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

[Hriston]

well, your interpretation defies reality, logic and the English language… if that does not stop you, then I doubt anything I say will either…

The more I read that feature, the more I believe it is intended to be local, not universal (you know the local messengers…). In any case, nothing will convince you and I feel I said everything more than once already, so I won’t continue this topic with you

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, the alternative is the messengers are local to the place in which you are.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

as long as you do not care who it happens to, sure.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course we would care who it happens to. We would also care about the details of how it happened. I'm not sure where you are going with the idea of who cares about what.

If something has a one in a million chance of working and there are a billion attempts, some will work.

Mm. Sure. But also sometimes you do something once, and it works out for you no matter how unlikely. Like falling out of a plane and walking away. Other times you slip in the bathtub and die. Life is weird.

That still means your chance at the next attempt is one in a million however

Again, most uses of the background feature that @Hriston is defending would be regular uses. It keeps getting dragged over to the most unlikely situations - which could still work, if the table feels like finding a way. Thar way need not be illogical or lazy, as has been uncharitably characterized. Instead it can be imaginative dynamic fiction, if the table works together to pull that off.

Also, see @Maxperson's post above.

 

[Hriston]

Assuming this is the correct version of the feature

"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."

How else would you even interpret this?

It says explicitly that "you know the local messengers". There's nothing conditional about this.

It would have been conditional if (haha) it say "IF you know the local messengers" but no it is explicit. You do know them. Otherwise the feature is null and void. What point is there in a feature that says "If you know the local messengers you can use them to send messages"?

That's like having a ability that read something like "If you know the local blacksmiths you can purchase their services"

Quoted for truth!

 

[Hriston]

that your rogue can travel quite literally anywhere even other planes of existence and there will be someone who you aparently know who is unconditionally ready, willing and able to get a message back to your little old thieves guild for you free of cost.

So the fact you probably don't know somebody on every single plane of existence means it's completely unbelievable that you know somebody on one of them?

 

[Zardnaar]

they said it initially sold well, that tells us nothing about overall sales

The only statement about overall sales that I am aware of is from Ben Riggs, and he says 4e sold the worst of all editions

Aware. I don't think he counted OD&D though or split 3.5 and 3.0.

Excluding OD&D lowest selling is either 3.5 or 4E afaik. I haven't seen any goid source for concrete numbers on those 2.

 

[Cadence]

It feels like the thread is stuck in something vaguely like the following (please edit in your head as needed). I wonder if we'll get an AI someday that can enforce a stalemate for a thread when it finds an (essentially) repeated set of moves?

A: X always works
B: No, it doesn't, that's ludicrous
C: Why wouldn't it work?
B: No, it can work sometimes but certainly not always.
C: Why can't it work the vast majority of the time?
B: Why should it work in crazy examples!?
C: Why are you hung up on crazy examples?
<iterate>
B&C: So X should always work when it's reasonable, in iffy cases when there's a reason, and should not be expected to work in the virtually impossible cases
A: X Always works!
<go back to line 2, possibly with B and/or C subbed out for B+1 and/or C+1>

Or is there some general disagreement (beyond a person or two) about "X should always work when it's reasonable, in iffy cases when there's a reason, and should not be expected to work in the virtually impossible cases". Anyway, I think I'm pulling my auto-eject cord and bailing on this tangent because it feels done?

 

[CreamCloud0]

So the fact you probably don't know somebody on every single plane of existence means it's completely unbelievable that you know somebody on one of them?

no, but unless you have some explicitly established evidence that you have a viable reason to already know someone on some other plane of existence that you have not spent the vast majority if not the entirity of your life growing up on i will be unwilling to manifest someone there who just so happens to know you purely for indulging your background feature working.

 

[mamba]

Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, the alternative is the messengers are local to the place in which you are.

yeah, not sure why you always go back, because I addressed that since…

That means you know the local messengers wherever you happen to be. That either means 1) you know all messengers there are, all across all the worlds and planes and 2) they exist all across the world and planes to ensure there always are local messengers or 3) you know a handful or so of messengers and miraculously one of those is always wherever you find yourself

Neither of which really makes any sense when you think about it, so I go with local means the ones where you grew up / start out in

 

[Faolyn]

Neither of which really makes any sense when you think about it, so I go with local means the ones where you grew up / start out in

Which makes the feature useless in any game that isn't tied to a specific location. Do you really think that's what the designers intended, to have a trait that is useless 95% of the time?

 

[mamba]

Mm. Sure. But also sometimes you do something once, and it works out for you no matter how unlikely. Like falling out of a plane and walking away. Other times you slip in the bathtub and die. Life is weird.

yes, but it is not reliably weird

Again, most uses of the background feature that @Hriston is defending would be regular uses. It keeps getting dragged over to the most unlikely situations

the reason we do not discuss the common scenarios is that no one disagrees about it working then..