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

[James Gasik]

In any case, I've seen FAR more variety between fighters (and fighter adjacent classes like paladins and rangers) in 3e and later D&D than in TSR D&D. Whodathunk that allowing players to pick whatever tickles their fancy and not forcing them into decisions without any ability to change them in the future would lead to wider variety?

With regards to weapons though, there has always been a "best" weapon to use in a wide variety of circumstances. Which has (at least) four issues, really-

1: world-building narrows. If a weapon co-exists with another weapon superior in every respect, then anyone using that weapon is basically a numbskull. Having cultures that use strictly worse weapons raises some serious questions about how your world works, if one culture is dominant when it comes into contact with another, questions that have to be answered (well, nation A uses the khopesh, but they have a larger population and nation B uses inferior armor*; nation A has better magic, better tactics, the average citizen has better stats due to health care, education, superior training, blessings from Gods, and so on).

2: this breeds over-specialization. If the long sword is the weapon to use, then people will sink all their choices into being the best there is at the long sword. This means that when a +3 bohemian ear-spoon appears, it's either "vendor trash" or forces a player into a situation where much of their character's choices have been invalidated. Further, if you're in a situation where an alternative weapon is required, suddenly those choices that make your character much more effective 95% of the time are again negated, and you're much worse at using the alternate weapon. This can range from slightly annoying (having to use a warhammer instead of a longsword for a fight) to almost crippling (your high strength/mid-dex Fighter build has to use a bow to fight a flying enemy- particularly bad in something like 3e where using a bow effectively is locked behind multiple feats).

3: you want to choose a weapon for flavor reasons and it's inferior? You're hamstringing yourself. So many cool character concepts could die in a fire** because you realize that the weapon you were thinking of is actually pretty bad. Maybe you can optimize to overcome this, but now you're the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

4: some weapons just become wasted ink on a page. Never used, no reason to use them, the only way they can be relevant is if the DM inflicts them on the party: "sure, greatclubs are terrible, but it's a magic greatclub!".

*armor has a similar problem, as there are armors that really have no point of existing in every edition of D&D. In old D&D, you could maybe justify some armors as existing because they were cheap and easily afforded, but in 5e, you have Hide, which only exists because Druids, Ring Mail (highly dubious if anyone would need to wear this), and of course, Padded, which has basically no redeeming qualities.

**depending on how badly you need to optimize in a given campaign. Some DM's might lowball enemies to focus on a game that's more laid back or casual; perhaps your DM would prefer offbeat or interesting characters and work with you to make your strange choices work out. Other campaigns might be brutal deathmatches where you need every possible +1 to survive. YMMV.

 

[Faolyn]

note how that is not one of the examples I used… I never said this is true for all backgrounds and generally keep the sailor out of the discussion that you and @Hriston want to drag in

Do you want to claim that because one background with little worldbuilding impact exists that they all have no impact?

OK, let's talk about worldbuilding for a moment.

First, how much impact will they actually have? How often will a Noble PC try to get an audience with a noble that's vastly different from them? How often will a Criminal PC try to get in touch with their contact? How will it actually affect your world if the Noble can use their feature to get an audience with another noble on a regular basis, or if the Criminal can get in touch with their contact frequently? I'm not talking about your (un)willingness to suspend your disbelief for a few minutes of gametime; I'm talking about the world itself.

Second, how hard is it to actually worldbuild using a background? You have what, four, five PCs? Surely you can take a few minutes for each of them to figure out how their background will interact with the world--less time, possibly, if you get the PC to help you figure that out. The PC is a criminal. Ask them how big the criminal underground is and how big a name does the criminal contact have? The bigger the contact, the more likely they are to have people far afield know about them--and more importantly, the more plot hooks you can get out of it.

Your world is not set in stone. You can modify aspects to it. I had to include the presence of many more heritages than I had originally thought or wanted to have (my preference is for as few sentient beings as possible), and that's a lot bigger of an impact than a background will ever have.

So, impact? Sure, maybe. A problem? Highly unlikely.

and you can do that because you know them, so…

This suddenly reminded me. Waaaay back in college, my gaming club was doing a fundraiser/recruitment drive. I was sitting at the table with another member, and she saw someone go by and said, "Wait a minute. That guy is totally a gamer. He should have stopped here." She didn't know him personally and had never even seen him before, and he wasn't wearing any gamer clothes. To me, he looked like a regular guy. But yes, it turned out that yes, he did play. He just was already in a couple of games and didn't want to join another. She just knew.

You know the local messengers. That doesn't mean you have to know them personally. You can look at someone and just know that they're the type who would be willing--perhaps with a little coin, perhaps with a threat--to carry a message for you.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm expressing my opinion on what I want in the games I play whichever side of the Dzm screen I'm sitting on.

Edit: The way you express your opinion is very belittling of others. And yet you're trying to claim that I'm the one being insulting? I'm not the one using words like "illogical" or "ridiculous."

 

[Oofta]

Edit: The way you express your opinion is very belittling of others. And yet you're trying to claim that I'm the one being insulting? I'm not the one using words like "illogical" or "ridiculous."

Feel free to express your opinion however you want. All I ask is that you stop telling others how you run their game. What is okay for you is going to be ridiculous to me.

Even today in the real world the odds of a sailor from the North Sea knowing a sailor in the Mediterranean is very, very small. The odds of knowing someone in the South China Sea? One in a billion. So as an example I've set up a tangent where the group finds themselves on the opposite side of the world and they need to figure out how to get back home without teleportation (which is limited in my campaign world). Using the letter of the rules they could just pop into any port and get a ride home. Even if something catastrophic happened on the way home and the ship is destroyed all they have to do is find another port and ka-boom there's another person that owes the sailor a favor.

This is the kind of thing that happens in my campaigns, I don't care if the sailor feature working as written doesn't bother you. I think it would be completely illogical.

 

[mamba]

OK, let's talk about worldbuilding for a moment.

First, how much impact will they actually have?

It can have no impact at all, if you are ok with the inexplicable / implausible happening just because the feature says so.

If you want there to be a reason / possibility for it to happen, it will be a lot more than that however.

How often will a Noble PC try to get an audience with a noble that's vastly different from them? How often will a Criminal PC try to get in touch with their contact?

it does not matter, the world has to allow for it anywhere, whether the character decides to use their feature or not

The frequency only matters if you say you handwave how nonsensical it is away, because it only occurs rarely. That seems to work for you, but not for me

You know the local messengers. That doesn't mean you have to know them personally. You can look at someone and just know

that is not what ‘you know’ means, that is ‘you can recognize’… the feature says that you specifically know the local messengers, that is maybe a handful of people. You know them personally and they are the ones that can get a message to your contact, no one else can as far as you knowing about it is concerned.

Not only do you need to stretch believability to its breaking point if you want the feature to work the way you describe it in your world, you also stretch English past that point

Can someone play that way, sure, you are the living proof, I am not at all interested in doing so however

 

[Micah Sweet]

OK, let's talk about worldbuilding for a moment.

First, how much impact will they actually have? How often will a Noble PC try to get an audience with a noble that's vastly different from them? How often will a Criminal PC try to get in touch with their contact? How will it actually affect your world if the Noble can use their feature to get an audience with another noble on a regular basis, or if the Criminal can get in touch with their contact frequently? I'm not talking about your (un)willingness to suspend your disbelief for a few minutes of gametime; I'm talking about the world itself.

Second, how hard is it to actually worldbuild using a background? You have what, four, five PCs? Surely you can take a few minutes for each of them to figure out how their background will interact with the world--less time, possibly, if you get the PC to help you figure that out. The PC is a criminal. Ask them how big the criminal underground is and how big a name does the criminal contact have? The bigger the contact, the more likely they are to have people far afield know about them--and more importantly, the more plot hooks you can get out of it.

Your world is not set in stone. You can modify aspects to it. I had to include the presence of many more heritages than I had originally thought or wanted to have (my preference is for as few sentient beings as possible), and that's a lot bigger of an impact than a background will ever have.

So, impact? Sure, maybe. A problem? Highly unlikely.


This suddenly reminded me. Waaaay back in college, my gaming club was doing a fundraiser/recruitment drive. I was sitting at the table with another member, and she saw someone go by and said, "Wait a minute. That guy is totally a gamer. He should have stopped here." She didn't know him personally and had never even seen him before, and he wasn't wearing any gamer clothes. To me, he looked like a regular guy. But yes, it turned out that yes, he did play. He just was already in a couple of games and didn't want to join another. She just knew.

You know the local messengers. That doesn't mean you have to know them personally. You can look at someone and just know that they're the type who would be willing--perhaps with a little coin, perhaps with a threat--to carry a message for you.

So your argument is, "just change what you're doing to accommodate the PCs! Them getting to do what they want is the most important consideration, and you should be doing whatever needed to make that happen"?

I know that seems hyperbolic, but to me what you're asking for is a nicely worded version of the above. The GMs fun is less important than the players'.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This suddenly reminded me. Waaaay back in college, my gaming club was doing a fundraiser/recruitment drive. I was sitting at the table with another member, and she saw someone go by and said, "Wait a minute. That guy is totally a gamer. He should have stopped here." She didn't know him personally and had never even seen him before, and he wasn't wearing any gamer clothes. To me, he looked like a regular guy. But yes, it turned out that yes, he did play. He just was already in a couple of games and didn't want to join another. She just knew.

You know the local messengers. That doesn't mean you have to know them personally. You can look at someone and just know that they're the type who would be willing--perhaps with a little coin, perhaps with a threat--to carry a message for you.

What you're describing is an Insight check, not a background feature.

 

[James Gasik]

So your argument is, "just change what you're doing to accommodate the PCs! Them getting to do what they want is the most important consideration, and you should be doing whatever needed to make that happen"?

I know that seems hyperbolic, but to me what you're asking for is a nicely worded version of the above. The GMs fun is less important than the players'.

To me, my players having fun is my fun. If my players aren't happy, then I have no players, then I have no game, and I have no fun running it.

 

[Faolyn]

Even today in the real world the odds of a sailor from the North Sea knowing a sailor in the Mediterranean is very, very small. The odds of knowing someone in the South China Sea?

My Dad gave a radio interview. A few years later, he met a kid in another country, who barely spoke English, who recognized him by his voice alone. What are the odds of that?

Real life is filled with all sorts of weird coincidences, and as the GM, you control the odds. You're not actually expected to roll a d1,000,000,000 and have the event only happen on a 1.

Plus, in a D&D world, there will likely be far fewer active ports and far fewer sailors. If it's not ridiculous for the PCs to find themselves on the other side of the world, why would it be ridiculous for a group of NPC travelers to find themselves on the other side of the world?

One in a billion. So as an example I've set up a tangent where the group finds themselves on the opposite side of the world and they need to figure out how to get back home without teleportation (which is limited in my campaign world). Using the letter of the rules they could just pop into any port and get a ride home. Even if something catastrophic happened on the way home and the ship is destroyed all they have to do is find another port and ka-boom there's another person that owes the sailor a favor.

Using the letter of the rules, you're not required to actually know the ship or its crew. You might have served on it. Might. And that the PCs are expected to work for their passage. The feature also says that the PCs can't be certain of the schedule or route.

So let's say they find a ship. Welp, too bad, it's not going where the PCs need to go. Guess that feature didn't actually come in handy after all.

 

[Faolyn]

What you're describing is an Insight check, not a background feature.

An Insight check can be made to recognize a messenger. They're not going to be walking around with signs on them that say "BACKGROUND FEATURE" on them.