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

[Faolyn]

Where? What statblocks? What flavor text?

Well, noble versus any sort of war lord or chieftain.

And take a look at any time a noble is mentioned in an adventure versus any time a war lord or chieftain is mentioned. They're written very differently.

 

[Oofta]

Well, noble versus any sort of war lord or chieftain.

And take a look at any time a noble is mentioned in an adventure versus any time a war lord or chieftain is mentioned. They're written very differently.

I don't care about modules, they aren't core. I would assume some nobles/leaders are competent and others aren't. If you're only looking at the heroic leaders and not the villains or the inept then of course you're going to have a skewed perception.

Outside of modules I can't think of a single reference to a noble. Even if there were, I would reject the concept of divine right or noble by blood. So good thing it's not there.

 

[Cadence]

Well, noble versus any sort of war lord or chieftain.

And take a look at any time a noble is mentioned in an adventure versus any time a war lord or chieftain is mentioned. They're written very differently.

Reading up on the Plantagenets, for example, they seemed to alternate between being out with their large groups of armed men Fighting (or trying to) and being back somewhere being all political and being drowned in barrels of malmsey wine.

 

[Faolyn]

Even though I 'like'd this post and agree with most of it, I take great issue with this piece.

Why would I ever want to talk a player out of being, to use your term, 'lolrandom'? Those crazy out-of-nowhere actions are often where a lot of the unexpected fun comes from!

I'm a big proponent of "what happens in-game stays in-game" and of separation of character actions from player actions, and so yes; if there an-in-game problem it'll get dealt with in-game (more often by the other players than by me-as-DM).

OK, first off, I don't think Hussar was trying to be the type of disruptive that I'm about to be talk about, and may not have been disruptive at all--Hussar didn't tell us why he stabbed a door, after all.

If you get players who are deliberately being disruptive or harmful, it's almost certainly not actually an in-character thing. It's nearly always because they either don't care about the game or the other players' enjoyment, or because they really are trying to disrupt or harass other players.

The problem is, that the actions might be in-character (even if such actions are probably very out of character for who they're supposed to be or what the setting is supposed to be like), but very often it's because the player either doesn't care about the game or the other players' enjoyment, or is actively trying to harm or harass other players. And if you address this sort of behavior as a strictly in-game thing, you're condoning the behavior--you're telling them that their actions are no different than any other action, and by doing so, you're giving them them the go-ahead to continue the behavior.

 

[Faolyn]

Reading up on the Plantagenets, for example, they seemed to alternate between being out with their large groups of armed men Fighting (or trying to) and being back somewhere being all political and being drowned in barrels of malmsey wine.

They're not a noble group in a D&D game, though.

 

[Cadence]

Outside of modules I can't think of a single reference to a noble. Even if there were, I would reject the concept of divine right or noble by blood. So good thing it's not there.

5e Monster Manual

Any mention in the DMG?

 

[Faolyn]

I don't care about modules, they aren't core. I would assume some nobles/leaders are competent and others aren't. If you're only looking at the heroic leaders and not the villains or the inept then of course you're going to have a skewed perception.

Outside of modules I can't think of a single reference to a noble. Even if there were, I would reject the concept of divine right or noble by blood. So good thing it's not there.

Really? I recall some lesser nobility types in CoS. And I don't recall saying anything about divine right or nobility by blood--although in reality (and more importantly, within D&D's reality) nearly all nobility was by blood anywhere. Nobility as meritocracy that also isn't handed down isn't a really a thing in by-the-books D&D.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Let's do 200 pages now on how by RAW, all Nobles can Parry! How Illogical is THAT!?

 

[mamba]

Let's do 200 pages now on how by RAW, all Nobles can Parry! How Illogical is THAT!?

we are not done with the features yet…

 

[Hussar]

I was thinking about this thread today, in light of just receiving a message from my DM in the Avernus game that I play that real life has just stepped on him and he will have to drop the game. Six months of gaming, and story, straight down the toilet.

And, frankly, that's been my experience through most of my gaming career as a player. LIke many here, I've been gaming a long time. Since I was about ten years old so, ahem about forty years now. Sigh. Pretty much forty years without much of a break. That's a long time. And the number of campaigns that I've been a player in that have come to a conclusion I can probably count on my fingers and have a couple of fingers and thumbs left over. Even in 5e, I've been lucky enough to be in six campaigns, three different DM's, all I would highly recommend to any player who wanted to sit at their table. Six campaigns, three completions. Batting 50% so, that's good, I guess?

Go back to 4e? Zero completions, at least three campaigns that I recall.

3e? Zero completions, at least four campaigns that I recall and probably many more.

2e and earlier? Maybe a couple of complete campaigns. Nothing that really sticks out in my mind. Most fell apart for one reason or another.

I'd say my completion rate as a player is probably about 10%. Give or take. Which is why I'm rather jaded. I've DONE the "heroes meeting" so many times. I've done the "get your quest" thing so many times. I've done the "off you go on your epic journey" thing so many times. I keep getting asked how I know that this or that is pointless. I know it's pointless because it was pointless the last fifteen times I did the exact same thing.

Like you, I like to read. Love to read. Again, like pretty much anyone reading this. We all do. Now, imagine that every time you sat down to read a book, you could get about 100 pages in and then the book spontaneously combusts as does every other copy of that book. You get to read the first 100 pages of any book you want, but, no further. You know that it's possible to read more, and, maybe once or twice you've been lucky enough to do it, but, most of the time, it's flame city.

So, do you keep trying to read big, thick doorstopper novels? Or, do you switch to short stories? Me? I switched to short stories. If I'm only going to get 100 pages, then tell me the story in 100 pages. Because there's no point in a 300 page novel for me. I never get to read 2/3rds of it. When I say that my version of Lord of the Rings is 90 pages long, that's what I'm talking about. That's the analogy. The Lord of the Rings can be the best thing ever written in the English language, but, every time I try to read it, I don't even get to leave the Shire. I don't even make it to the Shortcut Through the Mushrooms.

Every time.

So, yeah, I'm not interested in all the side stuff. Because, well, I know that if we pursue that side stuff, it means that I will just get stuck never getting to read the end of the book. I never get to see the end of the movie. I never get any sort of conclusion at all. I get halfway through the campaign (at best) and then it collapses.

And I highly, highly doubt I'm alone in this.