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: 9345479" data-attributes="member: 6915329">Absolutely nothing I've said has been a "wild excuse." That's your misinterpretation of what I'm doing, because you want to stick so heavily to RAW.Again, completely misinterpreting what I wrote.A criminal is going to be able to determine that someone else is a criminal. The DM may tell the PC that they automatically recognize a tattoo, scar, or other mark that's definitely means criminal. Or the DM may require an Intelligence or Insight roll--perhaps with a low DC or with advantage--to see if they know what criminals from other lands are like or if they can spot the tells. The player then roleplays and/or uses skills to determine if this person could potentially act as a messenger and/or knows the contact.Or--if the idea that they could get to their original contract is too "ridiculous"--this potential messenger could, with roleplay and/or skill rolls, be convinced to introduce the PC to someone who could eventually become a new contact. (There's literally nothing in the feature that says that the PC can only have a single contact, after all.) In either of these cases, the DM may decide that non-criminals can't do any of the above (niche protection), or they can attempt to make criminal contacts, but it's harder or riskier. See? Nothing automatic. No sudden knowledge at first sight. Instead, all it takes is for the DM to have the same level of judgement they have to use with practically every single other thing in the book.("But the background indicates its automatic!" To that I say, so $!&% what? Use your own judgement to decide if something is automatic or not.)As an example of something else requiring judgement, the charm person spell. The charmed person sees the caster as a "friendly acquaintance," and that's the only thing the spell's description says. So what, precisely, does that mean? <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some DMs will decide it means the charmed person will do anything for the caster that doesn't require too much effort or is dangerous.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some DMs will decide it means the charmed person will smile and say 'hi,' but that's about it.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some DMs will decide it means just like the charmed condition that dryads inflict and say that the charmed person will try to protect the caster and will believe everything they say and do what's asked of them.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Some DMs will go strictly by the book's definition of the condition and say that the charmed person will act exactly the same as before, but the caster just gets advantage on checks made to interact socially with them.</li> </ul>The DM has to use their judgement here, which will be based on a mixture of the DM's own social awareness and what will work best for the game--and that might mean that the spell will act differently at different times.And so, with the backgrounds, they don't need to go into huge amounts of detail, because you've seen how many pages we've been arguing over those details. All they require is that you use your judgement for the details, but let them work. You wouldn't shut down charm person just because the PHB doesn't define "friendly acquaintance," so don't shut down the background because it doesn't define every possible way it can be used. The PCs are on another plane? Let them find someone who will cast sending for them if they can't already cast it themselves, or let them find a new contact and new messengers.<Sigh> Not at all. The acolyte can get healing for free at any temple of their faith (provided they supply the material components), but only at their home temple can they get the priests to help them in other ways, especially ways that may prove to be dangerous.The criminal, presented in the same book, doesn't have any sort of similar limitation as to range, and in fact specifically says you can get in touch with your contact even at long distances. The writers, unless they were grossly incompetent when it came to editing for consistency, didn't feel that criminals needed the same sort limitations that acolytes had, or feel they needed to update the criminal in errata or later printings.Sure. And that is up to the DM to describe. But if the player made an acolyte of a god that wasn't some niche localized deity and the DM then tells them that their faith covers only a few square miles and they'll never be able to use that feature anywhere outside of that, the player would probably feel very cheated.I would assume they were written by different people who had different assumptions or writing styles. One writer felt the need to specify things. The other writer took it as a given.</blockquote>

Verification