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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 7508627" data-attributes="member: 6688277">Agree.In some tables, deities take a direct interest in their faithful, in others they are distant to not there, same with Patrons. Sometimes it depends on the deity or patron. This is usually discussed early on between player and DM, DM and table.If a character were stripped of magical powers in a game, I would have to adjudicate it on a case by case basis. It has never come up in my games, but I definitely agree it is in the within the realm of the DM.Can a DM be a doosh about it? Absolutely yes. Hence you have rpgs that limit that sort of scope by the DM. And that is fine too. It can, it however doesn't have to be. In all likelihood that is how I would deal with most issues such as this - a complex story challenge. Per RAW, the DM need only call for the die when uncertainty exists on an action declaration. So for instance, the Archbishop might just be an unreasonable man, with no chance to change his mind. I would not call for a persuade check then. That is not to say other avenues might not exist, but if none do - then that would also be acceptable.I imagine, in my games, that if such a hard force was applied, then it would be integral to developing the storyline. i.e. the Archbishop was secretly the main BBEG or he was being possessed and it was still to be revealed to the PCs.But when it is finally revealed, it all makes cohesive sense within the story and it wasn't just because the DM was being dickish. The applied force also can act as a clue towards the investigation.</blockquote>

Verification