Recent content by muffin_of_chaos

Why is this semantic? Seems like a pretty good indicator of what can actually happen...it doesn't cost double movement to move one square, but your total movement merely is reduced by half, so shifting one square isn't a problem because it's still only shifting one square.

"Smart" in the case of this concept would be Wisdom.

Poor tieflings.

Good question. I'd guess 2d8+2.

In the last 4E game I ran, a halfling took a hit that would have killed her had she been any other races, and made the hit miss. She then turned the fight around through her not-death. OP? You decide.

Do we have any indication that it affects stats the same way that it used to? A halfling-player wants to know.

Moral codes aren't meant to change based on each action, however. That's why they're codes. I don't believe that if people actually have a moral code, they can act contrarily to it. If they can, it wasn't really their moral code to begin with, just some set of ideals. Can literal alignment be...

All right, so you think that alignment under the old system doesn't prescribe a moral code. You also believe that alignment exists in order to enable gods and other people to determine how they should react to any given follower/person. Of course, people have no way of knowing the alignment of...

Limitations on the character's actual moral code, imposed by a strict alignment system, in a Role Playing Game, have always been hard for me to swallow. There are a literally infinite number of ways to restrict PC powers without modifying their own independent thought processes.

Actually, I could. I probably won't, because it doesn't fit in with the new edition, but I could. Yeah...there are so many different kinds of "being devoted to chaos" that pinning them into one alignment doesn't make much sense to me. And no one is really devoted to chaos, because it takes an...

I'd rather explore the whole playground, myself.

Of course it's semantic. But obviously it's necessary to absorb. You believe that being Chaotic is to be devoted to the idea of Chaos. I believe that the way WotC is defining it is as Actually Chaotic. No reason to drop an assumption that makes every bit of sense. You are talking about...

D&D is not meant to be realistic. It's meant to have a semblance of realism, but ultimately the whole point is to interact in a game patterned after fantasy novels and action movies. Thus, hit points, initiative, arbitrary skill sets, random stats that have no bearing on each other. I doubt...

Agreed. Sounds like a good campaign. I just think it's silly to assume that Order and Chaos *want* their followers to engage in war. They wouldn't, even if they had wants. In the same vein, I think real embodiments of law and chaos in the form of elementals is implausible.

I can comprehend perfect good and perfect evil wanting to destroy each other much easier than perfect order and chaos. That's probably because good and evil seem to be constructs.