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

[mamba]

So go on, explain why you are willing to accept 99.99~% of illogical D&D rules and tropes but not this one.

because they are about character / class design, not worldbuilding. You cannot have martials barely competent enough to use every fourth weapon they find next to D&D casters. Heck, I am not even sure you should have the current ones next to the current casters...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I already dislike how fighters get pigeonholed to specific weapons by fighting styles and would like to get rid of that.
I definitely wouldn't want to make this pigeonholing even worse. I want the fighter to be a master of weapons that can grab any weapon and be effective and switch loadouts based on the situation. If specialisation needs to exists, then it should be via feats and not something that's forced on you.

I think full weapon access would be more appropriate as a feat or a at least mid-level class feature than right out of the gate. Makes a lot more sense to me.

 

[Faolyn]

I know it doesn't matter and I'm going to regret responding, but most of the "illogical D&D rules and tropes" that you bemoan are gameplay elements designed for simplicity and ease of play. Every fighter knows how to use every weapon because it doesn't buy anything from a game perspective to have to pick and choose. That, and if we were talking, say modern firearms instead of swords I do think an expert in firearms could pick up a firearm they had never used and get familiar with it fairly quickly.

But "illogical rules" are completely different from an illogical story and world building.

And likewise, the background features are a gameplay element designed for simplicity and ease of play.

See, I'm not actually "bemoaning" those features. I'm acknowledging and accepting that they're illogical--and also that backgrounds are no more illogical than anything else in D&D, and certainly less illogical than many other aspects. I can, and have, come up with a multitude of reasonable justifications for how a feature can realistically work under a particular set of circumstances. I can't do that with the weapon proficiencies. With weapons, I have to handwave it away.

 

[Oofta]

And likewise, the background features are a gameplay element designed for simplicity and ease of play.

See, I'm not actually "bemoaning" those features. I'm acknowledging and accepting that they're illogical--and also that backgrounds are no more illogical than anything else in D&D, and certainly less illogical than many other aspects. I can, and have, come up with a multitude of reasonable justifications for how a feature can realistically work under a particular set of circumstances. I can't do that with the weapon proficiencies. With weapons, I have to handwave it away.

Rules and world building are simply different categories. When the two contradict each other I go with world building.

 

[Faolyn]

because they are about character / class design, not worldbuilding. You cannot have martials barely competent enough to use every fourth weapon they find next to D&D casters. Heck, I am not even sure you should have the current ones next to the current casters...

The background features are about character design, not about worldbuilding. There's not a single part of any of them that's about worldbuilding--to quote you, if you say they do, then your interpretation of them is wrong and does not align with their intent.

And you certainly can have martials not able to use just any weapon they want. Back in AD&D, at least in 2e, there were weapon proficiencies that did indeed limit the number of weapons a fighter could use well. You could easily say that a 5e/5.5e martial starts out being proficient in a number of weapons equal to, say, 6 or 8 + their Int mod, plus more as they level up, and that would certainly be fair and give them plenty of options. Or that the class gives some weapon proficiencies and the background or culture gives others. If you're the DM, you could ensure that most of the magic weapons they find are ones they can use, if you felt like it, so they're not "barely competent."

Am I saying D&D should do this? No. But if you actually care about the game's logic, then this should be a much bigger red flag than a background feature that you and others claim is rarely used in the first place and can be justified with in-game reasons.

(Also, spellcasters can't just use any spell they want. They're limited by class list first, and then, only clerics and druids can cast any spell on their list--the others are limited by what the number of spells they can learn or by what they can write in their spellbook--and other than the two free spells a wizard gets each level, the DM controls what spells a wizard can find.

 

[Faolyn]

I already dislike how fighters get pigeonholed to specific weapons by fighting styles and would like to get rid of that.
I definitely wouldn't want to make this pigeonholing even worse. I want the fighter to be a master of weapons that can grab any weapon and be effective and switch loadouts based on the situation. If specialisation needs to exists, then it should be via feats and not something that's forced on you.

Fighters are already masters of every weapon. They're just a bit better at certain weapons because of the weapon styles.

Honestly, if martials had limited weapon proficiencies (which we already know they won't), then I can easily see both archetypes and feats granting additional proficiencies. We already have feats that allow for armor proficiency. It certainly wouldn't be OP to have a feat (possibly with a minimum level prerequisite) grant proficiency in all weapons.

 

[Faolyn]

Rules and world building are simply different categories. When the two contradict each other I go with world building.

The background features have nothing to do with worldbuilding. They're there purely for roleplaying reasons.

Unless your world specifically has no oceans or has been set up so it's basically impossible for someone to travel from one body of water to the next, and you disallow roleplaying, the sailor background doesn't affect your world at all. Etc., etc.

 

[Oofta]

The background features have nothing to do with worldbuilding. They're there purely for roleplaying reasons.

Unless your world specifically has no oceans or has been set up so it's basically impossible for someone to travel from one body of water to the next, and you disallow roleplaying, the sailor background doesn't affect your world at all. Etc., etc.

In order for a feature to work, the world has to accommodate it. I won't change the world to fit a line of text.

 

[Faolyn]

In order for a feature to work, the world has to accommodate it. I won't change the world to fit a line of text.

And if the background features actually affected your world in any way, I'd understand. But they don't. All they require is a slight justification--and they certainly require less of a justification than the majority of plot hooks.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Fighters are already masters of every weapon. They're just a bit better at certain weapons because of the weapon styles.

But in practice it means they only use those weapons they're better at. You're pigeonholed.

I want the fighters to switch between two-hander and shield plus one hander depending on whether they want more offence or defence in a given situation. With fighting styles this doesn't happen, as you just pick the loadout that goes with the style and stick to that. You might switch between melee and ranged, but that's it, and even there the fighting styles dictate which you should use if both are possible.

Honestly, if martials had limited weapon proficiencies (which we already know they won't), then I can easily see both archetypes and feats granting additional proficiencies. We already have feats that allow for armor proficiency. It certainly wouldn't be OP to have a feat (possibly with a minimum level prerequisite) grant proficiency in all weapons.

Which is how I changed the weapon master feat to work and it still is terrible. Additional weapon proficiencies once you already have some good ones are basically worthless. They're flavour options. If you can use a longsword, being able to use battle-axe too gives you nothing, except in the extremely rare situation that you're deprived of your sword but happen to have an axe available.