forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

If the Company takes Beorn as a companion, is there any way they can can get this as a Patron benefit, perhaps as a reduced level (since they're not Beornings).

There's nothing official, but you're welcome to talk to your LoreMaster about it. It wouldn't be beyond the pale to allow something like that.
A lot of Patron stuff is left up to them and is usually played by ear.

No. This should be left exclusively to Beorning PCs. There's a reason most every Beorning PC should start with Wisdom 2 and Twice Baked Honeycakes. Seriously. Don't take a Beorning PC's best tool away, and if the PCs want the Honeycakes, make them make a Beorning.

Agreed. Don't do this.

I wouldn't allow this for non-Beorning characters if there's a Beorning in the group, or if someone is happy to switch to playing one.

But if none of your players are playing a Beorning, but they nevertheless have Beorn as a patron, I don't see any reason for a blanket prohibition: it's not stepping on anyone's toes in that case. But of course that's just my opinion and it should be the LM's decision.

Even if it is allowed, there might well be a special cost. Maybe Beorn requires some great service of the PCs before he'll teach them one of the secrets of his people, and/or maybe there's an increased XP cost as the heroes find it more difficult to learn than someone steeped in Beorning culture would.

I wonder if changing culture would be feasible? I'm pretty sure it's game canon that many of the Beornings were Woodmen until recently, so maybe a player hero could become a Beorning, keeping what they already have but switching the culture their Standing applies to, and gaining Beorning Virtues and Rewards from then on. I'd say there should be some penalty for doing so, to reflect their lack of full immersion in their new culture and to prevent minmaxing. And of course it wouldn't be allowed in every case: Elves can't become Dwarves of Erebor!

Earendil wrote: But if none of your players are playing a Beorning, but they nevertheless have Beorn as a patron, I don't see any reason for a blanket prohibition: it's not stepping on anyone's toes in that case. But of course that's just my opinion and it should be the LM's decision.

The reason I still wouldn't is because it's signaling to the players that their choices don't really matter. It's a bad precedent, imo.

I might allow the honey cakes if a hero spends a Meet Patron fellowship phase and succeeds a persuade at TN19, but only for one adventure phase.

Indur Dawndeath wrote:I might allow the honey cakes if a hero spends a Meet Patron fellowship phase and succeeds a persuade at TN19, but only for one adventure phase.

That's how I'd use it, if at all; a rare gift for a particular adventuring phase where it was vital that the PCs needed some kind of help. A bit like Radagast's magic in TfW. Otherwise, I'd usually go with the idea of not providing PCs with mechnical enhancements only available to other character types. Other times, Beorn may provide some honey cakes but they provide no mechanical bonus, although I would allow players to use them as part of the narrative when invoking their own traits.

On a side not, do LM's always, no matter what, allow Beornings to have an endless stash of honey cakes to feed the entire fellowship irrespective of location and journey length?

Do they for example ever use a revelation or hazard to risk them?
Personally speaking as this is an advantage that benefits everyone I have no qualms about targeting them as I do not consider it victimising a single character (for the same reason gunning for the character with the most focus is also reasonable in my opinion).

I've never had any PCs with Honey Cakes (only two Beorning PCs), but I think they're fair game (like you said, they benefit everybody).

I definitely don't "gun" for a character with the most Fellowship Focuses, though. During battles or any event where there is danger, I go with what makes the most sense narratively, or determine targets randomly.