Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrozenNorth" data-source="post: 7924711" data-attributes="member: 7020832">The rules interpretation adopted by myself and others on the thread allow for both memorable Wood Elf Rangers and for memorable Warlock Swashbucklers, Spider themed Druids and Barbarian Knights.&nbsp; The rules interpretation you are arguing in favour of allows for only one of those things.Pretty much the only argument you have given in favour of your interpretation is that our interpretation is &quot;mush&quot;, which is clearly not the experience of the majority of the posters on this thread.Chaosmancer explained the background for his Noble Barbarian.&nbsp; I explained the background for my Anansi Druid.&nbsp; Jayounger explained the background for his Celestial Warlock.I am not arrogant enough to claim my character is super creative.&nbsp; However, I can say, definitively, that Chaosmancer and Jayounger's characters are very creative, and would probably be interesting additions to my campaign.&nbsp; I cannot say the same for any characters you have proposed, because you have not proposed any characters.Claiming to &quot;have seen it all before&quot; is a failure of imagination.&nbsp; Thinking that the only reason a player wants an unorthodox character is because they really want the Barbarian's Rage mechanic is a failure of imagination.&nbsp; And thinking that any character that doesn't hew to 40-year old fantasy cliches is &quot;a gimmick&quot; is a failure of imagination. Are you aware of how extreme this sounds?&nbsp; Any change to any rule in the book leads to anarchy?&nbsp; I make a tiefling fiendish warlock but I refluff it into a cambion because there aren't any rules for cambions and I'm somehow a wild-eyed anarchist?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrozenNorth, post: 7924711, member: 7020832"] The rules interpretation adopted by myself and others on the thread allow for both memorable Wood Elf Rangers and for memorable Warlock Swashbucklers, Spider themed Druids and Barbarian Knights. The rules interpretation you are arguing in favour of allows for only one of those things. Pretty much the only argument you have given in favour of your interpretation is that our interpretation is "mush", which is clearly not the experience of the majority of the posters on this thread. Chaosmancer explained the background for his Noble Barbarian. I explained the background for my Anansi Druid. Jayounger explained the background for his Celestial Warlock. I am not arrogant enough to claim my character is super creative. However, I can say, definitively, that Chaosmancer and Jayounger's characters are very creative, and would probably be interesting additions to my campaign. I cannot say the same for any characters you have proposed, because you have not proposed any characters. Claiming to "have seen it all before" is a failure of imagination. Thinking that the only reason a player wants an unorthodox character is because they really want the Barbarian's Rage mechanic is a failure of imagination. And thinking that any character that doesn't hew to 40-year old fantasy cliches is "a gimmick" is a failure of imagination. Are you aware of how extreme this sounds? Any change to any rule in the book leads to anarchy? I make a tiefling fiendish warlock but I refluff it into a cambion because there aren't any rules for cambions and I'm somehow a wild-eyed anarchist? [/QUOTE]

Verification