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

[Hriston]

Probably the Dark Powers wouldn't allow it. Letting people inside the Demiplane of Dread communicate with those outside the plane would ruin their fun.

That being said, I would image the Dark Powers would be absolutely fine with tainting the message you send, or its reply. Yeah, you get a message back from your contact, but the instructions within are likely to send you on the path of darkness and towards becoming another Dark Lord.

I was more asking if courier or messenger is a normal job a Vistana might have in Ravenloft, just for the people who live there to send each other messages, but I appreciate the information!

 

[ART!]

One thing I'm really curious about - that will affect whether my table adopts 2024 D&D - is what versions of the D&D 5E rules will DDB make available to basic-level memberships. 2014 and 2024, or just 2024?

 

[Hussar]

I’d also point out that this conversation about interpreting rules is why players always use spells whenever possible.

Don’t have to worry about creative interpretation when a simple 3rd level Sending ritual works perfectly well.

Why bother being creative or trying to role play when you can just press the “cast spell” button and you know the dm won’t screw you over?

 

[FrogReaver]

I’d also point out that this conversation about interpreting rules is why players always use spells whenever possible.

Don’t have to worry about creative interpretation when a simple 3rd level Sending ritual works perfectly well.

Why bother being creative or trying to role play when you can just press the “cast spell” button and you know the dm won’t screw you over?

You posit it’s the DM that will screw you over. Even if you had this option in a DMless game where the magical method was complication free but the non-magical method had a risk of complications you would still choose the magical complication free method.

 

[Faolyn]

I was more asking if courier or messenger is a normal job a Vistana might have in Ravenloft, just for the people who live there to send each other messages, but I appreciate the information!

Ah, gotcha. Well, since (IIRC), the Vistani are no longer the horribly mistrusted outsiders, they might be willing to act as such for the right about of money... or favors.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, gotcha. Well, since (IIRC), the Vistani are no longer the horribly mistrusted outsiders, they might be willing to act as such for the right about of money... or favors.

Unless you want them to be horribly mistrusted outsiders in your game, of course. It's just not assumed anymore.

 

[Faolyn]

The don't say it's instantaneous but they do say it's automatic. There's a huge difference between "You know [contacts etc.] ..." and "You might know [contacts etc.]...".

Knowing is automatic, by RAW. Finding the messenger and getting them to agree to carry your message is not. For that matter, considering that two of the three types of messengers suggested are people who have jobs that keep them on the move, the local messenger may not even be there.

But that's only if you care about RAW. As some people have claimed, this is such a niche feature, it may only come up once or twice in an entire campaign--so why not throw RAW to the wind and let the criminal shine for that moment?

(I swear, people are treating these features like they're going to be a constant thing that can be used to screw over every one of the DM's plans.)

By RAW the DM is free to say the first and allow the player to self-limit the character, but not the second because that imposes a roll; and as written, success in finding a contact is automatic.

But see, here's where you can go against RAW and still allow the player to use their ability. Require rolls. Require roleplaying. Require the PC to put in the effort to find and befriend a messenger. Allow the PC to get in touch with the contact through other means.

However, the actual point of the feature, as I said to mamba, is that the contact is a "liaison between you and a network of criminals." In other words, "you know a guy who knows a guy." The messenger is just a way for you to get the contact's attention.

For any other character, if they want to get in touch with, say, an illegal poisons-dealer, they would have to do the legwork themselves and potentially run afoul of the law or other shady characters who are interested in knowing why a group of travelers suddenly want an illegal poison. But the criminal can just say "lemme make a call" and your contact then gives you an address.

 

[Faolyn]

You posit it’s the DM that will screw you over. Even if you had this option in a DMless game where the magical method was complication free but the non-magical method had a risk of complications you would still choose the magical complication free method.

Well, we've had several DMs here who've said that they wouldn't allow a particular feature for various reasons.

There's going to be DMs who've had a bad experience with a certain feature with other groups and have decided to ban the feature altogether (one of the DMs at my table automatically disallows a few feats, including Lucky, for this reason).

There's also going to be DMs who'll reasonably say "I'm going to say no now so we can get back to the game, and we can have the discussion about feature later on" (another of the DMs at my table did this with a particular cantrip, but after the game decided that the players' ideas were sound).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No you can't cast a fireball...

I knew someone would point all those things out! But meant for the similarity to end at "you can do it when it is appropriate but not when it's inappropriate", but I concede your point.

A better analogy would be to say that if-when the character needs to make an Athletics check, because the rules say so the check automatically succeeds no matter what.

There's no mention in the background feature write-ups of their functionality being gated behind a check. As (poorly) written, they just work.

While I do believe that the feature was meant to guarantee a certain level of expectation of success, I don't think that it was meant to bypass the usual RP back-and-forth between player and DM, except maybe in cases where the table likes that sort of thing (I don't think that's common). But yeah, they don't have enough guidance, in the very least.

apples and oranges… but you cannot always find someone to cast fireball for you

Yeah, or find someone to make your athletics check for you! Mountaineer "You know a clan of sherpas who will carry you up hills, mountains, or cliffs." Fair enough.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One thing I'm really curious about - that will affect whether my table adopts 2024 D&D - is what versions of the D&D 5E rules will DDB make available to basic-level memberships. 2014 and 2024, or just 2024?

I suspect that they will stop printing 2014 and will probably stop selling Digital 2014 (at least for a time, or they may move it to a PDF on DMsGuild - I can't see them making it unavailable for forever when they know how lucrative selling old books in PDF can be).

However, 2014 will still be available to those that already own in on DDB, filed under their Legacy Banner. Does that answer your question at all?