Search results

Are you talking about the alignments system or the players because this sounds like a player problem.

What are you talking about? They used spears, axes, and other things already in the system. I'm more worried about being a Fighter without armor. I can always be a Barbarian, but it doesn't feel appropriate.

Ehh, that feels like a gamist complaint. Just do it. It makes gameplay far more interesting.

That's explicitly the opposite of what morality is. You can't hurt innocent people and still be called a good person. Besides, Paladins and Clerics don't even need to have a deity. Edit: Fixed it.

What's "getting real-world stuff right"? I think that there should be more types of warrior cultures to base equipment off of. Even Pathfinder doesn't have a Polynesian-themed culture that I can take inspiration from for gameplay.

I would do it based on both the HD and the actual HP. An average Knight would have average HP, a low ranking knight would have 25% of potential HP, and a high ranking knight would have 75 to 100% of potential HP.

So basically you want to be called a Paladin but not actually act like one. Sounds like murderhobo logic honestly.

That's explicitly not using alignment at all.

Ehh, I feel like that idea is born out of laziness. After all, if killing a surrendering Goblin is considered bad, then it would cheat player out of casting fireball. Essentially, it's only considered a problem because the player can be punished for doing so.

I feel like there should be consistency in how the rules work. That's why I think it'd be bad if the second HD modifier is different for all the classes. I think it'd be easier to just add an Agility (AGI) stat and separate out all the Dexterity based skills.

You could always go the JRPG route of making everyone human. That's how they solved it in recent years.

I feel like it comes from the idea that the only way to get XP is by outright killing the enemy when that was never the case.

Yeah, there weren't a lot of lore elements to vote on; just gameplay. That could easily be because D&D has more than one setting.

People have a weird idea about what counts as "high-level".

You're right. It's like a JRPG: while the scope of what you're doing changes, what you're actually doing doesn't actually change.

I've found that people don't actually like to be punished for their actions. They play a Paladin cause it can heal. They don't actually care about helping people.

Your tiers are honestly too low and linear. I would do: 1 to 8: Low level 9 to 14: Mid level 15 to 18: High level 19 to 20: Masters 21 to 30: Paragons 31 to 50: Legends

Why should someone become immortal just because they reach level 21? Don't they have enough powers as is?

I always find it funny how undead always become super evil even if they were nice people when they were alive. If the necromancy process actually turns them evil, then it's a good reason why necromancers have such a bad name. It's not that a pure evil villain can't have a backstory; it's that...

Warlock originally meant "oathbreaker", so you could argue that witch is a horrible term for Warlocks.