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

[Yaarel]

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.

One can do both.

1. Design a setting-neutral class.

2. Give an example whose flavor is specific to the Forgotten Realms setting.

Each official setting would then give other examples whose flavors are specific to it.

 

[TwoSix]

One can do both.

1. Design a setting-neutral class.

2. Give an example whose flavor is specific to the Forgotten Realms setting.

Each official setting would then give other examples whose flavors are specific to it.

I'm fine with "metagame class chassis", with setting specific examples. That seems quite workable.

 

[Hriston]

Not sure why you take this claim over the other however... personal preference?

I didn't say I did. I was giving the person to whom I was responding the benefit of the doubt.

We can make that pretty simple, if you are being teleported to a different plane and have the Criminal background, do you think the following still works / applies?

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

Why not? Assuming the Barovia example, I'm not too familiar with Ravenloft, but a quick Google search tells me the Vistani can pass through the mists, so I think they would be the natural choice of messenger.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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 you're right, though I fall into the camp of "both" or more precisely "whatever works for your character, campaign, or table".

Heck, to me, it could be something between the two. I mean, what je ne sais quoi made the folk hero into a folk hero in the first place? Probably some combination of charisma, looks, cleverness, and personality (none of which has to be reflected in ability scores, though it would be easier to understand if they were - people are a lot more complicated than can be reflected in six numerical scores after all) that makes common people just plain drawn to them.

It doesn't have to be magical, or fate-driven, or anything like that. This kind of stuff happens in real life. I don't personally think that it's that much of a stretch that a "folk hero" character could quickly make a commoner friend in a new village full of people that someone would offer her a place to stay. It's not like the entire village needs to trip over each other trying to be the first to make the offer!

I DO think that it would be better if the Background Features were written with two or three examples of the kind of things that a PC can expect NPCs to do for them (this is why I describe them as "limiting") so that a DM has more guidance to work something in that satisfies them, but I can see how that approach would not only take up more space, but require even more "DM fiat", which is often seen as "bad".

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Similar thinking, perhaps, as what led to the 1e idea of alignment languages; where for example if you were NG aligned you automatically shared a common language with all other NG-aligned people, regardless of any other considerations.

Can't speak for anyone else but IME the idea went over like a lead balloon, and was soon abandoned.

Anyone else ever use alignment tongues?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Similar thinking, perhaps, as what led to the 1e idea of alignment languages; where for example if you were NG aligned you automatically shared a common language with all other NG-aligned people, regardless of any other considerations.

Can't speak for anyone else but IME the idea went over like a lead balloon, and was soon abandoned.

Anyone else ever use alignment tongues?

Man, I barely ever used alignment far or less something as weird as their tongues.

Much like the background feature, I find alignment is too pigeon-holing for my taste. People are a lot more complicated than that. I'm okay with alignment being a best-fit descriptor, but I always balked at it going much deeper than that.

I think if I were to do anything with something like that it would be in the form of alignment-based cults/factions who came up with their own secret tongues. But then, most people wouldn't belong to those factions, and would (IMO rightly) consider them to be zealots.

 

[Yaarel]

Can't speak for anyone else but IME the idea went over like a lead balloon, and was soon abandoned.

Anyone else ever use alignment tongues?

5e continues the alignment languages, albeit they evolve into Celestial, Infernal, and Abyssal. Hypothetically, there are other 5e languages as well for the other alignment planes. Is there a language for the Astral Plane generally?

 

[mamba]

Why not? Assuming the Barovia example, I'm not too familiar with Ravenloft, but a quick Google search tells me the Vistani can pass through the mists, so I think they would be the natural choice of messenger.

and passing through the mists gets them to the plane your Criminal is from, and they know how to get word to their contact? I don’t think so….

 

[tetrasodium]

I think you're right, though I fall into the camp of "both" or more precisely "whatever works for your character, campaign, or table".

Sure... But when the presentation of one gives many players the ironclad expectation of automatically getting it unless the GM is robbing them it makes the other a problematic fight.

Heck, to me, it could be something between the two. I mean, what je ne sais quoi made the folk hero into a folk hero in the first place? Probably some combination of charisma, looks, cleverness, and personality (none of which has to be reflected in ability scores, though it would be easier to understand if they were - people are a lot more complicated than can be reflected in six numerical scores after all) that makes common people just plain drawn to them.

It doesn't have to be magical, or fate-driven, or anything like that. This kind of stuff happens in real life. I don't personally think that it's that much of a stretch that a "folk hero" character could quickly make a commoner friend in a new village full of people that someone would offer her a place to stay. It's not like the entire village needs to trip over each other trying to be the first to make the offer!

I DO think that it would be better if the Background Features were written with two or three examples of the kind of things that a PC can expect NPCs to do for them (this is why I describe them as "limiting") so that a DM has more guidance to work something in that satisfies them, but I can see how that approach would not only take up more space, but require even more "DM fiat", which is often seen as "bad".

There is a pretty significant problem with the line of thinking that background features are the results of that first bolded bit. The rest of your post even highlights the problem in question. 2014 5e background features are power without responsibility upkeep or investment... Simply "[this] is what I can expect NPCs do do for me" with no acceptance or explanation of what NPCs can expect the PC to do". you don't have the results of charisma looks and personality at that point, instead you have a global version of BoVD's spellthatmustnotbenamed with no save and no conditions that break it.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sure... But when the presentation of one gives many players the ironclad expectation of automatically getting it unless the GM is robbing them it makes the other a problematic fight.

There is a pretty significant problem with the line of thinking that background features are the results of that first bolded bit. The rest of your post even highlights the problem in question. 2014 5e background features are power without responsibility upkeep or investment... Simply "[this] is what I can expect NPCs do do for me" with no acceptance or explanation of what NPCs can expect the PC to do". you don't have the results of charisma looks and personality at that point, instead you have a global version of BoVD's spellthatmustnotbenamed with no save and no conditions that break it.

I'm always sad about how unreasonable you manage to make your players sound.

I think that I understand that you're mostly saying that it's behaviour that you don't want the game to encourage, and I agree with that. But I'm not sure that "players having expectations" is always (or even usually) going to be a "problem".

But then, I consider the #1 rule of D&D to be "Play Nice With Others". If someone can't do that, then they shouldn't play D&D. Better, though: They should learn how to do it.