Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6345992" data-attributes="member: 18">Sorry Li, but no, this is facile stuff that is not true here. You can have "variety" without making Death Clerics some sort of "Evil-only" option. In fact, that means that there is LESS variety, not more.The idea that a special Domain that's effectively NPC-only is "indispensible", when building NPCs as PCs is only an option, not even the standard/default way of doing thing (as is the case in 5E) is a very strange one, and as you don't explain how that is the case, I'm left mystified by that assertion.If I was choosing "indispensible" stuff for D&D, neither Anti-Paladins nor NPC-Cleric-oriented domains would be on my list, and indeed, thinking about all the people who might play 5E, I suspect they wouldn't be on many lists, and even where they appeared, would be far down.Or are you referring to something else entirely?So your argument here is "people will always complain/never be happy/can't please everyone"? Do I misunderstand? Well, that seems rather dismissive and, frankly, isn't really an argument at all, but rather a sort of rhetorical shrug, no?My point is simple: WotC have apparently* narrowed down something in D&D with 5E in a way that does not support options, that does not support variety, that does not support existing D&D settings, and that, most hilariously of all DOES NOT SUPPORT THE MAIN/DEFAULT 5E SETTING (unless the Death gods of the FR got re-jiggered again!), and yet you are seemingly claiming this is some sort of victory for choice, variety and flavour.I cannot make sense of that, I'm afraid.* = Still hoping this is BS!</blockquote>

Verification