Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 8653467" data-attributes="member: 5948"><p>I'd say no.&nbsp; Riffing on some optimised online power build is a red flag for me for starters, but to each their own.&nbsp; But as others have said, the player wants to have his cake and eat it too.&nbsp; Wants an 2nd level warlock class feature but doesn't want to disrupt his power build to get it.&nbsp; Pretty much every PC has class features they don't (or rarely) use - it seems a bit rich to ask for one of the most powerful invocations as a trade, especially as there's already a perfectly RAW method of getting access to it via a feat.&nbsp; But it'd depend on table style.&nbsp; Personally I'd take a dim view of this sort of nakedly mechanics-driven class dip (why does the PC suddenly decide to stop focusing on his pact with his patron after his first adventure and start singing, anyway?) but it'd depend on your table.&nbsp; If you're running a very optimised party, then it'd be arguably less of an issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="humble minion, post: 8653467, member: 5948"] I'd say no. Riffing on some optimised online power build is a red flag for me for starters, but to each their own. But as others have said, the player wants to have his cake and eat it too. Wants an 2nd level warlock class feature but doesn't want to disrupt his power build to get it. Pretty much every PC has class features they don't (or rarely) use - it seems a bit rich to ask for one of the most powerful invocations as a trade, especially as there's already a perfectly RAW method of getting access to it via a feat. But it'd depend on table style. Personally I'd take a dim view of this sort of nakedly mechanics-driven class dip (why does the PC suddenly decide to stop focusing on his pact with his patron after his first adventure and start singing, anyway?) but it'd depend on your table. If you're running a very optimised party, then it'd be arguably less of an issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification