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

[mamba]

How long till the release of 5.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?

settled, no, ended has a chance however

 

[Lanefan]

I used to love pointing out that 3e by RAW allowed you to do just that. When you went below 0 you fell unconscious. This was a condition that explicitly only lasted until -9. If you got to -10 you were now dead, but no longer unconscious. The definition of dead was that your soul left your body. No big deal there. Lots of folks don't have a soul. You can't benefit from normal healing. Okay. And you start to decay which gets stinky, but nothing actually says you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious and attack some more.

We all get what dead means, but if you are just following the written definitions...

Guess that explains all those undead these settings keep generating...

 

[mamba]

No. Because if you had meant to say "for me," then you should have said that, especially when you spend so much time talking about how illogical it is. I'm not a mind-reader. I only know what you write.

and I understand that everyone here is speaking for themselves, so adding a ‘for me’ or ‘imo’ or whatever in every other sentence is redundant

If I say that ‘it ruins the story’ then I mean for me. I am not sure how you can conclude that I mean it does so for everyone when it does not for you and I am clearly aware of that… try going with the logical conclusion over RAW every once in a while

That doesn't answer the question.

good thing I had two more paragraphs that did then…

The DM has a great deal of power over the player. If you-as-DM shut down a feature of mine, then you get to feel that logic has prevailed for, what, a few minutes? The rest of the session? Whereas that player learns that you're the type of DM to shut down abilities that you don't like, and for the rest of the time they play with you, they will be wary of how you treat their abilities.

then discuss it after the session, or better yet during a session 0.

I already said that as a criminal you can more easily establish connections with shady people in Ravenloft, so your feature will work soon enough if you pursue it. What it will not do is let you get a message to the contact from your background on another plane.

I do not shut down the ability because I do not like it, I shut it down because it working is 1) illogical to me and 2) not even the intended use according to my interpretation of the text

If you cannot live with the DM overruling you, then I guess you will need a different DM than me, pretty sure we both can live with that

And yet you're not even willing to risk a single instance.

that goes both ways, and it is not even true. If I consider something unlikely I do consider it, if I consider it impossible (or close enough to it) then I do not.

I am not even sure what you think I am risking here. As far as I can tell the only thing I risk is losing interest in the story as it becomes ever more unbelievable

 

[Micah Sweet]

How long till the release of 5.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?

When are any debates settled around here?

 

[Maxperson]

How long till the release of 15.5? Who wants to take bets whether this debate is settled by then?

You forgot the 1. Might be settled by then.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The DM has a great deal of power over the player. If you-as-DM shut down a feature of mine, then you get to feel that logic has prevailed for, what, a few minutes? The rest of the session? Whereas that player learns that you're the type of DM to shut down abilities that you don't like, and for the rest of the time they play with you, they will be wary of how you treat their abilities.

Which I totally agree with. And whybit is important tow write abilities in a way that makes them fun for both sides.

Background features that are assumed to work all the time and might circumvent challenges are problematic.

Background features that increase the chance to circumvent the challenge but still require some roll. Or spending a token are way easier to deal with as a DM. Absolutes on both sides seem unfair.

No player likes, if the DM takes away their control over a character when no save/roll is involved (and sometimes not even then). No DM likes that either.

There is a reason that this game uses a d20. And by that same conclusion: every spell needs to be balanced around saves (and/or hp). Every save or suck spell needs a save at the end of a turn (at least until 3 failures are made).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I used to love pointing out that 3e by RAW allowed you to do just that. When you went below 0 you fell unconscious. This was a condition that explicitly only lasted until -9. If you got to -10 you were now dead, but no longer unconscious. The definition of dead was that your soul left your body. No big deal there. Lots of folks don't have a soul. You can't benefit from normal healing. Okay. And you start to decay which gets stinky, but nothing actually says you can't get up now that you are no longer unconscious and attack some more.

We all get what dead means, but if you are just following the written definitions...

Yeah. Liches are just rules lawyers in disguise.

 

[Hriston]

So if players don't have narrative control over the world it's not a functional game? The DM can never say "No that background feature does not apply here"? Assuming the party is at a port with ships, etc..

I don't know what you mean by narrative control over the world. So I'm saying if it's established in the fiction absolutely none of the ships are familiar to the sailor in the port at which the party finds themselves, then it would be dysfunctional play on the part of the player of the sailor to disregard that fiction and say anyways they try to secure free passage on the Comox which they know is in port because they served with members of her crew.

 

[Hriston]

and yet you insist on the Criminal feature working in Ravenloft, which given the feature description is much more unlikely to work than the Sailor feature is on the South Sea…

Given that the player of the criminal has declared an action to get a message to their contact, and given that the player of the sailor has declared an action to secure free passage aboard a ship for the party, both ought to succeed. I don't care much about the details of the Ravenloft example because those things will vary from table to table.

 

[mamba]

Given that the player of the criminal has declared an action to get a message to their contact, and given that the player of the sailor has declared an action to secure free passage aboard a ship for the party, both ought to succeed. I don't care much about the details of the Ravenloft example because those things will vary from table to table.

let’s ignore the sailor here, because that is a completely different case and worded completely differently…

The problem with your ‘ought to succeed’ and ignoring what the world looks like is that it is the world that gets in the way of it succeeding, so your ‘I care about a logical game’ bit ignores the world it takes place in, which is a large part of why anything would be considered logical or not

So all you really care about is whether it is consistent with your interpretation of the rules, not with the world, at which point your

You're making the erroneous assumption that GMs (and other RPG participants) who make up setting details while they play, rather than at some earlier time, don't care about logic, interconnectivity, and consistency. I can assure you, you are completely wrong about this.

becomes empty posturing

Either you have to consider the world as described to achieve logic and consistency or they are not all that important after all. You cannot just ignore the world because it would be convenient for you and claim logic and consistency are not affected by that

So to get rid of the cop out (you do like those..) of ‘every world is different, so I ignore it in my answer’, let’s go with the Ravenloft as described by me. Vistani can travel the mists, they can decide what other domain in Ravenloft they go to (unlike anyone else…), but they can never leave Ravenloft.

Your character is from some other world and did not know of the existence of the Vistani, but has the criminal background.

In Ravenloft, you now meet a group of Vistani for the first time. Do these Vistani meet the description of messengers you know from the feature? If they do, can they get a message to your contact? If so, how likely do you think it is that the Vistani agree and that the message makes it to your contact?