Talk:Farmer (5e Background)

Concerning the feature...

This is a tough nut to crack. All features provide you a pseudo-mechanical tool for handling how your character relates to the world, generally by granting you special knowledge or means of more reliable navigation or resources for surviving, such as social standing (with funding) or the ability to find sustenance. Something related to food production might be applicable, but a yearly food haul isn't a very useful ability in most campaigns. Perhaps some kind of ability related to finding work doing menial labor? Though it seems like that'd be a stat inherent in anyone with a good strength score. This is an interesting background idea, and I like it, but it does seem too general and lacking enough to go off of, and it and outlander have a lot of overlap. But hey, keep working at it! Its coming along well, thus far.

Also, weapon proficiencies shouldn't be included in tool proficiencies. (Maybe you could replace it with the player's choice of artisan's tools? Almost any farmer has some little form of handiwork they can do while winter settles in, like smithing, pottery, knitting, cooking, etc..) The DMG also mentions that backgrounds grant a combination of no more or less than two tools and languages.--GoodDalek (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2015 (MST)

Aw, no pitchfork swinging mobs of rebel farmers for you eh? Yeah. It was a cop-out. I couldn't think of anything so I went for the funniest idea I had. It is not intended to remain that way. That will be replaced with something. As for the feature, I've been imagining a feature which encourages roleplay interaction directly with the DM somehow. It's always nice when the man behind the curtain gets to actually play a little bit.--Kydo (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2015 (MST)

I thought pitchforks and shovels didn't require proficiency. If you wanted something farm related, why not make an artisan's tools-type deal called Farmer's Tools?--209.97.85.48 18:26, 17 February 2016 (MST)

That's exactly what farm implements are. It just has a unique name because "farmers tools" sounds retarded. I can't fix stupid content in the core books, but I can sure as heck avoid repeating it. --Kydo (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2016 (MST)

At least the word "implement" doesn't denote wands, staves, rods, etc anymore! Marasmusine (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2016 (MST)

To me, implement sounds singular. When I wrote Farmer's tools, I meant more than just a pitchfork or a shovel. I also meant sickles, scythes, hoes and other stuff to be included.--209.97.85.48 13:26, 20 February 2016 (MST)

I don't understand what you're arguing. To me it's the same thing. I don't get it. --Kydo (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2016 (MST)

I want something that sounds more complete.--209.97.85.48 12:57, 27 February 2016 (MST)

OK, let me put it this way: Let's say I used to be a farmer. Am I going to carry every type of tool I ever used on a farm with me everywhere I go? That'd be like carrying a dozen polearms on my back all the time for no reason. So saying "tools" actually wouldn't make sense. It's not like I can pack them all in a convenient suitcase-like box or something, the way you could with thieves' tools or the disguise kit. Also, each "farm implement" is basically the same dang thing anyways- a long stick with a piece of metal on the end. Do I really need more than one? Until they go using it for something, I don't really care what it actually is- that's just fluff. (Which, as we all know, is just irrelevant window-trimming to validate play) The proficiency would only come into play if the player actually had to work the land. For example, DDEX1-03 has a section where the PCs can fortify a village with defenses, such as digging pitfall traps, trenches, etc. This is where I'd take such a proficiency to let them build extra stuff or something. Alternatively, if they really pestered me about it, I'd give them proficiency with improvised attacks using the implement. Ultimately though, I don't really see it as being even vaguely important. --Kydo (talk) 01:15, 29 February 2016 (MST)

The equipment carried isn't my problem. It's the proficiency that's the problem. --209.97.85.48 18:32, 2 March 2016 (MST)

Let me state my problem this way. Depending on the setting (and other factors), I can claim that (the bulk of) the farming equipment belongs to either to the character's landlord or the character's extended family and therefore isn't his to carry around. My problem with the proficiency is that if this is a NON-HEROIC FARMER, he would need know at least little something about ALL the equipment he would use.--209.97.85.48 13:08, 5 March 2016 (MST)

Farmer(?)

Doesn't the Folk Hero background cover the Heroic Farmer concept?--209.97.85.48 12:59, 13 February 2016 (MST)

Yes. This is not a heroic farmer. It's a perfectly normal farmer who decided to become an adventurer. --Kydo (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (MST)

I thought regular farmers usually didn't have the passion or a good reason. With that in mind, I assume that this background is for NPCs or one-shot adventures. If this is for NPCs, shouldn't a special grouping for NPC backgrounds be made.--Redrum 13:42, 12 March 2016 (MST)

I don't understand. It is intended for PCS. NPCS are typically modified stat blocks, not fleshed out character sheets. There isn't really a "background" slot for them. Why can't a common man decide to go out and seek adventure? --Kydo (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2016 (MDT)

Lol why are people struggling with this concept? Marasmusine (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2016 (MDT)

I remember there being a mention in the 3.5e books somewhere about farmers not being the type of people to adventure (possibly in the commoner blurb); people who've read it might have been influenced :D That said, there's absolutely no reason for a farmer to not be an adventurer. Other backgrounds can represent a farmer-turned-hero, but this one nicely depicts someone who stays in that mindset - a practical, everyday type of adventurer. I'm all for this being a feature article. Cancelion (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2016 (MDT)

Westley/Dread Pirate Roberts from The Princess Bride. Case closed :)Marasmusine (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2016 (MDT)

Exactly! I was gonna suggest Goodman Durnik, but he's not a farmer (although the background would pretty much work for him), but I didn't want to drag the Belgariad into this :P Cancelion (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2016 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination

I think people get carried away making backgrounds that are practically adventuring classes already. This article is a nice down-to-earth background that shows not everything has to be glamorous to be interesting. It's also well written and encompasses a few new items. Marasmusine (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2016 (MST)

Well, I support it at least. Thought it's been months since the nomination. --Kydo (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2016 (MDT)

I'm closing the nomination. It's been up forever, and nobody gives a damn. Those who cared to look typically find this background distasteful for one reason or another. (Either because of the tools or because of the concept of a non-heroic character past) The page has not been brought up to the standards of an FA in that time. --Kydo (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2016 (MDT)

Farm Implement

In the 5e PHB, shovels (and miner's picks) don't benefit from Tool Proficiency. If Farm Implements are anything like shovels and miner's picks, I have to assume they don't benefit either.--Redrum 18:29, 16 March 2016 (MDT)

Farming implements are for the most part obvious tools, but their correct application would require proficiency. You can't have proficiency with a miner's pick, but I could see a person have proficiency with Mining Implements (which would include picks, shovels, charts, possibly simple explosives...) Do correct me if I'm wrong, 5e is not my forte :P I'm not a big fan of the Farm Implements page, little stubs of pages don't look nice to me. No way to make that better, though, that's what it's supposed to look like. On the name issue mentioned earlier: Farm Implements is great. I wouldn't mind "Tools" either, but the PHB already outlined that artisan's tools can have unique naming conventions (tools, supplies, utensils). Cancelion (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

Oh wait, I just noticed: you're assumed to have proficiency with just ONE farming implement. That doesn't make sense to me: the artisanal tool proficiencies in the PHB refer to groups of tools and their usage; I think farming implements should as well. Most of the tools are simple, and the average farmer has probably had to use pretty much each every one of them over the course of their life, even if they specialized in one or two. An easy fix, really - just remove "one" and add an "s" :) Cancelion (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

I think the farming implements page should say "Proficiency with these tools let you add your proficiency modifier to Constitution checks made to plow fields, harvest crops, sheer sheep or other strenuous farm activity." So I will add that. Marasmusine (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

Specific beats generic. --Kydo (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

Whoops! Didn't realize that would delete a pile of other stuff! Sorry! Yes, Marasmusine was correct. People are blowing the proficiency ridiculously out of proportion just because it isnt a listed skill. It's for doing farm work. Like a farmer. --Kydo (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

Thanks for cleaning that up Marasmusine. --Kydo (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2016 (MDT)

If it was listed as Farm Implements instead of Farm Implement, you would have had less problems from me.--209.97.85.48 13:16, 19 March 2016 (MDT)

Are you aware of the Orizon Campaign Setting? I think it has Farmer's Tools under the heading of Workman's tools. Kydo, I think I know that you will say that you want this background to be generic and not campaign specific, but what's your point.

The Orizon equipment page links to the farm implements page I created for this background. What's your point? :D --Kydo (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2016 (MDT)

I think his point is that you could have used Farmer's Tools instead of Farm Implements as the Tool proficiency. --209.97.85.48 13:08, 1 October 2016 (MDT)

They're the same page. --Kydo (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2016 (MDT)

that was fast!! --Redrum 13:46, 1 October 2016 (MDT)

I'm working on stuff, and have my watchlist in the background. I check for updates every so often. --Kydo (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2016 (MDT)

Miner background

If there is a farmer background, could there be a miner background?--209.97.85.48 13:11, 19 March 2016 (MDT)

That seems perfectly valid to me at least. Maybe roll all physical labor backgrounds into a Laborer background? In fact, it's kind of amazing to me that such a background isn't presented in the PHB. The Sailor background pretty clearly showcases that a given line of occupation can be made into a full-fledged background, like this one here.

It's a question of detail, really. While you can make a general, all-purpose Laborer background, a more specific background allows for easier character creation, and teaches people about professions, which I find pleasing for some reason :D Cancelion (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2016 (MDT)

You could make a generic laborer background, and if you try I wish you luck. A great deal would be lost that is unique to every profession. In pre-industrial times, every profession was like its own cultural group. That's still true today, but to a lesser extent. As a cashier, I would NEVER speak the way we do at the steel mill in public. I hear rig workers are worse. But aside from that, working a profession forces you to deal with aspects of life that other people never even see. It colours the way you interpret the world. It also changes your language, filling your vocabulary with jargon, often repurposing common words. If your profession had a guild, it would even alter your social community, connecting you with people miles away you'd never have known, while simultaneously disconnecting you from others, such as those in competing organizations. Imagine a background that can encompass every type of farmer, miner, blacksmith, mason, carpenter, etc. You'll ultimately just make a generic "human commoner" background with very little actual content and very open-ended descriptions. --Kydo (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2016 (MDT)

Quality Article Nominee

— This article became a quality article! 08:23, 5 December 2019 (MST)

• Comment — I don't believe there is a need to state at the top that this background is protected for the background design guide, especially with the fact that users can still edit the page. Regardless of that, Kydo's signature shouldn't be on the top of the page as anything that may suggest that a page is x creator's creation typically should be removed(especially so because Kydo created this page).--Blobby383b (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2019 (MDT)

I agree.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   13:03, 20 September 2019 (MDT)

• Support — This page does an excellent job covering one of the lesser talked about professions in most settings, farming. This background also allows a pc to explore what it is like to have unique set of goals, desires, and personalities compared to other backgrounds, while also allowing a lot of opportunities to explore what it is like to transition into becoming an adventurer. All in all, based on the abundant rping opportunities and the fact that the background is quite well written, I believe that this background would make an excellent quality article.--Blobby383b (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2019 (MDT)

• Not linked — This page does not appear on the 5e Background List--WuSongKong (talk)