Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ed_Laprade" data-source="post: 5748265" data-attributes="member: 40172">The real trouble with alignment comes when the player(s) and GM don't see eye to eye on what constitutes good, evil, &etc. Which means you either have to nail it down solid or hope that everyone is grooving to the same vibe, as it were. Which is why I take a pretty liberal attitude to them these days. I've see too many arguments to want to bother with details anymore. As for clerics/priests without gods/religions, well, they just aren't!  The trouble with trying to quantify armor is that it really does depend on what weapon you're facing. Mail is great against swords, not so much against axes. Then there are arrows. The best defence against them is a raw silk shirt! So no matter how you put it, someone's bound to complain!   <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> Yeah, shields are a pain to get 'right'. I'd give them the +1, +2, etc. for the four sizes/types and hope for the best. One thing that does do is that it makes taking a sword and board character a much better option versus the two handed swordsman, which seem to dominate D&D Fighters these days. Better protection vs. more damage. Of course, your game doesn't seem to have that 'problem', so it doesn't really balance anything.  sigh.</blockquote>