Search results

Is it narrow? For real. Is it? The Cleric is a priest. Why would a priest be treated like garbage by the being they have devoted their life to?

Then why are you hostile to the idea that if a class is designed to be balanced with other classes, it shouldn't have special extra penalties? Maybe then you should communicate what you actually want. Rather than repeatedly talking about the bad things and never once bringing up anything else.

But you are 100% knowing what the things that affect the Warlock are, when WotC doesn't say? Do you not see how this is a double standard?

I mean I have yet to see a single thing indicating you aren't focused on the story of "person who trusted a powerful being got screwed by it".

Nothing whatsoever to do with being "strictly" anything. My specific complaint is that you are enforcing one and only one story in order to justify having special punishments only for certain archetypes. Punishments that wait there in the wings, ready to strike if the player does even the...

The major problem for me is, I have had enough bad experiences that I no longer can afford to wait three to four weeks to find out "oh, this game sucks and I no longer want to be involved at all." Too too many failures. I need some concrete assurances in advance, or I'm not going to invest...

So, just f@#k anyone who likes Warlocks, amirite? How dare they think a class would be fun to play and not want their every participation moment constantly at risk of being destroyed. And folks tell me I'm being unfair when I say I fear this being a foot in the door!

Okay. Question: Doesn't that mean you are fundamentally rejecting the design principle behind á la carte multiclassing? You are specifically saying that setting absolutely dominates over gameplay. No gameplay concern is ever of significance, doesn't matter if the game is the worst experience...

If "nothing is free", why play the classes that will actively punish you in unexpected, frustrating ways when you could play classes which are in fact free? Where's the "does a complete 180" for Artificers, Barbarians, Bards, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Rogues, Sorcerers, and Wizards?

So it's "how dare you play this balanced or even underpowered class, better like your drubbings"? Because this is now creating roleplay costs for not getting any benefit. Which seems to be exactly as bad as balancing great power by only having roleplay costs, just in the opposite direction. As...

No, it isn't automatically what it means to me. But when I hear it being asked, I cannot deny, I fear the foot in the door. I have seen GMs (only two, but still) specifically and knowingly create situations where Paladins were doomed to fail in 3.x/PF1e. Where they had to choose between law and...

Well, let me give perhaps a slightly different spin here. Does the Fighter have to worry about whoever paid for them to go to Fighter school coming along and demanding back all the money they paid? Does the Druid get an avatar of Nature herself showing up one morning demanding service, or else...

Sounds great! A good thing to do with every group.

Whether or not it is common is, frankly, irrelevant. It's that the request being made is to be given carte blanche to potentially do this. It's asking for absolute power with zero accountability, and then being surprised when reasonable folks say, "Um, how about...no?" Unless and until you...

The 3rd edition Bard is what all classes should have been designed to match: solid, benefits from optimization but isn't ridiculously OP from it. Unfortunately, because it was in the edition that made being a full caster objectively the best choice, the 3rd edition Bard is simply left in the...

Er...that isn't à la carte MC? Because you've limited it to only two classes, and you've made it either a fundamental thing, or something you rebuild your character to use. À la carte MC specifically means how MC works in 5e and 3e: you can advance in any available class at each level up...

I mean, I think it's trivially obviously correct. 3e proved that GMs were ready, willing, and able to screw over players or their PCs at the drop of a hat. It's the other half of why the Paladin class was so controversial (the first half being the players who treated "you have an oath to be LG"...

In very simple terms: Because they know that that is a foot-in-the-door attack. Because players aren't stupid. They can quite easily see "This can and will be used to hurt you, badly" when it's dangled in front of them. So they vehemently speak out against it. Why would I invite the GM to screw...

Yes, and if that were what Zardnaar meant, then I would certainly grant that--and most likely would not have made that post. But remember, his point was that he claimed these people weren't just expressing their negative opinions, which is what a detractor naturally will do. His point was that...

Alternatively, the problem is à la carte multiclassing, rather than Frankenstein. Because the only other edition which permitted à la carte multiclassing had this problem, just worse because it had much more serious flaws than 5e has. It's emblematic of a lot of ideas from 3e. That is, à la...