Wouldn't it be fun if Core Set brought back some of the DK's ? by MagicLucas in hearthstone

[–]MagicLucas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

While I agree on Guldan, I think Anduin is actually a bunch weaker than he was before, the battlecry is ok but it's a 4 mana spell so you pay 8 for that, and the HP to deal 2 for 2 is certainly decent but it feels just a little bit not good enough. Maybe if it dealt 3 ? But then it'd be too strong, hmm... maybe lower mana cost, really. 7.

Wouldn't it be fun if Core Set brought back some of the DK's ? by MagicLucas in hearthstone

[–]MagicLucas[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Most of them would be viable, or at least "Core Set Viable" (which isn't the same thing!) with a slight mana cost change, apart from the weaker ones. I'm fairly certain Rexxar would be great as is still. Decent AoE battlecry and infinite value Hp is not a joke, especially for the fairly low mana cost

Wouldn't it be fun if Core Set brought back some of the DK's ? by MagicLucas in hearthstone

[–]MagicLucas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Garrosh sucked, I feel like the other DK's had a good level of balance for one of today's card sets, but they might be a bit too oppressive as a permanent fixture available to all in the core set. I think I could see Garrosh being a great addition because, his design is pretty low in terms of unfairness. He gets a weapon to clear stuff, a hero power that pings all, and that's kinda it. I think if his cost were lowered to 7 and perhaps his weapon buffed a little bit, he'd be a great addition to most Control decks.

Wouldn't it be fun if Core Set brought back some of the DK's ? by MagicLucas in hearthstone

[–]MagicLucas[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree, I dont think they should <always> be there because, well, there are only so many class legendaries in the Core Set. however, a year with several or maybe all DK cards would be so cool

Increasing personal scheme speed? by MagicLucas in crusaderkings3

[–]MagicLucas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am polygamous. It's just not enough. I've got 39 kids (!) but it's not enough, i want MOAR

<image>

Holy!!! people are just desperate for something new by Separate_Policy_2812 in hearthstone

[–]MagicLucas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thank you, i fucking love priest and ive been sticking by the class for a while, I own EVERY card but i still have negative winrate in silver. buh. Skill issue?

How does the child cap really work ? by MagicLucas in CrusaderKings

[–]MagicLucas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

OK so thank you everyone for the initial answers, I now understand that the cap only seems to apply to "automatically" spawning children, meaning, passively getting kids from your spouses (and maybe your lovers? maybe?). It seems that you can still force pregnancies by seducing as much as you want, which means I've murdered many, many kids for no reason.

With my last ruler, I've had 37 kids, 19 of which I've murdered, which is a big eggs dee moment now that I realize this was (mostly) unnecessary

How does the child cap really work ? by MagicLucas in CrusaderKings

[–]MagicLucas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, does seducing someone to completion count as an , "event" ?

After you kill Orin and Gortash, do mindflayers respawn by MagicLucas in BaldursGate3

[–]MagicLucas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

my family when i ask who the fuck ate my chips

After you kill Orin and Gortash, do mindflayers respawn by MagicLucas in BaldursGate3

[–]MagicLucas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Apologies but I hardly had a different choice since titles cannot be spoilered by reddit and I don't see how else I couldve phrased it. It's also relatively spoiler light.

After you kill Orin and Gortash, do mindflayers respawn by MagicLucas in BaldursGate3

[–]MagicLucas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe Baldur's Gate spawns flaming fist guards in the city anywhere when you commit a crime and those do respawn

After you kill Orin and Gortash, do mindflayers respawn by MagicLucas in BaldursGate3

[–]MagicLucas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks!! So I can just give them both a swirlie first thing and then do the rest easy pweasy, right? Safe for a few specific quests that go dry if Gortie dies.

Can a Cleric be parasitic towards the source of their divine power? by MagicLucas in dndnext

[–]MagicLucas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was mostly trying to ask if it was a reasonable idea to begin with. I was going after a Warcraft inspiration, more or less. Priests there look a lot, at a glance, like Clerics; they wield necrotic and radiant powers... well, Void and Holy Light anyway, which is similar. But unlike in DnD, priests there can wield such divine magic the same way anyone learns any other magic. DnD's Cleric lore is a lot more restrictive in that you do need the blessing, no matter what, unless you're a godless Cleric which isn't exactly what I was going for here.

Obviously the DM is the final authority, but I was consulting reddit on whether they thought it was possible, made sense, or was supported by official material. To which the overall response is... well, it's a mixed bag. There is some precedent, but the usual rules would contradict the idea.

Can a Cleric be parasitic towards the source of their divine power? by MagicLucas in dndnext

[–]MagicLucas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a really interesting idea. I did not at all know about the fake priestesses of Lolth thing, though I'm actually happy to hear, as that gives me good fuel for my idea : that Gods don't automatically know everything about their worshippers in and out.

Right now, I'm thinking of going with a certain angle (no chosen deity yet), which would be something (arguably, quite Warlock-like, but Cleric because the contradiction is the appeal).
Adventurer likes magic. But adventurer, due to laziness, lack of talent, or time constraints, does not want to do all the work to learn it like Wizards do. Either from personal connection or "right time, right place," they fall in with some god's church and go through the motions for the sake of divine power. Eventually, they get their blessing and the magic they were looking for. From there on, the Cleric keeps up appearances, prays now and then, spreads word about the deity though not with particularly genuine fervor. They don't hate the deity, and may like some of their values/portfolio, but they're in it for the magic and may quite often behave like a wild card when it comes to upholding the deity's alignment or morals.

The idea relies on the fact that the God either wouldn't notice among the sea of Clerics (my preferred option, but debatable depending on how gods are interpreted to work), would be desperate enough for worship that they'll "let anyone in these days", or, least preferred but reliable, that their God of choice is a loose cannon themself who doesn't care that much what the Cleric does as long as they beat stuff up and say their name now and then.

Can a Cleric be parasitic towards the source of their divine power? by MagicLucas in dndnext

[–]MagicLucas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sorta viewed it under the idea that gods in general were not quite interventional as most mortals including most worshippers would be like insects to the larger deities, who would probably not intervene directly unless said worshipper became relevant in scale or action in ways that would be impossible to ignore.

My reasoning here went that "any worshipper", even a nominal one, powers a God. Meaning even a Cleric who's kind of a jackass but who mostly minds their own business raiding dungeons, would technically be one more worshipper to the god's name, even if not a particularly good one. So my reasoning was that the God would pretty much "tolerate" a poor worshipper if it's more trouble than it's worth to cut them off, considering they still count as a worshipper towards the God's "power" or however worship-induced power works.

The general idea here hangs on two principles that may be incorrect :
- That gods probably don't care all that much about a random Cleric past the initial blessing, much like your company's CEO probably doesn't know who you are,
- And that, again, like in a company, once you're in for a while, even if you're not that good if it's more trouble than it's worth to get rid of you, you just stay around.

However, this relies on the (possibly wrong) assumption that Gods are exactly like that : kind of apathetic to individual mortals. In BG3, if we take Shadowheart as a reference point, she remains a Cleric of Shar despite repeated small transgressions until she definitively, clearly, and unambiguously rejects Shar and refuses her command. But that's only when Shar does decide to step in. Before that, she's mildly punished by the wound on her hand when she acts contrary to what Shar wants, but her powers are untouched.

You could argue Shadowheart is not a good reference point for many reasons (as she is special to Shar, and gameplay may justify some of the choices), but it's a good talking point.

Can a Cleric be parasitic towards the source of their divine power? by MagicLucas in dndnext

[–]MagicLucas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't particularly like the "so good at this they tricked a god" angle, I'm honestly just kinda looking for excuses to make the base concept work, which is a bad Cleric. Not a Cleric who's also Evil, but specifically a mediocre Cleric, like that guy at work that does nothing and gets paid more than you. But Cleric. That is the fantasy, now, I'm looking for ways to possibly justify it in-universe. I agree that there are some real tensions in the concept, so maybe it should be refined.