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

[Maxperson]

You posit it’s the DM that will screw you over. Even if you had this option in a DMless game where the magical method was complication free but the non-magical method had a risk of complications you would still choose the magical complication free method.

Plus if you are positing that the DM will screw you over, spells aren't going to stop that. It's not as if the DM is going to say, "Well, I really want to screw you over here, but since you used a spell..." That kind of DM will find create a way no matter what.

 

[mamba]

I did not say that. I said that they should be able to get a messenger, or they may be able to skip past the messenger completely and directly get in touch with the contact. In fact, I said multiple times that the messenger was the least important part of the feature.

and you considered it the least important part because what mattered was to get the message to the contact, no matter how.

So how is the PC not finding the messenger or the messenger refusing not an issue then? Do they try again until they succeed? Then why even bother with letting them fail once if you ultimately guarantee delivery anyway and all that changes is the number of hoops they had to jump through…

No. Your version has the players not even being able to try. My version has the being able to try and only failing because of bad rolls or bad roleplaying. Do you not see the difference between the two?

yes I see it, but ultimately the message does not arrive in both cases, and this discussion was about whether that is even allowed to happen, and at that level this distinction makes no difference

 

[UngeheuerLich]

One thing I'm really curious about - that will affect whether my table adopts 2024 D&D - is what versions of the D&D 5E rules will DDB make available to basic-level memberships. 2014 and 2024, or just 2024?

Probably the ones you buy.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unless of course you follow the 5e rules that say that the rules are secondary to the DM's rulings, in which case nothing can be assumed to work 100% of the time and the DM is working within the rules when he says, "Um, you're on the 5th layer of the 7 Heavens. Not only is there no contact here that you know, there are no criminals!!! Your ability won't work here."

I think the fact that just this morning someone tried to present a gotcha problem of technicalities that shifted to a specific flavor of sometimes it won't/can't work from their previous tactic of pleading & pressuring for a middle ground between sometimes and always that somehow depends on the gm compromising more when sometimes came around shows the problem with relying on that clause buried in the wrong book. Specifically there is a significant fraction of the d&d player base that is so eager to declare the GM some kind of unyielding railroading adversarial monster that it's no until a player starts somehow violating the rules of hospitality that it becomes reasonable to point in some other direction. Any time the gm relies on that clause for anything but dialing PC awesome to 11 it becomes a case where they need to justify untold levels of why it's reasonable

 

[Maxperson]

and you considered it the least important part because what mattered was to get the message to the contact, no matter how.

So how is the PC not finding the messenger or the messenger refusing not an issue then? Do they try again until they succeed? Then why even bother with letting them fail once if you ultimately guarantee delivery anyway and all that changes is the number of hoops they had to jump through…

Yeah. Long ago I used to have the group go to person A and if they failed, they'd go to person B, and if they failed they'd go to person C, and then they'd fail, but person D would work! Then I realized I was just wasting everyone's time by doing that. Now if I know they will eventually succeed, I just say yes and possibly quickly narrate it taking 10 hours as they travel to 5 different people before finding one that will do it.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the fact that just this morning someone tried to present a gotcha problem of technicalities that shifted to a specific flavor of sometimes it won't/can't work from their previous tactic of pleading & pressuring for a middle ground between sometimes and always that somehow depends on the gm compromising more when sometimes came around shows the problem with relying on that clause buried in the wrong book. Specifically there is a significant fraction of the d&d player base that is so eager to declare the GM some kind of unyielding railroading adversarial monster that it's no until a player starts somehow violating the rules of hospitality that it becomes reasonable to point in some other direction.

That broke my brain. Could you please clear that up a bit. I don't want to try and guess at exactly what you mean. I'm think I have the right idea, but I can't be sure.

 

[Mistwell]

You could really link someone better than treantmonk, someone who lost any credibility for me when he made whole video ranting how poorly designed 5e Vecna is and tried to prove it by whiterooming a scenario with builds made specifically to exploit Vecna';s weak points in a white room with no strategy or enviromental factors and also letting them just go straight from a long rest and go nova on the target. I don't trust anything he says. He made a thesis for clickbait and then cooked the playtest up to support the thesis.

Also you still haven't adressed any of my issues. Why Monk doesn't get the access to anything like weapon mastery, ensuring that, despite damage boost, it will be still tailing behind Fighter and Barbarian and make the one class that should be all about using technique look like an incompetent moron who can just mindlessly slap people and cannot think of tactics and techniques to use in combat? Why is Unarmored Defense a class feature that makes Monk easier to hit than anyone else with an armor? Why are multiple of Monk features either midigating lack of discipline points instead of just increasing the amount of discipline points? Why are multiple of Monk features worse version of something other classes can get much faster?

I made it clear you could choose any streamer of any kind. Almost all found the monk to be much better than they expected in actual play than when they simply read it. You ignored that.

Your issues are irrelevant if other additions more than make up for those elements. Clint spelled out what they experienced, in reply to you, as to why the monk is now so much more powerful. You ignored that. Here it is again:

I've been play testing the latest monk UA since they came out. It's fantastic. Thanks to deflect attacks and the ability to simultaneously take the dodge action and still do flurry of blows off the bonus action (for three attacks at level 10!), monks have as much or more survivability as other martial classes. Everything is no longer tied to ki, and thanks to uncanny metabolism you seldom have to worry about running out of discipline points. They're even more mobile, and are basically a fantastic class. To be honest, at level 10 my Way of Mercy monk feels a bit broken: she is the hardest hitting, toughest, and most mobile member of the party. She is just devastating against most BBEGs.

If someone is white rooming it and coming to different conclusions, I don't know what to tell you. Check the math, because you are doing it wrong. The response from pretty much everyone play testing the class is the same: monks are in a great place.

You can't ask people to address your view and then be dismissive and ask for more every time. At least, not if you want to be taken seriously or have people read your views.

Here is Colby from d4 deep dive:


Here is Insight Check


And more:


I get it, you don't want to playtest the new monk, or watch anyone review the new monk or playtest the new monk. And you didn't want to discuss with the other person who spelled out why the new monk is so much better now. OK, then were you just saying that so that people could pat you on the back in agreement (they're not)?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

At this point, I think I'm very likely to pick up ToV's Monster Vault and the new WotC PHB and DMG and use them together.

If the 2025 Monster Manual is much improved, I'll pick that up as well. Obviously, it's a long way off, but I haven't seen WotC say anything about the new Monster Manual that suggests they understand folks' problems with it.

It's not necessarily about the timeline, either, as I haven't seen them say anything about most of the 2014 PHB spells people have concerns about. So either they don't know/agree with the concerns or this is yet another communications issue with WotC.

 

[ART!]

Probably the ones you buy.

So if you buy nothing, probably the 2024 basics and nothing else. Makes sense.

 

[Lanefan]

But that's only if you care about RAW. As some people have claimed, this is such a niche feature, it may only come up once or twice in an entire campaign--so why not throw RAW to the wind and let the criminal shine for that moment?

(I swear, people are treating these features like they're going to be a constant thing that can be used to screw over every one of the DM's plans.)

But see, here's where you can go against RAW and still allow the player to use their ability. Require rolls. Require roleplaying. Require the PC to put in the effort to find and befriend a messenger. Allow the PC to get in touch with the contact through other means.

As a DM, I'd do just the sort of things you're proposing here. It wouldn't be automatic; there'd be effort and roleplay etc. involved, and so forth.

And then I'd potentially have to deal with players (quite legitimately) arguing that the rules say differently in their favour; and thinking I'm the bad guy out to screw them over.

My main point in all of this is that the rules should never put a DM in that position. The rules should be written harshly and restrictively, thus allowing the DM to be the good guy when she rules in the players' favour or eases those restrictions rather than the bad guy when she rules against them or adds restrictions in.