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

[mamba]

Knowing the local messengers is a benefit of the feature that can be used to explain how you get messages to your contact. Nothing relies on it.

we disagree on this... so you are saying no level of explicitness is enough for you to not ignore it and find a way around in violation of the description

 

[Oofta]

I think this is often just a failure of imagination. I played a Fighter with Come and Get It throughout 4e. I used it against beasts, swordwraiths, and other enemies I couldn't converse with, and each time I had an apposite explanation.

You can state that you liked the game without insulting a lack of imagination.

 

[Oofta]

we disagree on this... so you are saying no level of explicitness is enough for you to not ignore it and find a way around in violation of the description

I used to assume there was a line in the sand that means a background feature would not work as written. For some people, I don't think there is such a line. I mean if the PCs are thrown into an alternate universe (admittedly an extreme example, but also a fairly common fictional trope) some people would "find some way to make it work".

It's something I'll just never agree with. Where I draw that line in the sand may differ from other DMs, but it definitely exists.

 

[mamba]

Except there was no way to insult many of the creatures because you shared no language. There was simply no narrative way to justify this most of the time in-world

mooning someone is a universal language

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I used to assume there was a line in the sand that means a background feature would not work as written. For some people, I don't think there is such a line. I mean if the PCs are thrown into an alternate universe (admittedly an extreme example, but also a fairly common fictional trope) some people would "find some way to make it work".

It's something I'll just never agree with. Where I draw that line in the sand may differ from other DMs, but it definitely exists.

I agree with you, but the difference in attitude from which this disagreement with us and some other people stems from, is what we see as the proper rules to fiction connection. The different attitudes to "come and get it" are about the same thing.

We think that the purpose of the rules is to represent fiction. If the fiction gets changed then the rule should be changed too (including making the rules stop working.) But some people are fine with just applying the rule, and then post hoc inventing whatever fiction is needed to justify it that moment, irrespective of whether that fiction remains consistent with previous applications of the rule.

 

[soviet]

mooning someone is a universal language

Although it's a risky move given the ability name!

 

[Oofta]

mooning someone is a universal language

Well, if you tell a wolf to "Bite my ass", they'll likely take you up on it literally.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with you, but the difference in attitude from which this disagreement with us and some other people stems from, is what we see as the proper rules to fiction connection. The different attitudes to "come and get it" are about the same thing.

We think that the purpose of the rules is to represent fiction. If the fiction gets changed then the rule should be changed too (including making the rules stop working.) But some people are fine with just applying the rule, and then post hoc inventing whatever fiction is needed to justify it that moment, irrespective of whether that fiction remains consistent with previous applications of the rule.

I think changing the fiction based on a player desires works in a narrative game, but D&D doesn't have the kind of checks and balances those games do. I guess I'm just not an "Always say yes" DM, I think it improves the game in the long run. At least it does for me.

We're all just talking preferences of course and I have no problem with people making different choices. Don't tell me I'm engaging in bad-wrong-fun and I'll return the favor.

 

[James Gasik]

I think this is often just a failure of imagination. I played a Fighter with Come and Get It throughout 4e. I used it against beasts, swordwraiths, and other enemies I couldn't converse with, and each time I had an apposite explanation.

But that's really the issue. For some of us, we could clearly visualize what the power was doing, and didn't need the extra bits. Others really wanted to know "hey, how does this power even work??!!111" and there was...very little. Why did it work without all the things Oofta mentioned that would definitely have been in the ability in almost every other edition? Why does it work on mindless undead and avatars of dead gods? Because it says so, and that's the same with just about every other thing in 4e.

Now, there's something to be said about abilities that don't have a million caveats about what they can be used against. Take for example 3e's Sneak attack. It's "precision-based damage" so it can't be multiplied on a crit. Doesn't work against undead or constructs or oozes (I think?) or elementals, who in strict defiance of their art and minis "have no discernible back or front", or even sometimes against creatures who had too many eyes (all-around vision) or were inexplicably, Rogues 5 levels higher than you were. Can't be part of a "volley" attack. Needed clarifications on whether or not it worked with some spells (something I had DM's reject outright as a matter of course). In fact it was the areas where it wasn't limited that got the most scrutiny, like DM's who insisted it was "once per turn" and "you can't Sneak Attack with a greatsword"!

Now contrast and compare Sneak Attack in 5e. Yes, it can only be used once a turn. No, you can't use it with a Greatsword. But when you meet it's requirements (have advantage or don't have disadvantage when attacking someone adjacent to an ally who isn't incapacitated) it works. You don't have to ask if you can crit with it. Or if it works on random strange creature #852. It does.

And there's a lot less argument about it. People (mostly) accept that this is the Rogue's method of dealing damage and their means of contributing in a fight. But removing all the "grey areas" from the rules is going to invite these questions- we see it actually even in 5e now, where the designers don't explicitly define things like what "teleport" means or whether or not a hemisphere has a floor, and multiple page thread debates arise over it. And even if some developer weighs in via a tweet (or X or whatever you call it now), a lot of people still disagree, lol.

4e told us we don't have to quibble about the details. But it turned out, for a lot of people, the fun was in the details. They like knowing things like "you can't charm a zombie" (even though, inexplicably, you can in 5e). That fireballs are somewhat inexact, being spheres in a world of cubes. And what mystical words one needs to mumble to cast magic missile. Oh and being able to rely on things like "magic missile always hits" even if it turns out to be better that it doesn't, lol.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I guess my problem with it boils down to that people who as individuals are each perfectly decent, rational, and thoughtful somehow far too often seem to end up making stupid decisions as a collective. That's how we got 5e (which despite all its popularity isn't the greatest of designs) [...]

I think you have it backwards. 5e is well designed in a lot of ways. The only thing that held it back was time and manpower. Not collective stupidity.
And for 5.5 or whatever you call it, we are sadly stuck with some design decisions.

Don't mix up personal preference with good design. One hint: 4e was not good designed. It looked pretty but ultimately failed hard at what is needed from a game called D&D. This is why retro clones including pathfinder became relevant.