Recent content by Paul Farquhar

The art in the end credits. Also Easter eggs in Killer of Killers.

Trachtenberg said he had ideas for more Predator stories. Not that he had ideas for a Badlands sequel. Prey and Killer of Killers were also left open ended.

A contract would only be appropriate for a devil patron. Demons, GOOs and fairies aren’t much into paperwork.

No it doesn’t. What part of “there are no rules” do you find so difficult to understand? The DM cannot take away player powers, they cannot prevent the player levelling up in a class. If a player says “my warlock has no patron” there is absolutely nothing in the rules the DM can do about it...

No they don’t. The there is no game mechanics attached to the patron. If a warlock decides that they don’t have a patron and their powers are the result of magitech experimentation performed on them, as one of my players did, the effect is absolutely nothing.

Exactly - this is up to the player to decide. A rogue might be a middle class landowner who decides to go on an adventure.

The Predator movies generally end with a cliffhanger of some sort. And usually it does not lead directly into a sequel, even when there is one (AvP is an exception). If there is another Predator movie I wouldn’t expect it to be a direct continuation of Badlands.

And do you force rogues to steal stuff?

There are, by design, no rules or penalties for completely ignoring it. Ergo it’s entirely up to the player to decide if they want to pay any attention to it or not.

You mean the ones removed in 5e? In 1st edition, the restrictions on the paladin were intended to balance the power of the class. About half way through the run of 3e WotC figured out that role play restrictions didn’t work for mechanical balance. Ergo, in 5e only mechanics figure into class...

It used to be cheaper when people could add up and used paper character sheets.

The rules are unclear, since they were never designed to deal with that issue - DDB has separate entries for +1 weapon and +1 axe for example. So the DM rules so as to avoid an outcome that is unfun (and allows the artificer to choose what kind of elemental they want every morning). One...

Generally speaking, I would treat the broad label (in this case "Elemental Gem") as the item type - A Blue Sapphire is not a different item from a Yellow Diamond, in the same way that a +1 Sword is not a different item from a +1 Axe. That would limit the artificer to one pet, which should be...

It's the DM's job to rule RAI, and and make sure that players don't play in such a way as to make the game less fun for other players. That's why you have a human do it, not a computer.

Indeed. Having lots of summons in a computer game isn't a gameplay problem because the computer does the work. You could have 20+ in BG1 until it was changed to cap at 5. But BG3 allows a lot of things that aren't allowed in the tabletop game, such as stacking damage riders.