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

[Micah Sweet]

Theme: a completely mundane warrior.
Suffering: enjoy being a wizard's valet when you hit double digit levels.

Your point of view, of course. Lots of ways around that, including changing your attitude.

 

[James Gasik]

I think everyone should suffer for their theme, if circumstances make that theme inefficient to the task. That's the cost of specialization.

Let me ask you this. Which of the following would you prefer:

A, a Wizard who takes whatever subclass gives him the best benefits, and then loads up on the very best spells in the game.

B, a Wizard who decides "I'm going to be a STORM WIZARD" and goes out of their way to find spells that either deal Lightning or Thunder damage, or otherwise fit their theme of someone who influences the weather and creates storms.

I, for one, would enjoy seeing B, and I would go out of my way to either reflavor existing spells or come up with new ones for them to acquire so they can pursue their goal. I also would see no reason to nerf them, especially since their theme really doesn't grant them any benefit- they are specializing because it's cool to do.

Similarly, if someone wants to play a Dragon Sorcerer, where they are encouraged to use the meager amounts of spells known to focus on one type of elemental damage, even if they do get to add their Charisma to the damage, I don't think that benefit is as large as the downside of being forced to either focus on a lackluster element (mostly anything that isn't fire) or focusing on a strong, but often resisted element.

Especially when the School of Evocation Wizard exists, and has the full range of blasty spells of most elements to call upon with benefits that only care about the school of the spell, not it's damage type.

 

[James Gasik]

You cut off the "however"!

The however states that you can become hidden from infravision. But that doesn't help you in completely dark places, since you can't use the ability at all, so it just means infravision isn't an instant counter to all uses of the ability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let me ask you this. Which of the following would you prefer:

A, a Wizard who takes whatever subclass gives him the best benefits, and then loads up on the very best spells in the game.

B, a Wizard who decides "I'm going to be a STORM WIZARD" and goes out of their way to find spells that either deal Lightning or Thunder damage, or otherwise fit their theme of someone who influences the weather and creates storms.

I, for one, would enjoy seeing B, and I would go out of my way to either reflavor existing spells or come up with new ones for them to acquire so they can pursue their goal. I also would see no reason to nerf them, especially since their theme really doesn't grant them any benefit- they are specializing because it's cool to do.

Similarly, if someone wants to play a Dragon Sorcerer, where they are encouraged to use the meager amounts of spells known to focus on one type of elemental damage, even if they do get to add their Charisma to the damage, I don't think that benefit is as large as the downside of being forced to either focus on a lackluster element (mostly anything that isn't fire) or focusing on a strong, but often resisted element.

Especially when the School of Evocation Wizard exists, and has the full range of blasty spells of most elements to call upon with benefits that only care about the school of the spell, not it's damage type.

I would prefer B, but I would also accept that Storm Wizardry might not be equally effective in all sitiations.

 

[James Gasik]

I would prefer B, but I would also accept that Storm Wizardry might not be equally effective in all sitiations.

Of course, I'm not saying "never punish", but definitely do so with a lighter hand, since the player had an option to be more universally effective without much (or any) loss in power, but made this choice because they thought it would be fun.

I don't particularly like being the guy who has to tell them that "no, actually, the choice you made isn't going to be all that much fun". So I'll aim them at the best way to do what they want, point out the weaknesses, and try to mitigate the negative impact of that choice.

Sometimes the narrative is thus that you are going to the Elemental Plane of Everything Is Immune To You- I'm not going to change the nature of foes warp reality so that you can always be effective, but I'll do my best to make sure that you can still pull your weight in the party in some capacity, even if you're not at 100%.

The flipside of this is also true. If the narrative says you're a fire wizard heading into the northlands, you'll have an easier time of it. I'm not going to shy away from using cold-vulnerable enemies just because your character exists...but you can be sure that major opponents won't just implode instantly. Perhaps you have to fight that White Dragon in an ice cave, where your fire spells run the risk of melting the floor, which is actually a thick sheet of ice on top of a frozen lake, or the heat might cause large stalactites to fall onto your party- putting up a Yield sign instead of a Stop sign.

 

[Oofta]

Known by who? Familiar to who? The player of the sailor has just stipulated it’s known to their character the Comox frequents this harbor, so yes, that’s part of the hypothetical play example. It is known from the character’s background.


I’m not sure what you're saying is quite a lot of extra work here. If the Comox, its trading routes, and what oceans and worlds on which it can be found have already been established in play, then there's no way the player is going to make the action declaration I described in the first place, so this whole line of reasoning seems like a complete non sequitur.

You have different players than I have had. There are absolutely players who have stated things that alter established lore and argue when I correct them. In addition, D&D is not a narrative game by default. You can let the players declare what they want, it's not the default assumption for the game and never has been.

The latter is what you simply don't seem to want to acknowledge. I don't care how you run your game, if it works for you and your group fantastic. But the default assumption of D&D is that the players are 100% responsible for what their PCs think, feel and decide. The DM is 100% responsible for the world the PCs inhabit and all the NPCs therein. Of course, DMs have always worked with players on their backstory and adding elements that way. But player declarations determining the world in game is not the standard approach. I happen to prefer it no matter which side of the DM screen I'm on.

 

[Hriston]

If the PC needs to talk to and convince someone they need shelter, then any PC can do it. In my campaign they may get advantage and, depending on situation, may not even require a roll.

But the rules don't require anything other than the background and a handy commoner.

How do you think the table is supposed to imagine the folk hero finding "a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners" without talking to them?

Again, if you have to convince someone, any PC can do it.

And how do you think the table is supposed to imagine the sailor getting free passage aboard a ship without convincing someone to give it to them?

One of the weird conceits is that there is a global crime network. There's no reason for that to be so. Walking up to just any criminal obviously isn't going to work. I can't imagine a Crip walking up to a Blood and asking them to pass a message (they are famously in a long running war). But somehow no matter where they are they just "know" a contact with no explanation. Maybe if you're in the Forgotten Realms and you were a Zhentarim, but other campaign worlds don't necessarily have that.

Nothing states that your criminal background was with a global organization. You could have been Oliver Twist working for Fagin.

You're right. Nothing says the network is global, but "even over great distances" indicates something larger than the local area, and nothing says it isn't global, or multiplanar, or whatever. Personally, I let the player define the extent of the network because, as part of the PC, the background belongs to the player.

Different strokes for different folks. Players don't have extemporaneous narrative control in my game. They can make suggestions, we can have discussions, perhaps they add to the world. But it will be offline.

I don't deride your choices, I just disagree. You can do better.

I don't understand what your last sentence is trying to do. Are you trying to imply I've derided your choices? Let me remind you that you’re the one telling me my games lack in-world logic and cohesion. If that isn’t an expression of derision on your part, I don’t know what is.

Good for you. I don't care, I don't want to run or play in a game with player narrative control of the external world. My players are happy with my games and I see no reason to change.

No one of whom I’m aware is trying to change your games. I expressed my preference for the 2014 background features, among other things, as my reason for not adopting the new books which look to be moving away from those designs. You and other posters responded and continue to respond with a dog pile of posts saying my reason was invalid because the features are unusable, leading to logical inconsistencies, and that the removal of the features makes no difference in the way “people” actually play, implying using them the way I do is playing the game wrong. Naturally, I’m going to defend my preferences. This has nothing to do with your games.

 

[Hriston]

Can it be done without logical inconsistencies? sure. Can that be done in all cases? No. That is really the whole discussion... and you ignoring the inconsistencies / making up things that are factually wrong to explain how it can work is not the same as there not being any

The things being made up are fiction. It’s all “factually wrong”. And the corner cases that have been put forward aren’t helpful because they don’t show how the features operate in actual play, which is why I objected as soon as @Oofta brought up multiplanar adventures found in published modules as some kind of counter argument to the features being a functional part of the game and why I’ve repeatedly asked for actual-play examples of the kinds of problems that have been alleged. Unfortunately, none have been forthcoming.

 

[Hriston]

That is the point, he does not.

What’s the point in a player having a background they don’t utilize?

Why should he know the coffinmaker?

I didn’t say anything about anyone knowing the coffinmaker.

 

[mamba]

The things being made up are fiction. It’s all “factually wrong”. And the corner cases that have been put forward aren’t helpful because they don’t show how the features operate in actual play,

but the corner cases are great at showing where the problems are… either something always works, or it does not. Once that is decided then maybe there is a point to looking into the limits, until then… not so much