# Background Skills section



## Van der Hoorn (Jun 15, 2009)

The "Background Skills" section (Player's Guide, p. 9) is a bit ambiguous, as it contains terminology from the 3.5 edition (i.e. craft, profession, performance related). Is it a leftover from the 3.5 edition or should I really create a new skill in 4e?

Thanks,
R.


----------



## merchantsteve (Jun 15, 2009)

That's a holdover. it should be eliminated. I thought we trapped all that stuff out!


----------



## roderickvd (Jun 15, 2009)

merchantsteve said:


> That's a holdover. it should be eliminated. I thought we trapped all that stuff out!




So just to be sure: PC's are *not* granted any bonus skill at all?


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jun 15, 2009)

TTBOMK, that section was added in one of the updates to the Player's Guide. The intent behind it, IIRC, was for the GM to go ahead and create a new skill which had little effect other than to "flesh out" a character's backstory by giving the character something "special" to be good at.

If you're uncomfortable with it, I'd recommend you just pretend it's not there and instead give each character a +2 bonus to rolls having to do with whatever they chose as a background skill (as long as it would be, in 3.5 terms, a Craft, Performance, or Profession thing -- something that never affects combat, but *might* affect a skill challenge).


----------



## Morrus (Jun 15, 2009)

It's _not_ a holdover, no, and should not be eliminated!

They do get one free skill, which they create with their DM's consent.  For ideas of what that skill would be, think along the lines of craft/profession/perform (as in the English sense of the words, nothing to do with game mechanics).  Or, as the text says, it should answer the question "What does your character like to do when he's not adventuring?"

So, your character might have a skill in origami, or painting, or carpentry, or whatever.  It's simply used to flesh your character out a little, and is entirely optional.   It may give you a few extra little roleplaying opportunities.


----------



## merchantsteve (Jun 15, 2009)

Alright, I goofed. I was reacting to keywords without reading the context. 

If you have the Player's Handbook 2, page 182 has a section titled 'Other Benefits in Play'. It talks about the benefits of having a background bonus. If you were a blacksmith and you were talking to a blacksmith, it is entirely reasonable for the DM to offer a +2 bonus to your Diplomacy check. Likewise, working as an apprentice in the Sarawatin gives you a librarian skill. It could provide +1 bonus to a History, Religion or Arcana check based on when and how it was used.
That is the intent of the Background Skills. If you invest your character in the world, some small benefit is provided.


----------



## Van der Hoorn (Jun 16, 2009)

I think the section should be improved then. Just making up skills is not really appropriate, IMHO. Also, a +2 diplomacy check is also totally different from creating a new skill (which is what is says right now). I suggest that you give an example in the text, so people will understand.

Thanks,
R.


----------



## merchantsteve (Jun 16, 2009)

I agree, an example would probably be good. The PHB2 calls this concept a Background Bonus and maybe that would be a better phrase to use. The blacksmith example I showed was directly taken from the PHB2 (yes, the +2 and all when you add the info from the sidebar on page 179) and the Sarawatin was an example of a Gate-Pass specific use. The trick is that these Background skills are highly targeted and DM approved. The Diplomacy boost is only good for a blacksmith encounter with another blacksmith. The library boost should also be applicable only in Gate-Pass where he can use the library. I would consider a bump on a skill challenge involving finding a book in a library (like a recent Dungeon magazine adventure has) valid as well since the character has experience finding things filed away in the stacks.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2009)

Van der Hoorn said:


> I think the section should be improved then. Just making up skills is not really appropriate, IMHO. Also, a +2 diplomacy check is also totally different from creating a new skill (which is what is says right now). I suggest that you give an example in the text, so people will understand.




Hmm?  It _does_ give examples.: singing, carpentry, painting and origami.  I honestly can't think of any way that section could be clearer; do you have any suggestions?


----------



## roderickvd (Jun 16, 2009)

merchantsteve said:


> I agree, an example would probably be good. The PHB2 calls this concept a Background Bonus and maybe that would be a better phrase to use. The blacksmith example I showed was directly taken from the PHB2 (yes, the +2 and all when you add the info from the sidebar on page 179) and the Sarawatin was an example of a Gate-Pass specific use. The trick is that these Background skills are highly targeted and DM approved. The Diplomacy boost is only good for a blacksmith encounter with another blacksmith. The library boost should also be applicable only in Gate-Pass where he can use the library. I would consider a bump on a skill challenge involving finding a book in a library (like a recent Dungeon magazine adventure has) valid as well since the character has experience finding things filed away in the stacks.




If that's the case then I would actually propose to remove it altogether, because it's already governed by the "DM's best aid". I'd already give my players a +2 circumstance bonus if they put effort into their character background and an appropriate situation arises. This is documented in the DMG.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 16, 2009)

roderickvd said:


> If that's the case then I would actually propose to remove it altogether, because it's already governed by the "DM's best aid". I'd already give my players a +2 circumstance bonus if they put effort into their character background and an appropriate situation arises. This is documented in the DMG.




It's an optional rule subject to DM approval; if it's not to your taste, you don't have to use it.  I personally prefer this method to the DMG method, but peoples' opinions will vary.  At least you have the choice!


----------

