Talk:Battlesmith (5e Background)

This is simply a subcategory of soldier...and there are many other issues with it

1) This is simply a subcategory of soldier. If you want to play an exiled battlemaster, something along the lines of outlander might work. If not, some sort of "outcast"/"exile" background could be homebrewed to remedy that small void.

2) Backgrounds also have nothing to say about what class you have; they do not concern what your role in battle is, but what your role in the world is. This is why features do not grant any form of combat boost, but generally provide a tool for weaving your character into the world. They deal specifically to how your character relates to the world. And as a combat booster, it seems like this background breaks the powerscale of backgrounds. Who wouldn't always choose this, no matter what class they're playing? A wizard in full plate with an exotic weapon? Shouldn't be possible via background.

3) Additionally, backgrounds do not ever grant armor or weapon proficiency, and armor and weapon proficiencies are not a kind of tool proficiency.

Also, there's the issues covered by the templates for consideration.--GoodDalek (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2015 (MST)

Yes. I'm sure just about all of the regular editors are aware of this article's problems. I actually get the feeling this was partially inspired by the krogan battle masters in Mass Effect, just replace "Krogan" with "Dwarf". I did my part to improve the grammar, but I find the idea as a whole... boring. I'd love to see it fleshed out into something more special, but even the name, to me, is kind of meh. Like, for instance, wouldn't it be kind of cool to build a whole suite of class-specific or race-specific backgrounds? I mean, it'd be a lot of work, but I also imagine it'd be quite a bit of fun as well. I actually find it rather curious the DMG didn't have it. The DM was rather a giant let down for me. It had NOTHING I was expecting it to.--Kydo (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2015 (MST)

Rebalancing

Ok, so, is it safe to assume this abandoned yet? I'd like to build this up, but I'd prefer to do it with the OP's input- or at least their acknowledgement. In any case, my ideas:

First off, this background presents an idea I thought was quite fundamental; race-specific backgrounds. Indeed, I was shocked to discover they were not even in the DMG content! I'd like to maintain this post, as it is the first actual manifestation of this form of background, even if it is not what I would have chosen for a Dwarf. (Seems a little orc-y to me) As such, I intend to clean it up and build it up considerably. With the input of others if they'll give it.

Second, the justification. At first glance, the idea may seem counterituitive, or at least contrary to the precedent set by the official content. After all, a background is what you used to be, not what you are. If it is race-specific, what happened? Did you change race?! However, I choose to think of it as so:

• A background is what you used to be, not what you are today. We talk about that in the form of titles in most languages. You "are" what you "do". However, this is pure semantics. I "was" a human yesterday and I "am" a human today, regardless that I "was" an artist yesterday and I "am" a pipe maker today. Being human is part of my background as much as my lifestyle and profession. Thus, a background could potentially regard any former facet of your life, though profession is the most obvious choice.

• Race-specific backgrounds could add cultural flavour to the races; some races may have cultural circumstances which would give certain individuals a truly unique approach to life which could not come from anywhere else.

• Nobody said they had to be racially prerequisite. A halfling raised among gnomes could use a gnome specific background to manifest the impact of their upbringing! That way, race specific backgrounds don't really break any patterns; they just have unusually specific fluff.

Now, on to the Dwarven Battlemaster. I don't want to just rewrite the whole thing from scratch into something drastically different. I might as well just make a new page if I were to do that. Rather, I would like to stay true to the spirit of the original design, bring it into line with the official standards for what constitutes a background, make something truly interesting and unique, and possibly springboard a few other backgrounds. (Not that I haven't made more than enough as it is...) In the spirit of supporting the spirit of the subject (hm. Awkward) here is an overview of what we know about Battlemasters at this point, as the page is written at this moment: (The further you go down the list, the more personal speculation and inferences you will see)

• They are an elite military group and social caste centered around a specific form of combat training. The Dwarven equivalent of the Human knight.

• They are chosen to champion individual noble clans- but not necessarily their own. Thus, they occupy that awkward position between peasantry and aristocracy which existed before the rise of the "middle-class" gentry. Again, much like knights do for humans. (Hm. Also reminds me of the dwarf from Dragon Age)

• They are created by Dwarven cultures, and are therefore very unlikely to be any race other than a Dwarf.

• Oddly, they know medicine. This is idiosyncratic with everything else in the background; they are lone killing machines. With the way 5e rules work, you can't use medicine on yourself. So where does it come from?

• They need actual tool proficiencies. As dwarves, the only armor proficiency they could choose that they don't already have is light armor. And if their race doesn't have the weapon prof they want, their class very likely will.

• Their starting gear is combat oriented.

• Their feature is somehow combat oriented. That'll be challenging, as there is a fine line between roleplaying in combat and brokenly winning fights with crafty roleplay.

• It is clearly a hard lifestyle. Battlemasters are prone to xenophobia, prejudice, depressiveness, sociopathy, anger management problems, bad stress management responses, spitefulness, and a whole host of other "dark" behavioral problems.

• It seems that some element of the profession is not just the work they do, but the way they do it. The image. The reputation. They seem to exist for shock and awe purposes more than as tactically meaningful combattants.

• They may have been inspired by Dwarven conflicts with Orcs; a response to orcish berzerkers which grew as they refined their weapons and military tactics?

And, finally, here is what needs to be done, falling roughly within the guidelines above:

• Elaborate upon the description. Make it something more than "these guys hit stuff scray-like".

• Explain the medicine skill proficiency.

• Tool proficiencies that make sense to what they do. Remember: they kill people as a purpose. Keep in mind the proficiencies dwarves already get.

• Make an actual equipment loadout. No explorer kit copout. Restrict weapons, or eliminate them if possible. Classes give you weapons as it is; this will just be abused for free sellable loot.

• Rewrite the feature so it is roleplay oriented, but acts as the roleplaying manifestation of the mechanics. Scary and aggressive.

• Prune the suggested traits. Weed out game-stopping character traits and rewrite them or replace them. Sort out ideals alignment keys. Put traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws together and in the correct categories.

• Get someone to change the page name to "Dwarven Battlemaster".

--Kydo (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2015 (MST)

This is just quick reply with my immediate thoughts.

• I also think a racial background is a great idea.
• I'd like to scrap the name "battlemaster" completely because:
• I think that mastery of combat is something that a PC develops over their adventuring career. I know we have the Adventurer background, but I'm not interested in a whole bunch of backgrounds with weapon proficiencies. Plus there's the whole Fighter Battlemaster thing.
• That's not to say that the background can't be dwarf-weapon-focused. Dwarves are already proficient with the weapons associated with dwarven combat, so there's no need to add them to the background (other races will just have to make do with whatever proficiencies their class gives them?)
• Therefore my idea is that this background could be for some kind of dwarven ceremonial role. It was this guys job to attend rituals or ceremonies and look good standing their with a (ceremonial) axe.

Oh, I wasn't planning on weapon or armor proficiencies at all. That's why I pointed out the rddundancy here. Combat oriented from a roleplaying perspective, is what I meant. The problem is that tool proficiencies, for the most part, are a random assortmenf of irrelevant fringe activities. Like playing cards. I'd like to see some combat related tool proficiencies which are not necessarily combat proficiencies. What that would be, I'm unsure. Maintainibg equipment? As for the name, back when I played Dwarf Fortress, I used to custom-title my militia captains as "warsmiths". Perhaps something along those lines would be appropriate?--Kydo (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2015 (MST)

Warsmith sounds cool:) I have this feeling that a proficiency bonus can be used with something other than tools/skills/saves. Something like (nonmagical) rituals, or 4e martial practices. Maybe it can interact with some of the "downtime activities" in the PHB and DMG? Marasmusine (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2015 (MST)

Hm. There's an idea. What if the feature interacted with a downtime activity? For example, working a profession could be converted into working as a soldier, as opposed to working a trade! That may not be quite perfect here, but you get the drift.--Kydo (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (MST)

The idea of a Racial background is somewhat strange because the main thing about D&D is being strange, so what happen if a person want to be a battlemaster but he is not a dwarf? will he fix the background a little bit to fit him? or just leave the idea and not even try? Azernath (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2015 (MST)

Oh, sorry if it got lost in my tl;dr post there. To quote myself: "Nobody said they had to be racially prerequisite. A halfling raised among gnomes could use a gnome specific background to manifest the impact of their upbringing! That way, race specific backgrounds don't really break any patterns; they just have unusually specific fluff."--Kydo (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2015 (MST)

Easy Kydo, all i am saying is can you make a battlemaster that is not a dwarf? and if so how? Because some things in the Battlemaster can only work with a dwarf, so it is either changed or the battlemaster will be a dwarf only backgrond. Azernath (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (MST)

... um... I pretty much already answered that twice now. I'm sorry, either I'm not understanding your question/sentiment or you're not understandong my reply. Or maybe both? What about the battlemaster background would force the PC to be a Dwarf? Why not play a Human Fighter who was sent at a young age to train among the Dwarven Battlemasters? Why not play an Elven Cleric who was taught the ways of the Battlemaster by his god? Or any myriad of other thoroughly compelling combinations?--Kydo (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2015 (MST)

Azernath, think of it this way: being a Wizard doesn't prevent you from taking the Soldier background, even though that seems a bit odd (shouldn't they have been studying? :). That this prompts more questions can make an interesting story. (I have no qualms with having prerequisite either though). Marasmusine (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2015 (MST)

ُExactly, i don't mean that battlemaster should not be a Dwarf Backgrond, but we shouldn't limit the backgrond for them other races. Azernath (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2015 (MST)

One of the things that it look wrong is the line:

• All non-dwarf soldiers of a particular race hate me, after what I did to them on the field of battle., if the player is a human Battlemaster would your race hate you and the dwarf start love you?
• I often view lesser dwarves as inferior to myself. how will this work if your not dwarf?
• A nearby elven kingdom wouldn't aid us in our time of need, so I now resent all elves that I meet. will this work even if your not a dwarf?

I you can tell me that would be great. Azernath (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2015 (MST)

Well, the whole thing needs rewriting. Marasmusine (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (MST)

That's kind of the whole point here... I didn't make this, Azernath. I just want to discuss how we should go about changing it before I go all edit-crazy and turn it into another "Here's what Kydo thinks" entry.--Kydo (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2015 (MST)

Progress

Ok, so far so good. How do you guys feel about the changes?Kydo (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2015 (MST)

I'll take the silence as a standing ovation. The second tool proficiency is duplicate of the Dwarven tool proficiency. A dwarf taking this background essentially gets 2 of the 3 options. (Not inherently broken; the same can be said of dwarven artisans) I am concerned about the equipment loadout though. Chains, hammers, and oil, can do a LOT of damage in the hands of a creative and malevolent PC. Now, I admit, that's why I chose them, (everything they carry should be somehow combat relevant) and there's nothing mechanically broken about them... It's just the implicit uses which worry me. Kydo (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2015 (MST)

I'm still having trouble getting past that this still reads like a description of a class. Have you decided what to rename it as? Marasmusine (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2015 (MST)

Like I said before, I wanted to preserve some spirit of the page's foundation. However, I do not like the title. Warsmith is the most appropraite name; they do more than simply fight, they craft the battle itself. What about Battlesmith, just to be a little closer to the base name? Kydo (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2015 (MST)

Thank you Marasmusine. I'll get around to correcting the rest of the page soon.Kydo (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2015 (MST)

good job

hi, im the OP, (my account is weird, and sometimes logs me out mid-edit, thus, ip address) anyway, this is the first time i've seen the page since i created it, and just wanted to say that you've done a great job, and the page is way cooler then it was when i left it. thanks.--Rarelyfly (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (MDT)

by the way, i like the idea of race specific classes/races, and i would be willing to help, should someone decide to start doing it. --Rarelyfly (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2015 (MDT)

I'm glad you appreciate the work we put into it. I was really concerned about preserving the spirit of this page, while still updating it to a polished state. I'm not online much these days, due to life problems, but if you ever have an idea for a Racial background, send me a comment on my user talk page! --Kydo (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2015 (MDT)

Prestige

I would have figured that prestige would be a Skill not a Tool Proficiency. --209.97.85.48 13:19, 26 March 2016 (MDT)

Skills are kind of a standardized set of properties which are pretty much fully subordinate to specific abilities. Technically, downtime proficiencies don't have a place in the standard design framework, because they're a rule variant. They're in the tool proficiency slot for simplicity of editing. --Kydo (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2016 (MDT)