It seems like there's intent for Backgrounds to be a broad design space -- Doomsday Dawn includes 6 "campaign backgrounds", which are much more specific than the general ones in the CRB -- much like the campaign traits in past APs.
The Backgrounds intro text on pg 38 could perhaps be edited a bit to include more of the specificity that you provide, and also make explicit that these are examples and tables can generate their own?
I did note the use of campaign backgrounds as required, rather than new options, as not to my taste -- but ultimately that's a super easy fix by GM Fiat Magic Wand if I'm in the minority for taste.
I'm fond of Backgrounds, so far, but would like to explore them in greater depth when it comes to creating them for a GM's specific campaign. For example, what if a referee crafting a setting wanted to include some potential Backgrounds that offer only a single Ability boost but extra Skill feats or Skill trainings?
For example, using the "Magical Survivor" example, above, I could envision a variation that boosts a single physical Ability score of the player's choice but grants a bonus to Perception. (Or something like that.)
Do you see what I'm trying to describe? I hope I'm making this clear.
Basically, I'd be interested in a ruleset for developing Backgrounds that are still play-balanced but not necessarily using the Ability bonus/Skill bonus/training format that they all share, at the moment.
Thoughts?
I'm a fan of backgrounds, I just want for there to be more of them. I mean, there are backgrounds now for a barkeep and an entertainer, but not one for a chef or a baker- what gives? We have a background for a Smith, but not for someone who was a Woodworker or a Mason or a Weaver or any other sort of craft.
I think there just need to be like ten times as many of these.
Why can't we make like a hundred of these? All they are is "one of two ability scores, one skill feat, one lore skill". I mean, how many traits did PF1 have?
"Arcane Lore" skill sounds suspiciously like the Arcana skill, xDialtone, so maybe that's a bad example for a custom background.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't we make like a hundred of these? All they are is "one of two ability scores, one skill feat, one lore skill". I mean, how many traits did PF1 have?
I think at least there should 1 per level 1 skill feat. One of the abilities would tie to that feat.
I'm also not happy at an adventure having such limiting backgrounds. Traits didn't restrict your feat choices.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I don't know if fully customization backgrounds are the way to go, but it sounds like a much better implementation than the ones we have. My biggest concern is that the backgrounds are too limiting - perhaps another approach is to give each background a choice of 2 or 3 skill feats instead of just one.
For example, Criminal should cover all types of criminal backgrounds, but instead, it forced you to be an Expert Smuggler. I'd add Pickpocket and Subtle Theft as choices. Or you could rename the criminal background to Smuggler and make a thief one that gives a different choice.
Noble - why have the line in the description “you have traded your silks and pageantry for an adventurer’s life”? I can imagine many noble background characters who keep the silks and pageantry, and still adventure.
Sailor - the Underwater Marauder is very off flavor for a sailor. Most sailors couldn’t even swim historically, and even if they could, a typical naval battle wouldn’t take place underwater. I would think Steady Balance would be far more appropriate for the Sailor background.
Scholar - While Assurance for the various magical skills are fine choices, what if you were a scholar of something other than magic? I’d add choices of Cultural Familiarity and Multilingual as choices.
Street Urchin - since the Pickpocket feat I’m recommending for Criminal background as a choice, I’d suggest making Street Urchin either roll into Criminal and update the descriptive text to include that option, or give Street Urchins a choice of Charming Liar or Subtle Theft.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tentatively posting only because I have not seen any other opportunities to bring it up without a tirade of rancour : I despise Backgrounds, they are the no. 1 reason why I gave up on playtesting. Giving options to display/enhance my character concept is one thing, Ancestries/Classes still do this in PF2e (although in a seemingly diluted fashion). Excluding non-distruptive characters or forcing them to be changed to fit a narrow set of concepts is another. Paizo will certainly expand the choices but these will always be limited to what staff come up with, then culled down by space, time, relevance to current products, interest of the majority; etc. Please do not force character concepts to be limited in such a way. I would be much more on board with guidelines/rules for creating custom Backgrounds, with the ones Paizo creates acting as suggestions for newer Players who are trying to get through the process painlessly, then for others simply stifled by choice as the options expand. Staff still get to create "core" options and suggest their own flavour, without preventing Players from making characters that they actually want to play. Honestly, I would not play any of the current ones, even the ones somewhat similar to topics I would pick are far removed from choices I would enjoy.
Just to be clear, this is not about looking for the most awesome combination for mechanical benefit, nor it is about creating false justifications in-character for disruptive Player behaviour. Any characters I currently have would either not hit the suggested Backgrounds or if have the same topic, are vastly different (to the point of being the antithesis of the concept even under the same topic).
Take my favourite character, Illya the Aasimar Witch. She was raised for most of her life in a community that basically venerated Aasimar's as Angels walking among them, with the church there being akin to a "Cult to the Aasimars" without going into actual cult mode, (more biased). Illya grew up despising Clerics, Celestials (with particular venom towards Angels), and Deities due to her seeing everyone as starting with equal inherent value, different opinions on behaviour, believing Aasimars to be self-deluded pawns, and so on. If looking at a basic Background keyword, she fits the Acolyte Background, yet her actual concept is the antithesis of what this stands for - the "knowledge" imparted on her was inaccurate, sometimes wildly so, to the point that adventuring provides her with an opportunity to unlearn such nonsense. It also requires that the Lore Skill relates to your chosen Deity - so I have to suddenly worship one. In fact, anyone who has this Background has to worship a specific Deity; no "borne of evil, raised by good, walking the middle line of not being drawn to either" orphan concepts, no jaded with the religious establishment and looking to find a new Deity to worship along your journey, no simply being thankful to the clergy of a pantheon for raising/teaching/protecting you ...
Also note that my True Neutral character has opinions but she also has standards. Illya may complain about tasks whilst doing them, yet she still does them to ensure that my concept is not hindering the Party/table. If something is in direct opposition to her interests, (such as convincing old worshippers to rejoin the fold of the "nice" N.P.C. Cleric the Party has come across), then Illya can state her disapproval, removing herself to do something else that benefits the game overall, or she can try to alter the situation with discussion amongst the Party. Playing a character should not be disruptive, however nor should it be reduced down to aligning only with mechanics for a step-by-step task-list playstyle - it might suit some, that is fine, but making the game this way excludes roleplay outside of a predetermined mindset. Just ... no.
T.L.D.R. : Please keep mechanics out of my character concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never even doubted once that you are allowed to create background outside the ones provided. As long as it is 2 score increase, 1 skill feats and 1 lore.
They talk about how to not create "wrong lore skill" somewhere in the rules, something that would be useless if you were limitated by the written background.
I don't understand Why you are all so upset. I did customs background on the fly the first time a player went with a concept that wasn't here and it was easy. I didn't even though about it before seeing this topic.
Backgrounds are limited to the ones stated in the Playtest, (Paizo's set Playtest adventures reiterate to select these, or use the extra 6 stated as options in Doomsday Dawn). There is no mention that you can create custom Backgrounds in the Playtest, (there is a general pattern mentioned though), and you are instructed that the Backgrounds available to Players are on pp.38-39 :
3 | CHOOSE A BACKGROUND
Your character’s background might represent a special aptitude she’s been honing since her youth, detail her upbringing, or illuminate some other aspect of her life before she became an adventurer. The available character backgrounds are described beginning on page 38. Backgrounds typically provide benefits to your character in the form of two ability boosts (one that can be applied to either of two specific ability scores, and one that is free), training in a Lore skill, and a specific skill feat.
Again, there is no mention of custom Backgrounds on those pages; we are simply raising this so it stays as a Playtest limited situation, not one that carries over into the Core Rulebook. It is also worth mentioning something that is marring Player's enjoyment of the Playtest, limiting their motivation to play and therefore reducing their feedback.
The guidelines on creating Lore subcategories relates to gaining additional ones via the General/Skill Feat Additional Lore :
ADDITIONAL LORE | FEAT 1
Prerequisites trained in Lore
The breadth of your knowledge has increased to encompass a new field. Choose an additional Lore skill subcategory. You become trained in it and it counts as a signature skill. At 3rd, 5th, and 13th levels, you gain an additional skill increase you can apply only to Lore. When you select this feat, you gain the skill increases immediately for all listed levels at or below your current level.
Special You can select this feat more than once, choosing a new subcategory of Lore each time and gaining the listed skill increases to that Lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll reiterate my suggestions for backgrounds here:
1) Replace lore with an actual skill. Most backgrounds would offer only one skill, but some backgrounds (like scholar) might offer a choice. This is your background skill. You are trained in your background skill, and always treat it as a signature skill. You gain the ability to make profession checks to earn a living with your background skill. You automatically know the answer to any easy questions regarding your background, and can make a check using your background skill to answer more difficult questions relating to your background's subject matter.
This neatly folds lore into the existing skills. It also means your 'lore' proficiency automatically improves whenever you improve your proficiency with your background skills, giving a bit more compaction in that respect. This is also a subtle incentive to continue investing in your background skill, without making it so good as to be mandatory to do so.
2) Each background should allow for the selection of any skill feat whose associated skill matches the background skill. So acrobat would allow you to pick any skill feat associated with acrobatics. You would still need to meet the prerequisites of the skill feat in question.
This addresses the problem of using backgrounds to bypass prerequisites, future-proofs backgrounds, allows greater customization, while still narrowing choices to thematic ones associated with that background. Each background could suggest a default choice, creating a mid-ground between speed of character creation and customization.
3) Campaign backgrounds are chosen in addition to your regular background, essentially giving you a second background. They do not increase your ability scores, and do not grant you a profession. They only grant a trained skill and a skill feat. If your campaign is not using campaign backgrounds, you can select a free skill feat instead.
I don't know if fully customization backgrounds are the way to go, but it sounds like a much better implementation than the ones we have. My biggest concern is that the backgrounds are too limiting - perhaps another approach is to give each background a choice of 2 or 3 skill feats instead of just one.
For example, Criminal should cover all types of criminal backgrounds, but instead, it forced you to be an Expert Smuggler. I'd add Pickpocket and Subtle Theft as choices. Or you could rename the criminal background to Smuggler and make a thief one that gives a different choice.
Noble - why have the line in the description “you have traded your silks and pageantry for an adventurer’s life”? I can imagine many noble background characters who keep the silks and pageantry, and still adventure.
Sailor - the Underwater Marauder is very off flavor for a sailor. Most sailors couldn’t even swim historically, and even if they could, a typical naval battle wouldn’t take place underwater. I would think Steady Balance would be far more appropriate for the Sailor background.
Scholar - While Assurance for the various magical skills are fine choices, what if you were a scholar of something other than magic? I’d add choices of Cultural Familiarity and Multilingual as choices.
Street Urchin - since the Pickpocket feat I’m recommending for Criminal background as a choice, I’d suggest making Street Urchin either roll into Criminal and update the descriptive text to include that option, or give Street Urchins a choice of Charming Liar or Subtle Theft.
Gladiator is another, it gives a Performance feat (the same feat as the Entertainer background), despite gladiatorial combat not being covered by Performance. Intimidating Glare would have been more suitable, methinks.