Character Creation Stat Bonuses and Stat Affinities

[Off The Record]

What do Female bodied players think of the recent content?

Hi! Okay, so with female bodied I mean players who’s character has traits of a woman (i.e. breasts, vagina etc.), and in this case no male genitalia. I’m curious what this group of players has been thinking about the content recently. Are you satisfied with the current romance options, sex...

forum.fenoxo.com

Thanks! I figured it out after the other commenter complained about the faux pas, but I really appreciate the gesture. Communities thrive when its members help one another.

Considering that the game is still in the process of being made, you can't expect perfection right off. It takes time to get things just right.

I'm not expecting perfection. Games dont improve if its players dont bring up discussions about potential problems. Thats why Im here, commenting about this, replying to the commenters who I think are making bad excuses for it or are misinterpreting the improvisational player solutions to the problem as the problem not existing in the first place.

Also, once again, those points are not meaningless.

No one here, including you, has succeeded in arguing that it's not meaningless. I'm replying in the spirit of having a discussion about this because I dont deign to assume how other players feel about something I see an issue with. If you dont want to engage, then dont. Just dont resort to insults after failing to submit a compelling argument.

The fact that you'd rather trash the system shows that this is more for you and a very small minority rather than a genuine concern for the greater player base. This is purely you wanting the game to conform to your viewpoint because it's slightly inconvenient to your RPing.

I could strawman and grapple for a moral high ground like you and state that you're undermining my valid points because you want the game to remain conformed to your viewpoint and provide insignificant character creation stat bonus and meaningless character stat affinities (for whatever reason — I suspect it's for min-maxing and you've not denied that) rather than speaking to a genuine concern for the greater player base that's interested in roleplaying or otherwise. But its unbecoming. Stop it.

For the record, I'm not interested in the roleplaying aspect. That was one among several valid approaches to the game that I mentioned was damaged or hindered by character stat bonuses and character stat affinities. My personal issue concerns the fact that the current character creation stat bonuses and affinities lend themselves neither to the principle of roleplaying nor to the principle of min-maxing. It fact, it hinders both.

You dont want to remove stat bonuses? Fine. Then we just need to ensure that players can do things like, for instance, create a character with a +3 Strength bonus or a +3 Cunning bonus. I just want this system to be fixed.

By the way, the gym is on the west side of Hawkthorne.

Muscle wizard as in viable melee as well as viable spellcasting. But being muscular without having the Strength stat to back it up ruins the fantasy of the muscle wizard.

 

[LonelyHydra]

I apologize for making things more personal than it needed to be. I should`ve and will focus on contributing new ideas, rather than nitpicking arguments.

Last suggestion: Background could be bumped up a decision step or two, since it's the only decision in character creation that`s permanent (short of time travel).

I'd be completely down with implementing a system of automatically assigning a fixed amount of stats on level up, distributing them based on your character's affinities. This will have an added benefit of creating a choice between keeping the growth even by having your class, background affinities coverdifferent stats and min-maxing by having them all align. Currently you are simply limitng your options by doing the latter without becoming more proficient for it.

Om the other hand any form of Fire Emblem style randomized stats growth (if that is what you were suggesting) is something I hate with a passion, I would stard molding immediately if if any game I love shifted to that model.

Yeah, I realize the issues with that. Hence my later suggestion with double or triple affinities. I like making it auto assign too, if I had the option to redistribute.

Of course, it's always best to assume we're underestimating the amount of work/testing it takes to implement. Extra points might strain game balance, for example.

 

[Off The Record]

Hence my later suggestion with double or triple affinities.

Extra points might strain game balance, for example.

Actually, its for this reason that Im a little hesitant about stacked affinities. Conceivably, we want customization to be broad but stat parameters to somewhat narrow. Narrow stat parameters make it easier to maintain balance, particularly at plot-relevant checkpoints like the Winter City infiltration. The breadth from no stat affinities to three stat affinities sounds broad. Harder to pin whether a battle's fair or not when the gulf's that wide.

It could also undermine player character creation choices. If we enable doubled or tripled affinities, then that could both undermine customization since affinities are tied to specific race, class, and background choices. I shouldnt have to min-max by stacking affinities in order to play a viable warrior character, for instance. Assume that the ideal stats for that build are Strength and Toughness. There are four tiers: not acquiring a stat affinity for those stats at all, to acquiring one affinity, to acquiring two stacked affinities, to acquiring three stacked affinities. The more I want to achieve a viable warrior build, the more I must surrender my freedom to choose during character creation in order to acquire those affinities.

Of course, the game's character creation menu could begin by stating that its recommended to change your gameplay difficulty to Easy or Story mode if the player doesnt want to partake in the min-maxing. But if thats the fix, then it would be wise to make a non-min-max gameplay mode the default in order to refrain from sending the message to new players that mechanical optimization supersedes narrative and choice agency. Conversely, that would mean warning new players that if they'd like to min-max, they should raise the game's difficulty.

 

[Lone Wolf115]

Know that your starting bonuses are locked with your starting race but it would be nice if you give your soul to one of the seven and you get those starting bonuses, but I believe that is a coding nightmare.

 

[Burnerbro]

Background could be bumped up a decision step or two, since it's the only decision in character creation that`s permanent (short of time travel).

Choosing class and background can be moved to before choosing the race, but you can't pick background before class because your character's class currently determines which backgrounds are available to you, with minor overlap.

This is also why the race is the only thing that can give 'wrong' stat affinities, since the ones provided by class and background are all relevant to broad mechanical archetypes the base classes represent. Even then only in case of picking Strength and Willpower for pure magic and physical builds respectively do you have stats the players are likely to never pick on their own - but that can lead them to adopting a more hybrid build,

 

[LonelyHydra]

Actually, its for this reason that Im a little hesitant about stacked affinities. Conceivably, we want customization to be broad but stat parameters to somewhat narrow. Narrow stat parameters make it easier to maintain balance, particularly at plot-relevant checkpoints like the Winter City infiltration. The breadth from no stat affinities to three stat affinities sounds broad. Harder to pin whether a battle's fair or not when the gulf's that wide.

It could also undermine player character creation choices. If we enable doubled or tripled affinities, then that could both undermine customization since affinities are tied to specific race, class, and background choices. I shouldnt have to min-max by stacking affinities in order to play a viable warrior character, for instance. Assume that the ideal stats for that build are Strength and Toughness. There are four tiers: not acquiring a stat affinity for those stats at all, to acquiring one affinity, to acquiring two stacked affinities, to acquiring three stacked affinities. The more I want to achieve a viable warrior build, the more I must surrender my freedom to choose during character creation in order to acquire those affinities.

Of course, the game's character creation menu could begin by stating that its recommended to change your gameplay difficulty to Easy or Story mode if the player doesnt want to partake in the min-maxing. But if thats the fix, then it would be wise to make a non-min-max gameplay mode the default in order to refrain from sending the message to new players that mechanical optimization supersedes narrative and choice agency. Conversely, that would mean warning new players that if they'd like to min-max, they should raise the game's difficulty.

All true, but it would be nice to be rewarded for otherwise blocking off advancement to stats. As is, you're punished for missing affinities.

And unfortunately, new players are the most likely to screw themselves there. Doubt they'd want to do it like that.

Choosing class and background can be moved to before choosing the race, but you can't pick background before class because your character's class currently determines which backgrounds are available to you, with minor overlap.

This is also why the race is the only thing that can give 'wrong' stat affinities, since the ones provided by class and background are all relevant to broad mechanical archetypes the base classes represent. Even then only in case of picking Strength and Willpower for pure magic and physical builds respectively do you have stats the players are likely to never pick on their own - but that can lead them to adopting a more hybrid build,

Picking background first means limiting to (initial) classes that have that background. So:
Noble/Hunter : Any
Soldier : Warrior/Thief
Scholar : White/Black Mage
Courtesan : Charmer/Thief
(Single BG) : (Single Class)

But then again, whether or not class or background should goes first depends on whether players prefer mechanics or roleplaying. If the latter, I'd recommend Background>Race>Class. If the former, I'd recommend Class>Race>Background. Either way, I agree with you on race but this is off topic, to be sure.

 

[Off The Record]

All true, but it would be nice to be rewarded for otherwise blocking off advancement to stats. As is, you're punished for missing affinities.

Agreed.

And unfortunately, new players are the most likely to screw themselves there. Doubt they'd want to do it like that.


Picking background first means limiting to (initial) classes that have that background. So:
Noble/Hunter : Any
Soldier : Warrior/Thief
Scholar : White/Black Mage
Courtesan : Charmer/Thief
(Single BG) : (Single Class)

But then again, whether or not class or background should goes first depends on whether players prefer mechanics or roleplaying. If the latter, I'd recommend Background>Race>Class. If the former, I'd recommend Class>Race>Background. Either way, I agree with you on race but this is off topic, to be sure.

ngl Im a little disappointed that I cant choose both Scholar and Fighter in character creation. Whatever happened to the philosopher warrior archetype? Meanwhile, its permissible to choose both Charmer, Black Mage, or White Mage and Hunter??

 

[Burnerbro]

You also can't be a barbarian turned thief. Conan does not approve.

 

[LonelyHydra]

You can change classes after the intro. It just means you reconsidered your life choices after Kas blasted you in the face.

 

[Off The Record]

You can change classes after the intro. It just means you reconsidered your life choices after Kas blasted you in the face.

Doesn't eliminate the issue. If I can choose both a mage and a hunter, then I should be able to mix and match other classes and backgrounds. Its about the principle, the principle being freedom to choose. Changing classes after character creation only adds an unnecessary extra step. Even if I were to change classes, it's expensive for a character just starting out, forcing me into playing a class I'm not interested in until I acquire enough money to spend on the class change, thereby, in turn, preventing me on spending money on other things I would be interested in.

Also, your explanation was narrative-sensitive. If the character can be thought to have changed their mind rather than the player, then it's permissible for the character to not change their mind, starting instead with the desired class and background.

I'm aware this criticism in particular might sound nitpicky, but I believe an issue that can easily be fixed is an issue that should not be tolerated.

 

[LonelyHydra]

Doesn't eliminate the issue. If I can choose both a mage and a hunter, then I should be able to mix and match other classes and backgrounds. Its about the principle, the principle being freedom to choose. Changing classes after character creation only adds an unnecessary extra step. Even if I were to change classes, it's expensive for a character just starting out, forcing me into playing a class I'm not interested in until I acquire enough money to spend on the class change, thereby, in turn, preventing me on spending money on other things I would be interested in.

Also, your explanation was narrative-sensitive. If the character can be thought to have changed their mind rather than the player, then it's permissible for the character to not change their mind, starting instead with the desired class and background.

I'm aware this criticism in particular might sound nitpicky, but I believe an issue that can easily be fixed is an issue that should not be tolerated.

I suspect "Hunter" was a holdover from early development. Could probably be renamed "Woodsman", true.

Look, I appreciate flexibility in character creation as much as the next guy. But as a computer game, your ability to shape the narrative will be limited compared to tabletop play. It helps to think of systems as an extension of the setting, even if they get to be a hassle to actually play.

Last last consideration: You get only one Power per levelup, right? Why not allow Background to expand what you can select? For example:
Single Class Background: That Class' power set is available at level up, as well as your current Class. Also compensates for the Affinities being so similar.
Dual Class Background: If your current class is one, the power set of the other is available
Hunter: You can get a Ranged power of that level instead
Noble: Don't know what to do there. Single/current class for the challenge of it?
(Thinking about it, if I could rearrange character creation I'd like Background>Class>Race>Appearance)

 

[Paradox01]

I'm aware this criticism in particular might sound nitpicky...

Not on the surface, no, I agree with your assessment...

...but I believe an issue that can easily be fixed is an issue that should not be tolerated.

...but this is where you lose your audience. You haven't quite reached "Ultimatum" status yet, but it can hear your footsteps and "Bombastic" just watched you whoosh on by.

 

[Burnerbro]

Noble: Don't know what to do there. Single/current class for the challenge of it?

You can stack up more background dependent positive outcomes for it. This can be interesting, but it doesn't seem like very a easy thing to justify with how minor the Champion family's influence is likely to be and the distance from their domain to the marches. Same with the outcomes based on Champion being simply better at dealing with the upper crust of various societies - the courtly manners not being exclusive to that background. Finally, the benefits of picking that background won't be available for a good chunk of the early game in that case and can only be hinted at without spoiling choices.

You can lean into the "leader of men" angle, providing a separate small pool of unique powers centered around a different, more undane approach to buffing your companions. This will have a drawback of requiring to come up with those powers, making them distinct from Charmer and White Mage ones mechanically as well as in terms of flavour - and then you will need to balance them and stick the ability to train your nobility justsu onto some NPC. Still lots of fun to be had in creating a flavourful option like that.

Lastly, just give Noble Champs more money and/or decent gear. It makes even less sense for them to have nothing except for the shirt on their back in the middle of a planned long and perilous journey.

I really like your idea overall and the suggested setup for the rest of the backgrounds.

 

[LonelyHydra]

Noble: Don't know what to do there. Single/current class for the challenge of it?

Got it: Reduced cost (half or third) for class changing, befitting someone who had everything growing up. Flexible for any party setup and good for experimenting with builds.

You can lean into the "leader of men" angle, providing a separate small pool of unique powers centered around a different, more undane approach to buffing your companions. This will have a drawback of requiring to come up with those powers, making them distinct from Charmer and White Mage ones mechanically as well as in terms of flavour - and then you will need to balance them and stick the ability to train your nobility justsu onto some NPC. Still lots of fun to be had in creating a flavourful option like that.

Here's one for you:
Command: Giveup your turn to control one of your companions. Selected companion can also act on their turn; their second action of the round has no Leadership bonuses.

I really like your idea overall and the suggested setup for the rest of the backgrounds.

I hope this one gets in; new actions are more exciting than higher numbers.

 

[Off The Record]

But as a computer game, your ability to shape the narrative will be limited compared to tabletop play.

That's my point. How does mage + hunter even make sense when warrior + scholar does not? The fact that this combination exists undermines the notion that the background and class combinations were supposed to shape narrative in a sensible manner. If we're going to do away with that, then do away with that completely. If we're chasing that, then fulfill that completely. I dislike half-measures.

Last last consideration: You get only one Power per levelup, right? Why not allow Background to expand what you can select? For example:
Single Class Background: That Class' power set is available at level up, as well as your current Class. Also compensates for the Affinities being so similar.
Dual Class Background: If your current class is one, the power set of the other is available
Hunter: You can get a Ranged power of that level instead
Noble: Don't know what to do there. Single/current class for the challenge of it?
(Thinking about it, if I could rearrange character creation I'd like Background>Class>Race>Appearance)

That's an interesting suggestion. It'd be cool to see backgrounds taking a greater role in gameplay. Without them, we get some dialogue and some options like for soldiers to train the half-manticore in a special manner, but I feel a little more involvement would still be nice. I know that the Dark Sun campaign setting, or maybe just DnD 4e in general, had a more appealing take on background. Instead of granting a simple narrative-based feature, it grants mechanical features with interesting narrative descriptions according to your character's level. Upon reaching level 10, you then can then choose a paragon background, which offers even more interesting features. I liked that.

You haven't quite reached "Ultimatum" status yet, but it can hear your footsteps and "Bombastic" just watched you whoosh on by.

Not an ultimatum-type rhetoric. It's like adding too much salt in a recipe. Just remove the salt. It's so easy. It's more about expenses and profits. Why allow this mistake to continue wasting or ruining when you can easily stop it by omission. Other mistakes, more complicated mistakes, take more time to resolve. That's why those are tolerable and this isn't.

 

[WolframL]

Not an ultimatum-type rhetoric. It's like adding too much salt in a recipe. Just remove the salt. It's so easy.

You don't do much cooking, do you? Once you've added salt to a recipe you can't really remove it in most cases, you can only add other things to balance it out. As analogies go, that one doesn't really work here.

It's more about expenses and profits. Why allow this mistake to continue wasting or ruining when you can easily stop it by omission. Other mistakes, more complicated mistakes, take more time to resolve.

When the 'mistake' in question is mostly only an issue for edge case roleplaying or extremely atypical stat builds, going back and changing the character creation system isn't really the best use of the development team's time and money, as opposed to fixing actual game-breaking bugs or expanding/writing new content.

For the same reason, expecting them to go back and completely rework how Backgrounds function and adding abilities to them is pretty much a pipe dream.

 

[LonelyHydra]

You don't do much cooking, do you? Once you've added salt to a recipe you can't really remove it in most cases, you can only add other things to balance it out. As analogies go, that one doesn't really work here.

True, but you can compensate for them, if you know what spices or sauces to use and if they're available.

When the 'mistake' in question is mostly only an issue for edge case roleplaying or extremely atypical stat builds, going back and changing the character creation system isn't really the best use of the development team's time and money, as opposed to fixing actual game-breaking bugs or expanding/writing new content.

Understand that what the OP might be hearing, is that the team prefers to polish a turd rather than fix fundamental design issues. (Tech debt is a thing.) What he needs to hear is an proper defense of the system as it stands.

For example: Why not make the penalty for not favoring attributes a reduced bonus for investing, rather than blocking off investment altogether?

For the same reason, expecting them to go back and completely rework how Backgrounds function and adding abilities to them is pretty much a pipe dream.

That's the beauty of it: I don't think they need to add new abilities. What I'm suggesting only requires a rewrite to the level up function to depend on Background, then Class. I could even Peusdocode it.

Every other level you're only allowed 1 Power from a list. Depending on Background, that list is:
Noble: [Current Class Powers (at level)] *Class changing is cheaper.
Hunter: [Current Class Powers (at level)], [Powers with RANGED tag (at level)]
(Background available to Two Classes): [Current Class Powers (at level)], [Other Class Powers (at level)]
(Background available to One Class): [[Current Class Powers (at level)], [Background Class Powers (at level)]

 

[Lone Wolf115]

True, but you can compensate for them, if you know what spices or sauces to use and if they're available.


Understand that what the OP might be hearing, is that the team prefers to polish a turd rather than fix fundamental design issues. (Tech debt is a thing.) What he needs to hear is an proper defense of the system as it stands.

For example: Why not make the penalty for not favoring attributes a reduced bonus for investing, rather than blocking off investment altogether?


That's the beauty of it: I don't think they need to add new abilities. What I'm suggesting only requires a rewrite to the level up function to depend on Background, then Class. I could even Peusdocode it.

Every other level you're only allowed 1 Power from a list. Depending on Background, that list is:
Noble: [Current Class Powers (at level)] *Class changing is cheaper.
Hunter: [Current Class Powers (at level)], [Powers with RANGED tag (at level)]
(Background available to Two Classes): [Current Class Powers (at level)], [Other Class Powers (at level)]
(Background available to One Class): [[Current Class Powers (at level)], [Background Class Powers (at level)]

Ahem two words: coding nightmare.

 

[WolframL]

Understand that what the OP might be hearing, is that the team prefers to polish a turd rather than fix fundamental design issues. (Tech debt is a thing.) What he needs to hear is an proper defense of the system as it stands.

If he thinks the system is a turd being polished, that's really his problem. In the grand scheme of things it works just fine for most people. That starting bonuses aren't as momentous as some would like or that the Background doesn't have as much gameplay influence as others want does not make it a bad system. It's an abstraction of your character for gameplay purposes and follows the same model as other FenCo games. The game doesn't allow you to pick any but the initial five races so if you really want to imagine your Champ is a minotaur or a siorcanna or whatever, you can't do that either. That doesn't make it a bad system, you just set your Champ up to your liking once the option is there and you imagine they've always been that way.

For example: Why not make the penalty for not favoring attributes a reduced bonus for investing, rather than blocking off investment altogether?

Because the system is designed to work with whole numbers, perhaps? You still get a point per level in all stats even if you can't naturally spend points on it and if you absolutely must pump more points into a stat, you can train.

That's the beauty of it: I don't think they need to add new abilities. What I'm suggesting only requires a rewrite to the level up function to depend on Background, then Class. I could even Peusdocode it.

That's what I mean, you're proposing replacing a system that does the same thing for every possible permutation of the Champion with one that needs to do a [pc.bg] check and then do different things based on the result. As Lone White Wolf said, that's not a simple process even if somebody on the dev team had any interest in it.

Contrast the situation where they did go back and change a fundamental gameplay feature. When they rebalanced Resolve it was because people had discovered you could legitimately beat Kas despite a massive level disadvantage by shaking your goods at her. That meant that a fundamental aspect of the gameplay wasn't properly balanced. As opposed to the character creation system which works fine for 99.9% of players.

(Background available to One Class): [[Current Class Powers (at level)], [Background Class Powers (at level)]

This would also require them to completely redo the system to assign Powers to Backgrounds, which they aren't right now because they're linked to Class. You know, because what you do for a living makes more sense for what you learn to do with experience than what you used to do which may have no impact on your current character.

And making new Background-linked abilities like your 'Command' proposal runs the risk of making some Backgrounds objectively better than others (the kind of min-maxing the devs explicitly do not want to encourage) and would require them to balance a whole new slate of abilities when they already have to make sure that Class-linked Powers and anything you can learn from Mirror Stance or Tomes is balanced for its acquisition point.

 

[Off The Record]

You don't do much cooking, do you? Once you've added salt to a recipe you can't really remove it in most cases, you can only add other things to balance it out. As analogies go, that one doesn't really work here.

I specifically used the word recipe. Read.

When the 'mistake' in question is mostly only an issue for edge case roleplaying or extremely atypical stat builds

First, that's an exaggeration. Mixing classes and backgrounds the way you'd like is just as valid as other people mixing classes and background the way they'd like. No case difference between mixing Soldier and Fighter, and Mage and Slum Rat.

I also don't see how resolving this issue would contribute to atypical stat building. I'd like if you'd explain.

going back and changing the character creation system isn't really the best use of the development team's time and money, as opposed to fixing actual game-breaking bugs

Second, that's a poor excuse. Fixes by omission, particularly to something no entangled with other elements, are not costly or time consuming. Your reasoning here's that everyone should ignore issues that can easily be fixed just because there are other issues too. That reasoning applies to the same issues you're advocating, as a microcosm, so that's a poor rationale.

Even disregarding this, issues to be fixed are issues to be fixed. I never said that the issue should be fixed today. I merely said the issue should be fixed, particularly when it seems to be an easy fix. More likely, the dev team didn't initially notice. That's what players are for. That's what testing is for. So your entire denial is predicated on a fiction about priorities that you fabricated.

or expanding/writing new content.

This is a terrible recipe. There are popular games that attempt to add new content without fixing pre-existing issues and it just makes the game a convoluted ship deteriorating under it's new weight because of its shoddy woodsmanship and poor foundation.

 

[Paradox01]

Blah, blah, blah, bullshit bullshit.

Oh, so you're an arrogant and entitled snob! Why didn't you say so?

Suck it up, buttercup. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[LonelyHydra]

The game doesn't allow you to pick any but the initial five races so if you really want to imagine your Champ is a minotaur or a siorcanna or whatever, you can't do that either. That doesn't make it a bad system, you just set your Champ up to your liking once the option is there and you imagine they've always been that way.

I think you have the wrong idea about roleplayers if you think they could throw out a hour of their playtime like that. They love improv.

Does the game have a bullsh*t reason why there's only 5 races? I say bullsh*t cause I know the actual reason is the devs can't do it. No shame in that.

Because the system is designed to work with whole numbers, perhaps? You still get a point per level in all stats even if you can't naturally spend points on it and if you absolutely must pump more points into a stat, you can train.

So I only get +1 rather than +2 if I advance an unfavored stat. That's a whole number, right?

But seriously, I can play devil's advocate now: Affinities are like that because it's way easier for the devs to balance if they know that a player at level Y has stat points are at exactly X, rather than a range of X-Y and X. As a player, it doesn't feel great having negative reinforcement put on me to optimize my build. At least, it's not where I usually expect it. So I can respect it.

That's what I mean, you're proposing replacing a system that does the same thing for every possible permutation of the Champion with one that needs to do a [pc.bg] check and then do different things based on the result. As Lone White Wolf said, that's not a simple process even if somebody on the dev team had any interest in it.

I think I miswrote. Have you seen the Power interface lately? You can sort your powers now!

Turn off all Classes, Set Level to new level only, Turn on Class you have now, Turn on Class(es) based on Background, Done.

The functions needed for what I've been suggesting should already be coded in.

This would also require them to completely redo the system to assign Powers to Backgrounds, which they aren't right now because they're linked to Class. You know, because what you do for a living makes more sense for what you learn to do with experience than what you used to do which may have no impact on your current character.

I read the Background descriptions as motivations to why they're in the Frost Marshes at the start. Could be important enough.

Honestly, Single Class Backgrounds was less about roleplay and more about gamefeel. Make it more obvious that a player who picks that background should change classes. That their affinities overlap already encourages it.

I am not suggesting they remove/rework Classes or attach Powers to Backgrounds. I'm suggesting how Backgrounds could be attached to Classes, rather than the other way around in game.

And making new Background-linked abilities like your 'Command' proposal runs the risk of making some Backgrounds objectively better than others (the kind of min-maxing the devs explicitly do not want to encourage) and would require them to balance a whole new slate of abilities when they already have to make sure that Class-linked Powers and anything you can learn from Mirror Stance or Tomes is balanced for its acquisition point.

I got carried away in theory crafting when I suggested "Command". I'm not really arguing for new abilities from Background either.