Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 1801564" data-attributes="member: 2209">The designers of the game stated their goal was to balance the classes mechanically and the restrictions on alignment, switching classes, and the paladin restrictions were not mechanical balancing factors but flavor issues to capture the history of the classes as they have been in the past. Removing the roleplay restrictions and alignment restrictions would change the flavor of the classes but not make the formerly restricted classes overpower the non-restricted ones. A lawful berserker will not be unbalanced mechanically nor a lawful bard.IME this is the case, a paladin is fairly balanced against a fighter or a wizard of equal level as far as adventuring usefulness. The restrictions are just roleplay issues.So the cost will have to be in flavor. Now removing the restrictions can be viewed as diluting the concepts of the classes if you view the restrictions as a significant part of the class, for instance chaotic and barbarian. So a lawful barbarian pays the price for diluting the concept by mechanically losing rage.However if you feel that the class concept is not based in the restrictions but elsewhere such as the class abilities and archetypes, then removing the restrictions opens up new character concept possibilities such as a berserker who is lawful because he follows a code, is devoted to his liege lord and his people, and believes in groups over individuals and the rule of law. Drunken Master style monks seem better suited to chaos than law, etc. Viewed this way the character gets his non core supported concept in a mechanically balanced package, and so there should not be a cost if the character is to remain mechanically balanced.As it stands this is not the case, there are these restrictions and so there are these mechanically unbalanced consequences to breaking the restrictions (a fallen paladin is basically equivalent to an NPC class warrior, a lawful barbarian loses the significant class power of rage, etc.)When I play a hero I just want to play a hero, I don't want to try to play someone else's view of what a hero should do or have the morality of my actions constantly judged for possible failure with someone else's differing standards. If there was a disagreement and I was penalized it would lessen my fun significantly. So I'm currently playing a LG war domain godless cleric in a current campaign instead of a paladin. Mechanically almost the same, and I can't think of a single thing I would do different roleplay-wise if he were a paladin, but no worries or judgments and I can focus on playing the character and enjoying the adventure instead of what the DM thinks a paladin should do in every situation. If the paladin restrictions were not there I would have considered playing a paladin, but as it stands I don't ever plan on playing one subject to those mechanical risks and constant DM moral judgments.</blockquote>

Verification