Search results

Deliberate rudeness is generally frowned upon on this board.

Clerics can and should heal people, just not in the moment after the PC dropped so the player still gets to take their turn without missing a beat. At the very least they shouldn't be able to do that from range.

There's a difference between being anti-growth and constantly pushing to make the most profit possible by any legal means.

This is where there are IMO better versions of D&D that provide more support for the other pillars for all classes.

One could argue (I would argue) that the play loop of classic D&D led to "name" level benefits like strongholds and domain play. So actually, you are getting enough money and fame to have a comfortable home from which to launch higher level concerns.

I prefer option 1 over option 2.

Or dirty telephones.

The ability to leave if a consensus can't be reached.

All of those associations either still have a designated person who gets the final word, an emergent individual who gets their way more often than not, or a severe impediment in making and executing decisions.

Often the force is simple inertia. No one else has a better idea or one they are more excited about.

Whoever said the leader is infallible? They're still the leader.

Yeah, in my experience a leader will emerge in any social situation if one is not designated, and if one is designated it's no guarantee it won't be challenged. Said emergent de-facto leader tends to be the person with the strongest opinions and/or personality. This doesn't mean they always get...

That is definitely a thing sometimes in some games.

I'm actually not a huge fan of in-combat healing anyway. I really don't care for the "whack-a-mole" effect it often engenders.

It's true that I only run homebrew campaigns. I've never run a published adventure straight, just use them as fodder for my setting.

Sure, if they work for you.

So your position is, " I don't like the traditional GM/player power dynamic and want it to be different"? You should have just said that in the first place. It would have saved a lot of confusion.

Sure, absolutely. What they don't get to do in my campaign is ignore their patron entirely because they like the Warlock mechanics.

Final say in what sense? How far does that go? I can think of several ridiculous extremes that could follow from your claim.

Because in practice most GMs aren't merciless tyrants looking for squeeze their players into submission. Sorry to burst your bubble on that.