|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 10:29PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.
Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; however, I will allow a new class called the Funk. It has all the abilities and stuff of the monk class. The only difference is that it has no alignment restrictions.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 10:35PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
The mention of Ki is my biggest disappointment, 3rd Ed started that, too culturally specific for me, I like the The Bloodguard (Bannor) vibe.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 14, 2012 - 10:41PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.
Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Whoa...wait...did you really just say that?
Alignment is the biggest bit of fluff in the game and always has been.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 1:22AM
#24
|
|
|
For awesome monk style and variety the designers should be stealing liberally from Fist of the North Star. Seriously, that should be the template.
Shut up and take my money!
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 2:48AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Whoa...wait...did you really just say that?
Alignment is the biggest bit of fluff in the game and always has been.
Then Monk is saddled with mandatory fluff, which is even worse.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 2:54AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2003
|
Maybe, maybe not. Ultimately my whole point was that the flavor as wirtten does not appeal to everyone (myself included) and that an alternative fluff could be written as a module since, you know, that's the big selling point of Next. I would think the same could be said of the alignment restriction. I think with the supposed (I say supposed because the only place we've seen it is in the healing rules) modularity of this edition we should all be able to get a monk with Eastern an Western flavors, as well as a monk with an alignment restriction and one without.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 4:06AM
#27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 4:09AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.
Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Why? I'm disallowing the monk class; however, I will allow a new class called the Funk. It has all the abilities and stuff of the monk class. The only difference is that it has no alignment restrictions.
Or they could remove the alignment restrictions and save book space by not printing the same class twice.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 4:19AM
#29
|
|
|
I see some people here saying that reflavoring is fine here while arguing against the alignment restriction in another thread. How are those two things any different from one another?
Because alignment restriction makes reflavoring impossbile.
Sentences like "You cannot enter or gain levels in this class if you do not have one of those three alignments" are most certainly not fluff.
Whoa...wait...did you really just say that?
Alignment is the biggest bit of fluff in the game and always has been.
Sorry, no. This is not fluff, this is mechanics. If it affects the character's build, it ain't fluff.
And it's a huge, ridiculous step backwards.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 15, 2012 - 4:43AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2011
|
The mention of Ki is my biggest disappointment, 3rd Ed started that, too culturally specific for me, I like the The Bloodguard (Bannor) vibe.
So don't call it Ki. Call it Chi...or Pee...or The Force. The name "Ki" may have first appeared in 3rd edition (which, btw, was 12 years ago...so 1/3 of the existance of D&D) but the abilities which it supports have been there since day 1. They just lumped them into a category and labeled it. Call it what you like.
|
|
|
