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

[Micah Sweet]

You're speaking as though the 2014 background features are outside the "core" design of D&D, yet they're published in the PHB, one of the core rulebooks. They are part of how D&D is designed. People who don't play like you do aren't going against D&D's core.

The background features are basically the only thing in the entire core rules that straight-up allows the player to decide things about the world (such as the presence of messengers and/or allies) without the DM's say-so or input. To my mind, that makes it at least an outlier from the game's core design, if not outside it entirely.

 

[Oofta]

You're speaking as though the 2014 background features are outside the "core" design of D&D, yet they're published in the PHB, one of the core rulebooks. They are part of how D&D is designed. People who don't play like you do aren't going against D&D's core.

So? If it's a house rule so be it. I've expressed my opinion on the subject.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I have read most of this thread.

As in all good things D&D some middle ground and shared expectations are required.

My cleric of wee jas was an acolyte. Recently he was with a party in a remote dungeon/tomb.

I tried to use religion to understand some symbols on a door. I did not expect the dm to say that suddenly priests showed up to offer support and shelter.

It THIS is what people expect…I…

Now in a town of any size, I would expect the DM to seriously consider if one of my temples was there and if so, consider us being able to get some support.

But putting the GAME first, I would accept it does not just materialize in any small village. Surely..surely! This is not what is being argued.

If it is, you should really talk with the DM before the game. There is a better than 50% chance you will be disappointed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

you've been at this single issue for literally over 200 pages, probably closer to 300 (there was already quite the backlog in this thread when i came into it and i didn't backread), if you don't understand their views at this point i don't think that's on them.
(edit: ninja'd by mamba)

To be fair, this cuts both ways: the other “side” has been trying to convince @Hriston that he’s wrong about backgrounds for an equal number of pages. Why?

 

[Oofta]

I have read most of this thread.

As in all good things D&D some middle ground and shared expectations are required.

My cleric of wee jas was an acolyte. Recently he was with a party in a remote dungeon/tomb.

I tried to use religion to understand some symbols on a door. I did not expect the dm to say that suddenly priests showed up to offer support and shelter.

It THIS is what people expect…I…

Now in a town of any size, I would expect the DM to seriously consider if one of my temples was there and if so, consider us being able to get some support.

But putting the GAME first, I would accept it does not just materialize in any small village. Surely..surely! This is not what is being argued.

If it is, you should really talk with the DM before the game. There is a better than 50% chance you will be disappointed.

Yep, it's pretty much being argued that there will be a buddy of the sailor in whatever port they find themselves in, a criminal will know or be able to automatically find a contact to send messages, a noble will be automatically be granted access to whatever passes for royalty wherever they are. Because the rule says so.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

part of the DMs job is to make reasonable decisions.

I applied a penalty shooting an arrow from a crows nest when I DM’d.

That is no good either?

 

[mamba]

Not "always", just when the feature's actually used does it work.

that is what 'always' means, we went through this some time ago...

If it's not a secret that the player's feature is offline, then why is the player trying to use it? Sounds dysfunctional.

This does not explain anything and it does not solve anything. People at the table disagree, so what, it happens. If there were no disagreement we would not have this discussion, so all you do by saying 'dysfunctional' is avoiding to actually have this discussion. We covered this as well already...

Why am I the only person who's ever been to Krynn from wherever it is I'm from?

Who cares? Why would it matter whether someone else from wherever you are from was on the same plane, you expect to run into them or know about them? You think they spread the word about your contact, so you now easily find messengers and 'know' them?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

part of the DMs job is to make reasonable decisions.

I applied a penalty shooting an arrow from a crows nest when I DM’d.

That is no good either?

Not so much good or not good, but quite possibly unnecessary.

I think we can all agree that shooting an arrow from a (presumably) rocking in-motion position is harder than doing it from a stable position, but then we can ask. 1) Is it enough harder that a penalty is warrented? 2) Is the character capable of compensating for the rocking enough to make it moot (what I call "the expected competency conundrum"; 3) Does the advantage of height mitigate the motion? (I would argue yes: there must be a reason that people chose to shoot "from the tops" historically, but even having researched it, I'm not entirely sure what all those reasons might be).

So, I mean, you made a ruling, which is fine, just, and allowed. Is it a good, reasonable, or just ruling? It's up for debate. I can tell you: I would not have ruled that way.

But I'm NOT saying that you were wrong to do so. (This is often confused on these boards, on both sides of anything.)

 

[FitzTheRuke]

that is what 'always' means, we went through this some time ago...

I really, really don't want to get involved in this again, but I'll pop in to point it: Is it NOT clear to you that "always" means something very different to @Hriston? You appear to be imagining the player using it all the time (and/or don't care that they won't). Hriston is clearly expecting that the player will only use it when it is appropriate to the game - which is very different to "always". It's a difference that makes all the difference.

But I really, really wish we could all move on... this has circled so many times it's like a vulture over a fresh corpse.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Not so much good or not good, but quite possibly unnecessary.

I think we can all agree that shooting an arrow from a (presumably) rocking in-motion position is harder than doing it from a stable position, but then we can ask. 1) Is it enough harder that a penalty is warrented? 2) Is the character capable of compensating for the rocking enough to make it moot (what I call "the expected competency conundrum"; 3) Does the advantage of height mitigate the motion? (I would argue yes: there must be a reason that people chose to shoot "from the tops" historically, but even having researched it, I'm not entirely sure what all those reasons might be).

So, I mean, you made a ruling, which is fine, just, and allowed. Is it a good, reasonable, or just ruling? It's up for debate. I can tell you: I would not have ruled that way.

But I'm NOT saying that you were wrong to do so. (This is often confused on these boards, on both sides of anything.)

I would add that the target was below (odd angle) and into an active fight with Sahaugin.

I think a -2 was fine. Opinions will differ. But my point is that is surely within the purview of the dm.

By all means DON’T apply a penalty. Either way the dm is making a good faith decision and neither should be considered “how it must be.”

I am applying that to backgrounds too.