Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6551869" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Well, I'm not trying to win an argument here, nor do I have any illusions that anything I say is going to change your mind specifically. Nor do I want to. I may be reading something into your posts that isn't there, but based on the tone and language you seem to be trying to convince everybody that your position is the right and only position. That's just not the way this game, and these rules, are written.I'm just looking at how I (and my players) have interpreted the rules. I can't stand the term DM Fiat, however accurate it may be, but in my campaign it's DM/Player Fiat because we make the decisions together. Occasionally I've held the extra vote, but it's rare. In many if not most cases it's the opposite because if that's the rule the group wants, I can work with it.As for whether the MM is for NPCs or PCs, the text for the imp says, "Imps can be found in the service to mortal spellcasters..." There is nothing that specifies any limitation to NPCs or warlocks. If you want to interpret it that way so it doesn't spoil your fun at being a warlock, that's fine.The real point is that you are welcome to interpret it that way. It doesn't make it right. I interpret it differently. That doesn't make it right either. Except we're both right, in our own campaigns.Who says? Is there a D&D conversation etiquette rulebook someplace that I missed that said earlier editions of the same game are now invalid, null and void?Whether earlier editions had warlocks or not doesn't negate the impact earlier editions have. I've been running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms since 1987. Some of the players have remained consistent, most have not. In addition to the published history I have my campaign history. So earlier editions have a huge impact in how we interpret the rules. Earlier editions also had a definite impact on the writing and development of the 5th edition rules. Yes, the rules should work on their own without reference to or requiring earlier editions. But for those of us that have been playing through the various editions it's nice that they work well with the earlier editions. The 4th edition did not play nice with the earlier editions (at least not for us) so we didn't use it much.That doesn't mean that the world doesn't change as the editions change. We like the new concentration rules and the bulk of the new spellcasting rules. The fact that the way magic works has changed (again) isn't a big deal. Saying that somebody's wizard can't keep his faithful familiar anymore, particularly when there are written rules, in one of the core rulebooks that says otherwise is. Of course, as a home campaign, we can allow it regardless.We use most of the core classes as is. We've added a few additional variations (Archmage - a generalist, and Incantatrix - a new path of sorcerer. Because of the disassociative nature of the new fighter rules we made a lot of changes there. Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification