Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 9809400" data-attributes="member: 6704184">No. Not at all. This is objectively not the case. The patron showing up and bugging their warlock as they make camp in the 2nd session of the campaign, at level 2, is completely allowed within the rules, and does not have any effect on the fact that at level 10 the Warlock gains the new ability to call upon their Patron with a known and reliable method that is in their hands. I don't understand what is causing you to not see the difference between the two things. false.Nonsense. If you didn't have a conversation with the player about their patron, then don't bring them in until the patron has been decided upon, sure, but it's general best practice to have that discussion before session 1 anyway. Cut the patronizing bull. It has nothing to do with bad experiences. It's a preference, and a perfectly valid one. falsefalsefalseComplete, unmitigated, unambiguous, falsehood. Then don't hobble yourself with a made up problem. No, they aren't. They could be, if the player and DM agree to run them that way, but they weren't in any of the actual games they are pulled from. Nope. Your misguided sense of superiority over people who don't play like you seems to be coloring your perspective here. Bull. Not only in that the statement is false taking at face value, but also in that the statement assumes something not in evidence. That is, that I am removing any possibility of the patron affecting player agency. Other PCs affect player agency. The King affects player agency. The only way to have pure player agency is to play solo. What is being discussed is whether or not the warlock class requires a toxic relationship between the PC and the Patron. You should stop trying to make the discussion be about something else. I better tell my wife that her Paladin can't roleplay anymore, I guess. or not, because this is nonsense. That sounds ridiculous. Like some hairbrained scheme of a DM that doesn't know how to encourage roleplay without using a hammer. isn't even relevant to this discussionExcept that you are inventing things for me to have said, because I have never said anything remotely like that. Not a fan of nuance, eh?No, I haven't, but okay. And you should reread what you quoted. Because no, I didn't say anything like that. I'll break the sentence down if needed. It does not say that the patron can't be or never is a god. It does not imply that. It doesn't point a weary traveller toward the fork in the road that leads to that. It says that the patron is quite likely not a god. Surely you get that this doesn't not mean that the patron is always not a god. Right? Like...right? Those are two wholly distinct statements. They mean different things. This isn't even a case of like..."I didn't mean it like that", it is literally a case wherein I did not say that. A wild exaggeration, at best. Some people express distaste for a given mindset. That isn't a declaration of war or a cry for emergency aide. It's a preference. It's a strong opinion. It is, at most, complaining about their DM being a jerk about their preference taking precedence over that of the player of the character involved. That isn't a game system thing, that is a player thing. It isn't inherent to the game.</blockquote>

Verification