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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4513422" data-attributes="member: 2067">It is very true that there is no flavor that satisfies everyone, but "no flavor" isn't the only alternative. Consider what the "builds" do on certain powers. Now, replace the build with, say, an archetype concept. For the OP, if you're worshiping Avandra, perhaps there is a power that is 90% similar to this branding wrath, but is slightly different, and with a different name and different flavor. So YOU don't have to do the work.That's only one solution, and I'm sure there are more (and better ones, that might require less page count!). The ultimate goal is so you don't have to sacrifice the flavor of the power for this keen new ability, and you don't have to not take the power because the flavor doesn't match.It's much more rewarding than "suck it up and change the flavor," at least for me. Sure. I'm just saying that that particular extreme satisfies others better. Really just stating the obvious: different ways of doing things would avoid different criticisms. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I agree, I just also understand the OP's frustrations (and share them, to varying degrees).One shouldn't have to change the flavor to meet their character concept. And that problem can be solved, to varying degrees, in ways other than just getting rid of flavor entirely. Here's just a handful of seeds:#1: Define the character narrowly. Don't permit, say, clerics, to be anything other than one thing (servants of a god of wrath and compassion, say). Later, release variants (a cleric who whorships a goddess of freedom and chaos, for instance). This way, every archetype you do, you do completely -- you don't have a dissonance between archetype and character abilities because one defines the other. The disadvantage is that you're less flexible within each definition. A cleric can't handle the job of a goddess of freedom and chaos -- it's not equipped for it, it states it blatantly, and if you want to play one, your options are to create a new one, to re-fluff something that's close, or wait for the official one.#2: Define the character broadly. All cleric's abilities are as "generic" as Cure Light Wounds. The archetype is one drawn with huge brushstrokes, so that you can fit a lot of different kinds of characters under this umbrella. If a cleric is a "servant of divinity," every power should reflect that, and nothing should really reflect any specific servant of divinity. A god who isn't angry or powerful doesn't have a cleric, or every god has anger in them, or whatever. The disadvantage of this is that you loose the evocative flavor of a specific cleric. All clerics kind of look and play the same.#3: Define broadly, but modify narrowly. All the abilities are like "Channel Divinity." They give you some foundation that applies to a broad archetype, and then, as you advance, you have the option to modify it for your specific archetype. This is like the "build-esque" thing I described above. 4e currently kind of mixes, matches, and tries a few different things at once. Sometimes, there is a failure (like the OP presented) and something has to give. But 4e doesn't take one track and stick with it. Which may be the smart way to go. They can give you an "almost-Avandra-cleric, if you change a few things" right now, but make sure to support it fully in a supplement. Versus giving you nothing, or giving you something very nonspecific, or giving you a wall of different options.</blockquote>

Verification