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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9751281" data-attributes="member: 7635">Super compatible actually. There is little conceptual daylight between a sorcerer and a warlock. The difference being that a sorcerer is exposed to a source of magic and a warlock seeks out someone to teach them. Yet one is bound to an entity and the other walks Scott free. As to the others, each had at one time alignment restrictions that stopped you from advancing if your alignment. You could not be a barbarian/monk in 3e without losing the features of one or the other, despite there being no mechanical reason to limit it. In fact , throughout D&D's history, all classes but fighter and wizard had an alignment-based shutoff valve. Barbarians who became Lawful could not rage in 3e. Bards had to be either partly neutral (1-2e) or non-lawful (3e) or be unable to gain levels. Clerics had to be within one step of their gods alignment. Druids had to be neutral (or partial neutral) and abide by the weapon and armor restrictions. Monks had to be lawful or lose their features and be unable to gain levels. Paladins had to be LG and obey the code. Rangers had to be good and also had a code of conduct prior to 3e. Thieves could not be LG or lose the ability to gain levels. Assassin's became weak thieves of they stop being Evil. And while wizards lacked an alignment restriction, they were one damaged spellbook away from losing all their power. And you know what? All that had been whittled away. Just like how barbarians went from being illiterate and killing the party mage on site being core parts of the fiction. Or how druids using any sword but a scimitar (a notoriously Celtic weapon) went away. And while I'm sure someone will come and mention how a druid with a battle axe or a barbarian who can read at level 1 are betrayals to the fiction, I'm convinced they have made the game better.</blockquote>

Verification