Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faolyn" data-source="post: 9344188" data-attributes="member: 6915329">Or any of the options I've brought up in many of the previous posts I've made.So, you mean, in basically any D&D world, right? Because most of the currently-official D&D worlds and what I would imagine to be a huge chunk of homebrew worlds have a lot of magic and magitech in them. Or even regular tech. It's just that many DMs don't actually sit down and think of the ramifications of that magic. By RAW, sending stones are an uncommon item. Logically, that means that any decently-sized organization will have them, and if your PC is in good standing, they may get the other half of the pair. And sending itself is only third level. And the sky's the limit if you go for homebrew items and spells, or converting things from earlier editions.I googled "D&D long-range communication" and found interesting concepts such as "magic mouth telephone" (no idea how that would work, but the idea sounds cool), "magically enhanced pigeons," and regular messenger services like runners or a pony express, and a homebrew <a href="https://fullmoonstorytelling.com/2022/01/29/far-talkers-converse-over-miles-with-this-dd-background/" target="_blank">background</a>. Not to mention using all sorts of spells.OK, so maybe you have a low-magic world. Cool. I like those. You still have messenger guilds and normal homing pigeons (or other homing animal; low magic doesn't mean no weird creatures, after all). Anyway, show me where the feature says that you're expected to get a reply quickly. And who says that you even need a reply? Sure, for many messages you want one, but just as many are going to be reports or warnings, with no replies necessary. You're interpreting "can send a message" to mean "if they don't get a reply back instantly, it's useless," but that's waaaay out there.I have given you dozens of options over the last hundred pages. You choose to ignore them because you can only focus on the worst-case scenario, which you only even think about because you are trying to go by the strictest RAW possible instead of by RAI or Rule of Cool. Do you go by this strict an interpretation of RAW for any other aspect of the game? Do you refuse to let your players take a long rest until they've had 6-8 Medium Encounters in a day? Do you actually let people grapple a gelatinous cube and not take damage because the cube can't Engulf the PC while grappled? Do make it so that people who can see invisible creatures still attack them at disadvantage? Do you insist that cats can't jump because they have a negative Strength modifier, but elephants can jump in D&D (even though they can't jump in real life)?I mean, seriously. You want to talk about illogical and ridiculous? It's this insistance of yours that you can't use this feature unless you personally know the messenger.Please show me concrete examples of games you've been in where people have tried to use this feature across many worlds. Can you show me more than one?Because if you can't, then all you're doing is dismissing a feature simply because there's a nonzero chance that it may be used in a way you don't like. How is that logical? That makes as much sense to me as those DMs who nerf sneak attack damage because they think it's OP and takes away from fighters.And if you can, then that just indicates to me that your players want a very different type of game than you do.If by "strenuous interpretations" you mean "primary definitions," then sure.</blockquote>

Verification