@Rubiksmoose My answer is probably "still don't" and just tell the players (and let them act in character), but that's making assumption about the ability of the players to separate character and player knowledge (something I've recently found is not a given by a long shot in a recent game I'm a player in)
@DavidCoffron yeah I really just can't see this ending well. What is the goal/endgame? Will the PC redeem themselves? Are they just ok with dying at the hands of their former allies? Will they become an NPC?
@Rubiksmoose Nah. That could be a fun Manchurian candidate story arc. Similar to that hidden hydra thing. The players have to sort out which of them is crazy/hypnotized/etc
@goodguy5 ugh, the only thing worse than surprise PC traitors in the party is surprise PC traitors in the party that only work because the DM cheated it to work.
@Yuuki I hope you mean that the Marvel comics one did not (one I haven't looked at) because Captain America: Winter Soldier (and the corresponding Agents of Shield episodes) are among my favorites
@ColinGross I would argue then that a good storyteller would change the endpoint or let it be difficult. Unless you have buy-in to make some leaps which you establish beforehand.
It might work for some groups, but for some it would be campaign-ruiningly bad to do this.
@Rubiksmoose That can make it easier, but is by no means required. I'd like to assume that the storytellers that play table top are good for their table unless they're specifically asking about a problem.
@DavidCoffron Definitely, I was unfortunately taking "standard" D&D as my reference point here based on the question at hand, but genre definititely affects those expecations.
@ColinGross hmmm I would like to be able to assume this, but I have been a part of too many campaigns by new and experienced DMs alike that went poorly because of mismatched or diverging expectations.
Part of the issue being that what is good for the players often shifts over time.
And there are many super common pitfalls that a DM can fall into
@Rubiksmoose We have different assumptions about people. I don't write answers to programming questions assuming no knowledge of the language constructs. We have to assume some level of proficiency.
@ColinGross Like I said, I've experienced big errors by DMs with years of experience. The assumption that table expectations are being dealt with appropriately is, in my experience, simply not a good one to make. I'm not saying your way of answering or experiences are wrong obviously, just that that will never be something I will assume.
@ColinGross I think that any sort of plot that deals with memory modification as a central mechanic absolutely needs to be thoroughly planned beforehand. You'd otherwise need some pretty experienced players to deal with post facto memory modification.
@Yuuki Or done in a way that the players "get it". I know my table's literary references that are picked up on quickly are very different than what I would expect of the general public.
@Yuuki I would expect the implementation to require some thought. Yes.
Difficulty with traitors is party goals as a whole. One of the most important thigns for a cohesive group is getting them to work together towards a common goal. Starting out with separate goals from the get-go is normally a recipe for disaster
I could totally see an infiltrant or spy in the group as working, but even in my more exerienced groups, an outright traitor would make a coherent story-line very difficult to work with (as what motivates the traitor to risk life and limb for adventures if he's ultimately going to turn on them anyway)
i mean the most recent critical role campaign started off a little like that and it was irritating to watch because there was just a ton of pointless debate about what to do
@SirCinnamon I prefer "you have a largely common goal with different motivations" if you want a bit of inter-group drabble
Then at least everyone can come back to a pragmatic "let's just get it done and figure the rest out later" approach if it gets too boggled down with debate
@DavidCoffron Yes, very much, or the "Different goals with very similar means to accomplish" like Rogue wants the Kings giant emerald and wizard wants to burn the kings copy of an ancient scroll or something - both require breaking into the kings castle
The Zone of Truth thing ought to suggest that maybe DnD and playing a traitor aren't really a good combination (at least without buy-in from the others)
Yeah, I get that it's hard for people to separate player knowledge from character knowledge (at least without experience) but this is one of the classic problems that arise when you put a premium on spontaneous reaction.
@SirCinnamon Wants to give the party an epic story... Paladin wants to rescue the kingdom, bard wants to travel and tell the news of their conquests, druid wants to bring the people into line with nature. Sadistic warlock wants them to die an epic death. /s
@kviiri Or have the player run an NPC recurring villain; I've had minimal success with that personally, but it is theoretically doable.
I can't remember when I posted it, but I had a bit of a diatribe on hiding plot-relevant information from players out of a mistaken sense of capturing real performance.
Except the castle was a good dragon I had put in the world just to make the area feel as epic as it's supposed to... and one player (only one player) wanted to fight it. Had to reign that in
Over a film auteur who, by definition (if my understanding is correct), are micromanaging donkeys who have a "vision" for how a story must go and all things must bend to their will to get it to happen.
I've been trying to start up a campaign involving Rise of Tiamat (one of the adventures I think they did mostly very well), but I can't find a group willing to start at level 8
And Hoard of the Dragon Queen is... well... not as well done (to say the least)
@Rubiksmoose Well I'd be running it through roll20 (an online tabletop website), and it is very rare to find sufficient quality applications for a high level game start
I was thinking about doing Dragon Heist -> Lost Shrine (ToTYP) -> Rise of Tiamat, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to tie those in (nor if there would be any interest)
Lost Shrine and RoT are my two favorite adventures I've read through and Dragon Heist is seemingly popular
@Yuuki Which is well enough (I'm running a very fun homebrew setting rn), but they are a lot of work. I kind of want a second game with a bit less prep
@DavidCoffron Yeah, I'm working as a bit of advisor and in-and-out guest player for this campaign (since I live really far from everyone else) and the set-up has been taking literal months.
On my laptop the menu with close votes, etc. is at top right, next to the notification and rep +/- icons. However on my phone only the notification and rep +/- icons appear. I can't find the open/close queue anywhere. Is there another way to access the open/close queue?
Well when it's from a deleted answer I don't feel as bad, but I downvoted without fully reading the answer and then changed my mind (thankfully it got edited); and got an upvote in the mean time that pushed me to the cap.
@Rubiksmoose I think when a bunch of people answer and vote in a short span of time it gets bumped there. (probably other factors too, but that's what I've gathered)
@Xirema there's a broad distinction, not an exclusive distinction, in re aracane and divine magic. For example, if one goes through the spell list one will find some spells that only paladins, druids, and clerics can cast ... uh, except when a bard poaches one with magical secrets, but then the spell becomes arcane by that exception. Or when a warlock poaches some rituals with a tome ... fuzzy ...
@DavidCoffron yeah there's obviously an algorithm (which takes into account the scores of the answers I think). The metas were posted above with descriptions of how it works.
@DavidCoffron Yeah, a bit more poaching, but thematically, deities domains would seem to me to overwrite the distinction as an exception to the general rule. But yeah, more fuzzy ...
And then there's the celestial warlock and the favored sorcerer ... divine soul? They Got Peanut Butter In My Chocolate!!!!!
@Xirema The celestial may use divine magic, but its influence in the warlock only allows the warlock to tap into arcane magic. A celestial is not a deity so as to grant access to divine magic (or it would have clerics instead)
The celestial's pact grants the warlock an "understanding—learned or intuitive—of the workings of the Weave." not "access to the Weave ... mediated by divine power—gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin’s oath."
This line: "Spells such as antimagic field rearrange the Weave so that magic flows around, rather than through, the area affected by the spell." is interesting
Makes me want to create a magic factory where antimagic fields compress magic by forcing it to go "around" into tight spaces
> A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. — Warlock, PHB, pg. 105
Although granted it does explicitly call out that their patrons are not gods.
But then Divine Magic isn't strictly the providence of Gods, either.
@Rubiksmoose It's a sacred binding betwixt in the multiversal cosmos (the paladin vows to follow certain tenants related to multiversal "codes"). At least that's me head canon
It's my only way to conflate the "not all paladins have to be good" and the explicit mentionings of good in most of the oaths
Probably they are technically getting their power ultimately from Ao (in my head canon)
@DavidCoffron Yeah, Ao's inscrutable ways are not for mere mortals to know, and I am pretty sure that most of the FR deities are as clueless as the mortals.
In any case, the text "sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity" refers specifically towards the relationship and has nothing to do with the other mechanics of the class.
It's almost a post hoc fallacy (seems to have similar psychological triggers from my lay's guessing)
Seeing the similarities (the correlation) as having higher meaning (the causation). I.e. Seeing that the source of understanding for the warlock can have divine connections as resulting in the divine power : divine magic connection is fallacious,.
@Yuuki has nothing to do with is an absolute statement that is inconsistent with the tone and style of the source that you are referring to. The vagueness and soft edges of a lot of the text in the PHB is deliberate, particularly in those kinds of descriptions. It leaves the door open to multiple ways to parse/interpret it.
@DavidCoffron I can also be the relation between cleric and deity in another form. A cleric serves a deity. A warlock serves a deity. Warlocks lead cults. It's in the class description. A cult may follow a deity, or something else.
I think you may be seeing, or seeking, a precision that is absent.
You can have a knowing or unknowing relationship (see the text for the Great Old One), a friendly or pragmatic, a surrogate, a cleric-like, a purely contractual, or a completely different relationship. You still use the warlock mechanics
We're only discussing the mechanical consequences of this relationship (which is none from what I can tell)
@KorvinStarmast A warlock can serve a deity, but that deity is not the source of a warlocks power. If a deity is giving a character power then it is a cleric
@DavidCoffron SO tomorrow, if I have the raven queen as my warlock's patron, you'll tell me I am having badwrongfun? If beings of lesser power than deities can be patrons, then it is within the power of a deity to do that if the deity so chooses.
> You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell—a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. [...] Because the Raven Queen is known to have forged the first of these weapons, many sages speculate that she and the force are one and that the weapons, along with hexblade warlocks, are tools she uses to manipulate events on the Material Plane to her inscrutable ends. — The Celestial, Xanathar's Guide to Everything
It's not that the Raven Queen can't be your patron. It's that even if she is, your warlock magic is not Divine Magic (proper noun, trademark, all rights reserved).
@DavidCoffron Missing my point, completely. Let's go back to here. If a being of lesser power than a deity can be a patron, then a deity has the power to be a patron. That isn't too hard to grasp, I don't think. And yes, Hexblade is a mess.
@Xirema But I think it's been updated (you may be quopting from the Unearthed Arcana version?)
> You have made your pact with a mysterious entity from the Shadowfell — a force that manifests in sentient magic weapons carved from the stuff of shadow. The mighty sword Blackrazor is the most notable of these weapons, which have been spread across the multiverse over the ages. The shadowy force behind these weapons can offer power to warlocks who form pacts with it. Many hexblade warlocks create weapons that emulate those formed in the Shadowfell. Others forgo such arms, content to weave the dark magic of that plane into their spellcasting.
Your assertion that a deity can't be a patron does not, to me, make sense. That a deity may find it more pleasing to have clerics and such is likely the default.
Actually to make sure we aren't yelling into the ether, I want to be doubly sure that there's a mechanical difference between Arcane and Divine magics.
How can it be read differently? "The beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are mighty inhabitants of other planes of existence—not gods, but almost godlike in their power."
@Yuuki As far as I am aware, the difference between Arcane and Divine magic in 5th edition is flavor only, not mechanical. And yeah, I know, "there is no such thing as flavor text in 5th edition, blah blah blah" Hail Sobek.
@DavidCoffron David, the focus on the word 'not' (again) is what has me back to this isn't computer code, but that's probably not a great way to end this ... so we'll need to disagree on this.
@KorvinStarmast D&D gods are not necessarily omnipotent. It is possible that gods have the power to grant divine spells but the power to grant invocation is on a god-by-god basis.
@Rubiksmoose That may be the distinction. I always come at rules discussion from RAW (because I think other discussions are non-objective; not in a bad way, just not the same type of debate)
I actually get what you mean by not computer code. I am reading very heavily into the statement that they are not gods, as though: All patrons are not gods,
@KorvinStarmast Of course being able to grant spells is what has them defined as gods, at least usually. Sometimes you just have a samurai with no samurai levels.
@DavidCoffron And I hope you understand my approach of if more powerful, then lesser included cases is available. @Zachiel Or Forces or Philosophies per DMG 10-13.
I'll concede that a less stringent reading can determine that the sentence is referring to patrons as general rule are not gods, and not applying a restriction to the class as a whole. (So any specific god could be a patron if they wanted to be)
@DavidCoffron In my game world, there are no deities like FR. THere are forces, philosophies, and such. In a given culture they may or may not assign a persona to an aspect of a Force or a Philosophy. I find that a lot easier to deal with. And with GOO, who knows?
@DavidCoffron speaking of cats, I just found out that Shalvenay's Tabaxi isn't svelte. In our latest adventure, he asked the foe who he had just pounced upon "How do you like wearing a 260 pound cat as a hat?"
Yeah, let's at least reopen it. Then, we'll ask them to move their edit from their question to an answer, and if they don't do that, then we'll create a Community Wiki answer for it.
> You can craft nonmagical objects, including adventuring equipment and works of art. You must be proficient with tools related to the object you are trying to create (typically artisan's tools). You might also need access to special materials or locations necessary to create it. For example, someone proficient with smith's tools needs a forge in order to craft a sword or suit of armor.
For every day of downtime you spend crafting, you can craft one or more items with a total market value not exceeding 5 gp, and you must expend raw materials worth half the total market value. If something …
I don't think I would let this fly personally. Simply because this is the price of a wizard learning a spell which is incredibly valuable. Though I'm not sure how much crafting would cut it down. Maybe if it was fun.
But crafting and fun don't seem to go together in 5e
I mean, even if we assume that the 50GP cost per level is half ink and half experimentation (because in-school spells's costs are halved)
Then that means that you would be able to save half the ink-cost, as you still need to spend half the raw components, and 5 days per spell level (25 gp / 5gp per day is 5 days).
It'd save you 1/4 of the cost of an out-of-school spell at the trade of 5 days per spell level.
AND it brings to mind a delightful image of a wizard who's fingertips are perpetually stained black/gold (I've always imagined that you literally melt coins into the ink)
For some reason I thought that using a Healer's Kit lowered the DC for a stabilization check from 15 to 10, instead of simply making it an auto-success. Anyone know where I could have gotten that misconception from?
> Festering Wound. Your hit point maximum is reduced by 1 every 24 hours the wound persists. If your hit point maximum drops to 0, you die. The wound heals if you receive magical healing. Alternatively, someone can tend to the wound and make a DC 15 Wisdom (Medicine) check once every 24 hours. After ten successes, the wound heals.
@SirCinnamon No I'm pretty sure it wasn't about it. It was more like something that happened me in one of my games... but it was not ranting about useless informations in overgrown moster statblocks, nor having been turned into a wererat cleric of Bane.
ProTip: always play the chorus to this song when casting the level 2 spell shatter and if you have it set as a ring tone on your phone, so much the better.
@goodguy5 They are the result of a "Eureka" moment (more or less) from messing with the weave and the "off screen" research and learning form the years before adventuring as an apprentice ... (and if you think about it, that's a little bit like coding in terms of you learn "x" in school but as you get out there and do it for real, a bunch of stuff comes together for you ... some learning by doing)
@goodguy5 From the PHB They learn new spells as they experiment and grow in experience. They can also learn them from other wizards, from ancient tomes or inscriptions, and from ancient creatures (such as the fey) that are steeped in magic. I'll check the PHB again later, as I thought there was a bit more on that ...
What is the general consensus for accepting an answer when there are multiple, near identical answers posted at the same time?
Not my question, but the question "Can a Bard use an arcane focus?"
has 2 answers that are near identical (and in my opinion both correct) and were posted within minutes...
On my laptop the menu with close votes, etc. is at top right, next to the notification and rep +/- icons. However on my phone only the notification and rep +/- icons appear. I can't find the open/close queue anywhere. Is there another way to access the open/close queue?
