Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7488557" data-attributes="member: 6689161">My argument is one size does not fit all.&nbsp; Where this effects multiclassing I suggest looking at the specific patron, pact and shared desire to have fun.&nbsp; From PHB:&quot;Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods.&quot;&quot;More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.&quot;No where does it suggest that powers once gained are revocable---much lessstate.&nbsp; I don't think it is rules lawyering to argue this is very simply what some people believe or choose vs. RAW or RAI.There is also a statement in PHB about deciding with DM about how big of a role the pact will play in the actual game.I don't think it's just whiny kids who might not prefer or believe that a character will immediately lose previously gained ability for crossing a patron (or have a hit squad to contend with).I prefer a world where the apprentice might rebel and maybe with help even face a patron later on.&nbsp; The text says a warlock completes tasks to learn and grow---I am more on board with stalling progression with a particular master than altering a warlock's previously gained abilities.I also prefer the big tent over patrons with some less Involved or even uncaring along With those who are whimsical and others who might try to dominate more (all consistent with PHB fluff).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warpiglet, post: 7488557, member: 6689161"] My argument is one size does not fit all. Where this effects multiclassing I suggest looking at the specific patron, pact and shared desire to have fun. From PHB: "Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods." "More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf." No where does it suggest that powers once gained are revocable---much less state. I don't think it is rules lawyering to argue this is very simply what some people believe or choose vs. RAW or RAI. There is also a statement in PHB about deciding with DM about how big of a role the pact will play in the actual game. I don't think it's just whiny kids who might not prefer or believe that a character will immediately lose previously gained ability for crossing a patron (or have a hit squad to contend with). I prefer a world where the apprentice might rebel and maybe with help even face a patron later on. The text says a warlock completes tasks to learn and grow---I am more on board with stalling progression with a particular master than altering a warlock's previously gained abilities. I also prefer the big tent over patrons with some less Involved or even uncaring along With those who are whimsical and others who might try to dominate more (all consistent with PHB fluff). [/QUOTE]

Verification