Search results

They're not shackled to a God, but they are shackled to a code: behaving according their chosen cosmic alignment. All the same stuff can apply, more or less.

Agreed. I like both of those, but they are minor aspects of the class, rather than what the point of the class is.

I'm glad you're enjoying Daggerheart and Legend in the Mist, but maybe PF2 just wasn't the right rules-heavy game for you? I mostly prefer heavier rulesets, and I really dislike PF2.

I loved the specialty priests, because they really went all in on the flavor and having them feel as much like a priest of that specific sort as possible. Lots of detail. The gods-books are some stuff the best products 2e produced.

Of course not, but the type of working together you seem to be referring to is a focus on collaborative storytelling that, as I mentioned, just isn't how my table plays.

I'm not explaining this again. You just don't value my reasons. Fair enough.

I express my opinions as opinions regularly. If you have an example where I didn't I will happily apologize.

1. Went to Gencon this year for the first time.

Those explanations make the patron or god not matter to the campaign. That is unacceptable to me.

Your preference isn't a problem for me, but you are approaching trad games with a decidedly narrative mindset (now including Daggerheart, an explicitly more narrative game than most versions of D&D), and that's not how I play. You can like what you like, and I can like what I like, and we both...

Explain to me how you do that with classes fundamentally based on getting their power from an outside source. If you have a patron, or a God, or an oath, how do you create a believable game world in which those things don't matter if the player doesn't want them to?

Although ironically not the warlock (or sorcerer).

Cursed items are another good example. Where do those stand on the "player has final say" scale?

How so? Animal companions die and spellbooks get destroyed at least as often as warlock decides to thumb nose at source of their power. It's a rough world out there.

You know, I really wish you would stop presenting your personal subjective opinio so as if they were unassailable facts. This reads as quite insulting to those who disagree with your preference.

Hence the intentionally silly example. It could just as easily be, "spellbound burned, have to make/get a new one" or "animal companion died and it'll be a little while until I can replace them".

Or yours, depending on point of view.

Losing a class feature, even temporarily, is "destroying your character"? What do your wizards do when they leave their spellbook at the inn (intentionally silly example)? Give up?

I don't run modules or enforce plots. Maybe that's the difference.

This is where we disagree. IMO if your priority is making sure the player's cool superpowers for their PC are maintained just as the player wishes regardless of the fiction, then you are minimizing what I consider the most important part of the game: exploring a consistent imaginary world...