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

[mamba]

No, they wouldn't have contacts, but they could easily make contacts.

no disagreement, they can make contact, but to me that still runs counter to what their feature says

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

So you do not know the local contacts (but you can establish contact), and I do not expect them to be able to get a message to your contact on a different plane either. They can however provide you with some local support

Likewise, the Folk Hero would have to RP some contact with the commoners first and establish a rapport, and then those commoners would be willing to help them out. It's never going to be a "you seem trustworthy, total stranger I met two minutes ago, come on in" type of thing.

despite the 'you seem trustworthy...' bit being what the feature says.... ("You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. ")

It would require roleplay on the part of the player, of course, in order to make those contacts and establish that rapport. But it shouldn't be just a blanket no from the GM just because.

agreed, my complaint is more about the implications of it being automatic and instantaneous in the feature, and depending on the case the actual benefit you can get (get a message to your contact on another plane? not in most cases...)

 

[tetrasodium]

I’m with you.

It continues to baffle me that, in a game which is so much about imagination and creativity, such objections are sometimes floated against a DM exercising imagination and creativity for the benefit of the players.

Because the complaint is not about exercising imagination, it's about making the GM adjust the world and/or figure out how to make it work when the player says "my background lets me $doX" before complaining that the GM is not working with them. You need only look at all the times conflicting background features are defended with a statement about how [you/the GM] could do such & such instead" rather than how the player could do what they did before 2014 gave them the club shaped solution in search of a problem in question.

 

[mamba]

It continues to baffle me that, in a game which is so much about imagination and creativity, such objections are sometimes floated against a DM exercising imagination and creativity for the benefit of the players.

no one says @Faolyn cannot do that, we are simply saying that some features as written do not make much sense in certain scenarios, and rather than bending over backwards to find an explanation for how it still works, however unlikely that is, we rather say it does not work as written for the sake of internal consistency and logic of the world / campaign

 

[Lanefan]

No, they wouldn't have contacts, but they could easily make contacts. Other criminal types would recognize them as one of their own (one of those things where they could just tell by his eyes and his walk that he spent time in prison) and be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, more than those same criminals would be willing to give someone, even rogues, who didn't have that background (example: my swashbuckler is a rogue, but she's only as much of a criminal as any adventurer is). And the PC with the criminal background would be better able to recognize that certain places are likely to be fronts for criminal establishments, that the way that person knocked on the door was likely a signal and not just a random pattern, and indeed, that that person's eyes and the way they walk suggest they were in prison, and so on, thus giving them an edge in finding these criminals in the first place.

Thing is, other than the "has done time in prison" bit, I've already pretty much got this example covered just by assuming it to be part of the general training Rogues (Thieves) and Assassins would get as a function of their class. Even if you're not a criminal yourself, as a Swashbuckler you've been trained to recognize criminals if only so you can defend against them; and have over time probably had more incidental contact with such people than you might like.

Thus, there's no need IMO to further gate this behind a background.

Likewise, the Folk Hero would have to RP some contact with the commoners first and establish a rapport, and then those commoners would be willing to help them out. It's never going to be a "you seem trustworthy, total stranger I met two minutes ago, come on in" type of thing.

And here, "commoners" covers such a broad swath of people, and so many, as to be almost meaningless. Other than perhaps being poor, what does the city-dwelling sign-painter (commoner) have in common (sorry) with the rural sheep-herder (commoner) in terms of lifestyle, shared experiences, etc.?

A sheep-herder seeking shelter at a farm? Sure. A sheep-herder seeking shelter in an urban slum? Not so fast.

 

[Faolyn]

no disagreement, they can make contact, but to me that still runs counter to what their feature says

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

So you do not know the local contacts (but you can establish contact), and I do not expect them to be able to get a message to your contact on a different plane either. They can however provide you with some local support


despite the 'you seem trustworthy...' bit being what the feature says.... ("You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. ")


agreed, my complaint is more about the implications of it being automatic and instantaneous in the feature, and depending on the case the actual benefit you can get (get a message to your contact on another plane? not in most cases...)

Well, this is why Oofta is wrong when he says I'm a rules lawyer, because I am using the feature but at the same time having it make sense. I'm not just throwing it out it entirely as being illogical.

 

[Oofta]

Well, this is why Oofta is wrong when he says I'm a rules lawyer, because I am using the feature but at the same time having it make sense. I'm not just throwing it out it entirely as being illogical.

So then background features don't automatically apply? Because that's not what I remember.

Take the scenario: you have the criminal background but find yourself in Barovia. You know no one, no one knows you. The demiplane is cut off, there's no communication back home even with magic because it's a cursed land. What does your background buy you?

 

[Faolyn]

Thing is, other than the "has done time in prison" bit, I've already pretty much got this example covered just by assuming it to be part of the general training Rogues (Thieves) and Assassins would get as a function of their class. Even if you're not a criminal yourself, as a Swashbuckler you've been trained to recognize criminals if only so you can defend against them; and have over time probably had more incidental contact with such people than you might like.

Thus, there's no need IMO to further gate this behind a background.

Well, again, that's not how 5e works, and not all rogues are criminals. There's no reason why my swashbuckler would have been specially trained to recognize criminals--she was raised in noble courts as the child of a courtesan, not on a pirate ship! I only took swashbuckler because it was the closest to my "professional duelist" idea I could get in 5e. I'm not even particularly fond of the idea that I know thieves' cant.

 

[Faolyn]

So then background features don't automatically apply? Because that's not what I remember.

Take the scenario: you have the criminal background but find yourself in Barovia. You know no one, no one knows you. The demiplane is cut off, there's no communication back home even with magic because it's a cursed land. What does your background buy you?

"Well, this is why Oofta is wrong when he says I'm a rules lawyer, because I am using the feature but at the same time having it make sense. I'm not just throwing it out it entirely as being illogical."

As I mentioned above, I'd use the feature but make the PC establish those contacts first. Is that too "magical" or "illogical" for your tastes?

Unless you're trying to claim now there are no thieves' guilds--or anything like a thieves' guild--in Ravenloft, and you're unwilling to establish one, of course. If you're trying to claim the former, then it means you're unfamiliar with the Red Vardo Trading Company from 2e and 3x, which was a criminal organization hiding under a legitimate traveling merchant business (it's based in Barovia, and has wide reach and influence), or are refusing to bring in anything from a previous edition. If that's the case, or you're refusing to establish a guild in Barovia--or even have some thieves from another domain happen to be in Barovia--then it means you're going out of your way to screw the players over.

"Oh, but Barovia is some small, podunk country! It's too small to have criminals!" you might say. Well, it's been a while since I looked at CoS, but I recall there being a lot of wine, and an entire sub-plot taking place in a winery. I remember that one because it was one of the few times I used a battlemat. Alcohol suggests the possibility of rum runners--people smuggling that wine to other domains. Or even people making bootleg wine, using grapes cultivated from seeds stolen from that winery. I seem to recall that, historically, illicit booze and organized crime often go hand in hand.

So tell me, is using pre-5e lore "magical" or "illogical"? Is creating a base of criminals of some sort somewhere in the domain "magical" or "illogical"? Is letting the party come into contact with them, so that the criminal PC has the option of starting a relationship with them too "magical" or "illogical"? Is this rum-runner idea--one of several possible Barovian thieves' guild ideas I came up with literally in the space of a minute--too "magical" or "illogical" for you?

 

[Faolyn]

And here, "commoners" covers such a broad swath of people, and so many, as to be almost meaningless. Other than perhaps being poor, what does the city-dwelling sign-painter (commoner) have in common (sorry) with the rural sheep-herder (commoner) in terms of lifestyle, shared experiences, etc.?

A sheep-herder seeking shelter at a farm? Sure. A sheep-herder seeking shelter in an urban slum? Not so fast.

Except that the people aren't looking at the PC and seeing a shepherd (unless, of course, they go out of their way to dress like one). Instead, they see someone who clearly knows what being poor but hard-working is like. Are you saying that, in an entire slum, there won't be a single person who won't take an interest in a PC like that?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

depends on the scenario I guess, but the Criminal on a different plane (or even in a far-away land) to me should not be expecting to have contacts in their current location, regardless of what the feature says.

Sure, but it should be pretty easy for them to MAKE a contact fairly quickly. I'm generally with @Faolyn here: There's no reason that "logic" has to be a barrier to make it work. Imagination ought to be able to come up with something suitable. Not because of the letter of the rule, but the spirit of it.

Heck, as I've said upthread, I don't particularly like the background features, but I like their spirit!