Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Set" data-source="post: 3327135" data-attributes="member: 41584">Echoing the poster above who suggesting ditching alignment.  Ugh.  Conceptually, I don't have a problem with it as a non-binding sort of thing, like the Storyteller system's Nature / Demeanor, but when you've got half of the beasties in the MM listed as 'always' this alignment, and then all sorts of exceptions (like Erinyes being 'fallen celestials,' despite celestials being *forbidden* from changing alignment by game rule), you know something is wrong...Base classes that have role-playing restrictions, like alignments, codes of conduct or multi-classing restrictions, also don't work for me.  If the benefits are mechanical, any drawbacks should be mechanical.  Leave role-playing to the *player.*I don't mind the idea of some role-playing restrictions built into PrCs quite so much, since the idea of a focused training style only being available to people who jump through particular hoops and impress the only people who teach said style, but even then, there should be room for adaptation.  Not everyone players Realms / Eberron / Setting-of-the-week, so it would be nice to have any class or PrC introduced in the game have a sentence on 'adapting to other settings' even if it's as short as saying, 'Change the name to Radiant Servant of Lathandar, in the Realms.'However, I'm not sure I like Prestige Classes anyway.  A system of base classes, with all of the PrC abilities just broken down into Feats, would allow for a lot more customization, and a lot less 'I take Contemplative 1, for the free Domain, and then go back to Master of Shrouds...'  If any Cleric who satisfied the requirements could just blow a Feat on one Additional Domain, or whatever, a lot of these PrCs would serve no purpose.In a Feat-based PrC-less setting, a Cleric who purchase the right mix of Feats could end up looking almost identical to a PrC Priest in 3.5, and might even role-play as being a member of an organization of 'Sacred Exorcists' who follow that chain of Feats to perform their chosen duties, but it would be a series of *choices,* not a straightjacket that says, 'If you want PrC feature 3, you must complete dead levels 1 and 2 first.'More choice, less straightjacket, very important to me.  All Sorcerers descended from Dragons?  Straightjacket.  Some Sorcerers descended from fiends, celestials, fey, genies, far realms beasties, unknown sources?  Flavorful variety!  All Elves have Wizard as favored class, punishing the dude who wants to play a Bard / Ranger?  Bad.  Alignment and / or multi-classing rules forbidding one from playing a Bard / Monk, Barbarian / Monk or Paladin / Barbarian?  Bad.  If you want to play Whistling Fist of the Morning Wind, an all-singing all-dancing martial artist, the rules shouldn't stand in your way.3.5 added a tiny taste of 'choice' to the Ranger (and Monk), being able to focus on Ranged or Melee combat styles, and I hope that this is the way of the future.  Every class should have choices to take, and meaningful ones.  Will I be a feral rage Barbarian or a Whirling Frenzy Barbarian?  Will I get Damage Reduction or a light-armored AC bonus as a Monk?  Will my Druid be a Wild Shaper or a Shapeshifter?  Will my Rogue use Sneak Attack, or Skirmish?Alternate Class features and variant classes (from UA and the Dragon) are absolutely the most exiting thing I've seen in a long time, more would be welcome.As much as I love reading the fun stuff on the WotC Character Optimization forums, they should be a necessary stop for anyone writing a 4th Ed, to see what *not* to do.  There are *dozens* of squiffy rulings that a simple word choice could have dealt with, and there are a few that even a novice can look at and see where never playtested.  Nothing frustrates a hack like myself when *I* see that a rule as written is just flat-out unplayable, and couldn't possibly mean what it says.</blockquote>

Verification