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

Plan to adopt the new core rules?

  • Yep

    Votes: 262 53.0%
  • Nope

    Votes: 232 47.0%

Faolyn

(she/her)
your explanation, if you want to call them that, are basically all ‘it is not impossible, therefore it should work’ or ‘the players would enjoy it more if it worked’, these are not really explanations, they are justifications / excuses, not a strong case on the merits.

The closest one was your ‘the Dark Powers mess with the characters, so they believe they managed to reach their contact’, where it falls apart to me is that this was intended to actually work, without the DP interfering. Chances are the DP would interfere rather than just play the mailman
Ah, so it's clear you didn't read anything I wrote then.

Not a single one of the options I offered were "it's not impossible, therefore it should work." Every one of them were ways to show how the feature could be logically used. Plus, you keep thinking I said "it should work all the time no matter what."

So there's no point in you even replying, since it's clear you're not arguing in good faith. You're just making up what you think I said and replying to that. Good bye.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Hussar

Legend
fun fact, Sending is also not that reliable

"While in Barovia, characters who receive spells from deities or otherworldly patrons continue to do so. In addition, spells that allow contact with beings from other planes function normally—with one proviso: Strahd can sense when someone in his domain is casting such a spell and can choose to make himself the spell’s recipient, so that he becomes the one who is contacted."

So missing the point.

Note what you quoted here: totally DM fiat. And only applies in one VERY limited circumstance.

Again, the Sending may work but the background automatically fails. Why would a player bother with backgrounds?
 

Your issues are irrelevant if other additions more than make up for those elements. Clint spelled out what they experienced, in reply to you, as to why the monk is now so much more powerful. You ignored that. Here it is again:


You can't ask people to address your view and then be dismissive and ask for more every time. At least, not if you want to be taken seriously or have people read your views.
Em, is there supposed to be this empty space here? Like, seriously this is a screenshot from my screen of this post:
1714454076414.png

Or do you expect me to argue with empty space now?

You know what? I actually went and asked somewhere else people to explain to me the points I raised and got some decent, thought-provoking, informative replies. You've been just telling me to playtest it, as if I have time or opportunitty to do so as a forever DM with two campaigns. Your behavior has been very dismissive and condescending.
 

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Em, is there supposed to be this empty space here? Like, seriously this is a screenshot from my screen of this post:
View attachment 360579
Or do you expect me to argue with empty space now?

The blank space wasn't @Mistwell 's doing. The user he was quoting had apparently blocked you, making it so you couldn't see the quote of their post (or their other posts in the thread). There is no way you or he could have known the quoted poster had done so.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Legend
Supporter
Those are two very different things, though.

I'm not going to remember every single element that goes into a PC of mine either. I can't; my ADHD won't let me, even if I had the sheet right in front of me. So I'm not going to figure out if a location has people they know ahead of time unless it's actually important to the plot.

If a player says "Hey, I have this feature; can I use it?" that's when I improvise. And more often than not, I can improvise a way for the player to at least try.

If you have a DM whom you feel you have to convince to use the actual abilities you're supposed to have because they're just going to shut you down because your ability doesn't make sense to them--you need a different DM. Or for that DM to run a more narrative game for a while to get away from that sort of viewpoint.

If someone is somewhere that there is 0 reason for them to be recognized or know anyone then many background features will not work. Traveling far and wide happens all the time at mid to high levels, sometimes even low levels.

Since I explain how I use backgrounds, and grant other likely more useful usage it's never an issue. If that means I'm a bad DM in your opinion too bad.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
If someone is somewhere that there is 0 reason for them to be recognized or know anyone then many background features will not work. Traveling far and wide happens all the time at mid to high levels, sometimes even low levels.
Since most of the backgrounds do not actually require you to be recognized as an individual--only as a person who belongs to a specific social group--you are, once again, reading the backgrounds wrong.

To compare, take a look at the Athlete from Mythic Odysseys of Theros:

You have attracted admiration among spectators, fellow athletes, and trainers in the region that hosted your past athletic victories. When visiting any settlement within 100 miles of where you grew up, there is a 50 percent chance you can find someone there who admires you and is willing to provide information or temporary shelter.
See that? That gives a range and a chance that someone actually recognizes you as a specific person.

Other backgrounds, such as the folk hero, do not have that limitation:

Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.
There's no range limit, there's no percentage chance, nothing. Why? Because people don't have to recognize you as a specific person. They just have to recognize you as a character archetype.

And indeed, the entire purpose of the background was that this is something you did before you were an adventurer, you are assumed to have given up that life in order to become an adventurer. A folk hero stays in their village and either lives off their fame or continues to do heroic things for their village. You don't do that--you have left the village and that lifestyle behind.

Again: I don't care what you do at your table. But you are declaring the backgrounds to be objectively bad, and you are doing so based on incorrect information.

Since I explain how I use backgrounds, and grant other likely more useful usage it's never an issue. If that means I'm a bad DM in your opinion too bad.
So hey! Why not say what your "more likely usage" would be? In all this time, I don't think you've ever explained how you actually have replaced these features.

But the point I was making is, you specifically said "mother may I" with a DM was bad. But if I were your player, I'd have no idea what you would allow and disallow. How am I supposed to know what you would decide is illogical? Do you have a list of things you disallow and a promise that you're not going to add to willy-nilly? Or would I have to always worry you're going to remove or nerf an ability?
 


DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
You people all realize that the 5E24 Player's Handbook has already been written and thus arguing what should or shouldn't be features for Backgrounds is completely irrelevant now, right? The argument you all have been having for the past several weeks is resulting in nothing. :)
 


Remove ads

Top