Our last adventure ended with the PCs arriving in Rhosgobel. Two of the PCs took the "Heal Corruption" undertaking. The 3rd PC, having nothing urgent to do, wanted to take Radagast as a Patron. Since their mission was to bring a message from Dale to the wizard, it seemed appropriate.

However, I felt a little funny letting a single player taking that undertaking. I was under the impression that, like the "Open new sanctuary" undertaking, it required the entire group. But since a cursory read in-game didn't find any reference of the sort, I allowed the player to take the undertaking.

Reading again the description after the game, it mentions several times the company, as if this should be a Company undertaking as opposed to an individual undertaking. But nothing seems to prevent it explicitly.

What do you all think about this?

Should I allow Meet Patron as an individual undertaking (I think so)?
Should it be reflected in-game that the Patron has a special relationship only with that PC? Would it complicate things adventure-wise?

As written the Meet Patron requires the entire company.

I think allowing a single character to do it would kind of throw things off. That means the whole company could technically benefit from him being a Patron without actually taking the time to acquire him. Admittedly the benefits are vague at best.

But story-wise I doubt a Patron would patronize a single character if they are part of a group. I would want to know everyone whom I was having do things in my name.

Mythicos74

The key phrase is at start of the Fellowship phase chapter of the Adventurer's Book, p.168:

A Fellowship phase is a session of play driven by the players’ choices - during a Fellowship phase they get to elaborate upon their characters’ stories and ambitions. The Loremaster is the final judge regarding the interpretation of the rules, but is invited to sit back and follow what his players have to say about their characters."

Use this passage as a guide to any choices the players want to do, so with this in mind, I don't see any problem with the idea of 'individual patrons' - in fact it is often the case with starting characters. It is then the Loremaster's job to figure out what impact this has on the campaign. It could even lead to some conflicts of interest -Patron A wants the party to do this, but Patron B wants the party to do this!

"At the start of the game, two important personalites are particularly suited for the role of patrons: Beorn and Radagast" . What is said about the undertaking Meet Patron (p.171-172) also supports the idea of individual patrons.

But use the passage on p.168 as your guide for ALL Fellowship phase activities - I actually allow more than one Undertaking if I think the PC will be able to complete said undertaking within the time frame.

Robin S.

I would think that 'Meet Patron' is possible for an individual player-hero, but unlikely, unless he is spending a Fellowship phase alone, away from the rest of the company. Otherwise, I would say the entire company should choose 'Meet Patron.'

Wow, three answers, three different opinions

I'll have to think some more about this, but I particularly like what Robin writes...

If other people want to chime in, please do so!

Per RAW, it's a Company endeavor.

It could be handled individually, but doing so is divisive to the Company as a whole because the Patron is only going to accept that individual when he needs assistance.

Re-imagine the Council of Elrond in Rivendell except what would happen if Elrond decided that as Sam, Merry and Pippin didn't bother to obtain him a a Patron, he was going to exclude them from the remainder of events?

As we approach the War of the Ring, this situation becomes increasingly more likely as the Free Peoples require known and reliable assistants. Ones that can be trusted to oppose the Enemy and are unlikely to be swayed to his side. Its doubtful that a major Patron would entrust a vital campaign situation to one trusted person and a couple of his unknown buddies.

It is far more likely that the individual having the Patron is going to be asked to leave his buddies behind in order to accomplish a vital task with the aid of other well-known and trusted companions.

I don't find your ruling stated in the RAW or any posted errata. Can you provide a page reference and/or quote? Per my reading, it is quite explicitly an individual undertaking. The only explicitly cited group undertaking is the Open Sanctuary undertaking.

Also, to your point regarding the Council of Elrond, I think that is a great illustration of the undertaking being driven by the individual, not the group. Only Frodo was invited to the Council, the others had to sneak in. Clearly the Elves, and Elrond specifically, favor Frodo.

I inferred it from the following sentences myself

"A patron is a usually renowned or powerful personality, who may from time to time offer a company a purpose to go adventuring,"

"Companions may choose..."

"A company may have several patrons at the same time, if its members are able to satisfy the requirements to ensure their allegiance (very often, these characters ask something in return for their friendship)."

Each one of those implies the entire company since it does not use "A Player" or "A Character" which is the term all the individual ones use.

On the other hand, Open New Sanctuary explicitely requires the whole company:

That's what makes me hesitant: if Meet Patron required be RAW to have the whole company, there would be a passage similar to the one I quoted above.

Because of this, the parts you quote would make your interpretation a RAI more than RAW.

IMO of course.

Have you read the book? Because that's about as consistent as I expect the book to be. When it says player it means player, when it says company it means company. That's as the game consistent as it gets

Come on man, don't go there ... I quote the book and you ask me if I've read it?

I pointed out why I hesitate. You can disagree, and I have no problem with that, but there's a way to do it and it wasn't the way you did it.

First off let me say that I have not read the section on Patrons, but I have often thought that the gaining of patrons and opening of sanctuaries as being very odd. For example my character is a Woodman Warden, are you going to tell me that he doesn't know of places (sanctuaries in the rules) spread throughout the Vale where where he can go for rest during a Ranging? What is stopping him from taking the rest of the party to one of those s and getting the same benefit as he? And as to the above example I would hardly call Elrond a patron of Sam, Merry and Pippin's. If anything he is a patron to Frodo and the rest of Fellowship (excluding Gandalf). So, why couldn't an individual gain a powerful patron in the game?

See, I don't infer that at all from the text you cite. Each of those references can be readily interpreted as supporting either supposition by simply stressing different parts of the sentence.

However, the Open New Sanctuary Undertaking is quite specific and, frankly, I would expect any Undertaking that was Company-only to include that same language. THAT is where the book is consistent: it consistently and explicitly defines exceptions to standard rules. The standard description of an Undertaking is that it is a character's choice. The single exception to this rule is the explicit definition of the Open New Sanctuary Undertaking.

Just my two cents. YMMV.

I think it can be interpreted either way reading the RAW and/or applying particular reasoning as Beran suggested a couple of posts above. I also think Open Sanctuary should logically be a single PC undertaking but the RAW is at least specific that such an undertaking has to be picked by the whole Fellowship of PCs.

It'd be nice for Francesco to clarify Patrons as an undertaking for us, personally I'd currently allow single PCs to "Meet Patron" and if ever their aid is called upon by that PC in an adventure then it is just those PCs with such a declared patron that gain any boons from them. Others would have to succeed in an Encounter by convincing them that they are worthy of succor.