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

[SkidAce]

A sailor in a new faraway port might have some generic knowledge of wind and tides, but if all her experience was on big age-of-sail dreadnaughts and the only ships here are oar-powered biremes and triremes, her specific knowledge of the ships in this port and how they function and are crewed etc. is going to be minimal at best: you can't just give her a free pass.

But I can give them more of a pass than someone without a nautical background, thus still gaining some benefit from their background.

 

[SkidAce]

But you've given no reason why the folk hero's background give them special consideration. It just sort of happens.

For me? The folk hero did something cool before they became an adventurer and word spread, they became a hero of the people. But once they're beyond that area of influence? It's illogical to treat them any different. It's fine if it works for you and your group, it's just not the style of play I want.

This statement was very well written and helps me understand your view.

For me? A folk hero may well have started (or not) as you say, but they a a capital H hero, they stand out by they way they act/interact, and the people can tell/bond with that.

 

[Faolyn]

well, I disagree. Any commoner can fit in with commoners, yet they do not get the same feature.

That's because NPCs aren't built like PCs are in 5e. Either stop treating NPCs like they're supposed to function exactly like PCs, or recreate the "commoner" and "noble" classes from 3e (or whatever they were called) and never, ever use any generic NPC statblock from the back of the MM ever again.

From now on, every single one of your commoners has to use full racial stat bonuses and traits, and you have to give them each a background, class, and level. And feel lucky that you're not playing Level Up because then every one of your Just-Like-A-PC NPCs would also have to have a heritage gift, a culture, and a destiny as well.

Just so you can say commoners have a feature that lets them fit in with commoners.

Or, y'know, accept that you misread and misunderstood one of the backgrounds.

 

[mamba]

That's because NPCs aren't built like PCs are in 5e. Either stop treating NPCs like they're supposed to function exactly like PCs, or recreate the "commoner" and "noble" classes from 3e (or whatever they were called) and never, ever use any generic NPC statblock from the back of the MM ever again.

I do not need to stat out everything so a PC and an NPC are functionally identical for them to share some things. If you want PCs to be treated differently from NPCs by other NPCs, then I need a reason for them to do so.

WotC writing a short paragraph is not a reason, that paragraph has to provide that reason. If they fail to do so, then I try to find it, and if the rationale I find does not allow for what WotC wrote, then WotC screwed up here, not me for rejecting it / using an alternative

Or, y'know, accept that you misread and misunderstood one of the backgrounds.

I have not misread it, I drew the same conclusion as @Oofta, namely that the folk hero is known for something they did, think Robin Hood, and once they move out of the region they are known in for it, that bonus disappears, as it should

I do not have to blindly accept a nonsensical feature with no internal logic or explanation, just because WotC half-assed it

 

[Lanefan]

But I can give them more of a pass than someone without a nautical background, thus still gaining some benefit from their background.

To a point, but IMO that point arrives pretty soon.

Best they could hope for would be to have a better idea where and who to ask for info.

 

[Lanefan]

That's because NPCs aren't built like PCs are in 5e.

Mechanically, maybe not; but in the fiction one would think (and bloody well hope!) they're indistinguishable from one another.

 

[Faolyn]

Mechanically, maybe not; but in the fiction one would think (and bloody well hope!) they're indistinguishable from one another.

Since it's a trait, it's a mechanic. In the fiction, commoners are probably going to take care of other commoners.

I have not misread it, I drew the same conclusion as @Oofta, namely that the folk hero is known for something they did, think Robin Hood, and once they move out of the region they are known in for it, that bonus disappears, as it should

And that is an incorrect conclusion since it's not supported by the text.

If you want to add that, to house rule their feature to say they have to be known, that's fine. But your interpretation is neither RAW nor RAI.

And Robin Hood isn't a Folk Hero, because by definition a background is who you were before you started adventuring. The text literally says "Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?" Robin Hood didn't stop being hero; he stopped doing whatever he was doing beforehand and became one. Depending on the interpretation, he was either a Criminal or a Noble, and the fact that the peasants are willing to cover for him is because he's giving them money and fighting The Man for them, and that's something that's completely unrelated to his background--it's a benefit earned in play.

 

[Lanefan]

And that is an incorrect conclusion since it's not supported by the text.

If you want to add that, to house rule their feature to say they have to be known, that's fine. But your interpretation is neither RAW nor RAI.

And Robin Hood isn't a Folk Hero, because by definition a background is who you were before you started adventuring. The text literally says "Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?" Robin Hood didn't stop being hero; he stopped doing whatever he was doing beforehand and became one.

So you're saying that an adventurer with a folk hero background stopped doing whatever they were doing (being a folk hero) in order to go adventuring so as to become a folk hero?

'Cause that's how this reads.

Depending on the interpretation, he was either a Criminal or a Noble, and the fact that the peasants are willing to cover for him is because he's giving them money and fighting The Man for them, and that's something that's completely unrelated to his background--it's a benefit earned in play.

Folk hero seems like a benefit that should also be earned in play.

 

[mamba]

And that is an incorrect conclusion since it's not supported by the text.

it is not contradicted by the text, so there is nothing incorrect about it, it simply is different from yours but as far as I am concerned at least as valid / supported. Yours does not make any more sense than the feature itself does (ie none), mine at least makes some sense but falls short of supporting the full feature, but to me that is the problem with the feature, not with my explanation for it.

If to you the contradiction is that my explanation does not fully support the feature, then I will always prefer that over ‘that is just the way it is’ as an ‘explanation’, sorry, and you have not offered more than that.

And Robin Hood isn't a Folk Hero, because by definition a background is who you were before you started adventuring.

he is the blueprint, and arguably is no more an adventurer than a criminal is

We will not agree on this, I believe I said that a few days back already. To me this shows why the features as written are bad, you cannot simply expect everyone to accept a feature that can easily be read as nonsensical and illogical. Either come up with a better feature that can stand up to even the smallest bit of scrutiny, or get rid of them. Either one is better than what they are now

 

[Faolyn]

So you're saying that an adventurer with a folk hero background stopped doing whatever they were doing (being a folk hero) in order to go adventuring so as to become a folk hero?

'Cause that's how this reads.

That's how backgrounds in 5e work.

Folk hero seems like a benefit that should also be earned in play.

That's not how backgrounds in 5e work.