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

[UngeheuerLich]

Then you clearly don't understand my position on features.

It's a matter of presentation. Which of these two people do you think an average commoner is going to be more likely to want to help (as opposed to "forced to help under duress), based solely on what they know after having met them two seconds ago:

View attachment 360843
I'm going to guess that Average Joe Peasant, who mostly knows about adventurers from stories of stalwart knights and evil assassins, is going to pick the second one.

You don't go to a job interview in sweatpants and you don't go expecting help from average folk if you're bristling with weapons and dripping with other people's blood.

What exeactly have those pictures to do with backgrounds?
Actually the left one is the former folk hero in disguise. The right one is the criminal.

 

[Faolyn]

What exeactly have those pictures to do with backgrounds?

Nothing. It's just mamba seems to think that the background should either always work or never work, or that I should want it to always work, and can't seem to understand why I'm OK with it not always working.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Nothing. It's just mamba seems to think that the background should either always work or never work, or that I should want it to always work, and can't seem to understand why I'm OK with it not always working.

Ok. I lost track who said what.

The feature says it does always work.
But not letting it always work is way more plausible in my view.

They are removed, which I think is better for the game. I would not mind them being replaced by features that work sometimes (even at the player's choice), if they put some work on it.
This might include dressing up properly.

 

[mamba]

Rada rada rada rada rada. Rada rada rada. Rada rada. RADA ??

I am Groot!

 

[mamba]

Nothing. It's just mamba seems to think that the background should either always work or never work

patently wrong

or that I should want it to always work,

remove the ‘should’ or replace it with ‘appear to’

and can't seem to understand why I'm OK with it not always working.

I was surprised by that given your stance so far but have no reason not to believe you

 

[James Gasik]

The PHB kind of flip flops on background features a lot. Early in the section on character creation, it describes features as "general benefits". Later on they're described as "concrete benefits". Neither of which means a lot, but to me, concrete sounds a bit more important than "general". YMMV.

But as far as backgrounds "always working", that's not universal. The Acolyte Feature says "you and your adventuring companions can expect to receive free healing and care". Just because you can expect it doesn't mean you always get it!

The Guild Artisan says things like: "In some cities and towns, a guildhall offers a central place to meet other members of your profession" and "You can also gain access to powerful political figures through the guild, if you are a member in good standing". (Here, I assume can means "it's possible", not "always", but that's my interpretation).

The Sage says "...if you do not know that information, you often know where and from whom you can obtain it. Usually, this comes from... Your DM might rule that the knowledge you seek...or that it simply cannot be found."

The Soldier says: "You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments...".

Now having said this, most of the backgrounds are written without these qualifiers. Why this is so, I can't say- my only guess is that the writers thought some benefits were so minor (free passage on a ship, being able to quickly navigate in a city, free room and board) that there wasn't much reason to ever deny them, while access to secret information or free healing was something that could be abused more readily and thus there needed to be levels of uncertainty.

But of course, this isn't stated, nor is the DM instructed about how to use backgrounds (as I've stated before) beyond "work with your players to figure out how their backgrounds can matter in the game".

The sad part is, I don't think it would have taken a lot of text to make this more clear. And obviously, YMMV about how useful it is to have peasants grovel before you and being able to drop in on the King for a chat.

Given that some Backgrounds have alternative features presented, perhaps the easiest way to have prevented issues would be to say "every Background is intended to have useful benefits to the player. The Features presented are examples of how this works in a game- you and your DM will have to work out the specifics".

Alas...

 

[Hussar]

Don't DMs also have to make rulings about spells that can greatly change their usefulness.

Is this a more 5e thing than other versions? (What exactly does it mean if one is in a "gaseous form" for things like grapple. Why does picking up the can of gas mean the fireball won't make it explode? Wait, see invisibility doesn't do what?!?)

I find myself wondering why that isn't more of an issue to more people about many spells for the same reason as many mundane abilities.

Because it almost never happens with spells. Spells just work most of the time. I mean good grief, grappling a character using wind walk? How niche is that?

Sorry I do appear to have missed something. What’s the issue with see invisible?

 

[Maxperson]

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? ).

Spoiler: Wind Walk Description

You and up to ten willing creatures you can see within range assume a gaseous form for the duration, appearing as wisps of cloud. While in this cloud form, a creature has a flying speed of 300 feet and has resistance to damage from nonmagical weapons. The only actions a creature can take in this form are the Dash action or to revert to its normal form. Reverting takes 1 minute, during which time a creature is incapacitated and can’t move. Until the spell ends, a creature can revert to cloud form, which also requires the 1-minute transformation.

If a creature is in cloud form and flying when the effect ends, the creature descends 60 feet per round for 1 minute until it lands, which it does safely. If it can’t land after 1 minute, the creature falls the remaining distance.

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?

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

* 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?

* 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?

Spoiler: My Answers

Emphatically no to the regular person, probably yes to the air elemental, probably yes to the bellows, and I would probably be a bit more likely to say yes on the last two if it was a player suggesting it than me thwarting a PC escape.

I would apply everything gaseous form gets, and nothing changes if it's an NPC vs. a PC. I'd have to think about whether an air elemental could grapple the gas. I lean no since neither is solid to the other.

 

[Maxperson]

Seriously? You ignore the fifteen spells I listed beforehand to focus on this one?

Lessee then:

Need to travel? Who cares about sailor background, I’ve got teleport.

Need to rest? I’ve got rope trick, tiny hut, my genie warlock comes with a magic house, I’m sure there’s more.

Need to talk? Backgrounds give languages, but I’ve got Tongues, speak with animals and plants, and a number of ways to get telepathy. Hell my GOO warlock can speak every language in the universe telepathically.

Need to climb? Why bother with skills when there’s a dozen different spells that will do it better?

Need information? Why bother with that Sage nackground when I’ve got a shopping list of info gathering spells.

Need to contact someone? Why bother with a background when I’ve got Sending?

On and on and on.

But sure. Thanks for playing. At least I can actually point to dozens of examples in 5e. Unlike the average edition warrior who can point to Come and Get It and…. Nothing else because there actually isn’t anything else.

For the vast majority of those, it boils down to why waste a spell when you can easily do it without magic and use the slot on something that is actually important.

Need to travel? Sailors can go places you've never been and are far more reliable in getting place that you HAVE been. 5e teleports sucks with the huge mess up chances. Save that 7th level spell slot for something useful. Further, you can't even teleport until you hit 13th level, which more than 90% of tables never reach. Even for that less than 10% of tables, you can still sail for 12 levels before you get teleport.

Need to rest? close a door and set a guard. Save the slot for something you will need more.

Need to climb, it's easy peasy for someone with the skill. Don't bother wasting magic on it. Use the magic for something important.

Need to talk? Someone is likely to have the language from background. Use the magic on something useful.

Need information? The sage can often find it for you, while those information spells likely won't. They are very narrow in focus and really stink in 5e. Use the slots on something better.

On and on and on.

It's rarely better to use magic than just have the PC who can do it by non-magical means do it.

 

[Kurotowa]

It's a matter of presentation. Which of these two people do you think an average commoner is going to be more likely to want to help (as opposed to "forced to help under duress), based solely on what they know after having met them two seconds ago:

I'm going to guess that Average Joe Peasant, who mostly knows about adventurers from stories of stalwart knights and evil assassins, is going to pick the second one.

There's a lot of cultural coding in those two pictures. If the picture on the right is the armor of the foreign invaders who don't respect the local religions and have a bad habit of looting and pillaging, and the picture on the left is the local masked vigilante sect who take out corrupt nobles and marauding monsters, you better believe I'm siding with the latter.

Dress coding is not an absolute or objective assessment. They're team colors, where the no good foreigners are the bad guys and the home town heroes are the good guys.