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

[Cadence]

You can't grapple something that's in gaseous form, they no longer have a physical form to grab. You could potentially use a giant vacuum cleaner, but that would really suck.

So you would give your own meaning to "gaseous form" (matching what many in the other thread did), since it isn't a condition and it isn't specifically referring to the spell of that name.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m with @Oofta on this. Fiction, not mechanics first. We rule the rules, the rules don’t rule us. Etc.

 

[Oofta]

So you would give your own meaning to "gaseous form" (matching what many in the other thread did), since it isn't a condition and it isn't specifically referring to the spell of that name.

For better or worse (I think for the better) 5E is not written like a technical manual with an attempt to define every term used. Rulings over rules for the win.

 

[Oofta]

1: Ignoring everything I wrote.

2: Replying with an obvious insult.

Way to go!

First, it was an attempt at humor. Oh well.

Second, you flat out told me that I am "reading the backgrounds wrong." Then you bring in a background we have never previously discussed that's not even relevant to any of the discussions up to this point. I mean, I also disagree that it proves what you think it proves because it literally states a 50% percentage chance to find someone who admires you. Why would someone admire you if they've never heard of you? In some cases there's a 0 percent chance anyone admires you because no one knows who you are.

I think recognizing a character archetype is objectionable and bordering on class based prejudices. Nobles don't recognize other nobles because of breeding, a commoner and a king are just human with the same variation as anyone else.

People know how I run my games, I explain it on invite and repeat it in session 0. Background and backstory absolutely can give people benefits. An agrarian commoner will know more about crops, livestock, perhaps markets. They may get advantage on some checks or automatic proficiency in some area. A noble will know things about court, etc..

What won't happen is they can't walk up to a complete stranger and automatically get shelter or an audience with the king. Because like does not automatically recognize like in the real world or in my campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

To compare, take a look at the Athlete from Mythic Odysseys of Theros:


See that? That gives a range and a chance that someone actually recognizes you as a specific person.

And thus is well-written. If they were all this way this discussion need never have happened.

Other backgrounds, such as the folk hero, do not have that limitation:


There's no range limit, there's no percentage chance, nothing. Why? Because people don't have to recognize you as a specific person. They just have to recognize you as a character archetype.

And that's a bridge too far. How would I, a random commoner in British Columbia, have any clue that the guy who just walked in is a folk hero back in France and because of this I have to give him shelter? (it does say "will" give shelter, not "may" or "might"; I have to do it)

And indeed, the entire purpose of the background was that this is something you did before you were an adventurer, you are assumed to have given up that life in order to become an adventurer. A folk hero stays in their village and either lives off their fame or continues to do heroic things for their village. You don't do that--you have left the village and that lifestyle behind.

Correct. And the farther afield you go from that village, the farther you have also left that background behind. You're a folk hero in your home village and the surrounding area and probably always will be - you've got free beer for life in the local pub - but what you did in your home village shouldn't make any difference to anything when you're in another village half a world away.

And this is where the RAW wording of some of these backgrounds really gets it wrong. Whether it's wrong in the name of brevity, or giving players an advantage, or whatever, it's still wrong; and it puts the DM in a bad place when she tries to impose a bit of common sense on things.

Again: I don't care what you do at your table. But you are declaring the backgrounds to be objectively bad, and you are doing so based on incorrect information.

I say some of them are objectively bad as written, and the information I'm using to reach that conclusion is the actual poor wording of the rules.

But the point I was making is, you specifically said "mother may I" with a DM was bad.

Here Oofta and I probably diverge, in that I've no issue with mother-may-I in situations like this. I'd far rather a player ask "Do I think Jocasta's background will help here?" than have the player just assume it will help and be disappointed when it doesn't.

 

[Lanefan]

There are certainly a huge variety of questions that could be made asked about this. Here are four:

* As a DM would you let a normal corporeal solid person A grapple a wind walking person B?

No.

* As a DM would you let an air elemental A grapple a wind walking person B?

Yes.

* As a DM would you let a person A with a bellows try and suck back the wind walking person B in something like a grapple?

If they were forge-size bellows, maybe. Anything portable is almost certainly too small to have much if any effect.

Gust of Wind, on the other hand, would be bad news.

* And the one I am most curious about - As a DM, do any of those change if it is player A vs NPC B as opposed to NPC A vs player B who tries it first?

No. It works the same no matter who is involved.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And that's a bridge too far. How would I, a random commoner in British Columbia, have any clue that the guy who just walked in is a folk hero back in France and because of this I have to give him shelter? (it does say "will" give shelter, not "may" or "might"; I have to do it)

Because that's how the fiction works.

The folk hero needs a place to stay and you, the commoner just happen to have heard tell of their exploits because that's what the story requires.

 

[Lanefan]

Because that's how the fiction works.

The folk hero needs a place to stay and you, the commoner just happen to have heard tell of their exploits because that's what the story requires.

The "story" can go jump in the lake if it doesn't make sense.

I'm trying to run something vaguely reflecting a real-ish world, or as real-ish as it can be given magic etc. I'm not writing a movie script where contrivance is the order of the day.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The "story" can go jump in the lake if it doesn't make sense.

Someone having learned a thing doesn't make sense?

I'm trying to run something vaguely reflecting a real-ish world, or as real-ish as it can be given magic etc. I'm not writing a movie script where contrivance is the order of the day.

You've never happened to know something important to a situation you run into?

 

[Faolyn]

Partially inspired by ...



I am curious about what the opinions of folks on here (@Faolyn , @Hussar , @Oofta , @FitzTheRuke , @mamba ,etc ...) are about a spell.

One of the other current threads ( D&D 5E - Wind Walk and Grappled ) has a question about interpreting Wind Walk. Wind Walk does not give immunity to grapple in the description, and clarification in sage advice says spells don't give other spells effects unless they say they do (so it doesn't convey what a spell like Gaseous Form would unless it explicitly says so Does the spell wind walk give you the benefits of gaseous form? ).

Ack-chullay, the spell gaseous form doesn't make you immune to being grappled either. Like how daylight doesn't actually producing vampire-harming daylight.

Spoiler: Gaseous Form

You transform a willing creature you touch, along with everything it's wearing and carrying, into a misty cloud for the duration. The spell ends if the creature drops to 0 hit points. An incorporeal creature isn't affected.

While in this form, the target's only method of movement is a flying speed of 10 feet. The target can enter and occupy the space of another creature. The target has resistance to nonmagical damage, and it has advantage on Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution saving throws. The target can pass through small holes, narrow openings, and even mere cracks, though it treats liquids as though they were solid surfaces. The target can't fall and remains hovering in the air even when stunned or otherwise incapacitated.

While in the form of a misty cloud, the target can't talk or manipulate objects, and any objects it was carrying or holding can't be dropped, used, or otherwise interacted with. The target can't attack or cast spells.

So in gaseous form, you can't attack--meaning you can't grapple--but you'd at least have advantage on checks to get out of a grapple.

(I should point out that vampires in mist form aren't immune to being grappled or restrained either. Several air-type elementals aren't immune to being grappled--although there are some that aren't immune to being grappled but are immune to being restrained.)

At my table, we'd probably say "wow, that's dumb," and decide "grappling: yea or nay" as a group. If we were really on the ball, we might even remember to write it down on our list of house rules.

Because here's the thing: D&D has a ton of crunchy little rules that interact in weird ways. I could rewrite the gaseous form and wild walk spells to include a bit about being immune to the grappled and restrained conditions... and then go through all of the other spells and monsters and probably magic items as well, hope I got everything. And then do the same thing for every other aspect of D&D that may produce questionable results. At which point I might as well create a brand new game entirely wherein I could do all the spells and monsters exactly the way I want to.

Or we could take each instance as it comes along in game instead of trying to head it off at the pass. Because you know what? The first time wind walk or gaseous form comes up in my game, it may actually be in a way wherein being grappled makes sense.

Or I could just throw my hands in the air and try to convince my friends to play Savage Worlds instead, because at least the intangibility power says (paraphrased) "can't affect or be affected by the physical world"--which would include grappling or being grappled--and "can affect other intangible beings."

(The bellows thing sounds like something from a cartoon--I probably wouldn't allow, but I can see other DMs at my table being totally cool with the idea.)