NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9471112" data-attributes="member: 42582">There's no problem. The reason there's no problem is because any given table is likely to take one of the following three approaches, none of which creates a problem:* The player and GM are both ignorant of who the patron is, and the GM plays the patron "vaguely and sparingly" (to borrow [USER=48965]@Imaro[/USER]'s language) until the PC reaches level 3; * The player tells the GM who their patron is, and the GM players the patron accordingly; * The GM forms their own view of who the patron is, and plays the patron accordingly. When the PC reaches 3rd level, the relationship between the PC build choice the player wants to make, and the GM's view of who the patron is, can then resolve itself. There are many ways this could happen, depending on the details of the fiction as well as they way the table in question distributes authority between player and GM over PC build elements.If there's some other approach that you think will cause problems, it's not at all clear to me what that is.By all accounts the book is selling, and I'm fairly confident the class in question will see use.This is an empirical conjecture. Is there any evidence that it's true? I don't see it.At 3rd level the player makes a mechanical choice, about PC build, that is connected to their warlock patron. Nothing about the mechanical structure of PC build precludes the player and/or GM making decisions, from 1st level if they like, about who the patron is.</blockquote>

Verification