Search results

Too true :)

Sounds like you want to make people's characters for them. Why not go the whole-hog and go back to Rangers having to be Good aligned.

But are we not discussing a Class that employs stealth, deception, and surprise attacks as its shtick? Does the game really have to front-load what a Classes' motivation is, rather than leaving it to the person that is actually supposed to be playing it.

That is a matter of semantics, they do exactly the same thing, it's just the reason that may vary. I see no reason not to allow players to play good-aligned assassins, who kill evil NPCs for example.

You are forcing people to perceive and play Paladins in a manner that you think appropriate, rather than in a way which may suit their DM/setting/preference. It is not conducive to uniting the DnD player base around a new edition. On a matter of semantics, it is nothing to do with 4e, Paladins...

No surprise here, but please no. The new edition should enable a variety of play styles, not force everybody to conform to a a historically pure vision of what DnD should be.

I don't accept that Cleric = Warrior, and regard Classes having pre-imposed alignment restrictions as totally retrograde.

No, apologies but you misunderstand me completely. I am not trying to impose my own tastes in either Class on anyone, including whether they wear armour, are a certain alignment, or how effective they are in melee. I am merely requesting that Paladin=Lawful Good is not forced down everybody's...

A Cleric is a Caster who serves a Deity. A Paladin is a Warrior who serves a Deity. There is no reason to impose narrow interpretations on either.

There would be nothing stopping somebody playing their Paladin as Awful Good as they want. What I do not understand is the need by some people to impose restrictions on how other players can play their Paladin, and insisting that anything other than the Lawful Good version just isn't DnD.

Not me, not even slightly. You can play your Paladin any way you like, and a DM is free to determine what Paladins are like in their campaign, but I want the option of playing a Paladin the way I envisage it; a holy warrior of any faith.

There needs to be some mechanism for the game designers to judge the relative power of spells/abilities. Problem is that when you let slip that the game is being constructed with consistent principles, some of the old-timers scream blue murder that "it's not what Gary intended".

Except, whether they are 'Uncommon', 'Rare', or unavailable should be down to the campaign, not the core rulebook.

I also think this is a too narrow interpretation. The Sith, from Star Wars, could be an inspiration for Chaotic Evil monks; very disciplined in increasing their personal power, but utterly ruthless and untrustworthy when dealing with others. Restrictions for Race/Class/Alignment are easy for a...

Very interesting idea.

Exactly this for me.

I disagree. Your argument precludes players who aren't confident speakers from being good at Diplomacy 'in game'. A player who is a Barrister by profession should not be allowed to sweet talk the guards continually using his undiplomatic and charismatic Barbarian just because he dazzles the...

I agree. Much as I like Exalted and the Social Combat idea, I don't expect much appetite for innovation, rather than arguments over dinosaur names.