Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6761646" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Oooookay, it sounds like this is a pretty raw nerve for you, Arial. All I can really say is that I don't think, even under these circumstances, that it's THAT odd. Wearing a rapier might be normal for a Lord, but slumming it in taverns and fighting dragons doesn't sound like it. But if this has occurred, and deeply offended you as a result, I really don't know what to say. Your characters--and your groups--sound like they're rather unusual for completely avoiding the usual places Adventurers haunt (wilderness hikes, tombs, caves, ruins, and military fortifications) and completely utterly thoroughly trying to avoid even the barest hint of being mercenary-types, instead being among the handful of people with a justification for their wealth, their social status, and their abilities.The vast majority of characters aren't lords and ladies, courtiers, captains of the monarch's guard, or any other high-ranking official. They lack a convenient explanation for their abilities. They don't have the Magic Initiate feat*, and thus can't have invisible armor. They're not already rich, and thus need to find sources of income (be they jobs undertaken or dungeons delved).Though...I do kinda have to wonder, what other reason would a noblewoman, a courtier, and the captain of the monarch's guard approach a particular burgh's governor immediately after slaying a dragon?*Unless this is just the same character mentioned twice, I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here you know. It's a little hard to fault a DM who isn't used to "I can take a feat that lets me have better light armor than money can buy, except it's invisible." That's...pretty much unique to 5e as far as I can tell, and if you're using it frequently, I kinda think it's unfair to get so upset by people not connecting the dots on it. Have you told the DM(s) in question that your character emphatically, intentionally, specifically does NOT "look like an adventurer" and that it would offend him (and certainly seems to offend you) when he is referred to as one?</blockquote>

Verification