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

[Hussar]

As someone who hasn't really been following the whole "backgrounds" thing, can someone give me the Cliff notes version? And, can someone explain why A. Anyone in Ravenloft would message someone outside of Ravenloft, B. Why it would matter if they did, since no one can actually get in or out of Ravenloft willingly, and C. Who cares?

 

[James Gasik]

As someone who hasn't really been following the whole "backgrounds" thing, can someone give me the Cliff notes version? And, can someone explain why A. Anyone in Ravenloft would message someone outside of Ravenloft, B. Why it would matter if they did, since no one can actually get in or out of Ravenloft willingly, and C. Who cares?

2014 Backgrounds give features that are stated in the book, meant to be actual things that come into play and are used. They are written in a way that says "you're an X, you can expect to be able to do Y". The issues are:

They don't always come up.

When they do come up, the DM might feel that they shouldn't apply, or shouldn't just be automatic.

The DMG says the DM should work with the players to make sure their Backgrounds matter.

The DM might feel that it shouldn't be on them to make such things matter if the campaign causes you to travel to distant lands or other dimensions.

Or the DM might not want to give players that kind of narrative influence on their campaign.

 

[tetrasodium]

Salamanders are Outsiders of the Fire subtype, not creatures of the Elemental type. Anyways, I already conceded that the actual amount of things that are largely immune to sneak attack is over a third, not half.

I still don't care for it, nobody should have a large chunk of their class devoted to something that doesn't work against whole monster types, things immune to crits, or things that can't be flanked.

Pyromancer fire dragon sorcerer etc. you also keep approaching this as if raw percentage of possible monsters a gm could use is equally as relevant as monsters commonly seen actually used in play, that's a bizarre bit of logic. The trouble with how you conceded is that you also did it in a way that implies swarms and such are going to be a significant percentage of actual encounters seen at the table with any regularity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

As someone who hasn't really been following the whole "backgrounds" thing, can someone give me the Cliff notes version? And, can someone explain why A. Anyone in Ravenloft would message someone outside of Ravenloft, B. Why it would matter if they did, since no one can actually get in or out of Ravenloft willingly, and C. Who cares?

basically it's the argument of the fiat nature of how some of the background abilities are written again, and how DMs are awful tyrants for ever saying 'no that's not viable in this situation', like the folk hero rustic hospitality feature, which is being debated it just makes sense can't be used when you're far away enough from where you earned your reputation, rather than as acting as some inherent universally recognised hero designator that everywhere you go someone must recognise you for the down-to-earth diamond in the rough that you are and put you up with room and a warm meal.

ravenloft came into it as an extreme-end example to try prove that yes, in some circumstance it DOES make sense to overrule the background ability (specifically the criminals(?) ability that says you know all the guild message runners and can contact your thieves guild with a message), @Hriston is claiming that since the vistani can pass through the mists to outside of ravenloft, that therefore the feature has justification to work as one of them COULD technically be your guild contact.

 

[FrogReaver]

Saying 4e is DnD World of Warcraft, however, is.

1. I didn’t say that?
2. It has nothing to do with the post I just quoted of yours.

So I really don’t get this comment about world of Warcraft.

A copy of the post referenced above.

All one has to do is look at this thread. A single positive comment about 4e design and there's at least three counter comments claiming that none of the innovations of 4e are actually from 4e - heck @Lanefan's trying to claim bounded accuracy as a 1e thing. And folks are having a go at me for saying AEDU is neo-Vancian casting in drag? One single positive comment about 4e, and the edition war rhetoric gets dragged out, despite the edition warriors having won nearly ten years ago.

THAT'S the pressure. That's why WotC will not stray from the mainstream ever again. The fandom has spoken. One has only to look at the reactions to the playtests. Anything that is even remotely innovative gets voted down.

Good grief, they get shouted down for making a module that wasn't just yet another kill fest.

 

[Hriston]

I help you:

Not every background fits in every campaign. If it is a background with some light abilities that are always useful, instead of big circumstantial abilities, they do. Pollution is what makes the campaign unplayable or unfun for the DM if they have to constantly do extra work to accommodate for gotcha abilites.

I don't know. The capabilities granted by the 2014 background features are pretty light. Sending a message to your contact, getting free passage aboard a ship -- these are not game breaking abilities. I don't know why those types of events might not be a fit for a campaign or whatever. I also have no idea what you mean by "gotcha abilities". Care to elaborate?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know. The capabilities granted by the 2014 background features are pretty light. Sending a message to your contact, getting free passage aboard a ship -- these are not game breaking abilities. I don't know why those types of events might not be a fit for a campaign or whatever. I also have no idea what you mean by "gotcha abilities". Care to elaborate?

Light yes, and 99 out of 100 campaigns will work in everyone’s games with no issues.

We are talking 1% or less of campaigns where they can create a fictional issue. In those instances there’s 2 camps - either let the fiction win and place a minor exception on the ability or let the mechanics win and place some implausible but possible fiction.

Which solution you prefer depends on a great number of apriors you might hold.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Whether you mean it as such, saying that people lack imagination or improv ability to make something work is also an insult.

I simply didn't like the way the game worked. Could I come up with an excuse for how something functioned? Obviously. But it would be an excuse papering over a style of play I grew to dislike. When I play my characters, I envision what they are doing. My fighter turning into Taz from Loony Tunes when he turned on rain of steel was a nice feature from a gameplay point of view, it was terrible for my sense of inhabiting a believable character in a fantasy world.

That's probably more along the lines of TOO much imagination - or more to the point, using your imagination to imagine something silly. Rain of Steel (as an example) doesn't have to be imagined as cartoony - it's perfectly reasonable for an actual real-world combatant to manage to attack multiple opponents in 6 seconds. I like my combat as real-world as possible. D&D often fights this in both directions! ! mean, in 5e you can't even bash someone with a shield - which is a basic technique. Or take how Polearm Master has you turning the polearm around to bash with the back end (an act that would be far slower then just thrusting the same end a second time).

Now, I don't have a problem with those things, though. I usually find it quite easy to find a "logical" and "realistic" description for what's going on in D&D, even when the "accepted" version is silly. I didn't find 4e to be any worse than 5e (or 1e, 2e, or 3e) for that sort of thing. They ALL have issues with it. YMMV.

 

[Stormonu]

Salamanders are Outsiders of the Fire subtype, not creatures of the Elemental type. Anyways, I already conceded that the actual amount of things that are largely immune to sneak attack is over a third, not half.

I still don't care for it, nobody should have a large chunk of their class devoted to something that doesn't work against whole monster types, things immune to crits, or things that can't be flanked.

Pity the martials then, with damage reduction/immunity to bludgeoning, piericing and slashing non-magical weapons.

 

[Oofta]

That's probably more along the lines of TOO much imagination - or more to the point, using your imagination to imagine something silly. Rain of Steel (as an example) doesn't have to be imagined as cartoony - it's perfectly reasonable for an actual real-world combatant to manage to attack multiple opponents in 6 seconds. I like my combat as real-world as possible. D&D often fights this in both directions! ! mean, in 5e you can't even bash someone with a shield - which is a basic technique. Or take how Polearm Master has you turning the polearm around to bash with the back end (an act that would be far slower then just thrusting the same end a second time).

Now, I don't have a problem with those things, though. I usually find it quite easy to find a "logical" and "realistic" description for what's going on in D&D, even when the "accepted" version is silly. I didn't find 4e to be any worse than 5e (or 1e, 2e, or 3e) for that sort of thing. They ALL have issues with it. YMMV.

But Rain of Steel didn't give you an attack. It was automatic damage to everyone around you. Didn't matter if their AC was 10 or 30. Or take Come and Get It ... I'm surrounded by wolves and I insult them so they attack me no matter what the situation? How do I do that? You're so lame your chew toy is mashed potatoes so you don't hurt yourself? Your mother was a Chihuahua and your father smelt of elderberries?

There were other issues as well with how things worked that were simply illogical. Although I think 6 seconds is too short of a round at high levels, I can simply state that a round averages to 6 seconds over the course of your entire career as a PC. It's an oversimplification but it doesn't scream "It's just a game" every time I take an action.

In any case, I simply burned out on 4E. But it's water under the bridge. If you enjoyed it, great. I'm just trying to explain one aspect of why I don't care for the edition and it was not because of presentation or lack of imagination.