Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Frozen_Flame 03-13-08, 11:07 AM	I came up with a race that is so passive toward the alignment table that they gain a wicked ability, but the problem is equalizing... The ability basically allows them to always be considered the best alignment for any situation (ignoring any such perquisite). I figured that being that passive would ruin any initiative: get -4 initiative and you can't be first in the order (if your' the only one in surprise you still get it, but after that as above). Note:the race is always pure-neutral.
key 03-13-08, 11:40 AM	A race that doesn't care about the alignment table? +4 to INT!
Frozen_Flame 03-13-08, 12:03 PM	A race that doesn't care about the alignment table? +4 to INT! I don't get it...
jradd777 03-13-08, 12:10 PM	-4 to initiative isn't that big a deal in several situations (especially at low levels). A single feat brings you back up to speed, others can take you above... there's even a magic weapon quality that gives you +5 to initiative. Sure, magic items and feats shouldn't judge whether or not something is balanced, etc. But being able to simply ignore alignment restrictions is probably worth a lot more, since no items or feats that I know of could let you do that ever. As I said before also, some builds don't even care about initiative, probably at least enough to make this somewhat unbalanced. See what other people think though, I could be wrong...
Frozen_Flame 03-13-08, 12:33 PM	What would you think is a balanced restriction?
jradd777 03-13-08, 12:54 PM	What would you think is a balanced restriction? I'd have to think about it... do some research... because this guy could make a paladin/warlock (Charisma to all saves, determines invocation stuff, important for most skills of both classes, immunity to fear and disease, DR, EB, smites, mount, UMD, proficient with martial weapons, and all armors, arcane capabilities and divine [this build alone opens up many, many completely impossible to get into PrC's compared to without this ability] , etc), ...etc, etc, lots more builds and plenty of things I'm not thinking of off the top of my head for this one. I'm sure there's actually several completely broken combinations out there. Would the ability completely break all multi-classing restrictions based on alignment as well? As in, if they change alignment do they lose class abilities or not? Then, if so, if they didn't have it to begin with does changing alignment at all risk a loss of abilities. I mean there's a ton of things to consider... it opens up a whole new way to class to be able to ignore alignment restrictions. Those restrictions often separate abilities that would be broken in combination, if I remember right. So, I'd have a ton of research to do to figure out what all this would actually give as a benefit to come up with several viable balanced penalties/restrictions/drawbacks for you to choose from. I'll get opinions from others that I know too.
PhaedrusXY 03-13-08, 01:08 PM	It's fine as-is. -4 to initiative is actually a pretty big loss. In D&D, especially at the lower and upper levels, he who goes first often goes last. Alignment restrictions are lame, and alot of groups drop them already, with no major disruptions to the game (they exist for flavor reasons, and have nothing to do with balance). So, the main benefit is that you aren't affected by things like Blasphemy and Holy Word. While nice, this is so circumstantial that it won't matter at all in the vast majority of encounters.
Frozen_Flame 03-13-08, 02:00 PM	Thx!
bkdubs123 03-13-08, 05:55 PM	My friend, Jradd777 had me look at this. While it has very little mechanical impact on the game, I think it should be limited a bit. Instead of just being able to be any alignment, whenever, wherever why not just say that the race is true neutral and ignores all alignment restrictions of its class levels and never becomes an Ex-[Class] because of its alignment. If you limit it to that I think you can give it to a race without any penalty attached.
jradd777 03-13-08, 06:05 PM	I'm not wholly convinced that it's completely not as much as an advantage, Bkdubds123 has convinced me that in enough situations it's fine. Maybe there's a couple of broken combinations out there but if he can't think of them off the top of his head and I couldn't either, then it's probably alright for the most part. I just keep thinking that I've run up against alignment restrictions for so many things that it must be broken somewhere along the lines. Final decision, go ahead...
Mad_Jack 03-13-08, 07:34 PM	Well, if the race is *always* true neutral, then chances are that they're probably not going to want to be a paladin anyway, so that cuts down a bit on the potential for shenanigans, although without any alignment restrictions you could still do a monk/barbarian or monk/warlock (stunning fist w/ hideous blow..ouch.)... From a non-class-related standpoint, this would make most smiting stuff useless against them, as well as well as about a dozen or so "smite x" -type and "protection from x" spells... Not that you really see too many NPC or monsters out there that are smiting anybody, or casting spells vs. particular alignments. Oh, there's a thought... It doesn't come up much, but - the emulate alignment function of UMD... And they'd never end up with negative levels from handling some of the funkier magic items and weapons.... Off the top of my head, aside from character classes I don't think having a "Hi, I'm <insert alignment here >" nametag would be a significant factor in most situations....