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

[Maxperson]

But saying no, just because noone has the right background after establishing contacts seems very random.

This is the 3e feat problem: before feats were a thing, anyone could reasonably try. After codifying it in feats, suddenly everyone but the random person chosing the right background can do so reasonably.

Why not make the benefit:
"checks to make contact with other criminals usually have advantage."

So anyone can try. Anyone can reasonably use it. A criminal just has an easier chance.

I think you need to read that closer.

I didn't say it was a no. I said there was a good reason to say no, so it could fail. If the outcome is in doubt(could fail), there is a roll. The background removes the doubt is all.

Same for commoner:
If you are dealing woth commoners, your checka have advantage.


By all means: make all baclground features the same:

If you deal with NPC's of similar background, you have advantage on all social checks, which include:
-finding shelter
-getting audiences
-getting passage
-finding help

Maybe also add: you also gain advantage on exploration checks, that belong to your background:

• finding food and navigating in common surroundings
• finding shelter and passage

And last but not least:
You also gain advantage on crafts and knwledge based on your background:

• religious knowledge
• crafting and repairing tools
• historic knowledge
• etiquette.

Actually this is what most background features boild down to.

This is pretty much just preference in how to run it. I prefer "no doubt" vs. "doubt and a roll." You're suggesting "roll" vs. "roll with advantage." I'm actually being more generous.

 

[Maxperson]

but somehow they learned of Rakir's existence, ok, now we are on the same page.

No, then it will depend on how well Frakir already knows the character, regardless of whether one of them has the criminal background.

Initially they both would simply get

PC: "Frakir, I need you to set up a meeting between myself and guildmaster Rakir."
Frakir: "I do not know this guildmaster Rakir that you are speaking of".

but the criminal will gain trust faster and advance to

PC: "Frakir, I need you to set up a meeting between myself and guildmaster Rakir."
Frakir: "Let me see what I can do. Come back in three days and I will let you know."
PC: "Sounds good. I'll see you in three days."
Three days layteer
PC: "Ho! Frakir! What did you find out?"
Frakir: "The guildmaster is busy and will not meet with you."
PC: "I had hoped to tell him this in person, but I guess I won't be able to. Would you give him this message please?"
One failed persuasion check later.
Frakir: "I have already done you a favor. No more freebies. I'm not going to carry this message to you unless you bring me the McGuffin of Money Making from the mayor's house. He keeps it on the mantle of the fireplace in the sitting room."

sooner, they would also have advantage on the check

Eventually they can both get to your

PC: "Frakir, I need you to set up a meeting between myself and guildmaster Rakir."
Frakir: "Let me see what I can do. Come back in three days and I will let you know."
PC: "Sounds good. I'll see you in three days."
Three days layteer
PC: "Ho! Frakir! What did you find out?"
Frakir: "The guildmaster is busy and will not meet with you."
PC: "I had hoped to tell him this in person, but I guess I won't be able to. Would you give him this message please?"
Frakir: "Of course!"

however. The criminal will again arrive there faster, but the other character also can

It's not that they "somehow" learned of his existence. The how would have been established prior. Remember, at the outset of this example I said that they had made this contact. To have a contact, there has to be as much trust as can happen between criminals, and that would include the local lay of the criminal land.

Frakir: "Remember, Rakir runs things around here. Operate without his permission and you'll end up dead if you're lucky, worse if he's not in a good mood. He's in tight with the Darklord."

That sort of talk would almost surely have happened once they gained Frakir's trust enough for him to become a contact. Once he is a contact, both could approach him as in my first post on this example.

 

[Scott Christian]

There's a middle ground you're missing here, though.

The DM tries to keep a consistent world. The players want to add things that fit within the world's consistency.

You seem to be assuming that players are just going to be adding anything, like the DM wants a gritty dark ages setting and player insists on magical monster trucks and the DM gives in.

I agree there is middle ground. Sorry, I thought that was implied in the second part of my response that was missing from your quote of me:

You make it sound like it can't matter. As if it is some arguing point that allows you to win. It matters to some, and doesn't matter to others. And when it matters to others - then it matters.

There is a middle ground. I also do not assume that players are adding things on a whim. I assume they have good intentions (because the last four groups I've played with all had players with good intentions). I just want it presumed that the DM knows best. They are the ones that did the work on the world, so they may know quite a bit more than the players. That is why I think it is best for the player to discuss it with the DM ahead of time (session 0).

 

[James Gasik]

So in short: you agree with me.


I think DCs starting at 15 is where the problems begin. I'd like to have 3 successes against DC 10 checks before 3 failures instead of 1 DC 15 check. Gives a way better distribution of successes vs failures for differently skilled characters.

Well yes, of course I agree. Does that mean I can't or shouldn't expound on the topic? Are there some brevity police out to get me? I have many long-winded posts, so if so, I might be in trouble.

And yes, the DC's set with numbers divisible by 5 is something that just doesn't work very well. And WotC apparently has no clue what they should be either (read the Sunless Citadel "conversion" in Yawning Portal for some hilarious examples). When two characters of level 5 could have, based on ability scores, proficiency, and class abilities, check arrays going from -1 to +11...yikes.

Of course I keep getting told that ability checks aren't a part of bounded accuracy, which just boggles the mind because you get things like Bards handing out the same size bonuses to ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, which seems odd if these are intended to be very different kinds of numbers.

 

[tetrasodium]

I agree there is middle ground. Sorry, I thought that was implied in the second part of my response that was missing from your quote of me:

There is a middle ground. I also do not assume that players are adding things on a whim. I assume they have good intentions (because the last four groups I've played with all had players with good intentions). I just want it presumed that the DM knows best. They are the ones that did the work on the world, so they may know quite a bit more than the players. That is why I think it is best for the player to discuss it with the DM ahead of time (session 0).

We are in a thread where a poster literally gave an example and declared that the player just made it up earlier. It feels like the people trying to hang you on some middle ground are looking for anything but middle ground.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well yes, of course I agree.

Puh. I read it correctly!

Does that mean I can't or shouldn't expound on the topic?

Of course. Was an interesting read. I just were not sure if it was agreement at the start.

Are there some brevity police out to get me?

Of course not. I was just a bit slow to understand if it was agreement or not.

I have many long-winded posts, so if so, I might be in trouble.

Me too.

And yes, the DC's set with numbers divisible by 5 is something that just doesn't work very well.

I agree.

And WotC apparently has no clue what they should be either (read the Sunless Citadel "conversion" in Yawning Portal for some hilarious examples).

Yes, sometimes I am really annoyed about the DCs in adventures. Often way too high to be fun.

When two characters of level 5 could have, based on ability scores, proficiency, and class abilities, check arrays going from -1 to +11...yikes.

I am not too worried about that. I think medium checks should be about DC 10 to 12. So the most skilled lvl 5 character can do it guaranteed while a very clumsy person only succeeds 1/3 of the times seems ok to me.

Of course I keep getting told that ability checks aren't a part of bounded accuracy, which just boggles the mind because you get things like Bards handing out the same size bonuses to ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws, which seems odd if these are intended to be very different kinds of numbers.

If the bonuses are very limited, I see no big problem. But I'd like a general rule that extra dice to abilities never stack. You just use the highest one.
In LevelUP there is the expertise die. So if expertise was also a (scaling) die instead of double prof bonus, this could be easily integrated with the rule above.

So at level 1, an expert always rolls a d4 with their d20. At level 5 it is a d6. At level 20 it is a d12.
If you are blessed or inspired by a bard, roll those dice along with your expert die and always chose the highest one.

 

[mamba]

That sort of talk would almost surely have happened once they gained Frakir's trust enough for him to become a contact. Once he is a contact, both could approach him as in my first post on this example.

ok, I thought they are still in the process of establishing Frakir as a contact. If they already are, then both can approach them like the first example in your first post. I see no reason that at that time the criminal still has the advantage of not having to roll, it’s just that the criminal gets to that point faster because they can establish trust faster

 

[tetrasodium]

ok, I thought they are still in the process of establishing Frakir as a contact. If they already are, then both can approach them like the first example in your first post. I see no reason that at that time the criminal still has the advantage of not having to roll, it’s just that the criminal gets to that point faster because they can establish trust faster

I think that given the discussion it's completely reasonable to assume"that sort of talk" never happened anywhere other than the imagination of the player who literally just made it up as having happened rather than actually happening in play at the table or a mid session discussion with the gm.

 

[Hriston]

The players and DM will all quickly realize these steps to merely be a go-through-the-motions process, as by RAW the outcome is already predetermined: the PC has to succeed.

Now if the rules were worded differently, so as to imply a chance that these background features don't always work as expected, then going through the RP process each time would be far more valid.

Well, the criticism was the feature could be used without the PC talking to/convincing any concerned NPCs. I think, if the table is imagining those interactions taking place, that's a huge improvement!

 

[mamba]

I think that given the discussion it's completely reasonable to assume"that sort of talk" never happened anywhere other than the imagination of the player who literally just made it up as having happened rather than actually happening in play at the table or a mid session discussion with the gm.

since this was based on the Ravenloft scenario and not having access to the contact from your background, it will require this happening at the table, at least to me