Should Alignment Restrictions exist in D&D

Here's a poll:
 By the way, the poll will remain open until the end of the year.
Yeah Stupid generator generated garbage instead of an actual poll.
Hold on.  I'll make you a poll and post it in my first reply...
 
I'm confused as to why you made this poll as you agreed in the other thread that the game should support multiple options of playing and not just one.  And that even after doing so, you still claim that alignment restrictions should exist.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
That being said, I could see suggestions for some alignment restrictions for those who want them but might not have a clue what "traditionally" went where. A sort of

Paladin [description here]
Suggested alignment: Lawful or Lawful Good, or per Deity

Monk [description here]
Suggested alignment: Lawful

etc, where otherwise in the rules (perhaps where alignment is discussed in the first place) it can say that the base game doesn't use alignments, but gives a good description for alignments for those who choose to use them.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

I'm confused as to why you made this poll as you agreed in the other thread that the game should support multiple options of playing and not just one.  And that even after doing so, you still claim that alignment restrictions should exist.



Doesn't prohibit me from making a poll to see what other people think. 


I.e. if the poll gets to 80% red I'll concede hands down that Alignment restrictions should be removed, until then I'll maintain that certain classes should have alignment restrictions.  
I said yes, but I feel that I should qualify my Yes answer with "Yes, so long as removing them has no impact on the rest of the game"

I think that classes can and should have alignment restrictions - monks are lawful, paladins are lawful good, druids are true neutral, rangers are good, etc. I also think that any DM who decides to cast away those restrictions should be able to do it without any more work than just saying it.

There are a handful of abilities and spells which I think are ok to restrict by alignment, such as command (or rebuke) undead, but in general I think alignment restrictions on abilities should be very few and far between and, again, so easy to remove that all you have to do is say it.

I'm confused as to why you made this poll as you agreed in the other thread that the game should support multiple options of playing and not just one.  And that even after doing so, you still claim that alignment restrictions should exist.



Doesn't prohibit me from making a poll to see what other people think. 


I.e. if the poll gets to 80% red I'll concede hands down that Alignment restrictions should be removed, until then I'll maintain that certain classes should have alignment restrictions.  


The majority isn't always right.  Even if it was 80% blue, it'd still be wrong to implement alignment restrictions.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Paladin [description here]
Suggested alignment: Lawful or Lawful Good, or per Deity

Monk [description here]
Suggested alignment: Lawful



I've no issue with suggested alignments.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I'm confused as to why you made this poll as you agreed in the other thread that the game should support multiple options of playing and not just one.  And that even after doing so, you still claim that alignment restrictions should exist.



Doesn't prohibit me from making a poll to see what other people think. 


I.e. if the poll gets to 80% red I'll concede hands down that Alignment restrictions should be removed, until then I'll maintain that certain classes should have alignment restrictions.  


The majority isn't always right.  Even if it was 80% blue, it'd still be wrong to implement alignment restrictions.


eh, the 80% was completely taken from the other thread, and since we are dealing with how people want their d&d game to be, I would say the majority is what counts in this case.
I said yes, but I feel that I should qualify my Yes answer with "Yes, so long as removing them has no impact on the rest of the game"

I think that classes can and should have alignment restrictions - monks are lawful, paladins are lawful good, druids are true neutral, rangers are good, etc. I also think that any DM who decides to cast away those restrictions should be able to do it without any more work than just saying it.

There are a handful of abilities and spells which I think are ok to restrict by alignment, such as command (or rebuke) undead, but in general I think alignment restrictions on abilities should be very few and far between and, again, so easy to remove that all you have to do is say it.



I would agree with you here. 
And you'd be wrong.  Majority isn't everything.  Democracy isn't the solution to every problem.  Screwing over a small group of people for trivial benefit to the majority is wrong.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
While I was happy to provide you with a poll, I don't think majority sould rule.  Because your question is fundamentally flawed.  The issue isn't what you want in your game, but the degree to which you could accept the reverse.  Could you accept a game in which alignment restrictions are suggested, rather than mandated?  Could other accept a game in which alignment restrictions are mandated, rather than suggested?
Paladin [description here]
Suggested alignment: Lawful or Lawful Good, or per Deity

Monk [description here]
Suggested alignment: Lawful



I've no issue with suggested alignments.



Paladin: Lawfull good

Holy liberator: Chaotic good

Black guard: Lawfull evil

Death knight: Chaotic evil

they can be similar classes. but some aspects/feats of those classes should be very different to describe their zeal/view of the world.


@wrecan, you should edit the poll.

Class Alignment:
*Restrictions (monks must be lawful)
*Suggestions (most monks are lawful)
*None (...)

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It'd help if it showed the total number of votes.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
The Wizard should be Lawful only, because without being as disciplined as a Monk, how could he ever hope to harness Magic?
The Fighter should be Lawful only, because without being as disciplined as the monk, he would be a subpar warrior.
The Rogue should be non-Lawful, usually Chaotic, everyone knows Rogues are thieves.
Clerics should be Lawful only, even when worshipping a Chaotic God, their church requires adherence to Lawful principles.
Warlocks should be Lawful only, and Good or Evil depending on who they make a pact with. If they aren't lawful, their agreement has no meaning, so they would get no benefit from it.
Sorcerers should be Chaotic only, if they were Lawful they would have studied hard at magic like a Wizard instead.


I can go on with other classes. 
Like I said before, this isn't going to be the reason I won't be playing D&D Next. (I'm hoping that such a reason doesn't actually appear). I was more curious as to how even the vote was to have alignment restrictions, as I suspect that 1)this is just a test to see how well alignment restrictions go over or 2)WotC internal polling/searching has revealed alignment restrictions are wanted by the majority.
It's not my poll.  I'm just helping out NightsLastStand because he was having difficulty with the code.  Personally, i think the poll is meaningless, and is just a source of amusement.
Could you accept a game in which alignment restrictions are suggested, rather than mandated?

Yes, and

Could other accept a game in which alignment restrictions are mandated, rather than suggested?

Yes. No one's going to arrest me if I ignore alignment restrictions, and no one's going to arrest me if I impose alignment restrictions where none are mandated. My groups happen to like alignments, but we've been known to adjust some of them here and there for a good character concept.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

But, you'd probably be prevented from seeing options you don't "qualify" for, as per the rules, in whatever electronic tool that they come up with.  That's how the current Builder works, and why restrictions like this do more harm than good. 

I personally really like alignment, but mandating it top-down isn't a good thing.  It's also completely against the "D&D your way" philosophy of Next.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Like I said before, this isn't going to be the reason I won't be playing D&D Next. (I'm hoping that such a reason doesn't actually appear). I was more curious as to how even the vote was to have alignment restrictions, as I suspect that 1)this is just a test to see how well alignment restrictions go over or 2)WotC internal polling/searching has revealed alignment restrictions are wanted by the majority.

I belive 1.  They really do want to get a poll on the alignment issue.

I don't belive 2.  Otherwise rogue would have a restriction.  It doesn't.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

But, you'd probably be prevented from seeing options you don't "qualify" for, as per the rules, in whatever electronic tool that they come up with.  That's how the current Builder works, and why restrictions like this do more harm than good. 

I personally really like alignment, but mandating it top-down isn't a good thing.  It's also completely against the "D&D your way" philosophy of Next.


This is why WotC should just let HeroLab take over. Click a box and all is well. (actually you can see all options no matter what anyway)
Like I said before, this isn't going to be the reason I won't be playing D&D Next. (I'm hoping that such a reason doesn't actually appear). I was more curious as to how even the vote was to have alignment restrictions, as I suspect that 1)this is just a test to see how well alignment restrictions go over or 2)WotC internal polling/searching has revealed alignment restrictions are wanted by the majority.

I belive 1.  They really do want to get a poll on the alignment issue.

I don't belive 2.  Otherwise rogue would have a restriction.  It doesn't.



Yeah, I think that is cause no one wants a rogue with alignment restrictions...though it wouldn't make sense to have a lawful good rogue.

unless of course the rogue is only a skill monkey who can't do anything. Which lets hope he doesn't stay that way. 
But, you'd probably be prevented from seeing options you don't "qualify" for, as per the rules, in whatever electronic tool that they come up with.  That's how the current Builder works, and why restrictions like this do more harm than good. 

I personally really like alignment, but mandating it top-down isn't a good thing.  It's also completely against the "D&D your way" philosophy of Next.


This is why WotC should just let HeroLab take over. Click a box and all is well. (actually you can see all options no matter what anyway)


No, their surveys are better methodologically.  Forum polls are about the least statistically valid poll you can get.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I voted no.  Alignment's fine if it helps a player roleplay their character and I ignore it if it's too restricting.  But then if DnD included alignment as mandatory I still wouldn't care.  
But, you'd probably be prevented from seeing options you don't "qualify" for, as per the rules, in whatever electronic tool that they come up with.  That's how the current Builder works, and why restrictions like this do more harm than good. 

I personally really like alignment, but mandating it top-down isn't a good thing.  It's also completely against the "D&D your way" philosophy of Next.


This is why WotC should just let HeroLab take over. Click a box and all is well. (actually you can see all options no matter what anyway)


No, their surveys are better methodologically.  Forum polls are about the least statistically valid poll you can get.


HeroLab isn't for creating surveys....

I also have no access to WotC internal surveys, so forum poll is about the pest I can get. 
But, you'd probably be prevented from seeing options you don't "qualify" for, as per the rules, in whatever electronic tool that they come up with.  That's how the current Builder works, and why restrictions like this do more harm than good. 

I personally really like alignment, but mandating it top-down isn't a good thing.  It's also completely against the "D&D your way" philosophy of Next.


This is why WotC should just let HeroLab take over. Click a box and all is well. (actually you can see all options no matter what anyway)


No, their surveys are better methodologically.  Forum polls are about the least statistically valid poll you can get.



+1.

The majority isn't always right.  Even if it was 80% blue, it'd still be wrong to implement alignment restrictions.



Sorry, the only truly correct answer is "Whatever any individual table decides." That way, if the group at Table A likes alignment restrictions, they can have them, and the group at Table B (who hates them fervently) doesn't need to be bothered with them.

Any other way takes something away from a group (regardless of size) that doesn't want it, and therefore doesn't fit with the inclusiveness that DDN is supposed to embrace.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

I would probably recommend an advanced module using alignment restrictions.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
I'd honestly be happy either way. Alignment restrictions never bothered me, and it didn't bother me that 4e did away with them. Whatever they decide, so long as the class is interesting to play, I'll enjoy it.
My two copper.

The majority isn't always right.  Even if it was 80% blue, it'd still be wrong to implement alignment restrictions.



Sorry, the only truly correct answer is "Whatever any individual table decides." That way, if the group at Table A likes alignment restrictions, they can have them, and the group at Table B (who hates them fervently) doesn't need to be bothered with them.

Any other way takes something away from a group (regardless of size) that doesn't want it, and therefore doesn't fit with the inclusiveness that DDN is supposed to embrace.



Right, that is the only truly correct answer, which means that the actual rules shouldn't say anything.  Don't force them, but also don't prohibit them.  The people against alignment restrictions aren't saying that nobody should be able to have only LG paladins at their table, only that the rules shouldn't say that there are only LG paladins, for everyone. 

Which means you should vote "no" for this poll, if you believe what you just wrote.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
That a poll on a forum with a greater traffic of 4E fans show that alignment restriction should not be in D&D is not surprising. We are a small yet very vocal fraction of the fanbase and do not necessarly represent an good sample of the playerbase.

Making that poll on Dragonsfoot would see different result i am sure. 

What they should do is ask it in their survey. But at the end what matters is that some people are for alignment restrictions and some people are against it and regardless of which side is larger they are suck with a delicate problem of how to implement both if they want to please both camp.

Alignment restriction is not about which alignment a class can be and thus being easily handwaved, its about which alignment it cannot be. This can only be accomplished through alignment restriction.

Right, that is the only truly correct answer, which means that the actual rules shouldn't say anything.  Don't force them, but also don't prohibit them.  The people against alignment restrictions aren't saying that nobody should be able to have only LG paladins at their table, only that the rules shouldn't say that there are only LG paladins, for everyone. 

Which means you should vote "no" for this poll, if you believe what you just wrote.



I do believe what I just wrote, but I'm not voting in the poll because I don't feel either answer is adequate. It isn't a black-and-white scenario, at least not in that fashion.

I have no problem if they have a paragraph in the finished product that says basically what wrecan had in the L&L thread, that has it all as optional stuff. That way, the information is there for folks who want to use it, and easily ignorable for those who don't. Just my preference, anyway.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.


The majority isn't always right.  Even if it was 80% blue, it'd still be wrong to implement alignment restrictions.



Sorry, the only truly correct answer is "Whatever any individual table decides." That way, if the group at Table A likes alignment restrictions, they can have them, and the group at Table B (who hates them fervently) doesn't need to be bothered with them.

Any other way takes something away from a group (regardless of size) that doesn't want it, and therefore doesn't fit with the inclusiveness that DDN is supposed to embrace.

Restrictions that are optional, arn't really restrictions.

Which is why they need to change it to "suggested alignment".  And they can put a blurb in front as to weather you want to adhear to them or not.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

If thereare alignment restrictions i would like to see them a bit wider then they are now.

yes the monk has a tendency to be lawful living to a code and strict training regime.
but instead of must be lawfull make it can't be chaotic.

same for the paladin.
instead of must be lawful good make it can't be evil or chaotic.
 
That a poll on a forum with a greater traffic of 4E fans show that alignment restriction should not be in D&D is not surprising. We are a small yet very vocal fraction of the fanbase and do not necessarly represent an good sample of the playerbase.

Making that poll on Dragonsfoot would see different result i am sure. 



Well said.
 Restrictions that are optional, arn't really restrictions.

Which is why they need to change it to "suggested alignment".  And they can put a blurb in front as to weather you want to adhear to them or not.



Sure they are. For those tables who wish to use the restrictions, they are as restrictive as they should be. Whether or not a given table uses them makes no difference as to their effectiveness when used.

For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon

@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?

 

It is entirely unnecessary to denigrate someone else's approach to gaming in order to validate your own.

The best approach to please both camps IMHO would be to to do this as an optional rule:

Alignment [optional]: A monk must be lawful good, lawful neutral, or lawful evil. You cannot enter or continue to gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments.

The best approach to please both camps IMHO would be to to do this as an optional rule:

Alignment [optional]: A monk must be lawful good, lawful neutral, or lawful evil. You cannot enter or continue to gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments.




This is the argument I made in the other thread.  Honestly, I would like it to say "If your DM is a fun-hating jerk, choose this option", but I can't win them all.
Sign In to post comments