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

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah.

"CRIMINAL
You are a n experienced criminal with a history of breaking the law. You have spent a lot of time among other criminals and still have contacts within the criminal underworld. You're far closer than most people to the world of murder, theft, and violence that pervades the underbelly of civilization, and you have survived up to this point by flouting the rules and regulations of society.

FEATURE FEAT: CRIMINAL CONTACT
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."

That changes nothing at all.

Except to make a really crappy feat that no one will take.

 

[mamba]

Except to make a really crappy feat that no one will take.

at least that solves the problem of the feature existing

 

[Lanefan]

Not at all. I'm a fiction-first guy. My stance is that whether the abilities are appropriate for the player to use, given a particular fictional situation, is a matter of table consensus. Once used under that rubric, they ought to go off as indicated.

We're cool on this, then.

Whereas I don't think they go far enough in guaranteeing a predictable outcome that's under the player's control to encourage players to take ownership of the fiction related to their PC's backgrounds with confidence.

We're not cool on this. As written (as opposed to as - it seems - usually played) I think they already go too far in guaranteeing the outcome, leading to reasonable (and unmet) player-side expectations that the outcome will be X when the fiction suggests it should be Y.

This is something I would expect to be telegraphed in short order because when it gets to the point of negating a player's action declaration, I think it's treading into "gotcha" territory.

So? I've no problem with "gotcha", and if something doesn't work when it in theory should (or the reverse) there's always going to be a reason for it; and if they notice things seem 'off' it's on them to either figure out what's going on or shrug and ignore it.

When telegraphing makes sense in the fiction, I'll do it. Otherwise, I'm not going to hold their hands.

 

[Faolyn]

no, just like with the messenger there will be exceptions. If your fighter has been tied up, knocked unconscious, etc.

There are a narrow set of circumstances during which a fighter can't attack, most of which are treated as conditions and have rules about them.

However, you are saying that there are a huge number of circumstances in which a feature can't be used and are refusing to even think about any sort of way that it could be, because of Reasons. It's the equivalent of you saying that a fighter who is conscious, standing up, completely unhindered by any physical restraints of any sort, and has a weapon in hand, just can't fight during the day because you have decided that the sun must always be in their eyes, therefore blinding them, and saying anyone who suggests that hey, maybe they're not facing the sun, or their helmet is providing shade, or maybe it's a cloudy day, is ridiculous, illogical, and trying to put the mechanics before the fiction.

I expect you to say that this is comparing apples to oranges, but to me it is not. The fiction trumps the mechanics, esp. such poorly worded and thought out mechanics

Here's something I should have said earlier: the background features are mostly social in nature. Why are you treating them like they should be described in as mechanically strict a manner as the game's combat rules are?

 

[Lanefan]

Are you OK with the idea that a fighter can swing his sword anytime they like, but isn't guaranteed to hit every time?

If so, then why is it problematic for you that a feature can be used anytime but isn't guaranteed to work every time?

Because, as written, the rules support the first of these but in some cases contradict the second.

The rules say that a Fighter's swing has a chance of missing. The rules also say that when some backgrounds are invoked NPCs will act in certain ways beneficial to the PC; and the word "will" tells the player the feature is guaranteed to work.

And again, I point out that the way those features are worded seems designed to paint the DM as the bad guy for ruling that no, sometimes they don't work when their not working makes in-fiction sense.

 

[Faolyn]

Because, as written, the rules support the first of these but in some cases contradict the second.

The rules say that a Fighter's swing has a chance of missing. The rules also say that when some backgrounds are invoked NPCs will act in certain ways beneficial to the PC; and the word "will" tells the player the feature is guaranteed to work.

And again, I point out that the way those features are worded seems designed to paint the DM as the bad guy for ruling that no, sometimes they don't work when their not working makes in-fiction sense.

As I just mentioned (seconds after you posted, so no way you could see it), the features are social in nature. They shouldn't be treated like combat features where a word like "will" is taken as 100% true.

 

[Lanefan]

Except to make a really crappy feat that no one will take.

If feats like this comes baked in with each background, there won't be a choice - if you want that background, you get that feat.

 

[Lanefan]

As I just mentioned (seconds after you posted, so no way you could see it), the features are social in nature. They shouldn't be treated like combat features where a word like "will" is taken as 100% true.

Why not, though?

One would think if the designers wanted the features to have a chance of not working they'd have used "may" or "might" or similar instead of "will"; that they didn't do so makes their intent fairly clear.

 

[mamba]

There are a narrow set of circumstances during which a fighter can't attack, most of which are treated as conditions and have rules about them.

However, you are saying that there are a huge number of circumstances in which a feature can't be used and are refusing to even think about any sort of way that it could be, because of Reasons. It's the equivalent of you saying that a fighter who is conscious, standing up, completely unhindered by any physical restraints of any sort, and has a weapon in hand, just can't fight during the day because you have decided that the sun must always be in their eyes, therefore blinding them

no, not at all, that is just your interpretation of things because you want the fighter to still roll after he has been killed, incinerated and digested by a dragon, because your interpretation of the rules includes no such limitations

Here's something I should have said earlier: the background features are mostly social in nature. Why are you treating them like they should be described in as mechanically strict a manner as the game's combat rules are?

for one because it avoids a lot of uncertainty about how they are meant to work / be used. I find my interpretation perfectly reasonable and the only one that makes any logical sense even if it limits its applicability, you do not care about that and think the feature should be able to work anywhere, no matter how unlikely a scenario you have to come up with for this, and we both believe that our interpretation is what the designers intended

 

[Faolyn]

If feats like this comes baked in with each background, there won't be a choice - if you want that background, you get that feat.

Or more likely, if you want that feat, you take that background.

I remember looking at... I dunno, PF2? An early D&D '24 background? Or maybe when I was talking about Level Up. Can't remember; it was years ago. Anyway, backgrounds had either feats or attribute bonuses--something mechanical--and friend of mine was complaining that they ruined backgrounds because they gamified the one part of the game that was strictly there for RP purposes.

And that's what it's going to be like. Right now, there are people who will tell you that you're playing D&D wrong because you don't have the right race/class/archetype combination. There are people who won't play if they aren't allowed to have certain races, classes, or archetypes, not because of roleplay reasons but because they have a great power build in mind. And, to a lesser extent but probably a far more common one, there are people who just like to make the "best" character they can for however they define best.

And now backgrounds are going to be added to that list. I had a fighter with the acolyte background; I played in a game where the rogue had the sage background. These sort of combinations aren't going to happen nearly as much anymore because people will be looking for the mechanics before the story. And that, I feel, is a real loss.