D&D was about expanding creativity, not about slapping arbitrary restrictions on what players could do.
If you think otherwise, give a specific example.
i dont see this as a RPG choice… in all honesty here they can market it all they want as a " choice " but in reality majority of these abilities are terrible…
A RPG choice was the sylvanis questline options… although they didnt end in a actual meaningful choice, it was a clear rpg choice.
Video game, not an RPG. Keep trying.
You wasn’t able to just willy nilly swap around your traits which you acquired. Additionally if you was a class with a faith, your god abilities was largely dependent on your god. Every choice you made mattered in D&D because it was part of your character growth. Or do you remember being able to swap around your chosen abilities, perks willy nilly?
That consequence should be class and spec based. And if people have been declined or kicked for low dps due to their class or spec what makes you think blizzard adding another layer of active and passive skills that you cannot change will help in fixing that?
Blizzard never fixed their classes and just let the meta own their players. Now we are being lead to believe that this will just work for everyone? When the time comes well see how well the community reacts to being kicked or not picked for low dps that is directly related to covenants.
loosening the restrictions would help the RPG element…
Instead of people being shoe horned into one or the other they have the freedom to chose there most disired cov based on what there character would chose. not the player or the players disred choice.
1 Like
And there are still limits to what your creativity can do in character creation. You have limited stats, limited class levels, limited feats, and only one race work with.
1 Like
No man, you was totally able to go to the local trainer and have them reset your abilities, and feats at any given time.
This is what Blizzard is doing, put in D&D terms:
You go into a new town. The fishermen are horrified because of a giant crocodile living nearby. The constable is concerned with a band of ruffians living in the nearby woods.
You go to deal with the crocodile, successfully.
Then you go to the constable, and he says, “No, I don’t want your help, because you chose to help the fishermen.”
That’s not an “RPG element”. That’s stupid.
Actually it’s more like choosing conflicting religions… Not constables and fishermen. And you absolutely would have such things deny you if the two sides was of oppising alignments.
1 Like
Except the covenants aren’t opposed to each other.
Next strawman?
If you’re siding with one organization, why would the other organization trust you with their important matters?
1 Like
Because they’re allies and opposed to the same enemy.
Next strawman?
Why are we even chosing in the first place? arnt all covenants against the jailer?
Cant we unite them through a questline?
This way those RPG bois get that seductive lore while we mmochumps dont have to deal with the restrictions…
1 Like
Yes, the covenants are all on the same side.
And they don’t care about the RPG elements, they just think it’s cool that people they hate are unhappy.
I find this rich coming from someone painting covenants as something as minor as two unimportant npc’s such as a fisherman and a constable.
That makes sense. Fisherman are dirty, stinky, devious criminals and any character should have to prove themselves after associating with their kind.
They aren’t, they’re organizations united against a common foe, but somehow we’re restricted in helping them. Because reasons.
Already said this wasn’t the case, at least on my end, but you don’t care.
I’m just waiting for a good reason for the restrictions to be in place.
All you’ve come up with is “I don’t want to change my covenant.”
Which isn’t a reason for other players not to be able to.