Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6108788" data-attributes="member: 7006">If a DM restricts any game system, it has the potential to get him labeled as a &quot;jerk&quot;.&nbsp; But if his ego is so fragile that he can't stand the thought of standing up to his players and saying &quot;This is how I prefer to run my campaign&quot;... then it's a problem he needs to deal with and not something the designers of the game needs to accommodate.My reasoning is simple-- Range: 25 feet means BOTH groups get to play within the rules with no house-ruling necessary.&nbsp; For a game with a strong drop-in, convention and tournament component... more allowances for different playstyles is a good thing in my opinion.But that is asking all Cleric players to play their Clerics the exact same way-- needing to get into melee range and possibly take on attacks from creatures that they themselves (especially depending on the deity they serve) are not equipped to handle.&nbsp; Why are we requiring the Arcanist and the Lightbringer... two classes that receive no armor or weapon proficiencies... to have to get into melee range to heal?&nbsp; It goes completely against who they are.***Now that being said... I'm always willing to look for compromise.&nbsp; As I've said previously, I'd have no problems if within the Cure spells it gave a normal effect when cast at Range and a bonus effect to the cleric when cast via Touch.&nbsp; I'd also have no problem in fact, if the Cure spells were normally listed as Range: Touch in their descriptions, but certain deities (like Arcanist or Lightbringer) granted an ability that allowed those spells to be cast at Range: 25 feet.&nbsp; So most Clerics would cast via touch, but a select few (the ones designed to be primarily casters and not melee combatants) could cast at range.&nbsp; I'd be fine with that option too.&nbsp; Then it'd just be up to individual DMs to not allow those deities in their campaign, or just remove those particular abilities from those deities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6108788, member: 7006"] If a DM restricts any game system, it has the potential to get him labeled as a "jerk". But if his ego is so fragile that he can't stand the thought of standing up to his players and saying "This is how I prefer to run my campaign"... then it's a problem he needs to deal with and not something the designers of the game needs to accommodate. My reasoning is simple-- Range: 25 feet means BOTH groups get to play within the rules with no house-ruling necessary. For a game with a strong drop-in, convention and tournament component... more allowances for different playstyles is a good thing in my opinion. But that is asking all Cleric players to play their Clerics the exact same way-- needing to get into melee range and possibly take on attacks from creatures that they themselves (especially depending on the deity they serve) are not equipped to handle. Why are we requiring the Arcanist and the Lightbringer... two classes that receive no armor or weapon proficiencies... to have to get into melee range to heal? It goes completely against who they are. *** Now that being said... I'm always willing to look for compromise. As I've said previously, I'd have no problems if within the Cure spells it gave a normal effect when cast at Range and a bonus effect to the cleric when cast via Touch. I'd also have no problem in fact, if the Cure spells were normally listed as Range: Touch in their descriptions, but [I]certain[/I] deities (like Arcanist or Lightbringer) granted an ability that allowed those spells to be cast at Range: 25 feet. So most Clerics would cast via touch, but a select few (the ones designed to be primarily casters and not melee combatants) could cast at range. I'd be fine with that option too. Then it'd just be up to individual DMs to not allow those deities in their campaign, or just remove those particular abilities from those deities. [/QUOTE]

Verification