Search results

I game with folks who seem to be able to think critically about the features and don't abuse them to absurd results. I would hope that's not some rare, unicorn like group! I really have found that if you trust the players, they tend to reward that trust with good (and fun) gameplay that moves...

Is it? I've seen multiple DMs who noped the criminal background (and other features of other backgrounds) to the point of me asking why did they bother allowing it. And yet these same DMs had no problem letting just about any "magic" solutions through. I wouldn't call it an exageration at all.

It's NOT a problem at my table, and if something was I wouldn't use it (or would change it). The discussion here is more in line on why the mechanic is good, bad etc. Opinions aren't changing (they rarely do) but it might give someone reading this thread who hasn't formed a full opinion some...

One reason - As one of my friends is overly fond of complaining to me - Getting players for any game other than 5e (and possibly pathfinder) these days is SURPRISINGLY challenging. Certainly for more than anything other than a 1 shot or 2. Especially if your trying for in person. But also...

As stated in my post - that is a choice, but it is only a "fix" to those that didn't like the features. To the ones that did it's messing with something that wasn't broken and making it worse.

That seems to be a big difference. I don't need real world realism in my mid-high fantasy. In fact, something being TOO grounded in "real world" realism would likely break my verisimilitude of the high fantasy setting!

Fixing the game how? How do you fix something when there are wide disagreements on what the problem is or if it's even a problem? The very features we are talking about have been called useful to great by some and awful and game disruptive by others. You can remove them (as WoTC has actually...

It's a LONG thread. But to answer, the PCs tend to expand their range and widen their areas as they go up in level (start local and branch out) not universal, but pretty common. Makes sense the feature would "branch out" too. If this doesn't apply to the campaign (you're doing strangers in a...

No but DnDBeyond is getting A LOT of 3rd party material so that should hopefully help new DMs a lot - experienced DMs don't need it quite as much, or can just rely on the old DMG.

The features IN NO way guaranty the fiction: “I want to seek aid from the local nobility.” The feature allows access, doesn't mean they like you and won't sell you out or even try to kill you. DM has a huge amount of control here, “I’d like to get a message to my contact in Waterdeep. I seek...

Why? Because it's "automatic?" Rather than rehash that, would you be a more up on the concept if the feature just allowed some roll to make contact? One skill related?

Some do. It's been bandied about in this thread.

This is just simply not true. 5e can EASILY be made much more gritty (if that's what you want) and the DMG has plenty of advice for how to do so. Heck, eliminate death saves and watch how suddenly grim and gritty the campaign gets! Does it support every genre and playstyle - not even close...

Right, What really matters is PROPER communication. A long time ago, I was invited into a campaign - wasn't D&D it was Deadlands. Emailed the GM and asked what kind of character is appropriate etc. He emails back that it's a "grounded" campaign with little reliance on magic etc. Ok, I make...

This is exactly what I meant by looking for reasons to say no, or looking for reasons to make the feature useless. If the DM is going to do this - then the best route is to instead just not allow the feature in the first place. Use the new backgrounds that have eliminated all of these features...

It can also be because you recognize a "mailbox" for what it is - maybe it wouldn't be obvious to the uninitiated. Because, like much of D&D, it relies on the DM not being a jerk. If the one and only way really REALLY would take 2 months then ok, the PCs need to find a different solution. But...

It doesn't even say that. ALL it says is they know how to get a message to their 1 contact. That's it. Assuming the world the PCs are in has some kind of long range communication method, methods or networks (including fast horses or other animals even) how hard is it to believe that there are...

Since it's stated early. There's really no reason to add "unless the DM says otherwise..." to every possible player rule/ability. It's unnecessary and would take up way too much space.

First, we have had fairly long threads on the topic of how, in 5e and most versions of D&D, the rules, for the DM are merely suggestions - there is no such thing as no exceptions if the DM decides otherwise. But more importantly, The feature is vaguely worded. Specifically, it does not specify...

Sure: " I saw you have a fancy wizard in your group, why don't you ask him!" Feature fulfilled.