Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6783840" data-attributes="member: 2656">From practically the creation of the game there were differences of opinion on whant Alignment actually meant, which lead to lots of contradictory rulings and game elements in the game. Any particular theory can gather evidence by a selective reading of the various editions of D&D, downplaying or ignoring anything contradictory. Detectable alignment threatens mystery plots. Defenses against such detection weakens the appeal of alignment to players, and moves it closer to a stick to punish the players with rather than a carrot.I disagree when it comes to 4e classes. 3e made classes weak by the lenient multiclassing rules, and encouraging min maxed prestige class builds. IMO this damaged the  "D&D as team game" variant by making it hard to figure out the capabilities of any given PC without knowing the exact details of their build. I think of 3e classes as "loose", a toolbox with which to assemble the concept aimed at.4e classes where much more restricted and multiclassing was more limited. Hybrid classes had big warning labels across them about uneven balance and utility. The class and variant of a 4e PC quickly gives a fairly accurate idea of his general capabilities (unless it's built against type and deceptively). I personally prefer restrictive classes over looser ones, YMMV.4e does make it much easier to reskin classes, it's true, which can conflict with a more prescriptive view of classes.I don't think there has ever been a general consensus on the tangibility of alignment.</blockquote>

Verification