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

[Hussar]

/snip

It's rarely better to use magic than just have the PC who can do it by non-magical means do it.

And yet? The vast majority of players disagree with you and will use spells over mundane means far more often than not.
Even the Dev's have pretty much admitted it by removing background abilities and replacing them with feats. Why? Because they know that the feats will actually get used at the table and that the DM won't block them.

After all, I can't use sailor background because reasons. I can't use my criminal background because reasons. I can't use peasant hero background because I'm apparently not wearing the appropriate clothing... On and on.

Let's not forget here. We're discussing BACKGROUNDS. Bringing up a bunch of times when skills will work instead of spells isn't relevant to the conversation. Bringing up a bunch of times when spells don't work when there aren't any mundane options is irrelevant. All this smoke and mirrors trying to cloud the issue at hand isn't relevant and isn't helping the conversation.

There evidence is pretty clear that mundane abilities are the last resort for groups that lack the option to do something else.

But, don't take my word for it. Actually watch your group over the next few sessions. Note how many times they resort to magic vs using mundane options. My prediction is that they will opt for the magic option far more often than the mundane given the choice.

 

[mamba]

Even the Dev's have pretty much admitted it by removing background abilities and replacing them with feats. Why? Because they know that the feats will actually get used at the table and that the DM won't block them.

A feat and a feature are not all that different, if they had created better features, they would not have to drop them now. I don't think you can blame the feature going away on how often they get shot down b y DMs, and if you can, I'd like to see the data

 

[Hussar]

A feat and a feature are not all that different, if they had created better features, they would not have to drop them now. I don't think you can blame the feature going away on how often they get shot down b y DMs, and if you can, I'd like to see the data

Well, why would you think they're being dropped if it wasn't because they were not being used? And, if they aren't being used, why do you think that is?

200 pages of you and others insisting that these backgrounds won't function is pretty much all the proof I need. As if it would break the game for someone's criminal background to send a message to someone through the Vistani. OH NOES, the HORROR. The campaign is utterly ruined. They managed to send a letter home!!!! They managed to do something that any 5th level wizard could do, far more reliably and far faster. The campaign!!! It is dead beyond redemption.

I mean, holy crap. The party wants to rest the night in a town. The player invokes his Folk Hero background and gets a night of rest and saves 2 gp. THE HORROR!!! The entire campaign has gone down in flames and is utterly ruined.

But, yeah, you are 100% the reason why background features are going away. You and every other DM who steps up to the player and demands that the player, who only has a fraction of the knowledge of the campaign world, justifies sufficiently, to you, that this minor ribbon ability can function. Gee, I wonder why players don't do it more often. It's a complete mystery. I am baffled.

So, the players knowing that these abilities are going to be nothing but a pain in the ass, just don't use them. Has nothing to do with how they are written and everything to do with the fact that they know these abilities are unreliable. A feat? Feats always work. Never a problem. So, we get feats. Problem solved and everyone is happy.

 

[mamba]

Well, why would you think they're being dropped if it wasn't because they were not being used? And, if they aren't being used, why do you think that is? 200 pages of you and others insisting that these backgrounds won't function is pretty much all the proof I need.

they are all the proof I need to see that they are badly phrased and poorly thought out, both of which are reason enough to drop them

 

[Faolyn]

patently wrong

You don't want some background features to work at all.

remove the ‘should’ or replace it with ‘appear to’


I was surprised by that given your stance so far but have no reason not to believe you

Despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that they don't work every time, or rather, that there can and should be rolls involved. So I can only assume that you aren't actually reading what I write.

 

[Faolyn]

Because it almost never happens with spells. Spells just work most of the time. I mean good grief, grappling a character using wind walk? How niche is that?

Sorry I do appear to have missed something. What’s the issue with see invisible?

If you have the invisible condition, attacks made against you have disad on the roll. Once upon a time, Jeremy Crawford tweeted that see invisible doesn't remove the invisible condition from a creature; therefore, even if you can see the invisible creature, you still have disad on attack rolls made against them. Because they're still invisible.

From what I can gather, he was actually serious about this rather than using it as an example of what happens when you adhere too closely to RAW--at the least, that's what everyone was saying at the time he wrote that.

 

[Faolyn]

There's a lot of cultural coding in those two pictures.

I just googled "D&D assassin" and "D&D paladin." My googlemancy failed me when I tried to search for "D&D fighter covered in other peoples' blood and carrying a really scary sword" versus "friendly-looking fighter."

But what my point is that the folk hero background says that commoners, recognizing you as another commoner, will help you out--as long as you're not too dangerous and it doesn't put you at risk.

Some people seem to think that this background means that commoners will bend over backwards to help you, no matter what, all of the time. When I mentioned that in many cases, a typical adventurer may seem too dangerous just based on the fact they usually have lots of weapons, mamba took that as proof that the background is bad, because it becomes "mother may I," rather than just common sense. If your folk hero adventurer looks really scary, a commoner will likely decide you're too dangerous, even if they can tell you were once a commoner like them.

 

[FrogReaver]

I just googled "D&D assassin" and "D&D paladin." My googlemancy failed me when I tried to search for "D&D fighter covered in other peoples' blood and carrying a really scary sword" versus "friendly-looking fighter."

But what my point is that the folk hero background says that commoners, recognizing you as another commoner, will help you out--as long as you're not too dangerous and it doesn't put you at risk.

Some people seem to think that this background means that commoners will bend over backwards to help you, no matter what, all of the time. When I mentioned that in many cases, a typical adventurer may seem too dangerous just based on the fact they usually have lots of weapons, mamba took that as proof that the background is bad, because it becomes "mother may I," rather than just common sense. If your folk hero adventurer looks really scary, a commoner will likely decide you're too dangerous, even if they can tell you were once a commoner like them.

So until your last few posts I thought you were for the feature always working.

 

[Faolyn]

So until your last few posts I thought you were for the feature always working.

I honestly don't know why, because I thought I was pretty clear that what I was talking about was ways it would be logical to work, not that it must work.

 

[mamba]

You don't want some background features to work at all.

no, I do not want them to work when to me it makes no sense for them to work. That might be at all in Ravenloft, but that still is not at all.

Despite the fact that I have repeatedly said that they don't work every time, or rather, that there can and should be rolls involved. So I can only assume that you aren't actually reading what I write.

well, I can say the same based on what you claim I want, maybe we just take something away that was not intended that way...

I am not the only one either

So until your last few posts I thought you were for the feature always working.