D&D 5E What are the highlights of D&D 5th edition for you?

[CleverNickName]

But if you're like the group I'm playing in, we're playing Curse of Strahd. We're stuck in Ravenloft so there's really no way for the DM to implement most of the features even if we wanted to. In almost every case I've seen, backgrounds just become a way to get a couple extra proficiencies.

Eh, I'm sure I could figure out a way to get a "shelter of the faithful" to work in Ravenloft. (Maybe the party discovers an underground cult of Pelor worshippers in Barovia or something, and they meet in Farmer Eristov's barn. They help the party out by giving them a safe place to hide, and the farmer's wife is skilled with home remedies? Or something? I've had to make far more contrived and convoluted adjustments to a campaign setting before.)

My point is, the DM ultimately decides what matters, what gets used, and how much. That's all.

 

[Argyle King]

But that's the point: theybare fluff suggestions thst can inform future action, and the suggestions on what would make sense to do are right there in the text.

As said, there's a gap between "suggestions" and "features" for the reasons detailed in my previous comments.

I can somewhat see that the presentation is superficially similar, but I do not agree that they function the same in practice.

I believe that the features grant some level (albeit perhaps small) ability to influence the narrative (and game world) or to use the features as an alternative way to approach an obstacle (especially in the roleplay and exploration pillars of play.)

 

[Parmandur]

As said, there's a gap between "suggestions" and "features" for the reasons detailed in my previous comments.

Presentation, maybe.

I believe that the features grant some level (albeit perhaps small) ability to influence the narrative (and game world) or to use the features as an alternative way to approach an obstacle (especially in the roleplay and exploration pillars of play.)

No more or less than the upcoming and recent publications do: either way, it's always a give and take between player and DM based on vague suggestion.

 

[Argyle King]

Presentation, maybe.

No more or less than the upcoming and recent publications do: either way, it's always a give and take between player and DM based on vague suggestion.

I would say that I see the PHB Features as being less-vague and more-tangibly-useful than suggestions.

But, yes, there is give and take. That's an area where I believe things could have been expanded. I still wouldn't want everything to be strictly coded out. Some amount of ambiguity is helpful for that give-and-take.

The way I view it (and how I believe it should work) did not survive for very long after the 5e PHB. Each subsequent book appears to have taken further steps away from that style of play. The end result is how backgrounds are being approached in 5.5.

I do not see the approach as being the same.
I do not feel that the 5.5 approach is as satisfactory to how I would like backgrounds to function.

 

[Oofta]

Eh, I'm sure I could figure out a way to get a "shelter of the faithful" to work in Ravenloft. (Maybe the party discovers an underground cult of Pelor worshippers in Barovia or something, and they meet in Farmer Eristov's barn. They help the party out by giving them a safe place to hide, and the farmer's wife is skilled with home remedies? Or something? I've had to make far more contrived and convoluted adjustments to a campaign setting before.)

My point is, the DM ultimately decides what matters, what gets used, and how much. That's all.

If the DM is willing to rewrite the mod they can have anything happen. But there are no libraries for my scholar. There is no reason for a PC with a criminal background to have a contact when they've never been to Barovia, there's no way the status of a PC with the noble background would be recognized by someone who has never set foot outside of Barovia, etc..

I don't want to have to twist world logic into pretzels just to make something like a background feature 100% certain. It will apply where it makes sense.

EDIT: in addition, PCs can be pulled into Barovia from any realm. What happens when my acolyte cleric worships Thor?

 

[Parmandur]

I do not feel that the 5.5 approach is as satisfactory to how I would like backgrounds to function.

Fair enough, but...they aren't being removed from the game.

 

[Argyle King]

If the DM is willing to rewrite the mod they can have anything happen. But there are no libraries for my scholar. There is no reason for a PC with a criminal background to have a contact when they've never been to Barovia, there's no way the status of a PC with the noble background would be recognized by someone who has never set foot outside of Barovia, etc..

I don't want to have to twist world logic into pretzels just to make something like a background feature 100% certain. It will apply where it makes sense.

EDIT: in addition, PCs can be pulled into Barovia from any realm. What happens when my acolyte cleric worships Thor?

Those questions are all good reasons for exploring the concept more, rather than less.

I like feats. I support giving more choice points for a player to select them in 5e.

However, I find feats generally less interesting than what would be involved in possibly answering the questions you have posited.

I like the game to include breadth of play and interesting options rather than revolving everything around tacking on another +N to something.

Supposedly, 5e is built around 3 pillars of play.
Giving some love to pillars that aren't combat in a way that actually matters to the player in a tangible way would be nice. I felt that PHB backgrounds were a step toward that.

It accept that my views could be the minority, and that I'm perhaps not the target audience for upcoming D&D design. Could be why I haven't felt a strong desire to buy more books.

 

[Argyle King]

Fair enough, but...they aren't being removed from the game.

The Features are, and they're being replaced by fluffy suggestions.

 

[Parmandur]

The Features are, and they're being replaced by fluffy suggestions.

They never worked differently in practice, though...?

 

[Argyle King]

They never worked differently in practice, though...?

I disagree.