serleran wrote:
I will not be using them, and I hope they remain in the field of 100% optional and no module (or sourcebook, save The Adventurer's Backpack which is the perfect place for this) ever prints new ones or assumes they are being used (by assigning such to NPCs or monsters.)
Otherwise, for the people clamoring about how "there's no customization" they now have "feats" to use. That's a good thing for those who need more rules.
80+% of everything in the CKG is considered optional with a 100% chance of being helpful. Please don't then go and assume or lead others to assume that the Adjuncts are indeed intended to be a "stamped with official goodness you MUST use this rule or your game is crap rule." Thats asanine and leads to completely the wrong conclusions.
This isn't WOTC after all. Nobody is telling anyone that their way of playing C&C is better or worse than anyone else's.
So let's dial back our 18th lvl muck-raking and piss-moaning for a minute and examine a few things shall we? Ok Great!
As we should also know it isn't in the interest of a game such as C&C to create a brand new character class for every little thing as it has a tendency to create lots of clutter and confusion (Like 2e/3e). Having a class for a swashbuckler, and a buccanneer, and a beggar, and a potter, and a sculptor simply adds a lot of Bu11-Sh1t to a game.
Using some simple player and not over the top character options and examples for CK's to do stuff with in their game seemed the best answer. Not to mention the fact that MOST CKs are already doing exactly that in their game and HAVE already been doing for "gasp" OVER 30 years. If you did not know that already, now you do. You've just been told.
One thing I wanted to do was give CK's the tools to create their own sorts of Adjuncts to give flavor to their own game. Nothing wrong with giving some power parameters for them to judge if a new power or ability was too strong or too weak.
Remember, if individual CK's want to create character classes, thats their business and they can do that till "who laid the rail' and everyone is happy because it doesn't create 'official" clutter to keep track of and keeps things pretty streamlined as far as content in subsequent products and product lines. To my mind everyone's happy because any individual's idea about a certain "optional class" (1/2 yetininjapirate)is always better than everyone else's.
With OPTIONAL rules like the adjuncts you find less need for a total class revamp and more ease at satisfying your individual players needs for achievement and originality.
I notice you tend to like to tie a lot of very stringent rules when you say such things as "always" and "never" to any post where even optional rules are mentioned. Sorry, but I can be droll and humorless too. I find such all or nothing points of view almost as tired to me as arguing about whether or not people put money from chance and community chest in free parking. Who cares if one person doesn't like it. That doesn't mean it needs to spoil the cheese of everyone else looking to explore new possibilities in their game.
Sure some of the Adjuncts are inspired by feats. So what? I hate to tell anyone this but feats when used as originally designed were quite an evolution (tho not a new one) to gaming. They did indeed offer players a bit of an opportunity to flash it up and be something more than just a beercan with a battleaxe. That said, this isn't why we wrote them at all. The idea to me was to offer exactly the thing you seem not to want.
Campaign based flavor. Why for example would rogues of a certain area or pirates of a certain sea have a specific and unique fighting style that isn't easily defined by standard character abilities in the PHB? There is nothing wrong with campaign based flavor and/or special abilities (even ones reflected in some feats or another) being added to a game to give its players more ownership of their character and more ownership of the campaign world that they play in. Maybe your monks need to be able to climb and fight? Maybe your barbarian should be able to hit badguys really hard every so often without resorting to Monty Haul and his bag of magic hammers. Maybe you have this problem with ale kegs and nobody knows how to f'n repair a barrel, but your pretty sure a simple attribute check aint gonna cut it according to the RAW. Maybe your a floppy hat, makeup and thigh boots cutlass fighter who's at odds with the armor class RAW. There could be an adjunct that solves your problem better than a phony sounding magic item in a low magic setting.
Either way, what was officially and totally avoided was the idea of trees and ven diagrams and all other manner of Horse $hit that allows someone to build up the ultimate one hit wonder character that ruins everyone else's fun. Thats not what its supposed to be about and to be honest, never was. We worked pretty hard to make sure Adjuncts don't stack and aren't completely class specific. I'm sure some will(stack) and are(class specific) but thats the nature of writing game rules. No matter what you do someone will find a way to break the rules in their favor.
C
P.S.:I'm on team TLG , nice to meet you. Thank you for your continued patience, support, positive outlook, and creative commentary.
