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

[Faolyn]

no idea what homebrew worlds look like, I'd wager there are quite a few that are not 'high magic'.

Since only three of the core twelve classes are nonmagical (and the thirteenth, non-core class is magical), and those three classes have magical archetypes D&D by default is fairly high-magic.

To me this sounds like Eberron level tech everywhere, take e.g. Dragonlance or Ravenloft and tell me how your criminal gets messages to their contact

I've already given you several possibilities for Ravenloft. I don't know enough about Dragonlance to know or care, but I'm sure Dragonlance aficionados could give you an answer. The Realms is high magic.

we are talking about planar travel here,

we are discussing worst case scenarios, if you claim 'I can do this anywhere' then such cases are very much covered...

You are discussing that. I am not. The vast majority of the time, planar travel is not something that needs to be taken into consideration--and then it can be taken on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't need to be written into the rules, because if every "what if" scenario were written into the rules, the PHB would be a thousand pages long.

I go with what makes sense, whether that agrees with RAW or not

Except you're not, because you're going with a strict RAW reading rather than by RAI.

What makes sense is that the PC can get in touch with their contact most of the time. Sometimes they can't, because they're on another plane or otherwise have no means of communication. Those times when they do have a means of communication, whether through messengers, magic, or something else, they can get in touch with the contact.

That makes sense. That is RAI. You are choosing to ignore that because you refuse to use anything but the most pedantic of readings--just like any of those other Stupid RAW Readings I listed.

 

[Faolyn]

that's not a defense for the feature being written in a way that allows them to successfully do it every time if they did attempt to

That's where not adhering strictly to RAW comes in.

 

[mamba]

Since only three of the core twelve classes are nonmagical (and the thirteenth, non-core class is magical), and those three classes have magical archetypes D&D by default is fairly high-magic.

that has nothing to do with how the world is. A world can be low magic and such characters are rare or it can be high magic and they are commonplace. It's not like all the D&D worlds have anywhere near the same level of magic.

This is going nowhere, we fundamentally disagree about what the feature actually says it does, let alone what we want it to be used for. I want it to be used where its use makes sense, you are ok with anything as improbable as necessary to give the player the feature because being able to use it equals 'fun'.

I believe you completely misunderstand the wording of the feature because you want it to be useful everywhere, and anything that gets in the way of that will be discarded, no matter what.

Except you're not, because you're going with a strict RAW reading rather than by RAI.

How do you know what WotC's intent was? I think you have your intent and it is very different from that.

The way I interpret them, the smuggler and criminal make sense together. In your interpretation there is no way the smuggler would have been written that way. You exploit the poor wording and ambiguity of the criminal to force your intention onto it

 

[Faolyn]

Fair, but even 1 in 1000 - still long odds - makes these occurrences very unlikely.

But the DM still sets those odds, which means they can be one in a thousand to never to always.

Well, maybe not. If one is even vaguely modelling medieval/renaissance times, mid-to-long-distance sea (and river, and lake) trade is far more important than mid-to-long-distance land trade except, of course, in areas where there aren't any seas-rivers-lakes. That, and little fishing villages have existed along every coast everywhere since forever.

If anything, it's land-based trade that gets over-emphasized in fantasy works and D&D modelling.

True enough, but again, it's a fantasy world. The above assumes humans and a human-normal world layout. There's no reason to assume that nonhumans would use the same methods.

 

[Faolyn]

How do you know what WotC's intent was? I think you have your intent and it is very different from that.

Because the PHB very clearly talks about how the backgrounds are there for RP purposes. If they had meant for the features to be slavishly adhered to, they would have gone into many more paragraphs (or indeed, any paragraphs) of detail about how to use them, like they did with combat and magic. The fact that they didn't go into detail strongly suggests that they didn't expect people to treat them the way you are.

The way I interpret them, the smuggler and criminal make sense together. In your interpretation there is no way smuggler would have been written that way.

You obviously haven't paid attention to a word I said if you think that's how I would interpret the smuggler.

You exploit the poor wording and ambiguity of the criminal to force your intention onto it

Because unlike you, I'm not hindered by RAW, nor do I expect my players to try to exploit their backgrounds.

I do find it quite funny that you're now choosing to point out the smuggler while ignoring the acolyte (which I have pointed out before), which was also in the PHB and has a strict limitation on where you can expect to physical assistance--your home temple only. You had previously said "The logical conclusion is they both are [restrained like the smuggler], and WotC learned a bit about how to make it clearer between the two." But they already were thinking of background limitations when they put out the PHB, because they included them in the acolyte. And they chose to not have those limitations in the criminal. So what logical conclusion will you draw from that?

Also, I went and looked at the smuggler. Assuming you mean the one from Saltmarsh (I had to look at it on Scribd, but I also checked the errata) there's no mention of the phrase "one region" like you claimed it did. If anything, the phrasing in the Smuggler is even vaguer!

 

[mamba]

Because the PHB very clearly talks about how the backgrounds are there for RP purposes. If they had meant for the features to be slavishly adhered to, they would have gone into many more paragraphs (or indeed, any paragraphs) of detail about how to use them

A background is a lot more than just its feature...

if that is the intent of the feature, they are an abject failure because they do the opposite of that... You do not need a background to roleplay, but the background feature allows you to not roleplay and still get its benefits, remember @Hussar ?

Even if that were the intent, that still does not mean they are intended to be useful anywhere, they could just as well be the initial push to get the player going in the regional area and once they make it out of that, they know how to roleplay, like training wheels, eventually they are being taken away

You obviously haven't paid attention to a word I said if you think that's how I would interpret the smuggler.

the smuggler is more explicit, at that point it no longer is about interpretation but about you outright ignoring what is written

Because unlike you, I'm not hindered by RAW, nor do I expect my players to try to exploit their backgrounds.

I am not interested in RAW, I am interested in explainable and sensible

I do find it quite funny that you're now choosing to point out the smuggler while ignoring the acolyte (which I have pointed out before), which was also in the PHB and has a strict limitation on where you can expect to physical assistance--your home temple only

and? they can get help at temples of their faith, that might very well be a regional limit too, and more likely than not is one when it comes to traveling to another world

This is a lot less universal than you yet again seem to interpret it...

Also, I went and looked at the smuggler. Assuming you mean the one from Saltmarsh (I had to look at it on Scribd, but I also checked the errata) there's no mention of the phrase "one region" like you claimed it did

yes, I meant the Saltmarsh one, I had quoted it in some earlier post. As to not being limited to a region, I agree, it is even more limited. I used region in the context of the criminal.

Just so we are clear where the limitation is that you upon reading it apparently did not find

"Feature: Down Low
You are acquainted with a network of smugglers who are willing to help you out of tight situations. While in a particular town, city, or other similarly sized community (DM’s discretion), you and your companions can stay for free in safe houses. Safe houses provide a poor lifestyle. While staying at a safe house, you can choose to keep your presence (and that of your companions) a secret"

Now wiggle your way out of that one like you did with 'local'... you cannot? I guess that is why you missed it entirely

 

[Faolyn]

A background is a lot more than just its feature...

if that is the intent of the feature, they are an abject failure because they do the opposite of that... You do not need a background to roleplay, but the background feature allows you to not roleplay and still get its benefits, remember @Hussar ?

I wasn't aware that I was supposed to agree with everything Hussar said. In fact, I thought it was pretty clear that I didn't agree on this particular point.

However, I think we can both agree that there are a of of gamers who do need, or at least want, prompts for roleplaying. Especially people who are new to the hobby--and I think we can also agree that 5e was trying to be newbie-friendly.

Even if that were the intent, that still does not mean they are intended to be useful anywhere,

Sure. Which is why I have specifically brought up the idea of needing to RP or making rolls in order to use the background features. Only to be told no, that's wrong, how dare I not go strictly by RAW (and at the same time, that wanting to use the features at all makes me a rules lawyer).

they could just as well be the initial push to get the player going in the regional area and once they make it out of that, they know how to roleplay, like training wheels, eventually they are being taken away

Hey, if the player stops using the feature after a while, that's fine. But show me where in the books (or in the errata, or in a post by a designer, or anything like that) where it says that the features are designed to stop working entirely after a while.

And, of course, this completely fails to address parties that remain within the regional area. If you're playing a campaign that takes place entirely within a city or kingdom and not outside of it, does that mean the backgrounds are OP?

I am not interested in RAW, I am interested in explainable and sensible

So you keep saying. But you have ignored every single example of how a feature can sensibly be used. If you actually care about what was "explainable and sensible," then you would be all for coming up with new ways to use the feature, because the feature's purpose is that your contact knows people whom you can possibly get to help you with a task you can't do yourself. "You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals." The messengers are there solely so you can contact that contact when you're far away. The messengers themselves have no other purpose. You can't use them for anything. They won't help you with anything or give you anything. They exist solely to contact the contact, and that makes them not the feature's purpose.

Instead, all you do is harp about the word "know" and refuse to let that go. And that shows that, no matter how much you claim to be interested in the explainable and sensible, you actually only care about the RAW.

and? they can get help at temples of their faith, that might very well be a regional limit too, and more likely than not is one when it comes to traveling to another world

No. They can only get physical assistance at one temple--their home temple. Other temples of their faith may heal them (and not actually for free, as you must provide the material components) or provide room and board, but they won't otherwise help you. There's no limit as to where those temples are; only that they are of the same faith. Only at your specific home temple will the priests actually physically help you.

yes, I meant the Saltmarsh one, I had quoted it in some earlier post. As to not being limited to a region, I agree, it is even more limited. I used region in the context of the criminal.

Just so we are clear where the limitation is that you upon reading it apparently did not find

"Feature: Down Low
You are acquainted with a network of smugglers who are willing to help you out of tight situations. While in a particular town, city, or other similarly sized community (DM’s discretion), you and your companions can stay for free in safe houses. Safe houses provide a poor lifestyle. While staying at a safe house, you can choose to keep your presence (and that of your companions) a secret"

Now wiggle your way out of that one like you did with 'local'... you cannot? I guess that is why you missed it entirely

No, I saw the word particular. It could mean "one specific town, city, or community." But it doesn't say that--note that acolyte does say specific. Also, the phrase "DM's discretion" very strongly indicates that you can use this at any town, city, or community you want as long as the DM says its OK. Particular can mean that it can be used in any number of towns, cities, or communities that the DM specifies ahead of time. This latter one makes a great deal of sense, since after all you're smuggling things from Point A to Point B, and possibly Point C, D, and E as well. Why wouldn't you have safe houses in all of these points?

Gosh, I guess I did just "wiggle out of it." Once again, you make an assumption about me that fails miserably.

 

[mamba]

I think we can both agree that there are a of of gamers who do need, or at least want, prompts for roleplaying. Especially people who are new to the hobby--and I think we can also agree that 5e was trying to be newbie-friendly.

nothing wrong with that, the approach could have been better thought out however

Hey, if the player stops using the feature after a while, that's fine. But show me where in the books (or in the errata, or in a post by a designer, or anything like that) where it says that the features are designed to stop working entirely after a while.

no one says that they are on a timer... they stop working when you leave the region they work in, as in your local home region

And, of course, this completely fails to address parties that remain within the regional area. If you're playing a campaign that takes place entirely within a city or kingdom and not outside of it, does that mean the backgrounds are OP?

up to you to decide, you are fine with letting them roll for it, so go ahead with that

Generally speaking I'd say no, but the problem we discussed never was about the feature being OP anyway

So you keep saying. But you have ignored every single example of how a feature can sensibly be used. If you actually care about what was "explainable and sensible," then you would be all for coming up with new ways to use the feature,

I think we even have a different understanding of what 'sensible' means, finding wild excuses to get it to work is not what I mean by that, so no. My primary goal is not to find a way to get it to work, with no consideration for anything else

Instead, all you do is harp about the word "know" and refuse to let that go. And that shows that, no matter how much you claim to be interested in the explainable and sensible, you actually only care about the RAW.

no, as I said it needs to make sense and if you tell me that seeing someone for the first time and knowing 'hey, this is not only a shady guy who could be a messenger, but they also know how to reach my contact', then we are far beyond any kind of reason as far as I am concerned

No. They can only get physical assistance at one temple--their home temple. Other temples of their faith may heal them (and not actually for free, as you must provide the material components) or provide room and board, but they won't otherwise help you. There's no limit as to where those temples are; only that they are of the same faith. Only at your specific home temple will the priests actually physically help you.

I understand that, I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying the criminal should be limited to one town, similar to the home temple? Are you saying the criminal should not be limited to an area because the temples can be in other places?

As I said, your faith can very much also be a local one and have no temples outside say, a continent, let alone on other worlds.

No, I saw the word particular. It could mean "one specific town, city, or community." But it doesn't say that, note that acolyte does say specific.

it says that, that is what 'particular' means...

Also, the phrase "DM's discretion" very strongly indicates that you can use this at any town, city, or community you want as long as the DM says its OK.

it means the DM has some say in which town the particular town is....

As to the DM being able to override the feature and make it more widely or less widely applicable, that is a given. There is nothing special about this feature that would require pointing this out for this one but not the others.