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

[mamba]

What background feature grants you notoriety and friends or relies on someone knowing you or on you knowing someone else?

We have been talking about the same two or three backgrounds for 20+ pages now, so take a wild guess....

How about this one as an example.... Criminal: "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."

And just for good measure one we did not discuss, because the scope is limited, Smuggler: "You are acquainted with a network of smugglers who are willing to help you out of tight situations. While in a particular town, city, or other similarly sized community (DM’s discretion), you and your companions can stay for free in safe houses. Safe houses provide a poor lifestyle. While staying at a safe house, you can choose to keep your presence (and that of your companions) a secret."

 

[Azzy]

So, what I'm getting from the current tangent is that 5.14e Background features as written rub some DMs the wrong way.

I guess it's a good thing that they will be replaced with feats in the 5.24e PHB.

 

[Hriston]

I don't know if you've ever played or run Ravenloft. He's saying that according to the module, they don't know anything about Barovia and no one knows them.

This is the problem with corner cases I pointed out up-thread. They're atypical of play and do nothing to further discussion. I mean, what you've described sounds like a complete railroad where the players' only choice is to bump around in the dark following the few breadcrumbs allowed them. I would think in 2024 D&D could aspire to something better.

 

[FrogReaver]

So, what I'm getting from the current tangent is that 5.14e Background features as written rub some DMs the wrong way.

Not an issue for us. Might be an issue for a player wanting them to work in situations where they logically shouldn't.

I guess it's a good thing that they will be replaced with feats in the 5.24e PHB.

I'm not a fan of replacing backgrounds with feats either. I like backgrounds to have very limited mechanical impact.

 

[Mistwell]

So you're telling me that you cannot possibly keep in mind that maybe, ever few sessions or show, you could put in an opportunity for a player's background to matter or shine? That using a player's background choices to inform your campaign plotting in a meaningful way is too much of an ask?

Well have no fear, WotC seems to have heard you loud and clear.

It's quite unclear if WOTC agrees with that sentiment or not. They may or may not have removed some hard coded background rules which it seems many games were ignoring anyway. But we don't know what the new books will say about the matter.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's quite unclear if WOTC agrees with that sentiment or not. They may or may not have removed some hard coded background rules which it seems many games were ignoring anyway. But we don't know what the new books will say about the matter.

I'm not getting unduly upset about the new books until I see them.

What's the point over maybe?

 

[Oofta]

This is the problem with corner cases I pointed out up-thread. They're atypical of play and do nothing to further discussion. I mean, what you've described sounds like a complete railroad where the players' only choice is to bump around in the dark following the few breadcrumbs allowed them. I would think in 2024 D&D could aspire to something better.

So now you're digging up a thread from a week ago? To answer the same question I've already answered multiple times?

 

[Hriston]

Assume your created persona? Yes, any time.

Forge documents? Not so fast there, bucko, unless you are literate in the local language or are willing to try to pass obviously-foreign documents as legit.

The feature has the requirement "you have seen an example of the kind of document or the handwriting you are trying to copy." It also grants proficiency with forgery kits which "lets you add your proficiency bonus to any ability checks you make to create a physical forgery of a document." When taken together, this seems to indicate that, although the charlatan's abilities are superior to another character with forgery kits proficiency, there might still be instances when the charlatan's skill would be put to the test and the DM might call for an ability check to create a convincing document. Working in an unknown foreign language may be such an instance.

Players can care about their characters' backgrounds as much or as little as they like. The question is whether those backgrounds are there merely as lore to help the player roleplay the character and that may or may not ever become relevant in play at some point (my preference) or whether they have actual mechanical heft like species and class along with a built-in expectation that the DM will provide opportunities for this heft to make a difference (not my preference).

I don't think players need help roleplaying their characters. What you've described as your preference is backstory which in 5E is optional and, IMO, serves the purpose of filling in the DM and rest of the group on events in the PC's past. The 2014 5E background, on the other hand, is a mechanical element of PC-build somewhat less powerful than race. Although the playtest sample backgrounds continue to be mechanical packages, the introductory text entirely takes on the form of a proxy backstory and doesn't even contain the prompts for writing an original backstory that are present in the 2014 background.

 

[Hriston]

Depends on what those features are and whether they are tied to the setting. If you're a criminal with contacts in the underworld in various cities, that's setting-tied*. If you're a titled noble with a small castle, lands, and a reputation, that's setting-tied*. If you're an ex-soldier with contacts in the Roman Legions, that's not just setting-tied but nation-tied.

But if you're a baker or a poet or an entertainer, you can do those things anywhere you can find the requisite supplies, equipment, and-or space; they're not setting-tied.

* - unless the character has somehow travelled off-world before starting its adventuring career, but unless the campaign is starting in a planar nexus e.g. Sigil or the City of Brass, one thinks that would be an extremely rare case.

In fairness, the post to which I was replying was talking about Barovia which is a demiplane if I recall correctly, in response to which I asked a question regarding characters not being from the setting in which an adventure takes place, but I think 5E (2014) is written with the idea in mind of the Multiverse being the setting, which of course can encompass many smaller settings like Barovia. Although a character is quite unlikely to have journeyed to other planes before becoming an adventurer, the institutions to which their background describes them having ties might reach across planar boundaries. The criminal underworld network within which a criminal has contacts may have associations extending as far as the Lower Planes, for example, to covens of night hags involved in the illicit trade in human souls. Or the high society of noble elites in which a noble is welcome might extend into the Feywild, where the high-born lineage of their family is recognized and guarantees them an audience with the faerie court. Or the military organization with which a soldier served may have allies among the gods, who recognize the soldier's rank as a symbol of devotion to the cause they champion. These all seem like common enough elements of fantasy fiction.

 

[Hriston]

There are a great many times when a player's background feature would be absolutely bonkers to apply. Not from the setting when the setting is one so difficult to scces/escape like ravenloft is quite possibly the most obvious example. Ravenloft keeps getting used as the example because it's such an obvious unquestionable example with so many aspects supporting the exclusion.

From what I've seen posted in this thread, it's not as unquestionable as you seem to think.

Of course iif you don't like the ravenloft exampl... Itmight be more productive to discuss if the support for background features remaining in the phb boils down to their ability to convince players they can seemingly force the GM into accepting them rather than the gm being able to decide when and how a background might be relevant.

Why should the DM be the one to decide? When you draw upon reliable personal connections, do you have to ask someone else, or do you get to decide if they're relevant?