D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm assuming he means the College of Dance from playtest packet #6.

Oh yeah. Those are kind of fun. They don't remotely step on the Monk's toes. (Dancing, get it? Nudge nudge).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Okay. Stranger in a strange land scenario like I asked about above. The group is transported to a different timeline, one where they never existed like It's a Wonderful Life. Nobody knows the folk hero, the noble's house doesn't exist or if it does there's no proof the PC is part of it, the sailor has never sailed with anyone.

How would those backgrounds work without changing the basic premise of the fiction? I just don't see it.

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this because you've done your best to set it up as a "trap" scenario. I mean, obviously you're a clever storyteller and you've used your cleverness to come up with the hardest thing you could think of to make it as difficult as possible to make Background Features work. Congratulations!

But I've answered this already. They'd have to make new contacts. Yes, if your "win scenario" is that there'd be a time where their background features are "off-line" or simply "can't be played as-written" - then I'll grant you your victory!

But that was never my point. My point was only ever that it's (TO ME) extremely easy to make them work for a player, a table, or a DM who wants them to. It's still easy in your scenario. Have the PCs make new NPC "friends". There's got to be NPCs around that are cut from similar cloth, and if their isn't, why not? And I mean that why not both as "shrug, what difference does it make" and as "I can't imagine why there would need to not be any".

Obviously there'd be roleplaying involved. Does anyone think that there would not be any roleplaying on the part of the Players? I'd be very surprised to find that was true.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

As is your right!


... But your reasons make little sense. For One, we don't really know for sure how the Monk or the Bard (and its subclasses) are going to look. The playtest is a playtest. Nothing we've seen is 100% set in stone.

AND from what you've wrote, I'm not sure that you read all the playtests? I mean, have you SEEN the latest Monk? If it goes in the 2024 PHB with no changes (which I doubt) it will be overpowered (though not as much, IMO, as some people think). And I have no idea what Bard Subclass you're talking about. There was a Fighter subclass that was unarmed (the Brawler) which has already been said to be out.

Care to expand on your thoughts? I might sound like I want to argue with you (and I suppose that I might) but I'm curious as to where you get those ideas from.

Given how extensively the monk was reworked in the 8th PHB playtest packet, you might want to make some specific claims about what the unaddressed problems were.

I'm assuming he means the College of Dance from playtest packet #6.

Yes, that one.

Just to make it clear - my issues with the Monk and Bard are minor compared to my main reason to not go with this update - OGL stuff is my main reason. My second reason would be that I resent how much this is relying on D&D Beyond. Monk gettign screwed is a minor nitpick.

but anyway:
Monk got better scaling of their damage die...but no access to weapon mastery, effectively midigating any improvements, ensuring they still are at the bottom.
Unarmored Defense is still a class feature that is worse than wearing nonmagical armor up until level 20, while Monk still doesn't have big hit die or defenses to be in meele with Fighter, Ranger, paladin or Barbarian
Monk still doesn't have enough ki points to keep up and isntead of permamently increase them, they just filled levels where they didn't have ideas with features to midigate it.
They nerfed Stunning Strike and removed the utility previous UAs added to it as a trade-off for the nerf.
At 18 level you get ability to pay for a thing thing Barbarian gets for free whenever they rage at level 3.


And on top of that, College of Dance bard casually can do Monk's main thing, on top of having access to spells. And then also gets one of Monk's best features a whole level earlier and also gets a STRONGER version of it. There is literally nothing Monk can do that won't be overshadowed by Bard. Any time anyone will want to play a Monk, this subclass will need to be banned outright unless you want Bard to bully Monk players.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, that was a counter to the idea that one had to be okay with illogical scenarios to find a way to make them work. I take issue with that idea. Might have gotten a bit testy, though not as much as it sounds. As usual, I meant it as a friendly barb at worst.

Keep in mind that this is a thread where someone literally looked at a comment stating. "There are a great many times when a player's background feature would be absolutely bonkers to apply." responded "why does the gm get to decide if [a background feature] is relevant" while another complained that they were talking about Barovia not ravenloft when an answer explained how Ravenloft works Barovia is in ravenloft ...

It's both. Both player and DM work together. Sometimes you might have a player try it like you describe it, I guess. "I'm a (background) so I get my contact to do X". But then, I would think that the DM would have an actual NPC who IS that contact, a method by which they contact each other, and go over that scene with the player?

True but this very much seems like an example of working together that is also within the normal play loop

Spoiler

• Players: I want to reach out to my contact to do x
• Gm: You are hundreds of miles away/on another continent/in ravenloft /did stuff to light that bridge on fire and salt the ashes
  • maybe the player is unaware or had not considered the implications
• Player:well can I... Hmm.... [Alternate idea like finding the seedy tavern]
• Gm:sure but ... Play evolves and the party is untrusted but can be tested with adventure...

Trouble is that there is a very loud push to say or imply that the gm saying anything shy of yes done as a failure to "work with" the player

Is there anyone who uses any feature in the game as simply "I use feature X" without it then being reflected in the greater narrative?

Bless your sheltered heart I've seen it so often and suffered the frustrated ramping up of adversarial play so often that it's often rarely worth asking heretical questions like "how" or "well you know that x is a problem?"

I don't even have players say "I cast Fireball" without one or the other of us then describing more about what that looks like and what happens afterward!

Most of them started prior to 5e? Ime that tends to be limited to players who started long ago and players who also try to author how the targets react.

It's a back-and-forth that requires effort from both. The Players say they want to do something. The DM provides the tools and story framework. The Players interact with those tools and story framework. The DM reacts to their interactions.

I guarantee you that while it's likely that you and I (and Oofta) have slightly different playstyles, that it's not a night-and-day thing. Our games probably look very similar, they just get there jumping through different hoops.


That's fine. It would be unnecessary.

My quibble is that there is an awful lot of focus on what the gm needs to do and even the very idea that the player might need to take a step is frequently swatted down suggesting that the GM should describe and point out the step available to the quantum action granted by background

 

[Oofta]

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to this because you've done your best to set it up as a "trap" scenario. I mean, obviously you're a clever storyteller and you've used your cleverness to come up with the hardest thing you could think of to make it as difficult as possible to make Background Features work. Congratulations!

But I've answered this already. They'd have to make new contacts. Yes, if your "win scenario" is that there'd be a time where their background features are "off-line" or simply "can't be played as-written" - then I'll grant you your victory!

But that was never my point. My point was only ever that it's (TO ME) extremely easy to make them work for a player, a table, or a DM who wants them to. It's still easy in your scenario. Have the PCs make new NPC "friends". There's got to be NPCs around that are cut from similar cloth, and if their isn't, why not? And I mean that why not both as "shrug, what difference does it make" and as "I can't imagine why there would need to not be any".

Obviously there'd be roleplaying involved. Does anyone think that there would not be any roleplaying on the part of the Players? I'd be very surprised to find that was true.

I thought I explained my reasoning above, I don't mean for it to be a trap scenario it's based on a campaign I personally ran. The PCs were in a parallel timeline where they did not exist. But the logic applies to many of my other campaigns as well. I regularly send PCs to places they are simply unknown and know no one. While there could be a one in a million chance they'd know someone or be recognized. Maybe a single one in a million chance in a campaign works, but I have six players. The second, third and fourth on in a million chance simply doesn't work for me.

Backgrounds and backstories make a difference in my campaign if the player cares. I just don't accept that there is always a logical reason for a background to automatically work wherever they go. Can a PC establish new relationships, a new reputation? Of course! I hope they do. A background may aid them in that, but it's not going to be instantaneous or automatic.

 

[soviet]

Okay. Stranger in a strange land scenario like I asked about above. The group is transported to a different timeline, one where they never existed like It's a Wonderful Life. Nobody knows the folk hero, the noble's house doesn't exist or if it does there's no proof the PC is part of it, the sailor has never sailed with anyone.

How would those backgrounds work without changing the basic premise of the fiction? I just don't see it.

I don't think they're as narrow as you present them.

The Folk Hero says you have a destiny. You're marked for greater things. 'Already the people of your home village regard you as their champion, and your destiny calls you to stand against the tyrants and monsters that threaten the common folk everywhere'. (Note the use of 'already' rather than 'only'.)

The ability itself says 'Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them'.

The clear implication is that the character has some quality of 'folk hero-ness' that commoners recognise and respond to regardless of whether they know them or have heard of their specific exploits. It's like having a very narrow kind of 18 Charisma, in the appropriate environment you just sort of speak the right alignment language and people take to you.

 

[soviet]

Keep in mind that this is a thread where someone literally looked at a comment stating. "There are a great many times when a player's background feature would be absolutely bonkers to apply." responded "why does the gm get to decide if [a background feature] is relevant" while another complained that they were talking about Barovia not ravenloft when an answer explained how Ravenloft works Barovia is in ravenloft ...

True but this very much seems like an example of working together that is also within the normal play loop

Spoiler

• Players: I want to reach out to my contact to do x
• Gm: You are hundreds of miles away/on another continent/in ravenloft /did stuff to light that bridge on fire and salt the ashes
  • maybe the player is unaware or had not considered the implications
• Player:well can I... Hmm.... [Alternate idea like finding the seedy tavern]
• Gm:sure but ... Play evolves and the party is untrusted but can be tested with adventure...

Trouble is that there is a very loud push to say or imply that the gm saying anything shy of yes done as a failure to "work with" the player

Bless your sheltered heart I've seen it so often and suffered the frustrated ramping up of adversarial play so often that it's often rarely worth asking heretical questions like "how" or "well you know that x is a problem?"

Most of them started prior to 5e? Ime that tends to be limited to players who started long ago and players who also try to author how the targets react.

My quibble is that there is an awful lot of focus on what the gm needs to do and even the very idea that the player might need to take a step is frequently swatted down suggesting that the GM should describe and point out the step available to the quantum action granted by background

I do agree that when the applicability is uncertain it's on the player to find a justification.

Although I would also say that it's on the GM to find a reason to say yes wherever it's at all plausible.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I do agree that when the applicability is uncertain it's on the player to find a justification.

Although I would also say that it's on the GM to find a reason to say yes wherever it's at all plausible.

it's what's considered 'at all plausible' where we're having issues though.

 

[soviet]

it's what's considered 'at all plausible' where we're having issues though.

I get that. But IRL I have only rarely experienced situations where an appropriate justification can't be found. In these sorts of threads it seems that some people are vetoing these powers on a much more regular basis.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ever watch a show where the main character, no matter where they go, ends up in a situation that suits their skill set? I believe the trope is called a Busman's Holiday. Illogical or not, it's oft the basis for many entertaining plots.

Take the non-canon James Bond film, Never Say Never Again (a remake of Thunderball). Early on, there are concerns about Bond's age and health so he's sent to a spa. While he's there, he just so happens to stumble onto a SPECTRE conspiracy in action! Nobody complains about how illogical this is, because it's entertaining.

Strange coincidences abound in fiction, often in some very classic stories. Prisoner of Zenda-style plots where you encounter someone who looks almost exactly like another character, dramatic twists that tie character motivations to the main plot, and so on. Or heck, as the Fighter's Handbook put it:
View attachment 356981
So the idea that a character could encounter old allies (or enemies) or other circumstances where their background comes up in strange situations is perfectly cromulent, especially in a fantasy game.

Sure, but that requires one adheres to a narrative point of view, which is neither a guarantee nor an assumption for all games.