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

[mamba]

You said the game tells players this.

The game is more than the PHB, and even the PHB does so, in the first quote

All but one of your references are in the DMG, and the single one you've found in the PHB, doesn't say anything about fudging at all.

you were the one bringing up fudging

5e doesn't say what you describe. There's a small section in the DMG that vaguely says the DM might ignore the dice sometimes, but hardly a full-throated embrace of fudging or DM supremacy.

and I'd call the multiple quotes a 'full-throated embrace of DM supremacy'

 

[Oofta]

You can't ignore what comes later. It says straight out that you are calling in a favor. You don't call in favors from strangers.

Also ignores basic logic of "either A or B" statements.

 

[Faolyn]

While this is correct, I think that the underlying issue is that when the DM is specifically telling the player "your character cannot use that feature of theirs because I have placed them in a situation where they cannot use that feature", the player can't just insist that they can (unless they come up with a justification that is accepted by the DM).

Isn't it normally considered to be a bad thing to deliberately shut down your PC's abilities in such a way "just because"?

This sub-thread started with the idea of taking the PCs to a place where their feature doesn't work because of the demands of the adventure--such as whisking them to Ravenloft for Curse of Strahd and not mentioning ahead of time that such a feature would not be useful for them.

At the end of the day, the DM is the arbiter of the rules, and if when asked "Can my sailor character work for her passage from this port down to the South seas?", they say "No.", the player generally has to accept that by the social contract of the gaming group.

Or they can leave the group. The social contract goes both ways, and a flat out "no, because I said so" is not going to be a satisfying answer for a lot of players. Especially when a "yes" can be achieved with just a bit of thought on the DM's part--and because to me, at least, a flat "no" sounds very rail-roady.

Why doesn't the DM want the PC to work for their passage? Would the DM be OK with the PC buying a ticket? Why is having the players spend a few gold versus a free ride that important to the DM? Do they Just not want to run a nautical side-adventure? Is the DM going to allow for a roll (with a reasonable DC and not a "roll a 21 on an unmodified d20 bs)? If the PC is a sailor, then why can't they use their knowledge of sailing to their advantage when asking for passage? Even if it's not an automatic success, that should be worth something on a die roll.

But to hear from some people on this thread, even that is so illogical to be magical in origin, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a rules lawyer.

 

[Oofta]

Isn't it normally considered to be a bad thing to deliberately shut down your PC's abilities in such a way "just because"?

This sub-thread started with the idea of taking the PCs to a place where their feature doesn't work because of the demands of the adventure--such as whisking them to Ravenloft for Curse of Strahd and not mentioning ahead of time that such a feature would not be useful for them.


Or they can leave the group. The social contract goes both ways, and a flat out "no, because I said so" is not going to be a satisfying answer for a lot of players. Especially when a "yes" can be achieved with just a bit of thought on the DM's part--and because to me, at least, a flat "no" sounds very rail-roady.

Why doesn't the DM want the PC to work for their passage? Would the DM be OK with the PC buying a ticket? Why is having the players spend a few gold versus a free ride that important to the DM? Do they Just not want to run a nautical side-adventure? Is the DM going to allow for a roll (with a reasonable DC and not a "roll a 21 on an unmodified d20 bs)? If the PC is a sailor, then why can't they use their knowledge of sailing to their advantage when asking for passage? Even if it's not an automatic success, that should be worth something on a die roll.

But to hear from some people on this thread, even that is so illogical to be magical in origin, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a rules lawyer.

If you think sailor background doesn't offer any benefits at all you haven't been reading responses.

 

[Maxperson]

You said the game tells players this. All but one of your references are in the DMG, and the single one you've found in the PHB, doesn't say anything about fudging at all.

I didn't pull out the rule on fudging. That's another one in the DMG.

Edit: And what I said was that the PHB says one thing, to check with the DM about house rules. Then I said that the DMG tells the DM over and over... So of course all but one were going to be in the DMG

 

[Cadence]

Isn't it normally considered to be a bad thing to deliberately shut down your PC's abilities in such a way "just because"?

This sub-thread started with the idea of taking the PCs to a place where their feature doesn't work because of the demands of the adventure--such as whisking them to Ravenloft for Curse of Strahd and not mentioning ahead of time that such a feature would not be useful for them.

Did they take them there because it thwarted their ability? Or did the characters happen to do things that would get them taken to Strahd? (Do most people usually choose backgrounds because they will explicitly be useful, or because they sound like they will make an interesting character?)

If someone is a fire mage, what effort should the DM do if there are some places on the map that currently have fire giants or a red dragon?

 

[Vaalingrade]

As a bit extra. This is from Xanathar's.

Page 5: "One rule overrides all others: the DM is the final authority on how the rules work in play."

I hope 5.5 removes this mistake.

 

[Maxperson]

I hope 5.5 removes this mistake.

Whether it's a mistake or not is a matter of opinion. Given the prevalence if that idea throughout the 5e DMG, as well as in every older edition of the game, I doubt 5.5e is going to change it. It's pretty well ingrained at this point.

What I would wish for is that the DMG give much more and better advice to DMs on how to run the game closer to No Myth for those who wish to play that way.

 

[Faolyn]

it also says I know the messengers that can get a message to them

Sigh.

So what?

The purpose of the feature is that you have an in with the criminal underbelly. You have that in via your contact, and you can get in touch with your contact wherever you are via your messengers. The messengers themselves are not actually important to the feature. Your contact is what's important, and even then, only so they can liaise with the criminal network.

You need someone to help you break into a bank? Your contact knows a guy.
You need some paperwork forged? Your contact knows a guy.
You need to buy or sell some illegal magic items or spell components? Your contact knows a guy.
You need to know the passwords the guards use? Your contact knows a guy.
You need to get in touch with the local underground rebellion? Your contact knows a guy.

This is the feature's purpose. To get you access (for a cost) to abilities you and your party lack. The messengers only exist so you can get in touch with your contact because instant forms of communication like cell phones are fairly rare in D&Dlandia. If you happened to get your hands on a pair of sending stones and you give one to your contact, you wouldn't even need a messenger.

The icing on the cake however is that the message will not reach the contact and all of this is just a ploy to get the criminal to do something the DPs want

That was one possibility I gave. One.

The Dark Powers may just want to set you up with a contact and then sit back and watch without interfering. The Dark Powers may not even be involved: It could actually be one of the zillions of monsters in Ravenloft who can overhear your conversations or read your mind and want to lure you in so they can eat your face, or it could be legitimate criminals (who overheard your conversation or read your mind) and who want a new person the Darklord's minions don't know. It could even be your actual contact, or a copy of your actual contact (the Dark Powers do that as well) who got brought into Ravenloft at some earlier point in time!

There are dozens of possibilities here. Stop getting hung up on the part of the feature that is not actually important and focus on the part that is: getting in touch with a network of criminals.

 

[Cadence]

At first Han was really, really, really, pissed at Chewie. But the look on Boba Fett's face when Chewie started negotiating passage for the two of them to Kashyyk was priceless. Fett never forgave them for that one. Han, on the other hand, couldn't wait to have Chewie do the same the next time an imperial blockade caught them in a tractor beam. Think of the fuel savings!

-----

Having called on Miracle Max to scry the future, Prince Humperdinck knew exactly what he needed to do. Grabbing the cook from his royal yacht they set out in a rowboat for the Dread Pirate Roberts. As Wesley in disguise began to order his crew to do the obvious, the cook called on his years of cooking in ships from many ports and sought passage on the Revenge for he and the prince to get to Florin.

-----

As if "Parlay" wasn't bad enough Barbaossa thought, now there was this. Right after making them walk the plank, Jack merely kicked in a leisurely circle to face the boat and invoked "Sailor Background" for he and Swann to be ferried around like it was some sort of aqua-taxi.