Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Riastlin" data-source="post: 5398185" data-attributes="member: 94022">I actually really liked the article.&nbsp; Certainly the runes are far from awesome, but considering that they don't take up an item slot, I think they have some potential.&nbsp; I don't quite understand how the Tide Rune is supposed to work though.&nbsp; Looks as though it initially pushes everything then immediately pulls most of them back.&nbsp; I suppose with certain zones it could have its uses, but it seemed a bit odd otherwise.&nbsp; As for the flavor, etc., I really liked it and found the article to be a good read.&nbsp;That being said, I also agree that it should be a Dungeon article.&nbsp; I don't care so much about the rarities as I don't use the rarity rules anyway (which is why I don't see how WotC &quot;failed&quot; at them since nobody is forcing you to use them) but the article feels much more like a dungeon article because a) they are boons and b) they provide adventure/campaign hooks as opposed to character development options.&nbsp;I will admit that I was hoping for something a bit more mechanics oriented, like either new rune feats or a new paragon path, but I still enjoyed the article.&nbsp; &nbsp;As to whether or not they've been getting quality submissions for runepriest articles or not . . . that I cannot answer.&nbsp; There's obviously a huge difference between submissions and quality submissions though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Riastlin, post: 5398185, member: 94022"] I actually really liked the article. Certainly the runes are far from awesome, but considering that they don't take up an item slot, I think they have some potential. I don't quite understand how the Tide Rune is supposed to work though. Looks as though it initially pushes everything then immediately pulls most of them back. I suppose with certain zones it could have its uses, but it seemed a bit odd otherwise. As for the flavor, etc., I really liked it and found the article to be a good read. That being said, I also agree that it should be a Dungeon article. I don't care so much about the rarities as I don't use the rarity rules anyway (which is why I don't see how WotC "failed" at them since nobody is forcing you to use them) but the article feels much more like a dungeon article because a) they are boons and b) they provide adventure/campaign hooks as opposed to character development options. I will admit that I was hoping for something a bit more mechanics oriented, like either new rune feats or a new paragon path, but I still enjoyed the article. As to whether or not they've been getting quality submissions for runepriest articles or not . . . that I cannot answer. There's obviously a huge difference between submissions and quality submissions though. [/QUOTE]

Verification