Talk:Experiment (5e Background)

The Background Feature should "open up new options for roleplaying, exploring, and otherwise interacting with the world". The Experimental Effects don't seem to fulfill this. Marasmusine (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2015 (MST)

But I don't think that's a balance issue in its current state. It doesn't grant mechanical benefits of any sort. Right now, it just seems unfinished. Kydo (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2015 (MDT)

I think he makes a valid point, though. In reading the description and several of the psychological effects, this background seems to constrain a player more than it opens up possibilities. For example, one of the effects eliminates the Evil and Good in your alignment; this reduces a character to a state of imposed neutrality and seems an unfair restriction. It might be better to reword that effect such that it encourages a player to push the Good or Evil of their alignment to an extreme in times of emotional duress, or otherwise replace the effect with a new one. Exodite-Dragon (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2015 (MDT)

Ok, now it's got genuine mechanical advantages. +10ft speed? Kydo (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2015 (MDT)

I'm also unclear how this background works with race, since the description implies that the character was "created". Marasmusine (talk) 10:39, 15 November 2015 (MST)

The blurb does state that you may have been modified as well. Modifying something is the act of creation, (aside from the deific "created from nothing" sense of the word.) like "making" a pot by "modifying" clay. I can see use for this. For example, a half-elf could be the product of a mad scientist who was trying to breed a "master race", or a Tiefling could actually be a human who has been dramatically altered by diabolical rituals. With a little bit of creative elbow grease, I could turn this into a sort of "aesthetic paintbrush" like the Psychic (5e Background). For example, it could be used to justify substantially different appearance from the standard race. --Kydo (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2015 (MST)

Proposal for feature:

You have some physical deformity that marks you out as a victim of arcane or physiological anatomization. This abnormality is the result of a signature operation that identifies the group or individual that worked on you. This can be recognized by other victims of your master; and by scientists, wizards and students familiar with your master's work. Deformities might include a hunched back, digitigrade legs, cranial vivisection scars, protruding bone or metal, grafted animal parts, or elemental veins visible through your skin.

In addition, you are familiar with the layout of laboratories in the most general sense, and know the function (if not the names) of laboratory equipment such as athanors, alemics, pressure chambers, electric baths, blood transfusion machines, or exotic arcane surgery tools.

Marasmusine (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2015 (MST)

I like it! I'd make it a little more open ended, though. I can totally see myself using this to make a half-orc that looks like Hip Flask. --Kydo (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2015 (MST)

Ha ha, I'm not sure what that means, but if I plug in the text now, please adjust it as you see fit! Marasmusine (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2015 (MST)

This guy; Hip Flask and Ebony Horn. Yeah, I'm cool with that plan.

Edit War

OK, now that's enough! 209.97.85.48, why should this background give the Draconic language? I asked why when I undid that edit, and you just rewrote it without justification. It doesn't make any sense. Why Draconic? Why not any other random arbitrary language? What about being altered or man-made would teach you the language of an ancient race of giant magic flying lizards? --Kydo (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2015 (MST)

Those that do the experiments (usually WIZARDS) usually write their notes in Draconic. Those that are experimented on learn it to try to read those notes.--209.97.85.48 10:02, 9 January 2016 (MST)

... I'm not talking to you any more. --Kydo (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2016 (MST)

I will add this. PHB p. 123 "Language: Draconic; Typical Speakers: Dragons, dragonborn; Script: —"

That's right, Draconic has no script. You can't "write your notes" in it. Marasmusine (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2016 (MST)

Really?? Huh! What a shame! Well, that's an opportunity for world building material if I ever saw one! --Kydo (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2016 (MST)

I thought I saw in the handbook that Draconic had a Script.--209.97.85.48 18:28, 20 January 2016 (MST)

I just checked the 3.5e languages and they had a script(or Alphabet) so 5e should have a script.--209.97.85.48 18:33, 20 January 2016 (MST)

What does the 3.5e PHB hAve to do with anything? This is a 5th edition background. --Kydo (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2016 (MST)

Kydo, there are things that don't change that much. --209.97.85.48 09:30, 23 January 2016 (MST)

Marasmuine, I think you need to have your eyes checked. I reviewed the 5e PHB and it says that Deep Speech, not DRACONIC, has no script. With that "said", it is possible to write stuff (like lab notes) in Draconic.--209.97.85.48 09:30, 23 January 2016 (MST)

Thank-you for the correction, I completely misread the chart. I still don't buy that the language is relevant, but I have no specific objection. Marasmusine (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2016 (MST)

I do. It doesn't make sense. You're making an assumption with no basis. Since when is writing in draconic a thing? I can't think of any settings where draconic is the stand-in for latin in medieval educated texts. Backgrounds are supposed to be generic, flexible and open, so they fit neatly into any setting you'd like. Even if your setting did have wizards writing in draconic (again, why they wouldn't just use their own language, I don't know) this background would still fit in just fine without the language. Also, how does learning to read a script teach someone how to speak the language? I can't think of any natural languages with a phonetic alphabet, and all D&D scripts are just a cipher of the modern latin alphabet. (Before you bring up heiroglyphics and hebrew, there were translated texts from those languages into the scripts of languages that are still spoken, which gave us a decent insight into how the language was spoken- but even then, we can only approximate the subtleties of emphasis and inflection, and some words are still actually a complete mystery. Even with latin, there's still a few grey areas where we just assume we're right because there's nobody alive who can contradict us.) --Kydo (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2016 (MST)

First, dragons can be considered magical creatures, right? Second, would you use a language that MOST people in the campaign world would know for your lab notes? I doubt Draconic is a commonly spoken or read languages.--209.97.85.48 18:30, 27 January 2016 (MST)

Yes, dragons are magical creatures in D&D. Still does not justify use of their script as a language of intellect. Second, why Draconic? Why not literally any language? If they want to keep secrecy, would they not use their own encription method? If most wizards used draconic, then most wizards would be able to decipher just about anyone's notes. Not very secretive. The main problem is that the idea that wizards use draconic as a stand-in for latin is unjustified by any genre tropes, making it potentially incompatible, (or at least highly presumptuous and somewhat intrusive) with just about any campaign setting someone could come up with. What books, movies, comics, games, or other media are you using as inspiration here? What makes you think that this makes sense in any setting in particular? --Kydo (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2016 (MST)

A real-world analogue would be the alchemists who made up their own secret symbolism to protect their discoveries. It's not an pre-existing exotic language. This is more like D&D's thieves' cant or druidic. It should be treated as a special language and worked into the background's special feature. (By "no specific objection" I mean this is a flavour rather than mechanical issue: I do agree with you Kydo) Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2016 (MST)

In the spirit of being "flexible", I might be able to TOLERATE Infernal and Primordial to be added to the language list. The typical speakers of both usually are organized enough to plan experiments (or at least bargain with those that experiment). They are usually "magical" too.--209.97.85.48 12:51, 30 January 2016 (MST)

herbalism kit?

Why does this background have proficiency in the herbalism kit?--209.97.85.48 18:37, 20 January 2016 (MST)

That's a good question. I have no idea why. --Kydo (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2016 (MST)

After reading the page in detail, and the description of the herbalism kit, I think the reasoning is that it is most similar to alchemical supplies, while actually providing some beneficial mechanical return, unlike actual Alchemist's Supplies. This seems to stem from the idea that an experiment character has some knowledge of laboratory equipment. I decided to make it a little more flexible, to allow more types of characters. An evil character would likely put that knowledge to destructive use as poison, while a neutral character may put it to more pragmatic use by practicing alchemy as a profession. In any case, they'll have to go buy the tools or kit before they can get any benefit from this proficiency- which brings me to my second point. The herbalism kit is 5gp, while the other two are 50. This may have been intended as an "ease of entry" kind of thing, making that proficiency available sooner. I think it still works though- helping and healing is an easier path than killing or greed with my changes. --Kydo (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2016 (MST)

The main reason I asked is that if there was "medical" reason, I would have suggested (homebrewed versions of) Doctor's Black Bag or Surgeon's tools. --209.97.85.48 09:39, 23 January 2016 (MST)

Possible NPCs

Would Wolverine(X-Men) be a barbarian or a ranger with the experiment background?--209.97.85.48 18:47, 2 March 2016 (MST)

Clone Race

If I want to do a prototype of a clone race (as a Character), would I use this background or the clone background?--Redrum 18:49, 9 March 2016 (MST)

experiments are either abstract research or prototypes and works-in-progress. If your character wasn't part of the R&D process, but rather a final product of a theoretically "complete" process, then they would not be an experiment. --Kydo (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2016 (MST)

This background also assumes that the experimentation was unethical, and that your freedom was never intended. This background better represents characters like Frankenstein's Monster, or Wolverine, than it does purposely engineered characters like Captain America, or Hip Flask.

(Frankenstein's monster didn't ask to be brought to life, and his life was one of fear, confusion, and torment. He was the first success of a process that was still under development, and even then he was a technical failure, in that "life" did not entail intellect as had been anticipated by the doctor.)

(Wolverine was one of many experiments, along with his brother and Deadpool. All were tricked or kidnapped, the experiments were tantamount to torture, and none were ever intended to be allowed to leave alive.)

(Captain America was a willing subject, his freedom afterward was mostly assumed, and the technology had already been under development for decades. They knew it would work, they were just trying to get it right.)

(Hip flask was one of thousands of a genetically engineered species of living weapons. The process had been developed and perfected long before it was used to create him. There was no experimentation involved in his life whatsoever.) --Kydo (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2016 (MST)

Part of the concept I had in mind was that the creator was part of a race (of humanoid spiders) that is near extinction. The prototype was a "failed" R&D attempt to restart the race.--Redrum 13:31, 12 March 2016 (MST)

Defiled vs. Experiment

What is the difference between the Defiled Background and the Experiment Background?--Redrum 18:51, 16 March 2016 (MDT)

Experiment came first? I haven't even seen the defiled background yet. --Kydo (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

I think Redrum meant the Afflicted Background.--209.97.85.48 12:49, 19 March 2016 (MDT)

I'm sorry. I did mean Afflicted. The main reason I asked is to find out if torture can be thought of as an experiment--Redrum 13:35, 19 March 2016 (MDT)

hm. I'm not sure. I think afflicted was supposed to be about disease, illness, and long-term disfigurement. So, yeah, I mean, if the torture was early in life and the lasting physical effects influenced your life more than the torture itself, afflicted would suit that better. I think experiments are supposed to be inquisitive in nature. So, like, if they were experimenting with new methods of torture, like truth serums and brainwashing and stuff, then the experiment background might fit. --Kydo (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2016 (MDT)