Considering lots of domain powers are most useful in particular contexts that may not come up constantly or consistently and thus can't really be counted on to increase the cleric's power 100% of the time, I'm going to say that a separatist is still within the bounds of being reasonably on par with other clerics. Particularly since it means you can pair an unexpected domain with a cleric of a specific deity.
As with Criceto, either accidentally or purposefully, you ahve missed both the point and the problem.
The problem is with SKR stating that Seperatists should be mechanically inferior, either because he thinks balance is literally bad, because he thinks some character ideas should be punished, or because he doesn't understand that human beings develop games (which is odd because he's one of them)
|
Considering lots of domain powers are most useful in particular contexts that may not come up constantly or consistently and thus can't really be counted on to increase the cleric's power 100% of the time, I'm going to say that a separatist is still within the bounds of being reasonably on par with other clerics. Particularly since it means you can pair an unexpected domain with a cleric of a specific deity.
As with Criceto, either accidentally or purposefully, you ahve missed both the point and the problem.
The problem is with SKR stating that Seperatists should be mechanically inferior, either because he thinks balance is literally bad, because he thinks some character ideas should be punished, or because he doesn't understand that human beings develop games (which is odd because he's one of them)
Or...and this is crazy talk I know...you are wrong and misunderstood what SKR was saying, while the rest of us got it.
He was referring to why the Separatist doesn't get the favored weapon specifically, and to the penalties of the class in general by saying that a cleric who is able to cast spells other clerics of the same god can't cast should be mechanically inferior because they have the advantage of choosing spells other clerics of that good can not choose.
If we both have access to 7th level spells, but I can choose from all of them and you can only choose from 5 of them, which of us has an advantage?
We both have mechanically access to the same level of spells, but one of us can pick from any of them and one only from 5 of them.
Same with this class. So he added some mechanical disadvantages to balance it with the opportunity value of all choices being open.
Go back and re-read what he wrote.
I wish I grew up in the magical world that you did, where every single choice you can make is the best choice. I wonder how McDonald's stays afloat in your world, what with having to pay its philosophy majors $50,000 per year just like doctors and chemists.
Also, doctors totally make more than that. Way more. Triple digits more!
And a B.A. could easily get into McDonald's management and make pretty good money. Plus, that is a pretty mean thing to say about philosophy majors! I don't want to exaggerate but that is racist.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that you openly stated that the Separatist was intentionally made mechanically inferior?
Because it makes sense that, for a class powered by the will of a deity, deviating from the focus of that deity is going to be less than ideal in the deity's eyes, and thus you're going to lose a little power from it. Otherwise there's no reason to list what domains deities grant because you'd let a cleric of Iomedae take Death and Evil and be at full power compared to a cleric of Iomedae with Good and Law. And if you let the Death Evil Iomedae cleric be at full power, there's no reason to put names on deities at all, because you're just playing "pick two domains I want and ignore the canon for the setting."
Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with each other.
The minor penalty to one domain's special powers--not hit points, skills, Hit Dice, BAB, spell progression, caster level, channel energy, domain spells, or access to the regular cleric spell list... just a minor penalty to your weird domain's powers--is well within "reasonably on par" with a standard cleric.
Because it makes sense that, for a class powered by the will of a deity, deviating from the focus of that deity is going to be less than ideal in the deity's eyes, and thus you're going to lose a little power from it.
So it's because you dislike the character idea.
I mean, just say that.
See you don't need to talk about it making sense. I'm going to blow your mind: you're the game designer. Watch this, it's totally wild:
"It makes sense that, for a class powered by the will of a deity, deviating from the focus of the clergy is going to grant even more power as they tap into a previously unused aspect of that deity."
Do you know what the difference between your explination and mine? Nothing! Making Seperatists MORE powerful is just as justifiable as making them weaker. Indeed, making Seperatists balanced with clerics is not only just as justifiable in fluff, it goes on to be more justifiable in mechanics.
Here's some other wild things for you: Pathfinder is a game designed by human beings. You are, in fact, one of them! You can make whatever changes you want and give the explanation for them and they are literally writ of god!
Golarion is not a real place. The gods of Golarion are not real deities. They are artificial constructs create by people. They are not forcing you to write classes a specific way.
The minor penalty to one domain's special powers--not hit points, skills, Hit Dice, BAB, spell progression, caster level, channel energy, domain spells, or access to the regular cleric spell list... just a minor penalty to your weird domain's powers--is well within "reasonably on par" with a standard cleric.
You're missing basically the entire point that Gygax was getting at.
Namely, that while true balance might be impossible, you should always seek to do the best you can. You turned the quote about seeking to better the game into an excuse not to.
Imagine a world where SKR stops and thinks, "Woah! I had an epiphany! The separatist archetype is too weak. Let's give them a bonus feat or something" and the separatist-haters suddenly rejoice. Is that really a better use of time than working on Advanced Race Guide or handling genuine FAQs out there rather than simply options people don't like?Not entirely sure why I'm replying to someone who used "butthurt" unironically, but okay.
If SKR suddenly had the epiphany of "Oh! Let's not make some choices weaker simply because they run against the grain of how I think the game should be played," then Advanced Race Guide and future FAQs would be much higher quality. In fact, the idea that certain characters should be weaker because they go against the grain of how the game designers felt the game should be played is most of why Savage Species was so lackluster.
The bad news is that if this thread has taught me anything, it is that SKR has learned literally nothing since Savage Species.
I wish I grew up in the magical world that you did, where every single choice you can make is the best choice. I wonder how McDonald's stays afloat in your world, what with having to pay its philosophy majors $50,000 per year just like doctors and chemists.Even if the fluff isn't terrible, it's exactly the same as a core option, with a -2 to stuff.
That obstructs fun.
Wait a second. Wasn't it Gygax who said that Dungeons and Dragons was a game and that any attempt to actually simulate realism in this type of setting was an act of absurdity?
Absolute balance between classes is not possible, but I surely did seek to keep the various types at least reasonably on a par with each other.
No offense to Gygax, but the early editions of the game were the least balanced, especially for low level casters. For them the game was a few levels of praying your DM didn't accidentally kill you with a weakling kobold holding a small stick while the fighter charges in and fights all day long. Oh but you could cast sleep once or twice.
The bad news is that if this thread has taught me anything, it is that SKR has learned literally nothing since Savage Species.
It taught the rest of us that you have a major axe to grind. That's something, right?
Sean, did you design the Ash Storm spell in Ultimate Magic as well?
|
How do you reconcile this with the fact that you openly stated that the Separatist was intentionally made mechanically inferior?Because it makes sense that, for a class powered by the will of a deity, deviating from the focus of that deity is going to be less than ideal in the deity's eyes, and thus you're going to lose a little power from it. Otherwise there's no reason to list what domains deities grant because you'd let a cleric of Iomedae take Death and Evil and be at full power compared to a cleric of Iomedae with Good and Law. And if you let the Death Evil Iomedae cleric be at full power, there's no reason to put names on deities at all, because you're just playing "pick two domains I want and ignore the canon for the setting."
The point of being a sepratist is the underlying argument that the 'church' hierarchy has gotten something wrong in its interpretation of the god's worship. The fact that your god is still granting you spells and showing divine favor means that on some level, the diety thinks your right to some degree or wishes to move the church in your direction (assuming it's your deity actually granting the spells of course) or send a message to the 'establishment'.
Therefore, assuming your not taking domains there should be no reason a god should object and many reasons a diety may back such a cleric AT FULL STRENGTH. In fact it would be the more than in the spirit of the diety for a cleric of Milani to have a domain appropriate to a cleric of Asmodeus because he's inflitrating their church and trying to sew the seeds of revolt. A cleric of Iomedae might just be granted the death domain because there is a problem with the undead (and perhaps on a meta-level Pharasma is loaning some of her divine power for their common interests.)
The fact is, the divine focus of a diety can be served in many different ways and having an archtype that separates from the standard practices of a deity's mainstream clergy does not mean they are getting away from the deity's focus.
Making a nonstandard domain part of archtype makes perfect sense. Penalizing them is does not hold up if the diety is still backing the cleric. The logic simply doesn't hold up.
Sean if you're going to whine about people holding you to any sort of design standards at all, at least do it to our faces and not passive aggressivly add it to your profile.
PS:
I play RPGs to have fun. I design RPGs so people can have fun playing a roleplaying game. I don't care if a new rule isn't the "optional choice," or if it is "only for roleplayers," or "only for GMs."
Sorry, designing good rules is literally your job. I cannot stress this enough - it is literally your job to care about optional choices or roleplaying rules or rules set up for GMs. If you're going to state that you have no interest at all in good development, literally quit your job.
You're a big boy Sean. You want Paizo to be a first party company? Act like it.
PPS: taking criticism, finding your mistakes, and working to better them is how you become good at what you do. Ignoring mistakes, whining and attacking those that point out any flaws, and refusing to look at your own work in any sort of critical light is the opposite of this.
PS:
I play RPGs to have fun. I design RPGs so people can have fun playing a roleplaying game. I don't care if a new rule isn't the "optional choice," or if it is "only for roleplayers," or "only for GMs."Sorry, designing good rules is literally your job. I cannot stress this enough - it is literally your job to care about optional choices or roleplaying rules or rules set up for GMs. If you're going to state that you have no interest at all in good development, literally quit your job.
PC, what amazes me at this stage is that he bothers replying to you at all. He explained a design decision and it didn't agree with your ideas. You get offended. He gave the rational for the decision. You don't like it. Big deal. Use rule 0 in any game you DM and have at it. Designing is what he's paid for and Paizo apparently approves of the job he's doing. They pay him. You don't. I'm sure he has an interest in "good development". He just doesn't agree with you on what that is. I don't approve of every design decision made around here. I manage to disagree politely and move on. If you're that offended, vote with your internet feet / dollars and don't buy Paizo stuff.
You're a big boy Sean. You want Paizo to be a first party company? Act like it.PPS: taking criticism, finding your mistakes, and working to better them is how you become good at what you do. Ignoring mistakes, whining and attacking those that point out any flaws, and refusing to look at your own work in any sort of critical light is the opposite of this.
PC, Paizo is a FPP. Sorry if you weren't sure about that. A lot of other companies would be kicking you off the boards about now. Paizo hasn't. I think the point you're missing is he doesn't agree with it being a mistake. He's looked over your criticism / opinion and decided against you. Get over it man.
You often bring a different point of view to discussions here. That's fine. You shouldn't be surprised if people disagree with you. I tend to think my arguments are perfectly logical :) I'm still not shocked when not everybody agrees. Including the designers.
If you're that offended
"I think he is bad at his job" != "I am offended."
At the end of the day this is a silly nerdy elfgame. I'm not going to get offended over it, come on now.
He's looked over your criticism / opinion and decided against you. Get over it man.
I would be legit overjoyed to see a single situation in which he's received criticism for a decision and listened to it. Give me that single situation.
Because you can listen to criticism and not change your stance. Which he has done.
I agree.
If you're that offended
"I think he is bad at his job" != "I am offended."
At the end of the day this is a silly nerdy elfgame. I'm not going to get offended over it, come on now.
Grading papers, sorry it took me awhile to peek back in. I'm glad you're not offended. The guy who's been told to grow up, he sucks at his job and he should consider quiting might be. If he's not offended he has a thicker skin than most of us. Probably does considering how much time he spends on the boards...
He's looked over your criticism / opinion and decided against you. Get over it man.
I would be legit overjoyed to see a single situation in which he's received criticism for a decision and listened to it. Give me that single situation.
I'd say he's listened to a lot. More than I'd like. As others have pointed out, listening is one thing, following advice is another. What he does on the boards is more than just "listen to criticism". This isn't a playtest thread. This is more along the lines of explaining / clarifying design decisions made by him and other Paizo designers. You may not agree with those decisions. If you want some opinions to be weighed in terms of effecting the rules, hang in the playtest threads (which, I'm sure you do) because the decisions already been made in most of these discussions as far as Paizo is concerned. Hence rule 0. If I don't like their decisions I make my own. No harm, no foul. And I don't suggest "you suck" while I'm at it. If he wasn't good at his job he wouldn't be hanging out at Paizo. Besides iirc he's taught sophomores in high school. And he's still sane. That speaks volumes. Probably explains his ability to survive the boards too...
Grading papers, sorry it took me awhile to peek back in. I'm glad you're not offended. The guy who's been told to grow up, he sucks at his job and he should consider quiting might be. If he's not offended he has a thicker skin than most of us. Probably does considering how much time he spends on the boards...
I'm not the one pushing to be a first party developer.
Do you think WotC flies off the handle and edits their profiles or says things on Facebook when they deal with unruly fans? I mean hell, his profile has a not so subtle jab at 4e in it. If he can dish it, he sure as hell is gonna need to learn to take it.
This isn't a playtest thread.
Naw I remember those, like the one where he talked about why clerics and wizards needed spells to make them better then fighters. Then Eric Mona came in and said that Ultimate Combat wouldn't be a wizard smorgasboard and...
...Well. Whoops?
I'm not the one pushing to be a first party developer.Do you think WotC flies off the handle and edits their profiles or says things on Facebook when they deal with unruly fans? I mean hell, his profile has a not so subtle jab at 4e in it. If he can dish it, he sure as hell is gonna need to learn to take it.
No WotC just bans people. So do a lot of other sites. Pretty rare for them to even remove posts here. And since he still posts here after taking a lot of "criticism", I'm sure he can take it. I'm just not sure why you want to dish it out.
This isn't a playtest thread.Naw I remember those, like the one where he talked about why clerics and wizards needed spells to make them better then fighters. Then Eric Mona came in and said that Ultimate Combat wouldn't be a wizard smorgasboard and...
...Well. Whoops?
No idea what you're talking about on that one. And if it outlines a difference of opinion among designers while a book is being worked on, you'd be surprised?
I've finished my giant grading stack for the night and I'll be up in about 5 hours for work. I'm going to call it a night. Have a good one PC.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure there's some logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Cirno's activity on this forum is basically limited to three things:
1) Criticizing Pathfinder,
2) Denigrating folks who have had anything to do with 3E (Dancey, SKR)
3) Defending 4E and WotC vehemently.
I'm just too dense to make the connection, but surely there is some!
|
PC, Paizo is a FPP. Sorry if you weren't sure about that. A lot of other companies would be kicking you off the boards about now. Paizo hasn't. I think the point you're missing is he doesn't agree with it being a mistake. He's looked over your criticism / opinion and decided against you. Get over it man.
*Cough* Enworld *cough*
|
|
I'm sure there's some logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Cirno's activity on this forum is basically limited to three things:
1) Criticizing Pathfinder,
2) Denigrating folks who have had anything to do with 3E (Dancey, SKR)
3) Defending 4E vehemently.I'm just too dense to make the connection, but surely there is some!
Yeah pretty sure that if someone made the comments he is making in the 4e section on the forums about 4e he would be shouting them down right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ENworld's moderation is terrible though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean hell, his profile has a not so subtle jab at 4e in it. If he can dish it, he sure as hell is gonna need to learn to take it.
I think you might be jumping at shadows here. Presumably you mean his comment that tabletop RPGs can learn from WoW, but it's possible to go too far? It's pretty hard to argue with that and it boggles the mind if you think that is analogous to repeatedly telling a professional he's hopeless at what he does.
Seriously, what's your motive here? If it's to improve paizo or pathfinder, do you really think such a confrontational and personally targeted aggressive style is going to achieve anything?
It seems pretty clear he disagrees with your premise that inter-class/archetype balance should be a dominant feature of game design. Presumably he doesn't think it's irrelevant (and presumably you dont think it should be the sole concern).Why not spell out where you think the line should be drawn and defend your view - beyond "Holy crap you are awful at this whole "developing" thing."
I'm sure many of your posts would be deleted as personal attacks if they weren't targeting a paizo employee. No matter how strongly one disagrees with his views - his CV, his ongoing commitment and his willingness to engage with critics deserves respect.
Seriously, what's your motive here? If it's to improve paizo or pathfinder, do you really think such a confrontational and personally targeted aggressive style is going to achieve anything?
I have no reason to believe not being confrontational will achieve anything either. The motive here is to have a discussion - or argument - regarding design philosophies.
It seems pretty clear he disagrees with your premise that inter-class/archetype balance should be a dominant feature of game design. Presumably he doesn't think it's irrelevant (and presumably you dont think it should be the sole concern).Why not spell out where you think the line should be drawn and defend your view - beyond "Holy crap you are awful at this whole "developing" thing."
Pretty sure I already did.
I'm sure many of your posts would be deleted as personal attacks if they weren't targeting a paizo employee. No matter how strongly one disagrees with his views - his CV, his ongoing commitment and his willingness to engage with critics deserves respect.
You're right I should emulate SKR and insult only specific groups like philosophy majors instead.
Seriously, what's your motive here? If it's to improve paizo or pathfinder, do you really think such a confrontational and personally targeted aggressive style is going to achieve anything?I have no reason to believe not being confrontational will achieve anything either. The motive here is to have a discussion - or argument - regarding design philosophies.
No reason? How about an understanding of human nature?
If you're interested in discussing design philosophies, how come I have no idea what your basic position is? All I know is you think Sean is bad at game design. I've been reading your posts and have no idea if you see (for example) the two goals of ensuring class balance and providing a large number of options as being in conflict. If you do see these as in conflict - which is more important and why?
Discussing a philosophy doesn't involve just saying the other guy is wrong.
You're right I should emulate SKR and insult only specific groups like philosophy majors instead.
I'm a philosophy major and I didn't even notice it as a slur. Nonetheless, even if he is being rude or insulting, you shouldn't.
So. Cirno is suuuuuuper interesting and all, but can we stop circlejerking about tone and discuss Pathfinder or something?
*shrug*
It's annoying. I'm hoping Sean has time to respond to your substantive posts. I don't think it's counterproductive to point out when people are filling a debate with insult.
Nonetheless, I'll bow out, since I'm merely an interested spectator.
|
|
Because it makes sense that, for a class powered by the will of a deity, deviating from the focus of that deity is going to be less than ideal in the deity's eyes, and thus you're going to lose a little power from it.So it's because you dislike the character idea.
No.
He is saying that Clerics follow gods and gods have domains, generally 5 of them.
This archetype can pick from domains outside of the 5, so it is "deviating from the focus of that deity" and therefore you aren't going to get the full power you would get if you didn't.
You get additional options in exchange for a reduction of the power of those options.
What is so hard to understand about this?
|
|
I'm sure there's some logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Cirno's activity on this forum is basically limited to three things:
1) Criticizing Pathfinder,
2) Denigrating folks who have had anything to do with 3E (Dancey, SKR)
3) Defending 4E and WotC vehemently.I'm just too dense to make the connection, but surely there is some!
He and Scott Betts were separated at birth?
|
|
No.
He is saying that Clerics follow gods and gods have domains, generally 5 of them.
This archetype can pick from domains outside of the 5, so it is "deviating from the focus of that deity" and therefore you aren't going to get the full power you would get if you didn't.
And why do the gods act like that?
Because the designers made them that way. Why did they make them that way? Well...
Nothing's hard to understand about it. It's just not a fair trade, because all of those extra options go away once you've made your character.You get additional options in exchange for a reduction of the power of those options.
What is so hard to understand about this?
If you want to play a cleric of Cayden Caileen with the Glory domain (or liberation since it seems to have been removed from the original list although it makes sense for the concept) you couldn't before without a house rule.
Now you can, in exchange for a small penalty.
Similarly if you want to be a cleric of Gorum with the travel Domain, you can. Sure you get dimension hop at 10th rather than 8th level, but you still get access to dimension door and teleport for a God that you otherwise would not have, while being able to keep your concept.
Seems like a fair and reasonable trade off.
He and Scott Betts were separated at birth?
I've never seen Scott Betts say anything negative about Paizo or the 3e developers.
Not once.
Are you honestly labeling him as a hater because he likes 4e?
|
|
He and Scott Betts were separated at birth?I've never seen Scott Betts say anything negative about Paizo or the 3e developers.
Not once.
Are you honestly labeling him as a hater because he likes 4e?
So you are Scott Betts "Evil" twin.
My bad. Didn't mean to insult Scott by comparing him to you. Weren't you ignoring me?
He and Scott Betts were separated at birth?I've never seen Scott Betts say anything negative about Paizo or the 3e developers.
Not once.
Are you honestly labeling him as a hater because he likes 4e?
So you are Scott Betts "Evil" twin.
My bad. Didn't mean to insult Scott by comparing him to you. Weren't you ignoring me?
I took offense at you attacking someone who was not even present for this simply because you disliked their taste in elfgames.
|
|
I took offense at you attacking someone who was not even present for this simply because you disliked their taste in elfgames.He and Scott Betts were separated at birth?I've never seen Scott Betts say anything negative about Paizo or the 3e developers.
Not once.
Are you honestly labeling him as a hater because he likes 4e?
So you are Scott Betts "Evil" twin.
My bad. Didn't mean to insult Scott by comparing him to you. Weren't you ignoring me?
We take offense at you attacking someone because you dislike his taste in designing elfgames. Fair and square?
Try contributing something other than snark to the conversation, and you'll have a chance that I'll listen to what you have to say.The game, dating all the way back to Basic D&D, isn't built for you to win, it's built for you to have fun.And options like the separatist, which is a copypasta of a core option with a random -2 penalty and a terrible fluff, provide 63% more fun than the base option.
Wait. What?
The fact is, the separatist is a copypasta of a core option. Your argumentation still doesn't respond to this issue:
"It's for roleplay reason!
- No, a copypasta of core option with a random -2 doesn't provide 63% more roleplay.
"It's here to provide fun!
- No, a copypasta of core option with a random -2 doesn't provide 63% more fun."
etc. The question is: what a copypasta of a core option brings to the game? And the response isn't "it brings 63% more XXX than the core option". Especially since the fluff of this copypasta is awful and the option seems to exist only to allow cleric of Iomedae with the murder domain and other nonsense in PFS.
Anyway, you already said that you don't care at all about creating balanced options, and you don't want to take time to balance things, and that when you create an archetype for a weak option like the dagger fighter, your goal isn't to balance the option in an interesting way. We already know that this thread will lead nowhere: useless archetype will be created again, peoples who think it's useful will still buy the books and some other peoples will cease. Let just be snarky at each other; Gorbacz is more fun than many posters, because he's more snarky. Schtroumpf.
|
|
If you want to play a cleric of Cayden Caileen with the Glory domain (or liberation since it seems to have been removed from the original list although it makes sense for the concept) you couldn't before without a house rule.
Now you can, in exchange for a small penalty.
Similarly if you want to be a cleric of Gorum with the travel Domain, you can. Sure you get dimension hop at 10th rather than 8th level, but you still get access to dimension door and teleport for a God that you otherwise would not have, while being able to keep your concept.
Seems like a fair and reasonable trade off.
If Gorum gave Travel normally instead of... whatever, would a cleric of Gorum be any more powerful than now? Or Cayden Caileen with Liberation?
You can't do those things because of setting concerns, not because of character balance. The only reward you get for this cost is to get to ignore the setting limitations that the designers added in the first place. Those limitations aren't part of the game, they're part of the setting.
Bring the goalposts back. You asked a question and I answered it. The setting is the issue, because Gods only have 5 domains. If you want a character that follows a specific god, you are limited to the 5 domains.
If you want to have the option to choose from outside of those 5 and still follow a specific god, this is how you do it. If you want to worship the God of battle and get 10 feet of movement and access to all sorts of teleportation options, now you can.
Before you couldn't.
The penalty for this exchange is looking proficiency in the favored weapon and a functionally a -1 to your casting DC for spells from that domain.
As someone who has been frustrated when making clerics by the limitations of each Deities domain, this is great.
YMMV.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The fact is, the separatist is a copypasta of a core option. Your argumentation still doesn't respond to this issue:"It's for roleplay reason!
- No, a copypasta of core option with a random -2 doesn't provide 63% more roleplay."It's here to provide fun!
- No, a copypasta of core option with a random -2 doesn't provide 63% more fun."etc. The question is: what a copypasta of a core option brings to the game? And the response isn't "it brings 63% more XXX than the core option". Especially since the fluff of this copypasta is awful and the option seems to exist only to allow cleric of Iomedae with the murder domain and other nonsense in PFS.
Anyway, you already said that you don't care at all about creating balanced options, and you don't want to take time to balance things, and that when you create an archetype for a weak option like the dagger fighter, your goal isn't to balance the option in an interesting way. We already know that this thread will lead nowhere: useless archetype will be created again, peoples who think it's useful will still buy the books and some other peoples will cease. Let just be snarky at each other; Gorbacz is more fun than many posters, because he's more snarky. Schtroumpf.
Well...you are kind of a poor man's Cartigan (moving into sexy dance mode)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
1. it is not copy pasta. those very changes you complain about at what stops it being copypasta.
2. It isn't random, there is a set of reasoning behind the choice. You don't agree with them, but that doesn't make it 'random'
3a. It can provide more fun, for people who say find their fun from making their characters in such a way as to fit with a concept. It just doesn't specifically for you. The game is not made only for people who play the game the same way as you.
3b. It is also an excilent tool for roleplaying, because you know, it can help you fit a characters mechanics to setting and a concept with greater verisimilitude.
|
|
stuff
1. it is not copy pasta. those very changes you complain about at what stops it being copypasta.
2. It isn't random, there is a set of reasoning behind the choice. You don't agree with them, but that doesn't make it 'random'
3. It can provide more fun, for people who say find their fun from making their characters in such a way as to fit with a concept. It just doesn't specifically for you. The game is not made only for people who play the game the same way as you.
Well, and of course the fact that before you could choose from only 5 domains and now you can choose from all of them.
More being > Less.
Off to work.