I let my players play anything, do you?

[Jay05]

To a certain extent I both agree and disagree with this. I really believe that like in fiction, RP groups can support multiple power levels. For example a typical JLA team could include characters who fit every category from street level to godling and everything in between. I truly believe that with effort and a spirit of collaboration, a talented gm and talented players can do the same. And I believe it because I've seen it.

I have bolded the area I wish to address. While it might be true in a group where the GM and the players are experienced roleplayers, this does not hold true for people new to a system or new to roleplaying itself. While there are those that have the talent, regardless of previous experience, you are assuming all people involved (GM and players) are above what I consider normal for a group. In every group I have played in, there is at least one munchkin and one inept player. That is every group I have ever played in over the last 23+ years of experience. It includes two different regions of the country, several conventions, and possibly 40+ groups over the years (some branched off from previous groups others I was invited to for a bit). It is all fine and well to have a group that has been together for more than five years, playing the same system, to have a party makeup with disparate power levels. Each person knows what to expect from the GM and the other players. They know what the group will tolerate and what they will not. However, when the group you play with is a bit more in flux (rotating players and GM's, new additions from time to time, player pool lacking in serious players or many other factors) it is a bit difficult to get the group to gel that well. This is the reason most games shoot for balance in the classes as much as possible now. You may or may not agree with that view but there are those that do. I am not one of them. I believe a group can reach a point that they work that well together for the purpose of the story and not their own self-gratification. But in the end, the GM is limited to the type of people he can get into the group.

I honestly wasn't referring to groups with kids in them, nor was I referring to groups with constantly rotating player membership. If you have a munch, fine step on them however you have to, or eject them. My point through this whole damn thread is that the desire to play a powerful character DOES NOT make a player a munchkin, and said player should not be stifled or limited based on bias. Which is a lot of what I see in treads like these. People who have been burned by munchkins assuming that every player no matter the experience level who wishes to play powerful characters is a munchkin, and not even giving them the chance to prove otherwise. Which is imo a BS way to operate.

[jaymz]

I play an Adult Ice Dragon. Unprincipled alignment. I do not play him in such a way that I would be considered a munchkin and this character has the equivalent of about 10 different OCC's worth of ability and skills (some house ruling involved obviously as the way there are by the book makes no sense in some ways). If anything I downplay his abilities by and large unless he NEEDS to use his power and he IS powerful. As in Alistair Dunscon wouldn't want to **** him off powerful.

I have seen a munckin play a wilderness scout to ill effect.

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

[DhAkael]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

[Razzinold]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

EDIT: (and there it is)

[Jay05]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

While that is true, wouldn't you agree that a player should be allowed to prove him/herself to not be a munch rather than assumed to be so because they want to play a powerful class? And to clarify, I'm referring to book legal powerful classes, not some crazy combo of stuff that the munch wants at 1st level which they only could've gotten through years of play.

[Icefalcon]

To a certain extent I both agree and disagree with this. I really believe that like in fiction, RP groups can support multiple power levels. For example a typical JLA team could include characters who fit every category from street level to godling and everything in between. I truly believe that with effort and a spirit of collaboration, a talented gm and talented players can do the same. And I believe it because I've seen it.

I have bolded the area I wish to address. While it might be true in a group where the GM and the players are experienced roleplayers, this does not hold true for people new to a system or new to roleplaying itself. While there are those that have the talent, regardless of previous experience, you are assuming all people involved (GM and players) are above what I consider normal for a group. In every group I have played in, there is at least one munchkin and one inept player. That is every group I have ever played in over the last 23+ years of experience. It includes two different regions of the country, several conventions, and possibly 40+ groups over the years (some branched off from previous groups others I was invited to for a bit). It is all fine and well to have a group that has been together for more than five years, playing the same system, to have a party makeup with disparate power levels. Each person knows what to expect from the GM and the other players. They know what the group will tolerate and what they will not. However, when the group you play with is a bit more in flux (rotating players and GM's, new additions from time to time, player pool lacking in serious players or many other factors) it is a bit difficult to get the group to gel that well. This is the reason most games shoot for balance in the classes as much as possible now. You may or may not agree with that view but there are those that do. I am not one of them. I believe a group can reach a point that they work that well together for the purpose of the story and not their own self-gratification. But in the end, the GM is limited to the type of people he can get into the group.

I honestly wasn't referring to groups with kids in them, nor was I referring to groups with constantly rotating player membership. If you have a munch, fine step on them however you have to, or eject them. My point through this whole damn thread is that the desire to play a powerful character DOES NOT make a player a munchkin, and said player should not be stifled or limited based on bias. Which is a lot of what I see in treads like these. People who have been burned by munchkins assuming that every player no matter the experience level who wishes to play powerful characters is a munchkin, and not even giving them the chance to prove otherwise. Which is imo a BS way to operate.

And you are assuming because I stated that there are limits to what I allow that I am expecting munchkins. Have you ever considered that every game I run, I have reasons for allowing or disallowing certain classes?

[Icefalcon]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

While that is true, wouldn't you agree that a player should be allowed to prove him/herself to not be a munch rather than assumed to be so because they want to play a powerful class? And to clarify, I'm referring to book legal powerful classes, not some crazy combo of stuff that the munch wants at 1st level which they only could've gotten through years of play.

I always allow the benefit of the doubt the first time around.

[Nightmask]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

Or maybe people just spend more time talking about when the munchkin used a more powerful character rather than a weaker one, since when people run around talking ill they always play up what class the munchkin abused and naturally they're going to spend more time talking about when he abused the Cosmo-Knight than the Rogue Scientist.

[jaymz]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

Ah but see that is not the class that is the person perverting the class into something it was never meant or intended to be

[jaymz]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

Or maybe people just spend more time talking about when the munchkin used a more powerful character rather than a weaker one, since when people run around talking ill they always play up what class the munchkin abused and naturally they're going to spend more time talking about when he abused the Cosmo-Knight than the Rogue Scientist.

Typically munchkins tend to want power classes and then want them modified to be even more powerful however. I have seen Munchkins TRY to do that with other classes but typically not.

[Nightmask]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

While that is true, wouldn't you agree that a player should be allowed to prove him/herself to not be a munch rather than assumed to be so because they want to play a powerful class? And to clarify, I'm referring to book legal powerful classes, not some crazy combo of stuff that the munch wants at 1st level which they only could've gotten through years of play.

From what I've seen 'benefit of the doubt' is a concept many don't seem to have, they have a 'He wants X? Must be a munchkin.' mindset so that just bringing it up will class you as a munchkin to them and nothing you can do will disabuse them of the notion since you can spin all behavior negatively to support a 'you must be a munchkin' conclusion (just look how political spin-doctors can take the most positive thing about a rival and manage to spin it in a negative fashion).

[Icefalcon]

Or maybe people just spend more time talking about when the munchkin used a more powerful character rather than a weaker one, since when people run around talking ill they always play up what class the munchkin abused and naturally they're going to spend more time talking about when he abused the Cosmo-Knight than the Rogue Scientist.

I will agree that is usually the case. But I have seen many classes munched out. Some of those include: City Rat, Vagabond, Super Soldier, Dog Boy and many more.

[Razzinold]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

While that is true, wouldn't you agree that a player should be allowed to prove him/herself to not be a munch rather than assumed to be so because they want to play a powerful class? And to clarify, I'm referring to book legal powerful classes, not some crazy combo of stuff that the munch wants at 1st level which they only could've gotten through years of play.

I do agree, the person should be allowed a chance to prove themselves and be allowed to play a powerful class without any assumptions being made.
I am one of the ones that allow people to pretty much play anything that is book legal, but a gm should still know their players and what they can handle.
For example, my old GM came up with a really cool concept for a character, a chiang ku dragon that was trained as a temporal raider, he thought I could handle such a class. Well I played it and people didn't even know what I was, I was an elderly looking character and they thought I was an herbalist/holistic medicine type character.

Or the GM himself, played for years as a Cosmo Knight with another group and he managed to not overshadow the rest of his group or fall from grace. He was always aware of his surroundings so he didn't even kill innocents by accident through collateral damage.

On the other hand during a chaos earth game his brother played an enhanced werewolf with not one but two rune axes because he would cry (literally when we were younger) if hr wasn't the biggest baddest unkillable thing out there. He walked into combat and stood toe to toe with enemies since he couldn't be killed because nobody knew he was a were wolf.

[jaymz]

From what I've seen 'benefit of the doubt' is a concept many don't seem to have, they have a 'He wants X? Must be a munchkin.' mindset so that just bringing it up will class you as a munchkin to them and nothing you can do will disabuse them of the notion since you can spin all behavior negatively to support a 'you must be a munchkin' conclusion (just look how political spin-doctors can take the most positive thing about a rival and manage to spin it in a negative fashion).

I'll agree with you to an extent there. It is also out of context. Someone says "He wanted a Cosmo Knight", I don't assume anything, I ask what did everyone else have. If the answer is along the lines of "CS Grunt, Rogue Scholar, Psi-Stalker and Vagabond" Then I start to question why the reason chose something so "out of scale" to the rest of the party.

[jaymz]

On the other hand during a chaos earth game his brother played an enhanced werewolf with not one but two rune axes because he would cry (literally when we were younger) if hr wasn't the biggest baddest unkillable thing out there. He walked into combat and stood toe to toe with enemies since he couldn't be killed because nobody knew he was a were wolf.

I bet I know who THAT was....

[Razzinold]

Munchkin is a style of play/type of person. Not the class being played.

TRUTH!

I will agree that it's the person that makes the munchkin, however, you must admit that munchkin and powerful characters sort of go hand in hand.
It's not too often that you find a munchkin Rogue Scientist, but I'm sure it does happen, you mostly find munchkins picking the neo-human-atlantian-sea titan-godling-psi slinger as their occ or a juicer that found some piece of technology/magic artifact (or spell)/miracle bowl of cereal that allows them to exist without the diminished lifespan like every other juicer on Rifts Earth.

Ah but see that is not the class that is the person perverting the class into something it was never meant or intended to be

I will grant you that, but we both know that this type of behaviour is not unheard of in Rifts.

Ok for a more subtle example how about a person playing a mutant with super strength, flight, magnetism and I believe could shoot lasers (others complain when people always use atlantians as their "regular" people instead of regular humans, well this guy used mutant as his standard character build then stacked an occ on top of it) and then forces the NPC (who's a samurai) to teach him the way of the sword and fashion his own daisho and armour.
Talk about overkill, first off that samurai would not give up his teachings to some dude he just met but buddy kicked up a fuss until he got his way. Then was pissed when we got rifted ahead in time and he lost his swords and armour because he wasn't wearing them at the time and stopped playing that character.

[Razzinold]

On the other hand during a chaos earth game his brother played an enhanced werewolf with not one but two rune axes because he would cry (literally when we were younger) if hr wasn't the biggest baddest unkillable thing out there. He walked into combat and stood toe to toe with enemies since he couldn't be killed because nobody knew he was a were wolf.

I bet I know who THAT was....

I guarantee you know who that was, give you a hint: the same guy is also described in my mutant samurai post as well.

[jaymz]

On the other hand during a chaos earth game his brother played an enhanced werewolf with not one but two rune axes because he would cry (literally when we were younger) if hr wasn't the biggest baddest unkillable thing out there. He walked into combat and stood toe to toe with enemies since he couldn't be killed because nobody knew he was a were wolf.

I bet I know who THAT was....

I guarantee you know who that was, give you a hint: the same guy is also described in my mutant samurai post as well.

I figured as much....

[Razzinold]

Or maybe people just spend more time talking about when the munchkin used a more powerful character rather than a weaker one, since when people run around talking ill they always play up what class the munchkin abused and naturally they're going to spend more time talking about when he abused the Cosmo-Knight than the Rogue Scientist.

I won't argue with you there, it would be easier to complain about all the damage the Cosmo Knight did vs the Scientist.

[Jay05]

To a certain extent I both agree and disagree with this. I really believe that like in fiction, RP groups can support multiple power levels. For example a typical JLA team could include characters who fit every category from street level to godling and everything in between. I truly believe that with effort and a spirit of collaboration, a talented gm and talented players can do the same. And I believe it because I've seen it.

I have bolded the area I wish to address. While it might be true in a group where the GM and the players are experienced roleplayers, this does not hold true for people new to a system or new to roleplaying itself. While there are those that have the talent, regardless of previous experience, you are assuming all people involved (GM and players) are above what I consider normal for a group. In every group I have played in, there is at least one munchkin and one inept player. That is every group I have ever played in over the last 23+ years of experience. It includes two different regions of the country, several conventions, and possibly 40+ groups over the years (some branched off from previous groups others I was invited to for a bit). It is all fine and well to have a group that has been together for more than five years, playing the same system, to have a party makeup with disparate power levels. Each person knows what to expect from the GM and the other players. They know what the group will tolerate and what they will not. However, when the group you play with is a bit more in flux (rotating players and GM's, new additions from time to time, player pool lacking in serious players or many other factors) it is a bit difficult to get the group to gel that well. This is the reason most games shoot for balance in the classes as much as possible now. You may or may not agree with that view but there are those that do. I am not one of them. I believe a group can reach a point that they work that well together for the purpose of the story and not their own self-gratification. But in the end, the GM is limited to the type of people he can get into the group.

I honestly wasn't referring to groups with kids in them, nor was I referring to groups with constantly rotating player membership. If you have a munch, fine step on them however you have to, or eject them. My point through this whole damn thread is that the desire to play a powerful character DOES NOT make a player a munchkin, and said player should not be stifled or limited based on bias. Which is a lot of what I see in treads like these. People who have been burned by munchkins assuming that every player no matter the experience level who wishes to play powerful characters is a munchkin, and not even giving them the chance to prove otherwise. Which is imo a BS way to operate.

And you are assuming because I stated that there are limits to what I allow that I am expecting munchkins. Have you ever considered that every game I run, I have reasons for allowing or disallowing certain classes?

Excuse me, I was not assuming a damn thing about you or how you run your games. The quote you cut pasted and bolded to address had nothing to do with you, I was commenting on another's post and you chose to start dialog with me. As for your reasons, good for you, and if your players don't mind... Good for them

[Nightmask]

Style or otherwise, its a common enough event that measures need to be taken to contain it for the continued enjoyment of the game by both the players and the GM. Regardless of why these less then controlled players exist, they DO exist, and if cordoning off certain types of character classes saves me some trouble, and the other players some headaches, then I have no issue saying "no evil characters", "no characters above this power level", "no non-humans", "no magic users" or "no characters that are too powerful or too weak", then I think I can suffer the limited ill will it will cause me.

How can you contain something that you don't even know exists? There's a world of difference between 'I'm setting these limits because I think it's best for the campaign' compared to 'I'm setting these limits because I'm sure some of you will abuse things if I don't', as the latter says you don't trust your players can create a lot of ill will.

[say652]

i feel and stand by the fact this is supposed to be fun. so far the theme i am getting people want to play godlings, so i will let them. i also would like a cosmoknight player to inbox me and somebody play a super please!!!!!!

[say652]

m the gm after all) but i dont let uber damage or (or my pc's an unhittable dodge) discourage me, sure you rock in in hand to hand, unlock this door......thought so. lol(more than one way to skin a munchkin)

[say652]

"bring me your worst and i will laugh as it runs and hides" James Bailey. my first Dungeon Master and yo he backed that up every game. in fact he did not let you DM until you impressed him as a player first.took three whole games for me to get the honor but not everybody is me.lol

[The Beast]

i feel and stand by the fact this is supposed to be fun. so far the theme i am getting people want to play godlings, so i will let them. i also would like a cosmoknight player to inbox me and somebody play a super please!!!!!!

What day, and what format (chat, Skype, etc)?

[say652]

i feel and stand by the fact this is supposed to be fun. so far the theme i am getting people want to play godlings, so i will let them. i also would like a cosmoknight player to inbox me and somebody play a super please!!!!!!

What day, and what format (chat, Skype, etc)?

any day after 2 pm eastern time. so far looks like chat but i am working on upgrading to some format where i can speak. the place is facebook. no dicebots roll be honest, inbox for my house rules.

[say652]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

[flatline]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

[Nightmask]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

Godling if you choose can give you effectively 2 mage OCC and bonus MDC to top things off, at least if they're going with the Pantheons version instead of the PU2 version, and the other Godling perks.

[jaymz]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

Godling if you choose can give you effectively 2 mage OCC and bonus MDC to top things off, at least if they're going with the Pantheons version instead of the PU2 version, and the other Godling perks.

Or uber-psychic at 1st level.....all minors and 15 supers....

[Nightmask]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

Godling if you choose can give you effectively 2 mage OCC and bonus MDC to top things off, at least if they're going with the Pantheons version instead of the PU2 version, and the other Godling perks.

Or uber-psychic at 1st level.....all minors and 15 supers....

Mmmm, for some reason that reminds me of how I'd always wanted to try out a Godling of more tech-oriented gods with Gizmoteer and Techno-Wizard as the magical and psychic choices.

[jaymz]

What about a Godling taking Ley Line Walker, Temporal Wizard and Technowizard? Just IMAGINE the gadget he could make....

[Nightmask]

What about a Godling taking Ley Line Walker, Temporal Wizard and Technowizard? Just IMAGINE the gadget he could make....

Would be nice, but you can't take 3 magical OCC, just two. But the Techno-Wizard gains spells like the LLW (even if he can't cast them as effectively outside of a gadget), so it's not essential to have LLW just Temporal Wizard and Techno-Wizard.

[Wooly]

Yes you can play anything from the Main Book, RUE, SB:1. Anything else requires a waiver.

[jaymz]

What about a Godling taking Ley Line Walker, Temporal Wizard and Technowizard? Just IMAGINE the gadget he could make....

Would be nice, but you can't take 3 magical OCC, just two. But the Techno-Wizard gains spells like the LLW (even if he can't cast them as effectively outside of a gadget), so it's not essential to have LLW just Temporal Wizard and Techno-Wizard.

It just says you can take Magic again to gain a second magic class. It does not say you cannot take more than 2... But I get your point. Take psychic with Physical and 5 Super and BAM awesome combat Supernatural Godling who doesn't really need tech at all.

[jaymz]

Yes you can play anything from the Main Book, RUE, SB:1. Anything else requires a waiver.

That works if you are playing North America. I assume you modify those choices if NOT in North America?

[T-Willard]

It depends on the campaign. We've had some serious restrictions when playing the Coalition War out. The moral choices and the agonizing decisions made by CS troops during the war were great roleplaying. (The infamous "What are we doing? We're supposed to be the protectors of humanity, but these people that the General had us round up are villager's, for God's sake, they aren't even magic, and now we find out that it's a DEATH CAMP? You can't just turn away from this, we're officers and NCO's, we have a DUTY to people!" speech by one of the players that resulted in them going rogue)

[Wooly]

Yes you can play anything from the Main Book, RUE, SB:1. Anything else requires a waiver.

That works if you are playing North America. I assume you modify those choices if NOT in North America?

Yes nearly every campaign I have run has been in focused on N. America with some dimensional travel for good measure.

I did run an Atlantis centric campaign where we used just Atlantis character classes.

I've always wanted to run a dedicated Wormwood game.

[say652]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

bingo demigod phase mystic with a shifter gift would be most terrifying.

[say652]

What about a Godling taking Ley Line Walker, Temporal Wizard and Technowizard? Just IMAGINE the gadget he could make....

i allow godlings as written in the pantheons of the megaverse book. any warlock,leyline walker,shifter,or mystic only.

[flatline]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

bingo demigod phase mystic with a shifter gift would be most terrifying.

There are 2 combinations I'd love to try as a player: Temporal Wizard with Air/Earth Warlock abilities and a Mind Bleeder with Shifter abilities.

--flatline

[say652]

a lizardmage and two godlings so far.......

I'm fascinated that people seem to prefer godlings over demi-gods. I would have expected the demi-god to be more highly regarded since you get to combine an OCC with a godling power category.

--flatline

bingo demigod phase mystic with a shifter gift would be most terrifying.

There are 2 combinations I'd love to try as a player: Temporal Wizard with Air/Earth Warlock abilities and a Mind Bleeder with Shifter abilities.

--flatline

like the combinations. i made a demigod burster that could fly.(a minor inti inca of sorts)