Edit: And again, 'Coupon' is a term you lot have been using. Knowledge of farming and laws around locksmiths would come under that category, though. The druid, dwarves, mother and castellan being contacts would, too. They do not need to be massively powerful or anything, but should be at least acknowledged between player and DM as being actual things. Maybe they will never come up again. Maybe some will, maybe some aspect of the background will end up vitally important to plot. Ideally there will be at least some bridging there, although it need not be massive or anything.
'plot coupons' have been essential to this thread since it began as an effort to not derail further another thread with talk of background specific features. plot coupons are an assumption of concrete powers without concrete evaluation. the plot-adjacent justifications for concrete features are not plot coupons. so a background specific feature that included "usually knows their way around a lock and lock picks" but does not offer a proficiency would be a plot coupon. whereas "lived in a house where the doorknobs and locks often malfunctioned," is exposition and, if it's not in a feature, is not a plot coupon. similarly, the combination of "a family friend taught me lockpicking" and "feature: tool proficiency: thieves tools" are also not a plot coupon. would anyone dispute this? moving on.
I am not married to calling them 'features' though. I am not married to them being treated as or presented as hard coded (and if anything have argued that I, personally, do not see them that way).
So now they're presented as.... nothing. Why have them then?
My counter is that I am going into more detail than really needed there just to explain why each of them.
An example of all that answered and condensed:
Mother was a knight. She retains her title, but being retired, has no active military ties. I learned athletics from her, but not her calling. I trained as a locksmith, so also have some sense of such laws... not sure when I'll ever use the legal knowledge, so I won't bore you with it here. Never know, though...
The castle was a border fortress, and I have a good sense of it and the lands immediately around here. Regs are pretty strict, but in a pinch or dire enough circumstances, the castellan would likely shelter me and any travelling with me. And old Grimsmoor.. I learned a lot from him. Druid who helps out the farmers. Learned a bit about farming, too. Again, won't bother you with the details unless it is ever important somehow... if we ever want to plant corn and rutabega in battle or the middle of nowhere or something, heh.
Oh, and then there's the Motley Crüe, or so they call themselves. Band of dwarves who have sworn an oath to Love, Drink and Music. I signed on with them and am now a full fledged paladin, out looking for adventure!
----------------
There you go. Only the druid has been personally named, the dwarves, collectively named and no detailed rules or laws or anything of the sort written or expected written.
Sounds great. What bearing did the coupon have on any of this?
Where have I said anything either way in that post about how the concept would be presented in the 2024 PHB? I would put a discussion of the topic under a heading such as "Bringing it all together" or "Making Backgrounds Matter" or some such, then discuss the general concept of things like the various contacts, laws regarding locksmiths and farming knowledge in that example. That is where the old so called 'coupons' had bearing.
Although, frankly if that example was used, I would have the DM suggest that the mother became a locksmith on retirement and she was where he learned that trade from, simplifying it a little further.
this is a thread discussing the presentation of the 2024 PHB in a forums folder about playtests. it's within that context that people would assume you'd rewrite an admittedly (intentionally?) slap-dash background paragraph into 3+ paragraphs.
the only evidence i recall of backgrounds failing to matter from this thread was in two parts: 1.) the assumption that UA Origins backgrounds of reduced size were final product , and 2.) word meanings dissected and hairs split (reminiscent of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is") to front minor outrage for 'meaningless' backgrounds. part 1 dealt heavily in the fate of background specific 'features' with no numbers or proficiencies in them. coupons.
also... "Make Backgrounds Great Again!" ? ...nah, more thinking required...
1) In lieu of evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that what we see is what we get. We cannot critique what may or may not be there in some version we are not shown.
2) Is it a coupon that you, personally, do not need to make any sort of survival check equivalent to navigate your own neighbourhood? Does everyone you know do everything you ask simply because you ask them? Is there nothing you can reasonably rely on them saying yes to? Again, DM's are human beings. They are capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. And that said, players and DM's should have some reasonable consensus over what to expect when it comes to situations that relate to their backgrounds.
1) evidence like the existence of UA playtests before 2022 which can be compared to their commercial book release forms?
regarding uninformed critique, i'd like to bring out a 10-foot pole and gently tap the path ahead...
2) if i choose to include my neighborhood in my background blurb and that's where i'm adventuring, then the dm will likely (without having to be explicitly told to) lower challenge ratings and more strictly limit rolls to checks to moments where failure would be interesting. the dm is capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. my background knowledge informs the difficulty of some tasks. no coupon needed. no coupon mentioned. now, perhaps outside of the blurb among my starting wealth and proficiencies it is stated "Feature: Slow Children:as a driver, you are unlikely to strike pedestrians with your vehicle and are not expected to attract attention from law enforcement in a neighborhood setting." that's a plot coupon. it doesn't set a way to evaluate it like that my vehicle becomes functionally invisible or gain + to deception/persuasion/performance or advantage on saves. also, it seems like failure could be very, very interesting here. so what we have is not background blurb, not a concrete power (despite 2014 PHB RAW saying such), and if it's a suggestion then it is misplaced. no, this is a "redeem for free: 'wait guys, i think i got this' moment" which is entirely less reliable than a typical feat. it may never come up or the bard my pull a fast one or failure might just be that interesting. coupon.
Backgrounds can be understood as applying the current rules to acquire some knowledge. Consider an Acolyte background with Insight and Religion skills. Without the player having prior knowledge, one could use their Religion skill to know how to be friendly to a temple using social interaction and the Insight skill to determine during negotiations for shelter the leader's open or hidden intent. Passive, Variant, and Tool Proficiency checks provide a mechanism to acquire knowledge, directly or indirectly, with the DM - in-game, session zero, between sessions, etc. Simply reviewing and applying your character's strengths generates part of the game, story, and plot. Write down what your character learns and who they meet in the game as part of your character's journal.
Perhaps the rules should teach players how to apply the mechanics better rather than over-supply information. There are so many different background possibilities that are created by using skills. The game mechanics can easily help you enjoy discovering more about your character.
Where have I said anything either way in that post about how the concept would be presented in the 2024 PHB? I would put a discussion of the topic under a heading such as "Bringing it all together" or "Making Backgrounds Matter" or some such, then discuss the general concept of things like the various contacts, laws regarding locksmiths and farming knowledge in that example. That is where the old so called 'coupons' had bearing.
Although, frankly if that example was used, I would have the DM suggest that the mother became a locksmith on retirement and she was where he learned that trade from, simplifying it a little further.
Why wouldn't we be talking about the 2024 PHB? This is the UA forum; moreover, the presentation/space that backgrounds take up is ultimately material to their design.
Edit: And again, 'Coupon' is a term you lot have been using. Knowledge of farming and laws around locksmiths would come under that category, though. The druid, dwarves, mother and castellan being contacts would, too. They do not need to be massively powerful or anything, but should be at least acknowledged between player and DM as being actual things. Maybe they will never come up again. Maybe some will, maybe some aspect of the background will end up vitally important to plot. Ideally there will be at least some bridging there, although it need not be massive or anything.
None of that needs to be spelled out in the background itself. A general statement like "consider how you gained the skills you selected in your background, as well as the environment you grew up in" is sufficient prompt for all of these considerations, and takes up a lot less space because it applies to all of them at once.
It also doesn't handcuff the player and DM to any one specific background, or interpretation or permutation of what that background entails. "Mother was a retired knight and taught me athletics, and also I learned farming/lockpicking/local laws/performing" can be literally any background + Skilled.
Sorry if I was unclear. Going with your last point first, you are looking at this backwards.
I was presented with a finished background and was presenting how I see it translating into the kind of system I am advocating for. In other words, given that input, what I see as a reasonable output. Not the only possible output, either since that campaign's DM might well have different ideas.
As such it still relates to the 2024 rules, or how I am currently suggesting they should be revised. Is this what I was necessarily advocating at the start of this thread? Not directly, although I do see it as fulfilling the role I felt the old features were important for, even if in a less formal much more freeform way.
As for presentation, I would see it as a discussion of the background narrative and of the concept of the narrative having meaning beyond just being a cool story. Said discussion would present this as a discussion to be had between player and DM and would make it clear that it does not have to be very deep or complex, just acknowledged. Essentially an extension of the questions list already there for building the narrative but discussing, at least briefly, the concept of people having contacts and specific profession related skills (i.e. not merely survival proficiency but specifically being better at fishing to whatever degree the DM feels it applies, or farming (from that example) or care of horses (rather than animal handling, generally)... as makes sense for someone with that background, in that campaign, at least in general terms.
Again, does not have to be specific. And this is also a good chance for the DM to think the background over and decide whether any aspect of it would clash with his campaign world. Perhaps the DM wants to reserve thieve's tools to members of such a guild. Or perhaps the mother having been a knight does not work since his world has no such noble titles and thus suggests his mother was just a fitness buff. Perhaps there being a higher level druid around does not make sense so the DM would prefer. It is unlikely, of course that a DM would disagree with everything and quite likely will have no problems at all with what the player envisions. The point is, that at least a little thought and discussion should go into it.
And just that. Again, does not need to be anything etched in stone. Does not need to be any attempt at any all inclusive list (I still don't see the 2014 features as such, but the concept can be handled a LOT more informally as I have just described.
Anyway, hope that explains my position better.
Your position doesn't tell me what problem, if any, you have with a straightforward overarching sentence like "Work with your DM to determine how you gained the skills you selected in your background, the environment(s)/culture(s) you grew up in or lived in prior to adventuring, and any potential relationships or connections you formed prior to the campaign." i.e. Something that would take up far less space than the laundry list of redundant questions and rules-vague features that currently exist in 2014 backgrounds.
the only evidence i recall of backgrounds failing to matter from this thread was in two parts: 1.) the assumption that UA Origins backgrounds of reduced size were final product...
1) In lieu of evidence to the contrary, the assumption is that what we see is what we get. We cannot critique what may or may not be there in some version we are not shown...
1) evidence like the existence of UA playtests before 2022 which can be compared to their commercial book release forms?
regarding uninformed critique, i'd like to bring out a 10-foot pole and gently tap the path ahead...
1) And every book published to date has been received with applause?
1.) evidence of the playtest being more bare, more rules oriented. evidence of the print version including additional lore and flavor. evidence that what you see isn't what you'll get, quality/quantity/existance of applause notwithstanding.
the only evidence i recall of backgrounds failing to matter from this thread was in two parts:
...
2.) word meanings dissected and hairs split (reminiscent of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is") to front minor outrage for 'meaningless' backgrounds. part 1 dealt heavily in the fate of background specific 'features' with no numbers or proficiencies in them. coupons.
2) Is it a coupon that you, personally, do not need to make any sort of survival check equivalent to navigate your own neighbourhood? Does everyone you know do everything you ask simply because you ask them? Is there nothing you can reasonably rely on them saying yes to? Again, DM's are human beings. They are capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. And that said, players and DM's should have some reasonable consensus over what to expect when it comes to situations that relate to their backgrounds.
2) if i choose to include my neighborhood in my background blurb and that's where i'm adventuring, then the dm will likely (without having to be explicitly told to) lower challenge ratings and more strictly limit rolls to checks to moments where failure would be interesting. the dm is capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. my background knowledge informs the difficulty of some tasks. no coupon needed. no coupon mentioned. now, perhaps outside of the blurb among my starting wealth and proficiencies it is stated "Feature: Slow Children:as a driver, you are unlikely to strike pedestrians with your vehicle and are not expected to attract attention from law enforcement in a neighborhood setting." that's a plot coupon. it doesn't set a way to evaluate it like that my vehicle becomes functionally invisible or gain + to deception/persuasion/performance or advantage on saves. also, it seems like failure could be very, very interesting here. so what we have is not background blurb, not a concrete power (despite 2014 PHB RAW saying such), and if it's a suggestion then it is misplaced. no, this is a "redeem for free: 'wait guys, i think i got this' moment" which is entirely less reliable than a typical feat. it may never come up or the bard my pull a fast one or failure might just be that interesting. coupon.
2) So why is it a bad thing to suggest exactly what you feel the DM should automatically do? I have seen DM's who require perception checks to see unhidden things in plain sight of the characters.
Regarding your 'Slow Children' 'coupon' isn't that something that comes with normal driver training for any driver? Why choose that as an example? Is your character going to suddenly say 'Oh, we are coming in to town, give me the reins!" (of this cart in motion that your character is not already driving)? Regardless, are you saying that for anything to have a campaign effect, it has to have some sort of formal, etched in stone rule? Why?
Why can't it just be a 'This is something that could apply in situations related to it, your DM can determine how much it applies on a case by case basis?' Why can it not be stated as a thing in those terms?
2.) it is not a bad thing to talk to your dm. it is not beyond the pale for someone to tell the dm how to do their job. it is not at all beyond the pale for a dm to forget passive perception specifically or generally miss the DMG advice not to "rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction."
regarding my 'Slow Children' (dad's favorite road sign) coupon, no it's not normal for someone to train to swerve around children and evade police attention. as with going on two wheels or jumping ramps, i assume there's an additional class for those who are interested. on the other hand, with some modicum of effort most drivers can drive reasonably safely by obtaining knowledge of local norms, not giving in to careless haste, removing distractions, and avoiding... urrgh, i've seen this tree before. we're going in circles. are you collecting AI training data? is that we nerds are being roped into restating things? you just gave the example of misused perception check. why roll for "drives two blocks safely" if failure isn't interesting? if you don't know why it's okay for a character to ask the paladin to step aside for the other character holding the lock picks (or, yes, a similar situation with reins), then we're arguing past each other. if the feature in question is not a hard rule, then it has no business in 'concrete benefits.' lucky for me, that's the direction things are headed.
not everything has to be written down. even you've said that a few times, i believe. anyway, someone else can tag in for a while. i am winded at last.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
1.) evidence of the playtest being more bare, more rules oriented. evidence of the print version including additional lore and flavor. evidence that what you see isn't what you'll get, quality/quantity/existance of applause notwithstanding.
"Flavour" is already there. The general consensus is that flavour does not mean much, if anything.
Something saying "Players, have this kind of discussion with your DM / DM's, have this kind of discussion with your players,' combined with a short description of what kind of discussion that is referring to, is more than 'Lore and additional flavour.'
Feature: Hill to Die On: "if nothing else is added to 2024 PHB regarding backgrounds, rumlo verum owes 25gp from his own horde to you. you have knowledge of this debt, however payout might be inaccessible or else could spark the beginnings of a campaign-long quest."
...personally, I'd have taken Skilled or Observant. not sure this one coupon will do more for a character's story than a 'boring' feat, but to each their own...
the only evidence i recall of backgrounds failing to matter from this thread was in two parts:
...
2.) word meanings dissected and hairs split (reminiscent of "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is") to front minor outrage for 'meaningless' backgrounds. part 1 dealt heavily in the fate of background specific 'features' with no numbers or proficiencies in them. coupons.
2) Is it a coupon that you, personally, do not need to make any sort of survival check equivalent to navigate your own neighbourhood? Does everyone you know do everything you ask simply because you ask them? Is there nothing you can reasonably rely on them saying yes to? Again, DM's are human beings. They are capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. And that said, players and DM's should have some reasonable consensus over what to expect when it comes to situations that relate to their backgrounds.
2) if i choose to include my neighborhood in my background blurb and that's where i'm adventuring, then the dm will likely (without having to be explicitly told to) lower challenge ratings and more strictly limit rolls to checks to moments where failure would be interesting. the dm is capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. my background knowledge informs the difficulty of some tasks. no coupon needed. no coupon mentioned. now, perhaps outside of the blurb among my starting wealth and proficiencies it is stated "Feature: Slow Children:as a driver, you are unlikely to strike pedestrians with your vehicle and are not expected to attract attention from law enforcement in a neighborhood setting." that's a plot coupon. it doesn't set a way to evaluate it like that my vehicle becomes functionally invisible or gain + to deception/persuasion/performance or advantage on saves. also, it seems like failure could be very, very interesting here. so what we have is not background blurb, not a concrete power (despite 2014 PHB RAW saying such), and if it's a suggestion then it is misplaced. no, this is a "redeem for free: 'wait guys, i think i got this' moment" which is entirely less reliable than a typical feat. it may never come up or the bard my pull a fast one or failure might just be that interesting. coupon.
2) So why is it a bad thing to suggest exactly what you feel the DM should automatically do? I have seen DM's who require perception checks to see unhidden things in plain sight of the characters.
Regarding your 'Slow Children' 'coupon' isn't that something that comes with normal driver training for any driver? Why choose that as an example? Is your character going to suddenly say 'Oh, we are coming in to town, give me the reins!" (of this cart in motion that your character is not already driving)? Regardless, are you saying that for anything to have a campaign effect, it has to have some sort of formal, etched in stone rule? Why?
Why can't it just be a 'This is something that could apply in situations related to it, your DM can determine how much it applies on a case by case basis?' Why can it not be stated as a thing in those terms?
2.) it is not a bad thing to talk to your dm. it is not beyond the pale for someone to tell the dm how to do their job. it is not at all beyond the pale for a dm to forget passive perception specifically or generally miss the DMG advice not to "rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction."
regarding my 'Slow Children' (dad's favorite road sign) coupon, no it's not normal for someone to train to swerve around children and evade police attention. as with going on two wheels or jumping ramps, i assume there's an additional class for those who are interested. on the other hand, with some modicum of effort most drivers can drive reasonably safely by obtaining knowledge of local norms, not giving in to careless haste, removing distractions, and avoiding... urrgh, i've seen this tree before. we're going in circles. are you collecting AI training data? is that we nerds are being roped into restating things? you just gave the example of misused perception check. why roll for "drives two blocks safely" if failure isn't interesting? if you don't know why it's okay for a character to ask the paladin to step aside for the other character holding the lock picks (or, yes, a similar situation with reins), then we're arguing past each other. if the feature in question is not a hard rule, then it has no business in 'concrete benefits.' lucky for me, that's the direction things are headed.
not everything has to be written down. even you've said that a few times, i believe. anyway, someone else can tag in for a while. i am winded at last.
Every bit of training regarding traffic laws and obeying them is also training regarding avoiding police attention, even if not couched that way. And "Slow Children" means go slow enough to avoid having to swerve around them, at least in any traffic training I have ever seen or heard of. And why are you going into stunt driving, which was not mentioned at all until now? "Slow Children" was your example, not mine.
My point was that whoever the party decided to have driving the cart likely already has experience cart driving. Now if you want to argue that they switch drivers because two characters have that proficiency because one has more experience with city driving, fair enough... for parties where there are actually two characters with land vehicle proficiency. But then any 'coupon' would be to avoid or mitigate the hazards of driving a horse and cart down often narrow, often occupied streets. It would not be to avoid any and all checks no matter the situation. If you want to call that a 'coupon' fair enough, but if it is, why would it be a bad thing?
And no, everything does not have to be written down. Everything does not have to be codified. However, what is wrong with the suggestion of at least thinking of such things? Or even so little as a general discussion of the topic? Just as there are players who insist "This does this literally, in all cases, no matter what you say, MrDM!" there are also DM's who say "The rules don't say you can do that!," no matter how reasonable the DM or player (respectively) are being. The DM does still have the final say, of course.
clarity and ease of use are ideal virtues for a product that relies on group comprehension and consensus. rules which are unclear will likely not make it into the 2024 PHB in their present form. I'm willing to wait for additional input from devs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Again, I feel like you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying the questions have to be repeated. And your sentence there is most of the way to what I am currently arguing.
I would only modify it slightly: "Work with your DM to determine how you gained the skills you selected in your background, the environment(s)/culture(s) you grew up in or lived in prior to adventuring, and any potential relationships, connections and/or specialised knowledge you formed or gained prior to the campaign."
Followed by some sort of general example.
No laundry lists needed.
If this is all you want / what you'd be okay with in the next book then I think we're finally aligned.
Ok, another strawman, since I have never said this would in any way replace the feat. Moreover, what you seem to be saying is that anyone who does get a feat has no remaining connections from their past.
Yes you have. Over and over and over and over and over again, always yelling about how feats were boring and mechanical and didn't speak to the deep character fantasy of being a baker with the "Feature: Nursery Rhyme - You know the butcher and the candlestick maker; they will offer you shelter and modest living quarters if needed provided you are able to bake fresh bread for them daily." You've been pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing to discard the Origins document in its entirety and retain the 2014 rules, completely unaltered, in its place. You've complained about every background having equal starting coin, you've complained about every background being forced to take one of a dozenish feats instead of having its own super ultra unique power (which almost universally fall into "I can live somewhere" or "I can see someone important"), you've complained about the loss of unique characterization from backgrounds not being canned and fed to us by Wizards anymore...
We have thirty-three pages, now, of evidence that you cannot stand the new rules and want them gone entirely. Please don't feed us this kind of line.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1) evidence like the existence of UA playtests before 2022 which can be compared to their commercial book release forms?
regarding uninformed critique, i'd like to bring out a 10-foot pole and gently tap the path ahead...
2) if i choose to include my neighborhood in my background blurb and that's where i'm adventuring, then the dm will likely (without having to be explicitly told to) lower challenge ratings and more strictly limit rolls to checks to moments where failure would be interesting. the dm is capable of making judgement calls without everything having to fall back on dice. my background knowledge informs the difficulty of some tasks. no coupon needed. no coupon mentioned. now, perhaps outside of the blurb among my starting wealth and proficiencies it is stated "Feature: Slow Children: as a driver, you are unlikely to strike pedestrians with your vehicle and are not expected to attract attention from law enforcement in a neighborhood setting." that's a plot coupon. it doesn't set a way to evaluate it like that my vehicle becomes functionally invisible or gain + to deception/persuasion/performance or advantage on saves. also, it seems like failure could be very, very interesting here. so what we have is not background blurb, not a concrete power (despite 2014 PHB RAW saying such), and if it's a suggestion then it is misplaced. no, this is a "redeem for free: 'wait guys, i think i got this' moment" which is entirely less reliable than a typical feat. it may never come up or the bard my pull a fast one or failure might just be that interesting. coupon.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Backgrounds can be understood as applying the current rules to acquire some knowledge. Consider an Acolyte background with Insight and Religion skills. Without the player having prior knowledge, one could use their Religion skill to know how to be friendly to a temple using social interaction and the Insight skill to determine during negotiations for shelter the leader's open or hidden intent. Passive, Variant, and Tool Proficiency checks provide a mechanism to acquire knowledge, directly or indirectly, with the DM - in-game, session zero, between sessions, etc. Simply reviewing and applying your character's strengths generates part of the game, story, and plot. Write down what your character learns and who they meet in the game as part of your character's journal.
Perhaps the rules should teach players how to apply the mechanics better rather than over-supply information. There are so many different background possibilities that are created by using skills. The game mechanics can easily help you enjoy discovering more about your character.
Session Zero could be lifted from Tasha's and included in the 2024 PHB and/or DMG.
sure. that seems like common ground we can agree on. not entirely sure it's not derailing to bring it up again, but it is something.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Your position doesn't tell me what problem, if any, you have with a straightforward overarching sentence like "Work with your DM to determine how you gained the skills you selected in your background, the environment(s)/culture(s) you grew up in or lived in prior to adventuring, and any potential relationships or connections you formed prior to the campaign." i.e. Something that would take up far less space than the laundry list of redundant questions and rules-vague features that currently exist in 2014 backgrounds.
1.) evidence of the playtest being more bare, more rules oriented. evidence of the print version including additional lore and flavor. evidence that what you see isn't what you'll get, quality/quantity/existance of applause notwithstanding.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
2.) it is not a bad thing to talk to your dm. it is not beyond the pale for someone to tell the dm how to do their job. it is not at all beyond the pale for a dm to forget passive perception specifically or generally miss the DMG advice not to "rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction."
regarding my 'Slow Children' (dad's favorite road sign) coupon, no it's not normal for someone to train to swerve around children and evade police attention. as with going on two wheels or jumping ramps, i assume there's an additional class for those who are interested. on the other hand, with some modicum of effort most drivers can drive reasonably safely by obtaining knowledge of local norms, not giving in to careless haste, removing distractions, and avoiding... urrgh, i've seen this tree before. we're going in circles. are you collecting AI training data? is that we nerds are being roped into restating things? you just gave the example of misused perception check. why roll for "drives two blocks safely" if failure isn't interesting? if you don't know why it's okay for a character to ask the paladin to step aside for the other character holding the lock picks (or, yes, a similar situation with reins), then we're arguing past each other. if the feature in question is not a hard rule, then it has no business in 'concrete benefits.' lucky for me, that's the direction things are headed.
not everything has to be written down. even you've said that a few times, i believe. anyway, someone else can tag in for a while. i am winded at last.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Feature: Hill to Die On: "if nothing else is added to 2024 PHB regarding backgrounds, rumlo verum owes 25gp from his own horde to you. you have knowledge of this debt, however payout might be inaccessible or else could spark the beginnings of a campaign-long quest."
...personally, I'd have taken Skilled or Observant. not sure this one coupon will do more for a character's story than a 'boring' feat, but to each their own...
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
clarity and ease of use are ideal virtues for a product that relies on group comprehension and consensus. rules which are unclear will likely not make it into the 2024 PHB in their present form. I'm willing to wait for additional input from devs.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
If this is all you want / what you'd be okay with in the next book then I think we're finally aligned.
See internet? It's possible!
Yes you have. Over and over and over and over and over again, always yelling about how feats were boring and mechanical and didn't speak to the deep character fantasy of being a baker with the "Feature: Nursery Rhyme - You know the butcher and the candlestick maker; they will offer you shelter and modest living quarters if needed provided you are able to bake fresh bread for them daily." You've been pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing to discard the Origins document in its entirety and retain the 2014 rules, completely unaltered, in its place. You've complained about every background having equal starting coin, you've complained about every background being forced to take one of a dozenish feats instead of having its own super ultra unique power (which almost universally fall into "I can live somewhere" or "I can see someone important"), you've complained about the loss of unique characterization from backgrounds not being canned and fed to us by Wizards anymore...
We have thirty-three pages, now, of evidence that you cannot stand the new rules and want them gone entirely. Please don't feed us this kind of line.
Please do not contact or message me.