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

[Hriston]

I never said backgrounds were a bad idea.

I didn’t say you said backgrounds were a bad idea. I said you said background features were a bad idea. Here, I found the quote for you from your post where you said this :

The new background feats do away with a bad idea that was still always at the discretion of the DM and replaces them with concrete benefits.

The "bad idea" you're talking about being replaced here are background features.

I said groups should discuss backgrounds and talk about how much the background feature will be useful. I think the Background Features as presented in the earlier backgrounds were potentially limited because it's based too much on being recognized or who you know. I don't like how they were done, newer backgrounds are better. I still like the concept and the flexibility they give to character design (e.g. a dex based PC with criminal background being a reasonable replacement for a rogue).

But yeah, there are no libraries in Barovia so being a researcher is of no benefit.

A couple things about this: One, who decided there are no libraries in Barovia? I mean, is that like a feature of the setting? Do the setting books call out that Barovia is a "land with no libraries of any kind"? Did the devil Strahd ban all books or something? Or is it just that there isn't one detailed in the published materials you're using, and you don't want to add one?
And two, do you realize the Researcher feature in no way depends on the existence of libraries? All it says is if there's information you want, you usually know where to find it. It doesn't have to be in a library. It doesn't even have to be on the same plane of existence. Personally, I would let the player tell the table where their character knows the information can be found. If it's been established there are no libraries in Barovia, then the player's not going to say it's at the local library.

Same as being a sailor in the desert or any number of scenarios.

And this makes no sense. Sailing ships require bodies of water to function. If it's established the party's in a desert with no water in sight, why on earth would a player say they've secured passage for the party on a ship unless they were playing a character who was delirious with thirst? Just like the rest of the game, background features require the table to be on the same page with regard to fictional positioning.

 

[Oofta]

I didn’t say you said backgrounds were a bad idea. I said you said background features were a bad idea. Here, I found the quote for you from your post where you said this :

The "bad idea" you're talking about being replaced here are background features.


A couple things about this: One, who decided there are no libraries in Barovia? I mean, is that like a feature of the setting? Do the setting books call out that Barovia is a "land with no libraries of any kind"? Did the devil Strahd ban all books or something? Or is it just that there isn't one detailed in the published materials you're using, and you don't want to add one?
And two, do you realize the Researcher feature in no way depends on the existence of libraries? All it says is if there's information you want, you usually know where to find it. It doesn't have to be in a library. It doesn't even have to be on the same plane of existence. Personally, I would let the player tell the table where their character knows the information can be found. If it's been established there are no libraries in Barovia, then the player's not going to say it's at the local library.


And this makes no sense. Sailing ships require bodies of water to function. If it's established the party's in a desert with no water in sight, why on earth would a player say they've secured passage for the party on a ship unless they were playing a character who was delirious with thirst? Just like the rest of the game, background features require the table to be on the same page with regard to fictional positioning.

I think background features as written in the PHB were a bad idea. The new ones they've come out with recently are better. Not sure what else to say and there's nothing new here I haven't already answered multiple times.

 

[Hriston]

Barovia is a very backwards place with almost no formal education unless you can pay for a private tutor. Vallaki used to have bookstores, some filled with arcane and eldritch tomes, but got changed radically in 5e--you'd have to bring 2e/3x stuff into 5e or make up stuff.

What I'm getting from this post is that Barovia, as presented in 5E published materials, is a knowledge-poor environment but that nevertheless some education is available to the wealthy. It sounds like knowing the whereabouts of a "learned person or creature" isn't as far fetched as other posts have suggested. I'm reminded of the first line of the Sage background: "You spent years learning the lore of the multiverse." Perhaps some of that lore touched upon Barovia.

 

[Scott Christian]

That, honestly would be a better way (IMO) to word a "Background Feature" in the first place: "You get Advantage on ability checks when... [a short list of things appropriate to your background] and when dealing with NPCs who are sympathetic to your background".

Will NPCs give you free room and board or help you hide or whatever? If it's appropriate and you roll successfully on whatever check your DM asks of you.

It might be mechanically better, but flavor wise it is drab. That is why they wrote the backgrounds like they did.

 

[tetrasodium]

What I'm getting from this post is that Barovia, as presented in 5E published materials, is a knowledge-poor environment but that nevertheless some education is available to the wealthy. It sounds like knowing the whereabouts of a "learned person or creature" isn't as far fetched as other posts have suggested. I'm reminded of the first line of the Sage background: "You spent years learning the lore of the multiverse." Perhaps some of that lore touched upon Barovia.

Yes & no,... 5E kinda drops the ball hard on explaining ravenloft to the point of giving an impression where Barovia=Ravenloft rather than just one of many domains within ravenloft & really dowbplays the idea of ravenloft itself being actively hands on horrible maybe sentient world that might be capable of seeing beyond the 4th wall. That almost extends to the point that it gives the appearance of not ever being considered as a distinct thing. Wealth can help obtain things in ravenloft, but often it takes something more special like obtaining it somehow making things unpleasant for an individual that The Dark Powers feel deserve special torment. That's so true that the researcher background feature is practically the very definition of what sort of hubris that might cause The Dark Powers to single someone out for torment.

While there are domains within ravenloft that are almost certain to have more comprehensive resources, crossing into another domain deliberately by choice & expecting to get where you hoped is a bit of a stretch most of the time. Even if Ravenloft allows you to cross domains as you hoped it's entirely possible that it might do so purely to torment you

 

[Zardnaar]

After talking to rest of my players probably pick up the core books at some point close to release.

And take it from there depending on if we like it basically.

 

[Hriston]

I specifically stated that it might take work on the DMs part.

But to say a background "doesn't work" in a specific setting is silly. The features listed, just like skills, are transferrable. They can work in a variety of settings and situations.

I agree, except I don’t think it takes any extra work on the DM’s part other than staying out of the player’s way and saying “yes” when the player stipulates elements of the fiction (NPCs, locations, etc.) related to their feature. The background features carve out an extremely limited area in which the player can make such stipulations, adding to the fiction in a way that supports use of the feature without the DM having to set things up for the player in advance.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree, except I don’t think it takes any extra work on the DM’s part other than staying out of the player’s way and saying “yes” when the player stipulates elements of the fiction (NPCs, locations, etc.) related to their feature. The background features carve out an extremely limited area in which the player can make such stipulations, adding to the fiction in a way that supports use of the feature without the DM having to set things up for the player in advance.

Very much this.

And it has nothing to do with player entitlement or powergaming or taking advantage of the DM. Usually, it comes from the player in some variation of: "As my character's background is [x], I'd like to ask/look/snoop around to see if there is a [y] in the area" - where [y] is something related to their background. In most cases, as DM, I'll do what I can to make that happen. It might be a given or it might include some kind of ability check. But I'm not nearly so talented (nor do I have the time) as to have every detail of every environment figured out ahead of time.

Reminds me of a combat scene in a tavern/ballroom/grand hall and the player of the ranger (or monk or rogue or...) asks "Is there a chandelier?" I'm nearly always going to say "Why yes, there is a chandelier! What did you have in mind?"

 

[Hriston]

except when what should have been gm advice written to GM's are instead found as player facing features with sloppy writing that makes the GM need to regularly pull out their hair fighting it tooth & nail at the expense of creating an adversarial feeling at the table.

Okay, but this just comes off as someone imagining how other people's games must suck. Do you have any examples of this happening in actual gameplay?

 

[tetrasodium]

Okay, but this just comes off as someone imagining how other people's games must suck. Do you have any examples of this happening in actual gameplay?

There's no shade thrown on anyone else's game by stating that a chapter in the phb is directed at the wrong side of the GM screen. With it's efforts to mechanically override the gm. As to your gameplay example request?... Have you not been following the thread? Quite a few posters have literally provided examples of how the mistargeted section results in players feeling justified in both telling the gm what they must do and how the GM still needs to do the kind of stuff they have for decades prior to 5e. You would need to first explain why the gm should not be the one to decide when s background provides some relevant enough reason for the NPCs being run by the gm to react in a given way.