Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mneme" data-source="post: 5773022" data-attributes="member: 59248">You misunderstand (or misconscrue).Good thing from 1e: The 9 Alignment SystemBad thing from 1e-3e:Alignment is -everywhere-, getting in your business -- Paladins are only balanced by being LG-restricted, Assassins must be evil, Barbarians must be Chaotic; alignment detects reduce roleplaying down to "is it evil?  Then it's an enemy"; alignment casted spells sometimes have too-strong effects and make it problematic to adventure with people in the wrong place of the spectrum from you, etc.Good thing from 4e:Alignment is much less tied to system; most class alignment entanglements are gone, Paladins, Barbarians, Assassins can be any alignment (but alignment is tied to deity for Divine characters); no detects or Circles of Protection or Dictums messing things up.Also, the Unaligned alignment.  Alignment should have an opt-out!Bad thing from 4e:The removal of CG, CN, LE, LN, and N.I think that while it's useful to remove/deemphasize it, adding back some of the general immunities of earlier editions (creatures immune to melee damage, or immune to magic, or antimagic zones, or having more things be immune to sleep, somewhat more frequent disarming, etc) is a good thing; it introduces a lot more variation and lets people have secondary competences that mean something.But the fact is, D&D shines as a combat and problem solving game.  So yeah, even if you're giving the option not to do so, you should be -able- to build every PC role as having a basic combat competence -- and shouldn't have the frequent blanket shutdowns that 3e has like spell resistance/immunity (yes, you could get around it, but that was also a big complextiy/mastery issue), immunity to sneak attack damage, spell components/vocal parts (and silence zones).I'm fine with players being able to opt out of one of the 3 primary fields of endeavor of D&D (that is, combat, social interaction/manipulation, and problem solving).  But every class, every race should be able to be built without doing so; this is something 4e did better job with than previous editions, but not a good -enough- job.</blockquote>

Verification