Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 5454819" data-attributes="member: 5142">As I said, I came into D&amp;D through 3E, so I'm only vaguely familiar with the mechanics of 2E. Good to know. 4E's modularity however is quite purposeful in terms of designing classes around a particular combat role and delineating classes by power source. True, but that's essentially the same for all editions. Dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are equally &quot;base assumptions&quot; of the system that can interfere with world-building. I have homebrewed many a setting that sought to give these assumed player races the old heave-ho. I often design my own as well, but the &quot;simplified&quot; cosmology of 4E is a bit more flexible for me to adjust to my liking. And when it comes to &quot;as-written&quot; cosmologies, the 4E version is just easier for me to work with conceptionally. I especially like the parallel Shadowfall and Feywild planes as those frequently have parallels in myths of &quot;otherworlds&quot; and &quot;underworlds.&quot;&nbsp; If we are talking about preferences, I prefer to disregard alignments altogether. But using alignments as general guidelines, I prefer the 5 alignment system, as that's generally how alignments played out in my campaigns. NE and LE were often played as a more general E alignment, while CG and NG were often played out as a more general G alignment. And CN was frequently played out as &quot;CE in all but name&quot; in many groups of mine. I also prefer the new &quot;unaligned&quot; over the neutral alignment. I particularly like how it made devils and demons a bit more compelling to me, while not also having to resort to creating nearly identical creatures for the different alignments. So I can see where these changes to alignment are coming from. But I can also see how people would prefer the symmetrical 9-alignment model.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 5454819, member: 5142"] As I said, I came into D&D through 3E, so I'm only vaguely familiar with the mechanics of 2E. Good to know. 4E's modularity however is quite purposeful in terms of designing classes around a particular combat role and delineating classes by power source. True, but that's essentially the same for all editions. Dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs are equally "base assumptions" of the system that can interfere with world-building. I have homebrewed many a setting that sought to give these assumed player races the old heave-ho. I often design my own as well, but the "simplified" cosmology of 4E is a bit more flexible for me to adjust to my liking. And when it comes to "as-written" cosmologies, the 4E version is just easier for me to work with conceptionally. I especially like the parallel Shadowfall and Feywild planes as those frequently have parallels in myths of "otherworlds" and "underworlds." If we are talking about preferences, I prefer to disregard alignments altogether. But using alignments as general guidelines, I prefer the 5 alignment system, as that's generally how alignments played out in my campaigns. NE and LE were often played as a more general E alignment, while CG and NG were often played out as a more general G alignment. And CN was frequently played out as "CE in all but name" in many groups of mine. I also prefer the new "unaligned" over the neutral alignment. I particularly like how it made devils and demons a bit more compelling to me, while not also having to resort to creating nearly identical creatures for the different alignments. So I can see where these changes to alignment are coming from. But I can also see how people would prefer the symmetrical 9-alignment model. [/QUOTE]

Verification