I appreciate the clarification!<- That was what my laugh-like was for (the rest is a thumbs-up-like).
I appreciate the clarification!<- That was what my laugh-like was for (the rest is a thumbs-up-like).
Of course not. No one has once suggested that you have to do it the same way. They've just disagreed with your characterization of their use of it as NONSENSE. Again, you're acting like the other side is telling you that your way is wrong, while telling them that their way is wrong.yes, they could get lucky, I said earlier that you can find a way / excuse. To me that does not mean I am obligated to do so every time however
No, it doesn't have to be either of those things. They are, again, mischaracterization of what's been discussed.That means you know the local messenger wherever you happen to be. That either means 1) you know all messengers there are, all across all the worlds and planes and 2) they exist all across the world and planes to ensure there always are local messengers or 3) you know a handful or so of messengers and miraculously one of those is always wherever you find yourself
And yet, you persist on calling any way that is different to how you'd do it as nonsense.If you however agree that neither one makes sense and are ok with the unlikely but not impossible coincidences you go with, then I am not belittling you, I just very rarely would do the same
if no one claims it should always work, that there are cases where it very unlikely but unlikely things can happen, then we can end it right here. What you say is not nonsense, I just would probably not use that long shot as often as you do.Of course not. No one has once suggested that you have to do it the same way. They've just disagreed with your characterization of their use of it as NONSENSE. Again, you're acting like the other side is telling you that your way is wrong, while telling them that their way is wrong.
if you always know the local messengers, no matter where you go, then these are the two options. If you have a third one, I’d like to hear itNo, it doesn't have to be either of those things. They are, again, mischaracterization of what's been discussed
To start, the DM has discretion in D&D to say no. It is stated. But, if we interpret the writing:The more I read that feature, the more I believe it is intended to be local, not universal (you know the local messengers…). In any case, nothing will convince you and I feel I said everything more than once already, so I won’t continue this topic with you
if no one claims it should always work, that there are cases where it very unlikely but unlikely things can happen, then we can end it right here. What you say is not nonsense, I just would probably not use that long shot as often as you do.
That is not how I understand it however. If someone insists that it has to always work, then to me it means they have to insist on one of the two options I mentioned, and yes, both are nonsensical, nothing I can do about that
if you always know the local messengers, no matter where you go, then these are the two options. If you have a third one, I’d like to hear it
to me the messengers and others are the way to get messages to your contact. Implicitly that means you can contact the messengersTo start, the DM has discretion in D&D to say no. It is stated. But, if we interpret the writing:
"You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver the message for you."
The wording is clearly problematic:
- It states you have a contact (singular), yet you know local messengers, caravan masters, and sailors (plural). Now if it said, "specifically, you can use you liaison to contact local messengers..." then it might make sense.
that is because caravans and sailors do not tend to stay local, but to me that still means we are talking about the ones that make a stop in your local area
- Second, it phrases the three you know as a list. Meaning the "local" adjective does not carry over to the caravan masters and sailors. If they wrote it like this: "specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters and seedy sailors, who can deliver the message for you." then I think the local argument might have some weight. But it is a list, not an appositive. Therefore, local does not attach to the other items on the list.
your contact is the one that can reach other criminals. the contact is likely is a criminal themselves and you all are likely part of that same network
- And let us not forget the oxymoron that is a "reliable and trustworthy" contact to a network of "other" criminals. Does that mean they are a criminal or are they referring to you as the criminal. The way this is phrased, it means the liaison is also a criminal.
Yes, that's how I'd read it; but then how do you know them?Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, the alternative is the messengers are local to the place in which you are.
I know a few people in the UK but the odds of me happening to bump into one of them by chance were I to suddenly find myself in London would be near-zero low.So the fact you probably don't know somebody on every single plane of existence means it's completely unbelievable that you know somebody on one of them?
It's what they wrote.Which makes the feature useless in any game that isn't tied to a specific location. Do you really think that's what the designers intended, to have a trait that is useless 95% of the time?
I think the intention was that the DM and player would work together to create an appropriate contact, organization, network, or whatever best fits the campaign. The list they provide, I suspect, was only meant to inspire.Yes, that's how I'd read it; but then how do you know them?
And it's not "you might know the local messengers"*, it's straight-up "you know the local messengers"; which makes it automatic.
* - if that key word 'might' was in there, all this discussion would be moot.