Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 8298738" data-attributes="member: 11760">I don't think there's a way to do it "properly."Some folks want the classes to be mechanistic game design constructs only, with the fluff immaterial, which is perfectly fine.Some folks want the classes to be subject to a lot of table rules and DM input, which is also perfectly fine.The problem comes when Group A wants Group B to play the same way they do, or vice-versa. Everyone should find a group style that works for them and talk things through with their group and DM if there's a clash of expectations.As a DM, I don't want to have to have a player-facing track that determines when an NPC's behavior will change. At that point, I'd be a baseball referee, calling balls and strikes and little else.That said, I am completely sympathetic to folks who don't trust their DM (or generic DMs) if they give them a club with which to beat them to death. I have certainly put my players' characters through the ringer over the years, but "ha ha, you lost all your powers, sucks to be you" isn't something I would do. But I have been on the other end of that in the 1E days, when DMs were often adversarial.I think the Piety track sounds like a good idea, except it means that only the 1:1 relationship between the caster and their deity/patron matters, when I, as a DM, would want those entities' needs, desires and behavior to sometimes change due to things outside of the player character's control. If a war in Heaven breaks out, and the god's metaphysical back is up against the celestial wall, maybe the god doesn't care that the cleric has been a mostly good cleric; right now, they need abject obedience and they need it now. That means either throwing out the Piety track that has been the controls on how the god treats the cleric, or being constrained by it.This is kind of a trust fall situation: If you can trust your DM not to screw you, it opens up lots of additional options for all involved. If you can't, a more mechanistic approach makes more sense, so that you don't end up getting screwed over.</blockquote>

Verification