Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Engilbrand" data-source="post: 4729993" data-attributes="member: 44184">Mournblade, allow me to clarify the Paladin bit. I remember reading last year about someone in a game where a person created a Paladin of the Raven Queen. He then decided that the character would only fight with 2 daggers, and would refuse to heal dying party members. He used this for justification that the rules sucked, because this character sucked. That's not a valid concept within the rules. If the concept is &quot;Religious warrior of the Raven Queen who fights with twin daggers&quot;, then there are certain mechanical routes that can be taken to make that a valid concept. I honestly don't consider it valid. Can you do it? Sure. But it's not a concept. It's just mechanics.When 4e came out, I had friends complain about the fact that you couldn't have a Fighter wield two weapons to good effect. (This was true up to a point, especially before the Tempest.) I told them that what they wanted to play was a Ranger. Why? Because the focus was on the dual weapon fighting, while they were getting stuck on the class name. Concepts are different from mechanics.FATAL isn't valid because, as I said, it's the gaming equivalent of self-mutilation. Are there some people who partake joyfully in it? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's a good and valid thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Engilbrand, post: 4729993, member: 44184"] Mournblade, allow me to clarify the Paladin bit. I remember reading last year about someone in a game where a person created a Paladin of the Raven Queen. He then decided that the character would only fight with 2 daggers, and would refuse to heal dying party members. He used this for justification that the rules sucked, because this character sucked. That's not a valid concept within the rules. If the concept is "Religious warrior of the Raven Queen who fights with twin daggers", then there are certain mechanical routes that can be taken to make that a valid concept. I honestly don't consider it valid. Can you do it? Sure. But it's not a concept. It's just mechanics. When 4e came out, I had friends complain about the fact that you couldn't have a Fighter wield two weapons to good effect. (This was true up to a point, especially before the Tempest.) I told them that what they wanted to play was a Ranger. Why? Because the focus was on the dual weapon fighting, while they were getting stuck on the class name. Concepts are different from mechanics. FATAL isn't valid because, as I said, it's the gaming equivalent of self-mutilation. Are there some people who partake joyfully in it? Sure. But that doesn't mean that it's a good and valid thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification