NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 5687788" data-attributes="member: 40398">This is an eye-opening thread. So here's another question for those of you who chose option 1 or 2:Say you're playing in a game with no RAW restrictions, like 4e D&D. You mention to your DM how you miss having actual restrictions, and he says "Normally I go by RAW, but because it'd make you happier, I'll put restrictions on your character. And impose appropriate penalties if your PC fails to follow those restrictions."Is this a) a good solution, b) a tolerable compromise, or c) a possibly patronizing sham?See also: bards, warlocks, 'thieves cannot be LG,' 'rangers must be Good,' and others. One of my pet peeves is the haphazard way that D&D applies alignment restrictions. I don't see the point either.Case in point. A lot of gamers seem to have this special reverence for the paladin, but to my mind he's just a cleric who's better at smiting than turning undead.This is why I prefer 4e's way of handling divine classes. (Even if I find the ritual endowment thing somewhat silly.) The paladin is more restricted than other classes, but it doesn't matter because all of the restrictions are equally toothless.I do agree that having rp restrictions shouldn't entitle anyone to extra bennies.That said, I've played with DMs where playing another class isn't really an option. Take core-only 3e games, which seem to be popular among DMs; the players know that having a dedicated healer in the party will vastly improve their chances of survival, so somebody volunteers for that role. Unfortunately, his options are limited: there's the cleric and the druid. That's it; opting out of restrictive classes in such a game isn't possible unless the party's willing to rough it without a healer.</blockquote>

Verification