Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6426932" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that's not necessarily true.For instance, if someone said that the point of the game is to participate in the creation of a compelling episode of fantasy adventure, I'd find that pretty reasonable.Or, if someone siad that the point of their D&D game is to beat the dungeon, I'd find that pretty reasonabl too.In either case, the flavour text is a means to an end.I don't think this is true either. Using the rules to build a PC isn't any sort of expression of that PC's actions inside the gameworld. It's building a character to play, not playing that character.Most of the time, too, using an inspiration point doesn't correspond to anything that a PC is doing in the game. Nor does a fighter player spending an action point necessarily correspond to anything that the fighter is doing in the game - it opens up the opportunity to declare more actions, but I don't see that it is, itself, an action taken by the PC.I guess that would be one way of doing it.But nothing in the rulebooks says that Cleric/Warlock is not a permissible and functional multi-class choice. So another way of going would be to work out what is it about the god and the patron such that swearing an oath to the latter is not a problem for the former.</blockquote>