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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6124611" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, what it sounds like is you're going to have to keep creating an ever more elaborate and restrictive set of rules that eventually leaves you with a class which is either so hamstrung as to be uninteresting or so restrictive as to be totally one-dimensional. This is one of MY fundamental issues with the whole idea of a 'code' that is built into the rules of the game. We had this nonsense in smaller forms in 4e where you can see clearly how idiotic it was. The 'Swordmage' class for instance was restricted to using a blade, yet there was no good reason why a player couldn't have made a perfectly interesting character who wielded an axe and used the swordmage rules, except of course there was that entirely arbitrary (IE having no gamist justification at all) rule that you had to use a sword! You could of course go ahead and ignore that, at which point you had to ignore various other things related to swordmage feats, etc. All feasible but it played hell with the CB. In effect the restriction did nothing positive, the game would have been better had the designers left out that restriction and simply put in a sidebar that said "Well, we envisaged this guy as a mystical swordmaster, but hey go ahead and make a mystical dwarf axemaster if you want." This is what NOT having arbitrary restrictions means to me. The game simply works better AS A GAME and since nobody can define for me anyway any clear advantage to having a strict rules-enforced paladin code you're balancing nothing vs a disadvantage. Plainly the correct design choice is to leave the RP up to the players and just tell them what the concept you're going for is, and then let them interpret that without forcing them to interpret it in certain ways or setting up someone else as the arbiter of their RP.And again, I'll restate it, the "but without rules-based restrictions there is nothing" has been logical refuted so many times already as to be just redundant to say again, but it seems to always NEED restating, so...</blockquote>

Verification