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

[Corinnguard]

You may have the noble background, but there are many times I can see where you would not be known.

Then there are instances where you are of the noble background, and you don't want to be recognized for a number of reasons. "I don't want to be mobbed by my fans..." Or "how am I suppose to know what my people really think about me and my family unless I disguise myself and walk amongst them?"

 

[Hriston]

reading the UA right now, it sounds more like that in addition to skills, languages, and tools, the background now also gives you a feat (and the +2 and +1 ASIs)

Under the 2014 rules, in addition to two skill and two language or tool proficiencies and an equipment package, a background also gives you a background feature. The UA background is missing the feature. Instead, you get a feat. The ASI in the UA could come from race, background, or another source.

yes, because it was too 'random' / reliant on DM judgement, they changed it to rolling a 20 instead.

Making gaining inspiration dependent on rolling a 20 rather than playing to your character's personal characteristics (personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw) seems more random to me rather than less.

I did not interpret that as getting rid of bonds and flaws

Sure, they might still be included, but decoupling personal characteristics from inspiration makes them less mechanically relevant. That's what I'm characterizing as backpedaling in this case.

 

[DEFCON 1]

@Hriston one thing that is working in your favor is that the two things you mention as saying you 100% want... Background Features and BIFTs... are things that you should be able to easily to bring forward from the 5E14 books into a 5E24 game if they don't appear. So while you say you aren't going to pick up the 5E24 books because of that... I personally don't think you have to worry too much about it if it turns out there's a crapton of rules clean-up in 5E24 that you actually end up liking and want to use. You could ultimately decide to play 5E24 and just bring Background Features and BIFTS forward into it easily enough... or alternatively bring cool 5E24 rules changes back into your 5E14 game if that ends up being easier.

That's the nice thing about these new rules... many of them will be interchangeable into and out of the two respective "core books" from 2014 and 2024. As a DM you can pick and choose which bits you like and mix and match them together (assuming you aren't running strictly AL.)

 

[Hriston]

I have seen nothing suggesting they're back pedaling away from traits bonds and flaws. I just don't think it's something they needed to playtest.

I'd say the Gaining Inspiration section in the Rules Glossary of the Character Origins UA represents just that, but, reviewing Playtest 8, it seems that section was removed from later UAs at some point which makes me more hopeful.* The lack of suggested personal characteristics in the UA backgrounds, however, would also seem to indicate moving away from their presence in the game.

*see my edit to the following post.

 

[Hriston]

I haven't really seen an indication of this, but if it is true, tht is sad to see. And amen to you for recognizing it. Those four simple phrases on a character sheet have been the best introduction and guide to roleplaying in D&D's history of game development.

The indications I've seen were from the Character Origins UA, namely the exclusion of background features, the lack of suggested personal characteristics in the backgrounds, and the decoupling of inspiration from playing to your character's personal characteristics. Later rules glossaries didn't include the section on inspiration, however, so that one may not have stuck.

ETA: Actually, the later rules glossaries changed the name from "Inspiration" to "Heroic Advantage" and removed the reference to rolling a 20. It says the DM can award it for doing something "in character" but makes no mention of personal characteristics as a game element.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No offense, but it will be overwhelmingly adopted. In fact, even most opposed to adopting will adopt. The numbers here are superfluous, as they represent beliefs, not actuality.

That just seems incredibly dismissive of anyone who voted no. "Say what you want, but WotC will get you in the end".

 

[Micah Sweet]

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 am very much in favor of keeping things in the game only some groups will want.

 

[Corinnguard]

No offense, but it will be overwhelmingly adopted. In fact, even most opposed to adopting will adopt. The numbers here are superfluous, as they represent beliefs, not actuality.

If this was true, how do you explain those players who continue to use and role-play in previous editions of D&D? Or who have taken a liking to RPGs based off of D&D2014 like Level Up or Tales of the Valiant?

 

[SkidAce]

3e to 4e is the wrong comparison I think. The changes 5.5e brings are on par with 3.5e. 3e to 3.5e is the change to look at. I wasn't around on the forums yet in 2003, was the much angst or toxicity posted about 3.5e from 3e fans?

At home most of those I gamed with were okay going straight to 3.5e. Those that liked 3e and wanted to stick with it all eventually just adopted 3.5e as more and more material was released. There wasn't even a clear line where the crossover happened. One day they just looked up and realized they had been playing 3.5e for a while.

We were assimilated. Same thing will happen here with this 5e to 5.5e edition.

Its inertia*. 3e to 4e was (rightly or wrongly) considered a left turn and inertia works better with straight lines.



*pleased with self for clever analogy

 

[DEFCON 1]

That just seems incredibly dismissive of anyone who voted no.

No, only some of them. That's why they said 'most'.