Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5446633" data-attributes="member: 2067">I don't know what the *image* of a runepriest offers that is different than the image of your typical D&amp;D cleric.Hey, it's a dude in heavy armor adorned with symbols standing in the front lines tossing out buffs and debuffs in addition to bonking things with weapons!That's a cleric. That's been a cleric since OD&amp;D. The person who wants to play that archetype, plays a cleric. Runepriests suffer from a dilemma of archetype. There's no convincing model for them, no unique hook to hang your &quot;this is why I'm different&quot; banner from. When someone asks you &quot;What makes you functionally different from a cleric?&quot; your only response is basically, &quot;This thing on my character sheet under 'class' that says 'Runepriest,' and not 'Cleric.'&quot; There are subtle distinctions. And the mechanics of the rune states approach this. But the distinctions are too fiddly and minor to matter at the broad level of choosing your class. Runepriests should be a cleric build. There's nothing about them that screams the need for a brand new class. There's no real reason their powers shouldn't be available to any cleric, and there's no real reason normal cleric powers shouldn't be available to them. It is too small a niche to build a class around.The Seeker, I think, suffers from similar problems. Should've been a ranger build.The sorcerer/warlock or slayer/rogue situations avoid this by having very distinct archetypes. &quot;Magic is in my blood&quot; vs. &quot;Magic is a gift from nefarious entities&quot; leads to different kinds of powers. Likewise, &quot;I beat things with a big stick&quot; vs. &quot;I stab things where it counts!&quot; also leads to different abilities and performances. &quot;I conjure the will of the gods with my holy symbols&quot; vs. &quot;I conjure the will of the gods with my holy runes&quot; is not a very different way to approach the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5446633, member: 2067"] I don't know what the *image* of a runepriest offers that is different than the image of your typical D&D cleric. Hey, it's a dude in heavy armor adorned with symbols standing in the front lines tossing out buffs and debuffs in addition to bonking things with weapons! That's a cleric. That's been a cleric since OD&D. The person who wants to play that archetype, plays a cleric. Runepriests suffer from a dilemma of archetype. There's no convincing model for them, no unique hook to hang your "this is why I'm different" banner from. When someone asks you "What makes you functionally different from a cleric?" your only response is basically, "This thing on my character sheet under 'class' that says 'Runepriest,' and not 'Cleric.'" There are subtle distinctions. And the mechanics of the rune states approach this. But the distinctions are too fiddly and minor to matter at the broad level of choosing your class. Runepriests should be a cleric build. There's nothing about them that screams the need for a brand new class. There's no real reason their powers shouldn't be available to any cleric, and there's no real reason normal cleric powers shouldn't be available to them. It is too small a niche to build a class around. The Seeker, I think, suffers from similar problems. Should've been a ranger build. The sorcerer/warlock or slayer/rogue situations avoid this by having very distinct archetypes. "Magic is in my blood" vs. "Magic is a gift from nefarious entities" leads to different kinds of powers. Likewise, "I beat things with a big stick" vs. "I stab things where it counts!" also leads to different abilities and performances. "I conjure the will of the gods with my holy symbols" vs. "I conjure the will of the gods with my holy runes" is not a very different way to approach the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification