Search results

Lower Decks is my favorite NuTrek, followed by Picard season 3 (mostly nostalgia), then SNW.

I do not care for that technique as a player OR GM. As a player I don't want to have control over anything beyond my PC, and as a GM I don't want my players to have control over anything outside of their PC. It is immersion-breaking for me.

What I would do under what circumstance? Did you have a scenario in mind? In general I would have fairly regular communication, in one way or another, between the PC and the patron (or perhaps their agent). During these times the patron would push their agenda, suggesting or maybe even ordering...

None if that reads as unique to me, just rare. It's certainly not IMO a good reason to restrict any ability to PC or NPC based on the narrative distinction between the two.

You can only have one King of Kingsland at a time too, pr one Slayer (at first). Unique at the moment does not mean no one else could ever learn this or be this.

Either side can go as far as they want, subject to the social contract for their group, and any campaign parameters established in session 0. As far as CR is concerned, very roughly, there were two warlock PCs. Both communicated with their patrons (and they with them) regularly throughout the...

There's a clear path to Spellfire another person could conceivably follow, once the old wielder is dead.

A buddy of mine played it at Gencon and couldn't say enough good things about it.

It could mean a lot of things. There were warlocks in multiple seasons of Critical Role, for example, and they're patrons seemed to matter quite a bit. What they don't have to mean is a loaded gun to the warlock's head. Trust rears its ugly head again.

I don't recall anyone pushing that. I do recall you immediately drawing that conclusion from "I want a warlock's patron and their pact to matter in the campaign".

Still seeing a lot of absolute statements from your corner.

What about if we threaten to have the patron you chose when you chose to play a warlock actually matter in the campaign?

Why would anyone have unique abilities that no one else could have?

Because mechanical balance is not my primary concern. Setting logic and verisimilitude are.

There's your issue. Asauming lack of evidence is evidence of lack.

Who ever said the default relationship between a God and their faithful is one of love? That the Christian belief, according to Scripture, but hardly universal across time and space.

This is why we're never going to agree regarding player-GM relations.

Thank goodness you're not being over the top hyperbolic about it. I'm sure that's exactly what they and I are talking about. I can be sarcastic too.

I said mechanics follow fiction. That's my ideal, but it's not a mad absolute ride or die like so many of your statements of other people's opinions read like. And as I've said before, the only use I see for a la carte multiclassing is for A5e's synergy feat system, which requires 3 levels each...

Because you want to play a character class with that narrative, and you trust your GM won't a be a jerk to you but rather, wants your choice of class to actually matter in the campaign? Hard to accept, perhaps, but that's my answer, and I haven't been screwed over yet.