Community

Zousha_Omenohu wrote:

For me, the knight in shining armor is the only thing I play, and I feel more limited now that Hieroneous is gone.

Fluff it. If you want your character to worship Hieroneous, what exactly is the problem?

There is nothing stopping you from creating a human lawful good paladin of Hieroneous (and if your DM is some kind of jerk who won't let you, tell him that "Hieroneous" is the name your character refers to of the god Bahamut)

Honestly. The storyline and background material in the official game texts should never be considered a straightjacket. As a DM, I always encourage my players to personalise their characters. One of my players uses a dragonborn ranger, she was tempted to take the Jaws of the Wolf daily (or is it an encounter power, I can't remember) but didn't like the name of the ability. So how about we call it "mandible of the dragon"? Mandible of the dragon it is... at least until she can think of a better name :-):D

MrCelsius wrote:

They're choosing the roleplay they want. Some people want to have rigorous strictures on their behaviour, some people want none at all. Just because they're choosing an option on the merit that it expressly does not limit or force their roleplay doesn't make it anti-RP. If someone decides they'd rather play a member of a chaotic, nomadic society with few rules (say, Talenta halfling or Romani traveler) are they less of a roleplayer than someone who chooses a more restrictive idiom, like the lawful existence of a samurai? It sounds like your definition of 'lame' is 'not the way you'd do it'.

No, my definition of lame is picking the easiest path because the player is scared of making a commitment with his character.

But you're describing two different things. If as you say, "someone decides they'd rather play a member of a chaotic, nomadic society with few rules (say, Talenta halfling or Romani traveler)," then they're making a choice that enhances the personality of their character, and one that should be reflected in other aspects of how they play it.

When someone chooses a character religion because they want to be a holy player but not worry about any consequences of being initiated into the sect, they're actually stripping the personality from that holy character. That's a different thing entirely, and from a game-playing pint of view, I think it's kinda chicken-****. If you're a priest, I say make a stand. Make choices that will affect how you play. Don't just pick the least restrictive option available with the most powerful bonus power.

Obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone who plays a Raven queen disciple, but I think it's a part of why she's so popular: good ability + few behavior requirements = the easy choice.

And why is the Raven Queen so good at healing? It doesn't add up for me. Shouldn't that ability have gone to like Pelor?

Jimmy_631 wrote:

So the cleric in my campa... I mean your party is not going to help the dying until they can make one death saving throw?

I think 10% of PCs that get knocked out will die if the cleric of RQ is the only one who can help them.

Sounds like the player is being a tool, and if it were me playing with him id go: "Sorry pall, i know im a defender but im not going to stop that dragon from getting past me and crushing you this time, but the second time i will."

Actually, i wouldn't even do that. As a player id tell him to stick it up his tailpipe and play the damn cleric sensibly. Upon refusal, i would ignore the character and possibly the player and approach encounters as if he wasn't actually there. Very bad if i happen to be playing my wand wizard at the time.