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

[Cap'n Kobold]

Isn't it normally considered to be a bad thing to deliberately shut down your PC's abilities in such a way "just because"?

This sub-thread started with the idea of taking the PCs to a place where their feature doesn't work because of the demands of the adventure--such as whisking them to Ravenloft for Curse of Strahd and not mentioning ahead of time that such a feature would not be useful for them.


Or they can leave the group. The social contract goes both ways, and a flat out "no, because I said so" is not going to be a satisfying answer for a lot of players. Especially when a "yes" can be achieved with just a bit of thought on the DM's part--and because to me, at least, a flat "no" sounds very rail-roady.

Why doesn't the DM want the PC to work for their passage? Would the DM be OK with the PC buying a ticket? Why is having the players spend a few gold versus a free ride that important to the DM? Do they Just not want to run a nautical side-adventure? Is the DM going to allow for a roll (with a reasonable DC and not a "roll a 21 on an unmodified d20 bs)? If the PC is a sailor, then why can't they use their knowledge of sailing to their advantage when asking for passage? Even if it's not an automatic success, that should be worth something on a die roll.

But to hear from some people on this thread, even that is so illogical to be magical in origin, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a rules lawyer.

Its bad form to shut down features "just because", but if its a very established world and the group tends to run off DM fiat more than collaborative contribution, then there may be areas that have already been established as completely isolated, or antimagic, or whatever situation will disable that character's background, class or racial feature.
I have no idea why a DM might want to do this in any particular situation: This is not a situation that will likely come up for me given the increasingly extreme hypothetical situations and nitpickery both sides of this debate have clagged up what was previously a quite interesting thread with.

 

[Hriston]

Exactly. This is why those backgrounds need to go the way of the dodo. Where we are back at my first post.

This response doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know this thread of the conversation has been stretched out over many days, so maybe a brief recap is in order:

• On April 7, you proposed the abilities granted by the background features be removed from the player-facing backgrounds and inserted into DM-facing adventure texts.
• On April 15, I asked how, if your proposed arrangement, in which no handles are provided to the player in the background, was implemented, would a player then use their background in play.
• You replied, "That is the point, he does not", which I took to mean the player simply doesn't use the background.
• On April 21, I asked what's the point in a player having a background they don't use, meaning the type of background you proposed with no handles for the player.
• Then I got the above quoted response from you.

It's puzzling because you seem to be saying the type of background you proposed, that has no way for a player to use it, should go extinct, which can't be right, so I think something must have gotten lost somewhere.

Ok. Then I misremembered. Why exactly should the coffinmaker no on knows help them?

Well, you said it yourself in your adventure text description, "Because he knows how it is to be looked at by higher people".

Maybe because the coffinmaker's backstory is outlined in the adventure.

During their escape from the town guards they stumble by a wretched coffinmaker. If the adventurers look like common folk, he will quickly let them into their house and gives them some place to rest.

Makes a lot more sense than: "Hey, random person, you look exactly like the hero who chased the tax collector away after the bad winter in a village on a different plane of existence. This tale has travelled far and is an inspiration to every commoner in the whole multiverse."

Yeah, it's a fine explanation for the folk hero's background doing something, much better than the parody version, but how does the player of the folk hero know the coffinmaker will be helpful towards their character as opposed to the player of, e.g., the noble, or is this supposed to be a blind choice on the part of the players?

 

[Not a Decepticon]

Oh no, my friend you need to playtest this. That is not at all how the new monk plays out. At least watch someone else's playtest. The biggest issue with the new monk is it's more powerful than the other marshal classes. Not too weak!

Then explain to me why every one of my points is wrong. I am open to arguments, but I don't think basing your idea of how does a Monk play on a specific player's experience just because they streamed, and had good time tells us anything more than what that particular table is doing.

 

[Hussar]

The last 200 pages of this thread pretty solidly demonstrate why "natural language" is a very, very bad idea.

This is a discussion that doesn't happen when you write clear, transparent rules.

 

[Cadence]

The last 200 pages of this thread pretty solidly demonstrate why "natural language" is a very, very bad idea.

This is a discussion that doesn't happen when you write clear, transparent rules.

Yes. But also I have faith enough in us all to pull something like this off even if they were clear.

 

[Mistwell]

Then explain to me why every one of my points is wrong. I am open to arguments, but I don't think basing your idea of how does a Monk play on a specific player's experience just because they streamed, and had good time tells us anything more than what that particular table is doing.

You're white rooming it, and so in deep with white rooming it you want me to white room respond to your white room points.

Playtest it, or watch someone else's playtest. Trust me. If you don't think what you see is convincing, OK not much more than a few minutes lost right?

Here's one for example but it's far from the only one. Just about every playtest discovers it's far more powerful than they thought by just reading it. In fact, quite possibly overpowered.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This response doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know this thread of the conversation has been stretched out over many days, so maybe a brief recap is in order:

• On April 7, you proposed the abilities granted by the background features be removed from the player-facing backgrounds and inserted into DM-facing adventure texts.
• On April 15, I asked how, if your proposed arrangement, in which no handles are provided to the player in the background, was implemented, would a player then use their background in play.
• You replied, "That is the point, he does not", which I took to mean the player simply doesn't use the background.
• On April 21, I asked what's the point in a player having a background they don't use, meaning the type of background you proposed with no handles for the player.
• Then I got the above quoted response from you.

It's puzzling because you seem to be saying the type of background you proposed, that has no way for a player to use it, should go extinct, which can't be right, so I think something must have gotten lost somewhere.


Well, you said it yourself in your adventure text description, "Because he knows how it is to be looked at by higher people".


Yeah, it's a fine explanation for the folk hero's background doing something, much better than the parody version, but how does the player of the folk hero know the coffinmaker will be helpful towards their character as opposed to the player of, e.g., the noble, or is this supposed to be a blind choice on the part of the players?

I am puzzled by your response. I was consistent in saying the background features need to be removed from the PHB. I said instead there should be hooks for backgrounds in the adventure.

The player does not need to know that the coffinmaker is helpful. But the DM does, because it is part of the adventure.

The choice of the player is the same as always. They try to find help. And it does not matter if they are actually commoners or not. If they look like commoners, then the coffinmaker will be helpful.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am puzzled by your response. I was consistent in saying the background features need to be removed from the PHB. I said instead there should be hooks for backgrounds in the adventure.

The player does not need to know that the coffinmaker is helpful. But the DM does, because it is part of the adventure.

That's definitely a better way of handling it.

 

[Clint_L]

You're white rooming it, and so in deep with white rooming it you want me to white room respond to your white room points.

Playtest it, or watch someone else's playtest. Trust me. If you don't think what you see is convincing, OK not much more than a few minutes lost right?

Here's one for example but it's far from the only one. Just about every playtest discovers it's far more powerful than they thought by just reading it. In fact, quite possibly overpowered.

I've been play testing the latest monk UA since they came out. It's fantastic. Thanks to deflect attacks and the ability to simultaneously take the dodge action and still do flurry of blows off the bonus action (for three attacks at level 10!), monks have as much or more survivability as other martial classes. Everything is no longer tied to ki, and thanks to uncanny metabolism you seldom have to worry about running out of discipline points. They're even more mobile, and are basically a fantastic class. To be honest, at level 10 my Way of Mercy monk feels a bit broken: she is the hardest hitting, toughest, and most mobile member of the party. She is just devastating against most BBEGs.

If someone is white rooming it and coming to different conclusions, I don't know what to tell you. Check the math, because you are doing it wrong. The response from pretty much everyone play testing the class is the same: monks are in a great place.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes and no. Anyone can make a contact, but not anyone can use the background feature afterwards to get messages out as easily. With the background feature and a contact, you have to have a very good reason to say no it doesn't work. Even with the contact, the guy without the background might still fail to get his contact to send a message, especially if his contact isn't the sort to be a messenger.

But saying no, just because noone has the right background after establishing contacts seems very random.

This is the 3e feat problem: before feats were a thing, anyone could reasonably try. After codifying it in feats, suddenly everyone but the random person chosing the right background can do so reasonably.

Why not make the benefit:
"checks to make contact with other criminals usually have advantage."

So anyone can try. Anyone can reasonably use it. A criminal just has an easier chance.

Same for commoner:
If you are dealing woth commoners, your checka have advantage.


By all means: make all baclground features the same:

If you deal with NPC's of similar background, you have advantage on all social checks, which include:
-finding shelter
-getting audiences
-getting passage
-finding help

Maybe also add: you also gain advantage on exploration checks, that belong to your background:

• finding food and navigating in common surroundings
• finding shelter and passage

And last but not least:
You also gain advantage on crafts and knwledge based on your background:

• religious knowledge
• crafting and repairing tools
• historic knowledge
• etiquette.

Actually this is what most background features boild down to.