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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5915829" data-attributes="member: 51942">The argument that it's hard to add or remove restrictions fairly weak.  I don't think that's an argument for or against having them in the core rules - sure, they're a good thing to keep a campaign in focus, but that doesn't necessarily apply to the whole base game.  If it's just about mechanics, it's trivial to add restrictions and probably even more trivial to remove them.What's much harder is making pervasive, setting-relevant crunch that's consistent with the fluff when that fluff isn't defined.So, rather than seeing an anodyne "holy warrior", I'd prefer a paladin that's strongly tied to an alignment.  There's just so much interaction with what kind of holy warrior and the crunch of what such a warrior might do that I don't see much value in a flavor-free variant.I'd like to see restrictions - not as a form of balancing, but as an tool for consistency.  Of course you could take the paladin an turn him into a blackguard (that's a traditional variation, after all), but doing so should involve changes in the crunch to reflect the change of flavor.Especially if the classes do not silo powers, such a change might be fairly easy.  It's just a matter of tweaking key class features and adapting the power-list to match, and hey-presto!  The DMG might even have an example of how to re-imagine a druid as a blighter or a paladin as a blackguard, but the prototypical example should be fully fleshed out - and that means including lots of details that don't make sense without flavor restrictions.Details really matter; I want restrictions to the degree they help flesh out the flavor.</blockquote>

Verification