Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steampunkette" data-source="post: 9469177" data-attributes="member: 6796468">Nah. It doesn't say that.It says that all warlocks have a mysterious whisper that they make a deal with, unknowing who they're making a deal with until 3rd level.If you -want- to start your game at 3rd level, which is not the presumption D&D makes, then you get your patron at the start of the game... But still not at 1st level, at the start of your character's career.It's definitely true that it's the same across all classes that they get archetypes at 3rd level...But that's not good game design. That's just homogenization. It's also not narratively cohesive to assume that Robert Johnson didn't know it was the Devil he was making a deal with at the Crossroads that fateful night.Okay. so all Warlocks start at 3rd level, Fighters and everyone else start at 1st.Nah, friend. If the game requires a house-rule to provide the core narrative elements of a character class that should be a part of it from the 1st level on, that's inelegant. That requires the system's standard practices to be ignored in order to fix an issue of narrative structure.You clearly understand that's not what I'm claiming so this is just an argument to ridiculousness.Nope. But it is a thing. It's a thing they've previously talked about doing, decided to do, and then did. And the majority of the negative feedback they got about it, if you'd care to go look at the Survey Results, was that because different classes got their archetypes at different levels they felt "Unevenly Distributed".And now... gasp. They've changed where all classes get their archetypes to the -same levels-. What a weird and totally unrelated coincidence.Again, this is not elegance or good design. This is called a Kludge. It's a way to get around a problem without actually addressing the problem.Which makes more sense:Option 1 happens a lot in literature and media. It is the inspiration for the character class. It is the default assumption with other storytelling choices being a choice which modifies the narrative.Option 2 happens sometimes in media. It's not the inspiration of the character class. It is the default assumption with other storytelling choices being a choice which adds a narrative that doesn't exist in the default.To me, if you wanna make a class about a Romantic Knight of Arthurian Legend you make the class be a knight of Arthurian Legend from 1st level on, because that's what you're trying to give to your players. If you want Archetypes at level 3 for that character, you create various Romantic Knight of Arthurian Legend specializations that give specific bonuses to courtly romance and questing.You don't make a Squire that becomes a Knight at 3rd level.Do you maybe make some options and a sidebar about storytelling fluff of how someone could RP their Romantic Knight character as a Squire for the first few levels? Sure. Do you include the suggestion that someone could take a few levels of Fighter to use them as "Squire Mode" before they become a Knight? Sure. Do you note that someone who wants to play Gawain, who was not a 'Worldly Knight' could instead take a few levels of Paladin before taking the Knight class? Absolutely cool.But the class should be, from the start, what the class is meant to be.2024 "Provided" the default assumption with mechanical enforcement that you do not -have- a Patron before 3rd level. You have pact magic and invocations from a "Mysterious Benefactor" and then get a Patron at 3rd level.And as noted in other posts, new players and new DMs are going to read this and take it as the "Right Way" to play with all other "Options" (I.E. the things that fulfill the narrative conceits of warlocks across media) being the "Wrong Way" to do things.After all, starting above 1st level is a house rule/option, not the default assumption.Holy crap you're just not getting it at all, are you? Mages of Strixhaven doesn't need to be a core campaign setting for the mechanical principle of cross-class archetypes to become a thing. The fact that they showed interest in doing it, said they were going to do it, then did it is the point. Not "You have to use this specific setting!11!!1!eleven!"The facepalm I have for this statement is staggering.The "Numerous other play opportunities that didn't exist previously" are "Play with a mysterious benefactor that you don't know 'til 3rd level!" and...That's it. It's also the default assumption. And explicitly pushes all other conceits out the window.But go off, I guess.Are you just not reading what I'm writing or is there some other misunderstanding, here?No. It doesn't. See? I can be pointlessly contrarian without any kind of argument to support my statements, too.Good to know you know what I want and think and believe better than I do. While you're at it, can you tell me where I left my good hair brush? You must know, since you know what is in my mind better than I do.This is laughable.I hope someday you find someone as devoted to you as you seem to be devoted to this ridiculous design decision.</blockquote>

Verification