Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 7416836" data-attributes="member: 92511">It may or may not be appropriate...but there's a degree to which one must put up their hands and say &quot;let the players, be players.&quot; Does it make sense to have a &quot;mystic&quot; archetype of the god of war, whose abilities grant weapon proficiencies and weapon attack/damage bonuses? No. Probably not. But if that's what the archetype says and a player still says, &quot;I wanna be a mystic of the war god! Here's what I'm thinkin'...&quot; Then, &lt;shrug&gt; it's for them to work it out and find they either love it or, perhaps, mixing diametrically opposed options in game, just because they are there, is not always a great idea.As the designer there's only so much you can do about that...and it'sa weight, I personally, tend to shrug off as much as possible. I create and develop the options that I think are cool...some of them go together great! Some of them /can/ work. Some of them are not at all intended to go together...but if a player wants to, who am I?In my own homebrew system, my classes follow something similar to this set up (or the 5e original idea of &quot;themes&quot; as more fleshed out &quot;subclassy&quot; styled backgrounds. All classes do, but we're talking clerics here so...As a cleric, you may select a theme from the &quot;General&quot; (available to all classes) or &quot;Priest&quot; [changing the name to Mystic, actually, myself] themes. As a sampling, these include such things as &quot;Chaplain, Crusader, Healer, Undead Hunter, etc...&quot; The different themes offer different skill proficiencies and/or bonuses -primarily to specific thematic skill rolls.Does it make sense that the clerics of the pacifist order of the goddess of life and healing would take &quot;Undead Hunter&quot; or &quot;Crusader&quot;...taking a bonus to undead knowledge [religious lore] and turning checks or increased armor and weapon proficiencies? Really very much no. Completely out of character for the norms of the game world, the religious order, and the PC's place in the broader in-game &quot;church&quot; of this goddess. Does that make it a bad character or mean I have to somehow contort the features and abilities of every option to apply to every character? Nope. Not in a million years.Does the god of battles have large cabals of &quot;Healer&quot; clerics within their own temple/orders...granting a special bonus to Healing checks and increasing HP restoration? Very probably not. It's certainly plausible...moreso than the above example, I think. But would be rather out of character for a branch of a temple/church that espouses tenets of excellence in battle, valor, weapons' use, and direct combat. What I'm saying is, you don't have to make yourself nuts making sure all options work for all characters/people in all instances. Sometimes it's ok for an option to be -blatantly- &quot;best for X. Ok for Y. Not really applicable to Z but if you, the player, want to give it a whirl...have at ye.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 7416836, member: 92511"] It may or may not be appropriate...but there's a degree to which one must put up their hands and say "let the players, be players." Does it make sense to have a "mystic" archetype of the god of war, whose abilities grant weapon proficiencies and weapon attack/damage bonuses? No. Probably not. But if that's what the archetype says and a player still says, "I wanna be a mystic of the war god! Here's what I'm thinkin'..." Then, <shrug> it's for them to work it out and find they either love it or, perhaps, mixing diametrically opposed options in game, just because they are there, is not always a great idea. As the designer there's only so much you can do about that...and it'sa weight, I personally, tend to shrug off as much as possible. I create and develop the options that I think are cool...some of them go together great! Some of them /can/ work. Some of them are not at all intended to go together...but if a player wants to, who am I? In my own homebrew system, my classes follow something similar to this set up (or the 5e original idea of "themes" as more fleshed out "subclassy" styled backgrounds. All classes do, but we're talking clerics here so...As a cleric, you may select a theme from the "General" (available to all classes) or "Priest" [changing the name to Mystic, actually, myself] themes. As a sampling, these include such things as "Chaplain, Crusader, Healer, Undead Hunter, etc..." The different themes offer different skill proficiencies and/or bonuses -primarily to specific thematic skill rolls. Does it make sense that the clerics of the pacifist order of the goddess of life and healing would take "Undead Hunter" or "Crusader"...taking a bonus to undead knowledge [religious lore] and turning checks or increased armor and weapon proficiencies? Really very much no. Completely out of character for the norms of the game world, the religious order, and the PC's place in the broader in-game "church" of this goddess. Does that make it a bad character or mean I have to somehow contort the features and abilities of every option to apply to every character? Nope. Not in a million years. Does the god of battles have large cabals of "Healer" clerics within their own temple/orders...granting a special bonus to Healing checks and increasing HP restoration? Very probably not. It's certainly plausible...moreso than the above example, I think. But would be rather out of character for a branch of a temple/church that espouses tenets of excellence in battle, valor, weapons' use, and direct combat. What I'm saying is, you don't have to make yourself nuts making sure all options work for all characters/people in all instances. Sometimes it's ok for an option to be -blatantly- "best for X. Ok for Y. Not really applicable to Z but if you, the player, want to give it a whirl...have at ye." [/QUOTE]

Verification