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

[Micah Sweet]

While true, there is a point where the quest for simplicity stops making improvements in actual play at the table & shifts to simply chasing a slogan.

True, but I was actually thinking the other way where work that adds complexity is only "needless" if the DM and players don't enjoy the results.

 

[mamba]

The background features are about character design, not about worldbuilding. There's not a single part of any of them that's about worldbuilding-

except for your criminal either knowing a local thieves guild (perfectly acceptable, and I still maintain the intended use...), or there having to be universe spanning networks of villains that they can tap into to get messages across. Nobility and folk heroes can be recognized by the gleam in their eyes or something, anywhere at all, and so forth...

 

[Oofta]

Right. So you admit the background forces assumptions about the world? And that part is just a half of it, it also assumes commoners who grovel before the nobles to avoid their displeasure.

Even if that noble is someone they don't know, have never heard of and don't recognize.

 

[Oofta]

But there almost certainly is a reasonable justification as to why someone can get passage on a boat at this point in time.

You keep thinking that this ability is going to be used all the time, no matter where the PCs are--but that's not the case and has never been the case. Unless you, the DM, make it so that sea travel is commonly available and very useful in the first place, getting passage on a boat is not going to be particularly common no matter what the players' backgrounds are.

Plus, have you ever considered asking the player how the feature is justified? "We're on a different continent. Tell me how you expect your feature to work." Either the player will have a cool justification that you will accept, or they won't have a justification and the point is moot.

Stop telling me I'm playing the game wrong.

 

[mamba]

The background features have nothing to do with worldbuilding. They're there purely for roleplaying reasons.

they definitely affect worldbuilding, and as far as roleplaying is concerned, you can roleplay this without the feature just as well, what the feature does is make roleplaying redundant, it does not enable it

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Read the noble feature for example. You don't think that doesn't make pretty drastic assumptions about the nature of nobility and how the nobles are viewed in the setting?

It needn’t be drastic though. The PC with a noble background can enjoy some deference from commoners and can secure an audience with the noble of the town. That’s it. Maybe that’s an immediate audience. Maybe that’s next week when the local nobility has “an opening” in their schedule. Maybe the meeting is really fruitful. Maybe it is the opposite and the local nobility is offended during the meeting. Or something in between.

IMO, Features are hardly the game-breaking, illogical mechanics some decry. They’re only game-breaking and/or illogical if the DM wants them to be. For others, they can introduce interesting story beats and/or help develop character arcs.

 

[tetrasodium]

True, but I was actually thinking the other way where work that adds complexity is only "needless" if the DM and players don't enjoy the results.

The comment I made that started this was about how 5e removed all of the subjective elements from weapons with mechanical significance in play, that's obviously edging into the realm of chasing the slogan adjacent or even beyond that point. I think that you are bringing up things not said

 

[Lanefan]

But in practice it means they only use those weapons they're better at. You're pigeonholed.

I want the fighters to switch between two-hander and shield plus one hander depending on whether they want more offence or defence in a given situation. With fighting styles this doesn't happen, as you just pick the loadout that goes with the style and stick to that. You might switch between melee and ranged, but that's it, and even there the fighting styles dictate which you should use if both are possible.

Which is fine until-unless you lose or break or drop the weapon that suits that style, and have to go to something else.

Which is how I changed the weapon master feat to work and it still is terrible. Additional weapon proficiencies once you already have some good ones are basically worthless. They're flavour options. If you can use a longsword, being able to use battle-axe too gives you nothing, except in the extremely rare situation that you're deprived of your sword but happen to have an axe available.

Well, the whole point of the exercise is flavour, in the end.

But, your point about the longsword and the axe does raise another issue: weapons have been over-simplfied. The designers need to get creative with damage dice in order to differentiate weapons, and in how those dice might vary. For example, a longsword might be d8 all the time but a one-bladed axe might be d8 slashing or d6 bludgeoning based on whether the wielder is attacking with the sharp or blunt side. Meanwhile a broadsword would do 2d4 damage.

They could also use non-standard die sizes e.g. a small longsword made for Hobbits and Gnomes might only do d7 damage (reroll 8s on a d8).

 

[Lanefan]

Except that because the weapons are written the way they are, every fighter uses exactly the same weapons. Specs in longsword, two weapon fighting and shortsword with longbow coming up, typically from the bonus from a 9 Int.

Not sure what edition or rule you're reading that has Int give a bonus to weapon use. That you note 2-weapon fighting as a proficiency suggests 2e, as that's not a thing in 1e.

Also, weapon specialization (as opposed to simple proficiency) in Unearthed Arcana is broken as written, a common issue in that book.

It resulted in far less differentiation.

Some common patterns do emerge, sure; but that would be the case in the game world as well as warriors talked over what worked best and what didn't and came to some general consensuses. Even so, someone could still choose to be an outlier and, due to background or whatever, decide to specialize in harpoon or something.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with differentiating weapons and giving them all special effects is that you end up looking like this guy
View attachment 362818

And that, folks, is why we have encumbrance rules; never mind that guy couldn't fit through any door anywhere...