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

[Lanefan]

Well, again, that's not how 5e works, and not all rogues are criminals. There's no reason why my swashbuckler would have been specially trained to recognize criminals--she was raised in noble courts as the child of a courtesan, not on a pirate ship! I only took swashbuckler because it was the closest to my "professional duelist" idea I could get in 5e. I'm not even particularly fond of the idea that I know thieves' cant.

But you do know it, along with knowing a bunch of other things Thieves know, because that's the knowledge the training gave you.

You may not have been raised in the streets, or on a pirate ship, but your training makes you immensely more able to function in either of those settings than any of your less-trained counterparts back in the noble courts.

 

[Lanefan]

Except that the people aren't looking at the PC and seeing a shepherd (unless, of course, they go out of their way to dress like one). Instead, they see someone who clearly knows what being poor but hard-working is like. Are you saying that, in an entire slum, there won't be a single person who won't take an interest in a PC like that?

Depends.

Are they rich?

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure, but it should be pretty easy for them to MAKE a contact fairly quickly. I'm generally with @Faolyn here: There's no reason that "logic" has to be a barrier to make it work. Imagination ought to be able to come up with something suitable. Not because of the letter of the rule, but the spirit of it.

Heck, as I've said upthread, I don't particularly like the background features, but I like their spirit!

That depends on the million dollar question though... Who is "them" in your statement (player PC or gm) & who gets to decide what level of effort or expectations of success are involved in the making of that new contact?

 

[Oofta]

"Well, this is why Oofta is wrong when he says I'm a rules lawyer, because I am using the feature but at the same time having it make sense. I'm not just throwing it out it entirely as being illogical."

As I mentioned above, I'd use the feature but make the PC establish those contacts first. Is that too "magical" or "illogical" for your tastes?

Unless you're trying to claim now there are no thieves' guilds--or anything like a thieves' guild--in Ravenloft, and you're unwilling to establish one, of course. If you're trying to claim the former, then it means you're unfamiliar with the Red Vardo Trading Company from 2e and 3x, which was a criminal organization hiding under a legitimate traveling merchant business (it's based in Barovia, and has wide reach and influence), or are refusing to bring in anything from a previous edition. If that's the case, or you're refusing to establish a guild in Barovia--or even have some thieves from another domain happen to be in Barovia--then it means you're going out of your way to screw the players over.

"Oh, but Barovia is some small, podunk country! It's too small to have criminals!" you might say. Well, it's been a while since I looked at CoS, but I recall there being a lot of wine, and an entire sub-plot taking place in a winery. I remember that one because it was one of the few times I used a battlemat. Alcohol suggests the possibility of rum runners--people smuggling that wine to other domains. Or even people making bootleg wine, using grapes cultivated from seeds stolen from that winery. I seem to recall that, historically, illicit booze and organized crime often go hand in hand.

So tell me, is using pre-5e lore "magical" or "illogical"? Is creating a base of criminals of some sort somewhere in the domain "magical" or "illogical"? Is letting the party come into contact with them, so that the criminal PC has the option of starting a relationship with them too "magical" or "illogical"? Is this rum-runner idea--one of several possible Barovian thieves' guild ideas I came up with literally in the space of a minute--too "magical" or "illogical" for you?

For about the hundredth time, I never said backgrounds can't be useful. I said the feature as written will frequently not make sense. On the other hand, I reject the concept that "like knows like" it's very classist at best. Someone with a criminal background will know more about how criminals work and think, will likely have advantage on checks or I'll just give them info I wouldn't provide other characters. What will not happen is that they will be able to check into Criminals-R-Us, show their criminal card and automatically have a best bud.

If any PC wants to make contact or get involved with a criminal gang (or the help of commoners for the folk hero background that matter) they can always try. Having the criminal background makes it easier, it does not guarantee anything. Heck, having a history with the wrong group could be a severe detriment depending on where you are, there is no one worldwide organization that all gets together to exchange secret handshakes.

On the other hand I don't remember when background was ever important to a player, whether I was DMing or playing. People look at backgrounds as a way to get proficiencies. Nowadays I work with people before we play to come up with custom backgrounds and features if they want more depth to where they came from. We'll figure out some minor benefits that make sense in context of the planned campaign. But most? Most just want extra proficiencies and don't really care.

P.S. Stop with the insulting language. Every reply has been about how I "arbitrarily shutting down their actual abilities". It's B.S..

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but it should be pretty easy for them to MAKE a contact fairly quickly. I'm generally with @Faolyn here: There's no reason that "logic" has to be a barrier to make it work. Imagination ought to be able to come up with something suitable. Not because of the letter of the rule, but the spirit of it.

Heck, as I've said upthread, I don't particularly like the background features, but I like their spirit!

I feel like the difference between camps here is whether or not the background is simply a function of training and reputation, or if it functions on a more metaphysical level, interwoven with concepts like fate and destiny.

I think the folk hero being universally recognized speaks toward an orientation of "Folk Hero" being an identity that transcends simple reputation, and is more of a marker on the soul of the character's special heroism; it's something that's more of a fairy tale logic. That will obviously not be workable for those who lean towards the "PCs are just striving members of the hoi polloi" camp.

 

[Oofta]

I feel like the difference between camps here is whether or not the background is simply a function of training and reputation, or if it functions on a more metaphysical level, interwoven with concepts like fate and destiny.

I think the folk hero being universally recognized speaks toward an orientation of "Folk Hero" being an identity that transcends simple reputation, and is more of a marker on the soul of the character's special heroism; it's something that's more of a fairy tale logic. That will obviously not be workable for those who lean towards the "PCs are just striving members of the hoi polloi" camp.

I think that's the biggest issue I have, and well expressed. I see no reason that people "will automatically recognize" a folk hero they have never heard of. A guy comes riding into town with a group of 3-5 other PCs, likely decked out in armor and gear that costs more than the entire economic output of the village, and somehow they're instantly relatable? I simply don't buy it.

That PC interacts with individuals, gets to know some of them? Maybe spends time in the area mixing and mingling so people actually get to know them instead of them just being some rich a-hole who rode into town? Maybe they take the armor off, put aside the magical sword and help with the harvest? That's a different story.

 

[Umbran]

So tell me, is using pre-5e lore "magical" or "illogical"? Is creating a base of criminals of some sort somewhere in the domain "magical" or "illogical"? Is letting the party come into contact with them, so that the criminal PC has the option of starting a relationship with them too "magical" or "illogical"? Is this rum-runner idea--one of several possible Barovian thieves' guild ideas I came up with literally in the space of a minute--too "magical" or "illogical" for you?

Mod Note:
What is illogical is thinking that a post with this paragraph in it is going to make anything better. The disdain coming off of this is palpable. It does not read like you actually want to continue with a rational, reasonable conversation.

At which point, you either should disengage, or reconsider your approach to the discussion. Either one is fine, but please don't continue with this tone.

 

[Yaarel]

I am a huge fan of the 2024 background. It is a powerful design space.

Following the thread discussion, I tend to agree the 2014 background features (the part that I think of as a narrative noncombat asset), are often too setting specific.

 

[Faolyn]

But you do know it, along with knowing a bunch of other things Thieves know, because that's the knowledge the training gave you.

Nah. It just came with the class. If D&D were a point-buy system, or I'd thought to talk to the DM before hand (and bothered to look up what other languages there are in Faerun), I would have taken a different language.

 

[TwoSix]

Nah. It just came with the class. If D&D were a point-buy system, or I'd thought to talk to the DM before hand (and bothered to look up what other languages there are in Faerun), I would have taken a different language.

Rogue with thieves' cant is just one example of 5e's weak class diegesis. Either make class a metagame option and require the player to skin it to their concept, or make the class fully present in the fiction such that reskinning isn't possible.