• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Plan to adopt the new core rules?

  • Yep

    Votes: 259 53.3%
  • Nope

    Votes: 227 46.7%

It needn’t be drastic though. The PC with a noble background can enjoy some deference from commoners and can secure an audience with the noble of the town. That’s it. Maybe that’s an immediate audience. Maybe that’s next week when the local nobility has “an opening” in their schedule. Maybe the meeting is really fruitful. Maybe it is the opposite and the local nobility is offended during the meeting. Or something in between.

IMO, Features are hardly the game-breaking, illogical mechanics some decry. They’re only game-breaking and/or illogical if the DM wants them to be. For others, they can introduce interesting story beats and/or help develop character arcs.
Using them that way, they are inherently useless.

If a character becomes nobility during adventuring, will they gain the same benefits as the noble background character, or are they SOL?
If a character with background noble comes to a place where they and their kin are totally unknown and they are disguised as commoners, will they be able to benefit from their background in any way?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Using them that way, they are inherently useless.
Not sure what you mean by “that way”. I’m interpreting them as they’re, IMO, intended to be used, which our table doesn’t find useless at all.

If a character becomes nobility during adventuring, will they gain the same benefits as the noble background character, or are they SOL?
Sure - why not?

If a character with background noble comes to a place where they and their kin are totally unknown and they are disguised as commoners, will they be able to benefit from their background in any way?
I mean, I assume they still have their signet ring and scroll of pedigree so, even in disguise, they could manage to secure an audience with the local noble. Commoners may or may not see through the disguise (I’d most likely rule that they wouldn’t) and so would not show any deference.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I never was opposed to that and frequently pointed that out as an option, this again has nothing to do with the feature however
You were totally opposed to it every other time I brought it up, because it was still too unrealistic for you.

It has everything to do with the feature. The feature is you know a contact, who in turn, will get in touch with other people for you. That's literally what the feature is called: Criminal Contact. Not "Local Messengers Who You Know" or "Criminal Contact Plus Messengers." The messengers are merely an explanation for how you get in touch with the contact. They're certainly not the only explanation, nor are they actually required. The only thing that's required is that you get in touch with your contact in some way.

yes they do, that is in the 'you know the local messengers' part...
See what I mean? You refuse to do anything to make it explainable because you insist on sticking to the exact phrasing. This is 100% you only going by RAW.

And this is why it doesn't matter how many times you say you only care about the explainable, all of your actions are showing the exact opposite.

If you want to actually show you care about the logical and explainable, then you need to prove it.

that is just a shorter, and apparently ambiguous version of what the smuggler has as 'particular settlement' - but then you managed to twist that around too....
I love how I'm supposed to just accept your opinion (and am being insulting if I don't), but my readings are "twisted" and "completely wrong."
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Using them that way, they are inherently useless.

If a character becomes nobility during adventuring, will they gain the same benefits as the noble background character, or are they SOL?
They would not get the feature from the noble background by RAW.

They would likely, however, get other benefits that may end up being identical to the noble background (simply because it's easier for a DM to grab the feature than to make up a whole new one). In fact, if a PC earns a title, I would think that they're more likely to have better benefits, because they've earned their title rather than resorting to a "Do you know who my dad is?!" thing that the background kind of assumes.

If a character with background noble comes to a place where they and their kin are totally unknown and they are disguised as commoners, will they be able to benefit from their background in any way?
They're in disguise, so no. The feature is called Position of Privilege. If they're disguised as a commoner, then they're not taking advantage of that position.
 

mamba

Legend
You were totally opposed to it every other time I brought it up, because it was still too unrealistic for you.
I am pretty sure I have a better idea about what I am opposed to than you do…

Given that I even pointed this out as an alternative to the feature in areas where the feature does not work, I am certain I am not opposing this, it just yet again has nothing to do with the feature.

It has everything to do with the feature. The feature is you know a contact, who in turn, will get in touch with other people for you.
except that you do not know this person, you just spot that he is a bit shady, and you have no idea whether they can get a message to your contact (most likely they cannot…), so what you are doing now is establish new local connections through roleplaying and not relying on your background feature at all

The messengers are merely an explanation for how you get in touch with the contact. They're certainly not the only explanation, nor are they actually required.
we absolutely disagree on this one. They are your only way to inform your contact unless and until you establish new ones in game (or new contacts…)

See what I mean? You refuse to do anything to make it explainable because you insist on sticking to the exact phrasing. This is 100% you only going by RAW.
see the above? The RAW would have ended at ‘you know no messengers here’

I love how I'm supposed to just accept your opinion (and am being insulting if I don't), but my readings are "twisted" and "completely wrong."
you can take it or leave it, I do not really care, but I am not seeing you offering anything but your opinion either, and as far as I can tell yours is less supported by the actual description than mine, so…
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I mean, how do you figure some fiction (people you know or who know you) can be "established at the table" without it being "established through gameplay"? To me, the two phrases I’ve enclosed in quotation marks are synonymous!
They're not.

Establishing something at the table can be done through out-of-character discussion that might not even take place during a session. For example, getting together with the player of a sailor-background character at the pub during the week and sorting out where-when she did her sailing etc. and maybe even who some of her captains were establishes those things when brought to the table next session; and yet no actual play was involved.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
See what I mean? You refuse to do anything to make it explainable because you insist on sticking to the exact phrasing.
For these purposes, we have to stick to the exact phrasing for two reasons:

1 - because the "exact phrasing" is all we have from the designers
2 - because the "exact phrasing" will inevitably be at the core of any player-DM disputes over this.

That the exact phrasing used is pretty much garbage doesn't mean we can just ignore it, because otherwise all we're discussing is everyone's different ways and means of ignoring-changing-houseruling said exact phrasing; and that'll never get anywhere. :)
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I am pretty sure I have a better idea about what I am opposed to than you do…
And yet you never show it. All you do is complain about the RAW.

except that you do not know this person, you just spot that he is a bit shady, and you have no idea whether they can get a message to your contact (most likely they cannot…), so what you are doing now is establish new local connections through roleplaying and not relying on your background feature at all
Except that, as I said, your background is what makes this possible, either with relatively little difficulty or at all. If you're not a criminal, other criminals have less reason to be willing to work with you and may refuse to do so entirely.

we absolutely disagree on this one. They are your only way to inform your contact unless and until you establish new ones in game (or new contacts…)
Nope. They are not the only way to talk to your contact. I have provided you with many ways to do so, including several different spells and magic items, messenger pigeons or similar creatures, and hiring messenger services.

And in case you didn't get it, this is a major reason why I'm saying you care only about RAW. If you didn't care about RAW, if the plausibility was really all that mattered, then you would not be saying "the messengers are your only way to inform your contact." Instead, you'd be coming up with lists of potential methods.

Instead, you're just saying, "Using sending is just like your opinion. And it's a wrong opinion, because you can only talk to the contact this one way."
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
For these purposes, we have to stick to the exact phrasing for two reasons:

1 - because the "exact phrasing" is all we have from the designers
2 - because the "exact phrasing" will inevitably be at the core of any player-DM disputes over this.

That the exact phrasing used is pretty much garbage doesn't mean we can just ignore it,
By sticking to the exact phrasing, you mean that mamba and Oofta should have to not only use those features, but allow them to function everywhere, all the time. Right?
 

mamba

Legend
And yet you never show it. All you do is complain about the RAW.
that is flat out wrong, I repeatedly said they would have an easier time identifying criminals and establishing connections

Except that, as I said, your background is what makes this possible, either with relatively little difficulty or at all.
the background, yes, the feature, no, it is entirely irrelevant to what I described above. The feature however means that in your local region you already have established such connections.

Nope. They are not the only way to talk to your contact. I have provided you with many ways to do so, including several different spells and magic items, messenger pigeons or similar creatures, and hiring messenger services.
none of which have anything to do with the feature, stop lumping everything and the kitchen sink into the feature

And in case you didn't get it, this is a major reason why I'm saying you care only about RAW. If you didn't care about RAW, if the plausibility was really all that mattered, then you would not be saying "the messengers are your only way to inform your contact." Instead, you'd be coming up with lists of potential methods.
when it comes to the feature, the messengers are how you communicate, I am not sure why you have such a hard time focusing on the feature

Instead, you're just saying, "Using sending is just like your opinion. And it's a wrong opinion, because you can only talk to the contact this one way."
sending has nothing at all to do with the feature either

If your whole point is the feature says you have a contact, so there are different ways to get information to them, e.g. through sending, then yes, you can, if you have access to sending or other magical means. If you do not then you might have access to messengers, depending on where you are, then I agree. The discussion is about when the messengers are available however, so in that case I am not sure why you keep brining up things that are irrelevant to this
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top