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: 6128378" data-attributes="member: 82106">Except you have game designers trying to build classes around those mechanics, which removing the mechanics doesn't actually FIX. A more easily seen example of this sort of issue being corrected by game design -in this case added mechanics- can be seen with both roles and power sources in 4e. Each of these introduces a degree of clarity where its lack led to poor design. 4e as a result has NO truly badly designed classes, they all work, and they all work pretty well. Even the ones people complain about the most are still quite playable and function in the expected ways reasonably well.In the case of alignment, the REMOVAL has proven to be the superior choice, but we see quite clearly that the addition and removal of subsystems can and does have system-wide effects. I'm FINE with having alignment as ONE OPTION AMONG OTHERS where none of them are automatically assumed to be in play. This would necessitate certain things, that for instance paladins weren't overpowered with the vain hope of balancing that against alignment based hard-coded restrictions. For those who WANT such things this shouldn't present a huge problem, your players are simply going to have to play the paladin for RP reasons and not to be a munchkin, which 'overpowered with restrictions' promoted. Its not EXACTLY 1e-esque, but we're all going to have to move a little here to all get what we want.</blockquote>

Verification