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

[Faolyn]

where does it say that?

Where does it say that's not the case?

Or more to the point, do you really need everything spelled out in exact terms?

 

[Faolyn]

I do not see my ‘you know no messengers in Ravenloft’ as all that different from your ‘the messenger you know, you fail to find him’…

It's completely different.

Yours shuts the feature down completely. Mine allows the player to try.

 

[mamba]

Where does it say that's not the case?

Or more to the point, do you really need everything spelled out in exact terms?

so let me rephrase that… the argument was about whether the feature should always work and you insisted that wherever the characters find themselves, they should know of a messenger there. Why all off that when the feature can still fail in two ways anyway?

 

[mamba]

It's completely different.

Yours shuts the feature down completely. Mine allows the player to try.

they both result in the feature sometimes failing, which this discussion was about

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Where does it say that's not the case?

Or more to the point, do you really need everything spelled out in exact terms?

Seems to me that back-and-forth between Player and DM is what the core rules of D&D are all about, and shouldn't need to be mentioned that it's required for everything, but I've been shot down for saying that before, as if it was some kind of "playstyle". I'm not sure what the alternative is...

 

[Hriston]

Still means the background feature didn't exactly work as the player intended (in this case, the message arrived two weeks late by which time the party didn't need help any more), which seems to be non-grata if I'm interpreting your take correctly.

The feature (Criminal Contact) doesn't specify a timeframe for the message's delivery. If time is critical, the player could declare an action to look for a messenger who could get it to its destination faster than normal, and I think a check would be in order.

 

[Maxperson]

No you can't cast a fireball

• while standing in a beholders gaze (anti magic)
• while silenced (V)
• while tied up(S)
• while trying to not look like you are casting a spell (V and S)
• while without your focus (M)

no you can't get results from the cast if you are targeting a thing that is

• magic immune
• fire immune
• with a damage threshold that is higher then your damage
• a thing they that saves with a feature that gives it no damage on a save.

You are describing an action not the result & that's a different thing. Many background features skip right over the action and jump straight to being sbsolute in granting a PC both success and the result.

Unless of course you follow the 5e rules that say that the rules are secondary to the DM's rulings, in which case nothing can be assumed to work 100% of the time and the DM is working within the rules when he says, "Um, you're on the 5th layer of the 7 Heavens. Not only is there no contact here that you know, there are no criminals!!! Your ability won't work here."

 

[Maxperson]

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?

Spells don't work 100% of the time, either. And many of them, especially in 5e, are written vaguely and are also subject to wide and differing interpretations.

 

[Faolyn]

so let me rephrase that… the argument was about whether the feature should always work and you insisted that wherever the characters find themselves, they should know of a messenger there. Why all off that when the feature can still fail in two ways anyway?

I did not say that. I said that they should be able to get a messenger, or they may be able to skip past the messenger completely and directly get in touch with the contact. In fact, I said multiple times that the messenger was the least important part of the feature.

they both result in the feature sometimes failing, which this discussion was about

No. Your version has the players not even being able to try. My version has the being able to try and only failing because of bad rolls or bad roleplaying. Do you not see the difference between the two?

 

[Faolyn]

Seems to me that back-and-forth between Player and DM is what the core rules of D&D are all about, and shouldn't need to be mentioned that it's required for everything, but I've been shot down for saying that before, as if it was some kind of "playstyle". I'm not sure what the alternative is...

I... don't think mamba and I were talking about that sort of back-and-forth here.