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

[JEB]

That's a good thing if BIFTs are tossed in the dustbin of history.

Complete waste of printed book space in my experience

Huh. Today I learned that some people actively hated having suggested background traits in the 2014 rules. The nearly 20 mostly new gamers in our group seemed to like them pretty well, though!

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I have to say, I'm very surprised that the poll's result is so close at this point. I expected a decisive majority in favor (and I say that as a "nope" voter).

Wonder what the numbers would look like on Reddit or Facebook.

It's unfortunate that the poll only has two choices, so we don't know how many intend to stay with the 2014 rules vs who many have no interest in any version of 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have to say, I'm very surprised that the poll's result is so close at this point. I expected a decisive majority in favor (and I say that as a "nope" voter).

Wonder what the numbers would look like on Reddit or Facebook.

I thinknit is a good sign that the close majority will buy in here.

We have all the books we need. Here are people who don't play 5e at all anymore. And still most will buy in.

 

[James Gasik]

I used my background feature last week and stopped an ongoing comnat with that... orher than that, it was usually forgotten.

Background features are one thing that hinders cuatomizing backgrounds. So if you want a new background you need to invent a new one or find some feature that still fits your character. Same goes for flaws.
Also background features are too strong. They just trivialize certain story challenges. You find water. You find passage. People help you.

I think those features should find a different place in the rules. Maybe combined with downtime activities.

On the other hand, the very first time I wanted to use a background feature (Noble) to save my party a few gold on rooms at an inn, the DM frowned and said "I don't know that this noble would have ever heard of you, so he's not likely to give you all shelter for the night".

Which isn't an unreasonable position, really, though it was annoying at the time. Basically, to make Background Features really work in a game, the DM has to set up opportunities for them in their adventure design, which is extra work for them, especially if they want to use canned adventures. So my experience has been, mostly that they are vestigial elements.

It really comes down to the DM to determine how useful or important these things are. In many games even alignment has become a largely dispensable part of a character. Like that weird trinket every character owns that does nothing. Now if in your games these are all critically important, that's fantastic...but there's a lot of games where it isn't. So it comes down to, do we keep stuff in the game that only some groups will want, remove them to streamline the game, or give them mechanical weight to make it more likely that people will have to interact with them?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

On the other hand, the very first time I wanted to use a background feature (Noble) to save my party a few gold on rooms at an inn, the DM frowned and said "I don't know that this noble would have ever heard of you, so he's not likely to give you all shelter for the night".

Which isn't an unreasonable position, really, though it was annoying at the time. Basically, to make Background Features really work in a game, the DM has to set up opportunities for them in their adventure design, which is extra work for them, especially if they want to use canned adventures. So my experience has been, mostly that they are vestigial elements.

It really comes down to the DM to determine how useful or important these things are. In many games even alignment has become a largely dispensable part of a character. Like that weird trinket every character owns that does nothing. Now if in your games these are all critically important, that's fantastic...but there's a lot of games where it isn't. So it comes down to, do we keep stuff in the game that only some groups will want, remove them to streamline the game, or give them mechanical weight to make it more likely that people will have to interact with them?

I think those features or trinkets rather belong in the adventure you play.

In our Ravenloft game, the Barovian trinkets were actually useful as plot hooks.
I recently used my haunted feature to sway the mood of commoners in a bar in our favour. That was happenstance.

Make all those features campaign dependant instead of a background feature and I am all in.

You are a descendant of a dethroned noble family of that exact part of the world? People might recognice your banner and help you.

 

[TwoSix]

WotC have been saying they'll be compatible, but they've said one thing and done another in the past (modularity in 5e, anyone?) so who knows? Given that the final form of the new books isn't out yet, I'd say the jury is still out on that bold(ed) proclamation.

Yes, it is still possible they'll do something drastic in the final release. Assuming the final product is even roughly similar to the playtests, it'll be fine, though.

Except it is an either-or choice at any point where the two versions contradict.

Making it an either-or choice between versions just shortcuts around having to make a whole bunch of either-or choices at every point where those versions conflict, which is required if one want to combine them somehow. And it's a binary choice at any scale, as using two different versions of the same thing in the same campaign is going to blow up internal consistency, if nothing else.

The idea that a named player-facing rules element needs to be identical for everyone playing is a pernicious myth that needs to die. 5e is about exception-based design. Every character can be its own exception. If player A uses a bespoke rules element that's been approved by the DM, then player B's familiarity with the rule is immaterial. You don't need to police other people's characters. You do your thing, the other player does their thing, and as long as the DM is good, it doesn't matter.

If one person eats the calamari, another eats the bruschetta, and a third person eats both, then no two of them are eating the same thing. The only commonality is that they're eating, as opposed to the fourth person (me) who's having a beer instead.

I know food metaphors always work wonderfully and never blow up in my face, so here we go.

If I order the cheeseburger and fries, and you also order the cheeseburger and fries, but swap out the beef patty for chicken, hold the tomatoes, add horseradish aioli, and have broccoli instead of fries, you aren't hurting my meal in any way. The DM is paying and picked the restaurant, but as long as your order isn't too expensive, why would the DM care?

Granted, if the DM is having a house party the menu might be more limited, but most games are at "restaurants".

 

[tetrasodium]

Huh. Today I learned that some people actively hated having suggested background traits in the 2014 rules. The nearly 20 mostly new gamers in our group seemed to like them pretty well, though!

There are a lot of reasons to dislike their outsized page & sheet space consumption beyond the one I described in post 578. Should we assume that your comment left out that ones given to be tacit endorsement of their accuracy through choosing to omit them while partially quoting post 578 & 580 you chose to leave out the one explained in it. I'll name another problem they cause since that omission makes it look like you are confirming the omitted reason to be a problem they cause.

On top of the reason described in post 578 & 580 there is also the fact that BIFTs are decided unilaterally in isolation by one player rather than being a short list of campaign fitting things the GM provides or being an at table collaborative party building exercise like what phases two & three of fate's phase trio brings to the table. As a result of that unilateral isolated decision it becomes common for players to bring characters who are quite a poor fit for to the campaign or party while the player in question is made to feel like everyone else is at fault for not simply molding everything around building off & accepting one or more bad decisions made well away from the table.

 

[Corinnguard]

The idea that a named player-facing rules element needs to be identical for everyone playing is a pernicious myth that needs to die.

Well the rules could be the same for everybody, but we're not interpreting those rules in the same way. As a result two players reading the same set of rules could come to two completely different interpretations and thus create two completely different characters. This is more of a RAI issue than a RAW vs RAI issue.

 

[Oofta]

On the other hand, the very first time I wanted to use a background feature (Noble) to save my party a few gold on rooms at an inn, the DM frowned and said "I don't know that this noble would have ever heard of you, so he's not likely to give you all shelter for the night".

Which isn't an unreasonable position, really, though it was annoying at the time. Basically, to make Background Features really work in a game, the DM has to set up opportunities for them in their adventure design, which is extra work for them, especially if they want to use canned adventures. So my experience has been, mostly that they are vestigial elements.

It really comes down to the DM to determine how useful or important these things are. In many games even alignment has become a largely dispensable part of a character. Like that weird trinket every character owns that does nothing. Now if in your games these are all critically important, that's fantastic...but there's a lot of games where it isn't. So it comes down to, do we keep stuff in the game that only some groups will want, remove them to streamline the game, or give them mechanical weight to make it more likely that people will have to interact with them?

There are some background features that can be problematic. You may have the noble background, but there are many times I can see where you would not be known. If you're halfway across the world or because of magic in another realm entirely of course no one is going to recognize you. This is something that should be discussed during character creation, how well known is your family, what kind of reputation do they have, how widespread is their influence. It's going to vary pretty dramatically from one campaign to the next.

On the other hand, I look at these features as a starting point and would likely give someone with a noble background on a variety of checks that involve nobles advantage or other benefits. You do know how nobility tends to think and speak, that doesn't necessarily change just because you're in a different region.

 

[TwoSix]

Well the rules could be the same for everybody, but we're not interpreting those rules in the same way. As a result two players reading the same set of rules could come to two completely different interpretations and thus create two completely different characters. This is more of a RAI issue than a RAW vs RAI issue.

Yea, but I’m saying it’s explicitly OK to have 3 versions of fighter in your game, or even at the same table.

I have between 2-4 explicitly approved versions of every class in my own game, and I have no problem adding something a player might bring to my attention. Some curation is done, of course, but I want to players to play something that excites them.