Search results

It was just one example. There are many, many ways for the ability to "not make sense." Especially if the DM doesn't care for it to.

I, on the other hand, would also allow the PC to be good at recognizing messenger networks and methods. For example, Is the town far from the PCs usual area but there is a messenger pigeon network in the town? The PC could find it to send a message. Minor but useful.

Strangers in a strange land is an extraordinarily commonly used scenario. From the responses I'm seeing, that alone would make the ability "not make sense" to quite a few of the posters. Same goes for the Noble background, strange land - no chance of it working. I don't find it that limiting.

That right there is the difference. My position, the ability is a minor benefit that should mostly work, even if the DM has to bend to make it so. That scenario where the PC is in a strange town, so what, the PC can figure it out Your position (and presumably @mamba 's) the ability works...

It's not about immune to exceptions. It's about, barring an absurd result, not just a result inconvenient to the DM, the feature should work.

I'm curious how far you really take this sentence. The NPC cobbler is a fictional construct who's place is solely dictated by the DM. The PC Blacksmith/Fighter is, of course, fictional but is directed by a player at your table who's there to have fun exploring your world and hopefully shape a...

For me, unless all communication from that plane was cut off (like Carceri - that's the plane's whole schtick) then I don't see why the ability shouldn't work - even then. That, for me, would be part of the fun of it. That said, If I'm not the DM - I'd certainly respect the DMs decision - BUT...

5e Background is a singular thing. It generally gives exactly 1 big benefit. So the DM, assuming this is a consistent player really should know that they would like to use the feature. And if the DM knew the city was going to be a long term consistent fixture of the campaign - yeah, they should...

Since the DM came up with the scenario, it is on them to let the players know when certain features wouldn't work or would not be appropriate. Especially if the scenario is a campaign constant. If the DM plans on doing strangers in a strange land but does not tell the players and does not warn...

And yet, when they are not different, such as a "mundane" ability that always works* there is a MASSIVE amount of pushback on the ability - and none for the magic. *with "always works" being extremely loose - as the DM is generally in 100% control of framing the ability in the fiction and, in...

I would hope they would not. But why else the quibble about "reasonable can vary..." if not to say there are a lot of unreasonable demands and they need to be quashed?

Of course, but what exactly is the quibble here? You seem to be going for the DM should be able to say no when HE deems a usage unreasonable. Ok, but if the DM deems practically every usage unreasonable, why even allow the ability? Which goes back to my original point, If you're going to nope...

If the answer is always or even often no to seemingly reasonable requests there is no functional difference. A DM can always find some reason to say no.

I think if you look at the people saying this (it's a long thread), they're the ones who don't actually want the feature. It's an add on to make the feature SOUND more extreme and unreasonable and therefore easier to argue against.

When a thread gets this long, posters seem to get pegged for or retreat to, extreme positions that don't actually represent any play style much less their own. Always best to remember, while approaches and preferences differ, everyone is generally trying to provide the best play experience...

^This. "Shortcuts" as pacts are often seen. Are a natural fit for a world where death is around the corner, denizens are looking for any edge to survive and malignant entities are looking to exploit that.

Is it really a thing where those domineering players use "the rules" as a club against the poor defenseless DM? Because I've NEVER seen that.

Just propaganda from BigDivinty to further oppress those poor folks seeking some path other than their clearly benign handouts.

Warlocks get their power from a patron - the arcane nature of it is just an easy classification. In Darksun, it would be reclassified - easy.

While I think there would definitely have to be some curation, I think there is much potential that wasn't present in 2e. 2 examples: The 2e Paladin was a terrible fit for Darksun, and recognized as such. the 5e paladin would be a great fit for Darksun. Warlocks would likely fit right into...