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: 9344584" data-attributes="member: 6915329">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.You obviously haven't paid attention to a word I said if you think that's how I would interpret the smuggler.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 <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/do-you-plan-to-adopt-d-d5-5one2024redux.702682/page-341#post-9344044" target="_blank">claimed it did</a>. If anything, the phrasing in the Smuggler is even vaguer![ATTACH=full]363076[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification