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

[Gimby]

You misunderstood me. Work in the sense of: you are always allowed to try to apply effects.
Making an ooze or snake prone? No problem. Of course you could narrate that the ooze is split and the snake lies on the back. But that was the extra work we did not always want to do. If the power used was called: "pull a leg" (probably not an actual power but matching the naming policy) it made everything harder to imagine.

TLDR: my point was not in any way related to the reliable tag.

Given how often the prone ooze thing comes up, I'll point out that you can make oozes prone in 3.5 - the ooze type does not provide prone immunity, gelatinous cubes (for example) don't have prone immunity and even causing the prone condition via a Trip attack only gave you a +4 bonus on the opposed roll for stability.

 

[Cadence]

Given how often the prone ooze thing comes up, I'll point out that you can make oozes prone in 3.5 - the ooze type does not provide prone immunity, gelatinous cubes (for example) don't have prone immunity and even causing the prone condition via a Trip attack only gave you a +4 bonus on the opposed roll for stability.

I'm happy to rag on things I think are silly in 3.5 (or any other edition) too - and trippable oozes are on my list.

 

[Cadence]

I think it is pretty valid to say that sometimes this feature doesn't work.

On the other hand, I also think it's worth thinking about rule of cool here. Suppose the players end up warped into some other plane it would be really nifty, don't you think, if it turns out that this character with criminal background actually HAS connections here, even if they don't even know they actually had?

Since D&D already suffers from non-magical abilities being trash in general I think a favourable interpretation in cases like these can only be beneficial to the gameplay experience.

There are certainly some campaigns it wouldn't surprise me at all (party based in Waterdeep?).

 

[Gimby]

I'm happy to rag on things I think are silly in 3.5 (or any other edition) too - and trippable oozes are on my list.

Quite so. But I do still find it funny how this was held up as the "video gamey" innovations of 4e while being a continuation of the way the game had been functioning for the best part of a decade.

 

[Cadence]

Quite so. But I do still find it funny how this was held up as the "video gamey" innovations of 4e while being a continuation of the way the game had been functioning for the best part of a decade.

For me and ooze tripping, part of it was that I don't think I ever had a player try and trip something that didn't seem trippable and another was that I wasn't in message boards nearly as much. (I can now picture how fast the mods would nuke me if I went back and necro'd a bunch of 3.5 threads to criticize it ).

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm happy to rag on things I think are silly in 3.5 (or any other edition) too - and trippable oozes are on my list.

Because flipping the thing over and discombobulating it until it reorients is unimaginable?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Given how often the prone ooze thing comes up, I'll point out that you can make oozes prone in 3.5 - the ooze type does not provide prone immunity, gelatinous cubes (for example) don't have prone immunity and even causing the prone condition via a Trip attack only gave you a +4 bonus on the opposed roll for stability.

Yeah. It is not that far fetched to apply a prone condition to an ooze.

It is knocked over instead of knocked down.

 

[Oofta]

Assuming this is the correct version of the feature

"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you."

How else would you even interpret this?

It says explicitly that "you know the local messengers". There's nothing conditional about this.

It would have been conditional if (haha) it say "IF you know the local messengers" but no it is explicit. You do know them. Otherwise the feature is null and void. What point is there in a feature that says "If you know the local messengers you can use them to send messages"?

That's like having a ability that read something like "If you know the local blacksmiths you can purchase their services"

Which is why I don't use the feature as written. It's illogical, ridiculous even, that no matter where you go even onto an alternate plane of existence. It seems to assume that you stay relatively local, something that is rarely true in my campaigns.

So I house rule it.

 

[Cadence]

Because flipping the thing over and discombobulating it until it reorients is unimaginable?

Yeah. It is not that far fetched to apply a prone condition to an ooze.

It is knocked over instead of knocked down.

It feels like you and I might just picture oozes and tripping and prone differently? I will take my momentary edition victory for this (that the 5e creators agree with me) as balancing out the places I don't like and they agree with you. <Insert deflated "Yay" sound in the background.>

 

[mamba]

It says explicitly that "you know the local messengers". There's nothing conditional about this.

define ‘local’…