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

[tetrasodium]

Just so I am not mischaracterized here, I do not think the player base is obsessed with power. I think they want to make the character they like, and for most players, they want their character to be effective. So when given two clear options of the same class, they will always choose the most effective. They are not mindless, nor are they consumed by power.
And my point is that the 2024 rules, especially around character development, will be stronger.

Mmmhmmm... They just want to do things along the lines of decide the character they like needs to be combos like using 2014 Paladin smites 2014 -5/+10 gwm & 2024 bladelock purely for "roleplaying" and "story" reasons right?

 

[TwoSix]

And they will because player bases for most people change as time goes on. You are sticking with that 2014 5e Champion? Great. A new player shows up at the table with the new and much more powerful 2024 Champion. Are you sticking to the old one?

That is why I am saying what I am saying. No player sticks with the weaker version. It is a form of power creep, and power creep outweighs all other game choices. If you would like an example, look at any MMORPG and the millions and millions of players. There is data on it, and the overwhelmingly majority (I think it was 99.6%) take the stronger option. (There is a caveat. The stronger of the two options needs to be clearly stronger.)

I think you're greatly overestimating the core Champion player if you think they're going to notice that another player has some slightly different features then they do.

 

[Hriston]

I used my background feature last week and stopped an ongoing comnat with that...

Well, that sounds cool! Just out of personal curiosity, can you provide more detail about how that played out?

orher than that, it was usually forgotten.

Of course there's spotlight sharing in a multi-member party, and it's just one feature out of a whole character, but I'd say if it's forgotten too often, then either the group just isn't interested in that aspect of the character or it's a shortcoming of the types of situations being presented rather than a fault with the rule itself.

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.

I agree and would like to have seen more pre-written background features and/or more guidance about creating your own.

Same goes for flaws.

I'm not sure why you're singling out flaws. Any of the personal characteristics require you to write your own if you want to go beyond the suggestions in the book, but it's just one sentence. I suppose more guidance would be helpful here as well.

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.

Whereas I think they're a bit too DM-dependent as written. I very much like the concept, however, of a character feature that grounds the character in the setting and gives the player the ability to call on resources outside of the character connected with their background, which is what I think the background features are.

 

[TwoSix]

We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I will leave you with a question: Are people playing Pathfinder (1st or 2nd edition) playing D&D?

For PF1, of course they are. It's the mechanics that matter, not the label.

Mmmhmmm... They just want to do things along the lines of decide the character they like needs to be combos like using 2014 Paladin smites 2014 -5/+10 gwm & 2024 bladelock purely for "roleplaying" and "story" reasons right?

You can like a character concept for its narrative, its image, or its mechanical proficiency. Playing purely for story or character concept is not automatically a virtue, and playing to be powerful is not automatically a vice. D&D, at its core, is a power fantasy. That's why it has levels and vertical progression.

 

[tetrasodium]

For PF1, of course they are. It's the mechanics that matter, not the label.
You can like a character concept for its narrative, its image, or its mechanical proficiency. Playing purely for story or character concept is not automatically a virtue, and playing to be powerful is not automatically a vice. D&D, at its core, is a power fantasy. That's why it has levels and vertical progression.

If it's "not automatically a virtue" then there is no reason to claim that @Micah Sweet 's point about nerfed elements was a mischaraction or claim that they just want to make the character they like rather than it being players obsessed with power. Don't forget that we aren't talking simply about making a character purely because it's powerful, we are talking about the extremely different concept of a player mixing editions for power. Prior to 5e we could call it what it was and didn't need to pretend otherwise.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

It is almost certainly that these things are not part of Backgrounds in 2024, but that doesn't mean that they (or something similar and hopefully better) exist in a section on "putting the character in character" AKA role-playing.

I agree with you that the game can't be silent on that, but not that what 2014 did was particularly useful or necessary. Background features could all be boiled down to "Hey, DMs! Remember to have NPCs react to the PCs as if they are who they are!"

Good advice, but hardly (IMO) worth printing one for every background.

 

[TwoSix]

Prior to 5e we could call it what it was and didn't need to pretend otherwise.

What was it?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well, that sounds cool! Just out of personal curiosity, can you provide more detail about how that played out?

We were in a bar and were routed out by commoners. I lowered everything that could be taken as a weapon and looled very desperate in need for help.
My haunted feature made them pity me and their anger was gone and the fight which was going to break out just did not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What was it?

mixing rules elements from different editions.

 

[tetrasodium]

What was it?

Lots of words could be used. Given your support for it, do you have none of your own? Here are a few of many.

Unreasonable
Excessive
Too extreme
Little more than an excuse for dressing up a spreadsheet
Broken
Etc.

Cody from taking20 has a great bit about power gamers in this video and I agree with what he says about them. When a player claims that it's not about power and chooses to cloak their power gaming under the guise of roleplay story and so forth it becomes impossible to work with them because their opening stance is a misleading distraction covering for their real desires.