The Griffin's Crier

You may recall that I never even read your cleric character concept until about a week later. I was not 100% on top of everything that was going on then, as I was (and still am) focused on reading and absorbing all the campaign info.

From my perspective, it seemed like:

• Bob had already created a cool character, and had most folks.
  Suddenly, Jess's undead-zapper wasn't going to be available.
  So now BoB felt he needed to make an undead-zapper, because that would be most effective in Ravenloft.

If you simply decided that you liked the other kind of cleric better, fine. My bad. An undead-focused cleric is not an anomolous character design by any stretch; it's actually rather common, so no eyebrows raised there. The act of (and motivation for) switching was what I was questioning, not the actual concept. They are two different things.

erilar wrote:From my perspective, it seemed like:

• Bob had already created a cool character, and had most folks.
  Suddenly, Jess's undead-zapper wasn't going to be available.
  So now BoB felt he needed to make an undead-zapper, because that would be most effective in Ravenloft.

Yes, I think you've got the sequence correct. And my motivation to make an turn&burn IS motivated by the lack of one in the party after we had discussed and said we needed one.

That was my first comment about character design: we need a strong cleric who's good at turning/destroying undead. and i volunteered for that from the beginning.

then jess said he was also thinking about doing a cleric and so i made my cleric the protection/buff guy.

but if jess isn't going to be available a lot, IMO, a turn&burn cleric will be more useful to the party. that was my very first impulse, after all.

sorry if that seems to metagamey, that was just our original plan.

You want to play the Easy Button guy, knock yourself out. IMO, your other character was way more interesting and original. Just don't blame me if all the encounters are boring.