Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6354434" data-attributes="member: 2011">Why should we remove the one weakness the specialized class has?And it's not that the specialized class has any weaknesses at all. It's that some players want to play that class in one specific narrow way, but they still want to overcome the weakness of that narrow way they themselves chose.One can create a Fire Dragon Sorcerer that does good fire damage right this second and that PC doesn't have to be handcuffed into only casting fire spells. That's a player preference, not a weakness that has to be addressed by game design.I could see a player whose PC has the Folk Hero flaw of &quot;I have a weakness for the vices of a city, especially hard drink&quot; go into a city and not actually drink a single drop on a given visit. He may, or he may not. I'm not going to tell the player that he is not roleplaying his PC correctly if he doesn't.Same with pyromancers. Not having any non-fire elemental spells in their repertoire is a player decision, it's not a hard and fast rule about a given PC design.The feat does not need changes, it does what it is designed to do. Players can play their PCs anyway they want, but they shouldn't rely on the game design to cater mechanically to their roleplaying / character creation preferences. There have been hundreds of splat books for D&amp;D over the decades with a ton of different mechanical solutions to hundreds of off the wall PC creation preferences. The future splat books will do the same thing. Eventually, there will be an elementalist in them with a boatload of rules on options. Until then, players should just roleplay their preferences. If one wants a fire only caster, then only take fire spells. Done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 6354434, member: 2011"] Why should we remove the one weakness the specialized class has? And it's not that the specialized class has any weaknesses at all. It's that some players want to play that class in one specific narrow way, but they still want to overcome the weakness of that narrow way they themselves chose. One can create a Fire Dragon Sorcerer that does good fire damage right this second and that PC doesn't have to be handcuffed into only casting fire spells. That's a player preference, not a weakness that has to be addressed by game design. I could see a player whose PC has the Folk Hero flaw of "I have a weakness for the vices of a city, especially hard drink" go into a city and not actually drink a single drop on a given visit. He may, or he may not. I'm not going to tell the player that he is not roleplaying his PC correctly if he doesn't. Same with pyromancers. Not having any non-fire elemental spells in their repertoire is a player decision, it's not a hard and fast rule about a given PC design. The feat does not need changes, it does what it is designed to do. Players can play their PCs anyway they want, but they shouldn't rely on the game design to cater mechanically to their roleplaying / character creation preferences. There have been hundreds of splat books for D&D over the decades with a ton of different mechanical solutions to hundreds of off the wall PC creation preferences. The future splat books will do the same thing. Eventually, there will be an elementalist in them with a boatload of rules on options. Until then, players should just roleplay their preferences. If one wants a fire only caster, then only take fire spells. Done. [/QUOTE]

Verification