Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6078195" data-attributes="member: 48965">Given the above statement... how is it a punishment in earlier editions if you violate alignment... was this restriction hidden when you picked the class? If not didn't you plan to play a LG character, and he only becomes less effective when you violate alignment. But then again I think you know what you stated above is in no way a truthful representation of my argument.If you can claim a player picking a LG class and knowing he will looose his powers if he doesn't abide by the alignment is a "punishment"then yes that is a "punishment"for the wzard. In both cases this isn't a hidden factor, the player is aware of it and how violating the tenets of the archetype will make him less effective. Tis seems to boil down to Ï like 4e's method better"but I'm not seeing a difference in whether it's incentive or punishment for playing a certain way.Maybe because you're too busy trying your hardest to mis-characterize my arguments as opposed to understanding what I am saying. I'll break it down simply...Either both editions mechanical incentives for playing to a particular archetype are incentives, or both are punishments as they effectively do the same thing... reduce the effectiveness of the character you are playing for not playing a certain way (whether that's as a melle defender or LG paragon doesn't matter).</blockquote>