. Mostly this is both a DM aid and a player aid. Not everyone has an easy time developing a background for a character. Often times there is difficulty coming up with a single character name. The purpose of a free background feat it to allow the player an easy method to indicate a "general" background. If a player has Background (sailor) then some basic things can be assumed (i.e. he grew up near a body of water, he is familiar with operations on a ship, and probably knows a thing or two about navigating, stars, and water hazards). All that is enough to give me, as the DM, a great many ideas on how to incorporate the character's background into the game and it is easy for a player to use.
2. There are already guidelines I can refer to in previous editions. Not too sure what might be possible with Background (stone carving)? If it were important enough I could adopt some guidelines from previous editions for use. Or at least get some guidelines on what may potentially be possible. (No, you cannot turn obsidian into diamonds... yes, you can use obsidian to make obsidian weapons).
3. It is freeform enough to be very adaptable but has some structure to make everything cohesive. It is structured in that a trained background gives everyone that +5 bonus and follows the same method for other skills. Yet it is freeform enough that I can easily adapt results from it without it being overly complex. Additionally, it will prevent the possibility of a player saying their character has a background as a farmer, court jester, gambler, mortician, cobbler, hunter, gem cutter, pearl diver, and a wood carver - all before he was 16 (the average starting age of a human PC). In my experience there is always one player who will test the rules in that if there is not a rule for it they will exploit it.
It will also prevent things like one player making a Gambling skill check at +10 and then another player, with the same stats and skills, making a Gambling check at +6. (Hey! Bob got to make his gambling check at +10 while I have the same background feat, same lvl/stat bonus, and same situation modifiers! No fair!). Granted I consider myself a fair DM but it does provide the players with that structure to measure such things... which I think is a good thing (as long as it is not too complicated and slows down the game - something this house rule is not).
4. It is a free feat so characters are not using any character resources on something that is mostly fluff.
5. I did the same thing in 3.x in that I allowed every character free skill points to put in background-designated skills. My players loved it because it gave them a chance to show, in game, some of the character story and background. Never once did I find it to have any adverse effects on balance. Quite the opposite - it enriched our gaming.
How I would handle it.
BACKGROUND Skill
Every player in the game may take one "Background Skill" representing knowledge from their life before they became an adventurer. This skill does not overlap any other established skill, and mostly represents trivia, knowledge, and small talents picked up over time.
There are three types of Background Skills
1. "Crafts" represent the character's ability to build and construct things. Craft skills may include, but are not limited to, things like blacksmithing, ropemaking, fletching, weaving, leatherworking, winemaking, and cooking. Craft is an INT based skill.
2. "Professions" represent the character's ability to hold a non-adventuring, service-based occupation. Profession skills may include, but are not limited to, things like Sailor, Innkeeper, Farmer, Fisherman, Teacher, and Undertaker. Profession is a WIS based skill.
3. "Performances" represent the character's skill at the arts, ranging from performance art to fine art. Performance skills may include, but are not limited to, things like Sing, Oration, Stringed Instruments, Percussion Instruments, Dance, Paint, Sculpt, and Bonsai. Perform is a CHA based skill.
HOW TO USE THEM: Roll a skill check. If you roll good, you do good. If you roll bad, you do bad. If you can roleplay out your use of the skill in a way that is in character, particularly interesting, entertaining, or otherwise cool, you may get rewards from the DM if he feels like it, ranging from a few points of bonus roleplaying XP to a bonus on your next skill check. Particularly cool uses of a Background Skill may even net you a bonus Action Point.
This is, essentially, my proposal spelled out. Simple, not complex, and gives some structure to what is right now completely freeform. Yet it still leaves it open enough to be very flexible.