There's no reason why an enemy couldn't have such a power, and I'd be surprised if none did in 4e.As long as the enemies can do the same thing back to the PCs, I'd be fine with this.
But if it's PC-only? Very, very hard no.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E Ben Riggs' "What the Heck Happened with 4th Edition?" seminar at Gen Con 2023
- Thread starter Alzrius
- Start date
Thomas Shey
Legend
That pretty much was my experience. We had a wide range of player skill in the group, from a hardcore minimaxer, a couple of people who were willing to dig right in, and at least two people who were going to not pay any attention until something was obviously a dog--and other than the ranger, no one stood out heavily in either direction. That's not the sign to me of anything that's getting big swings, and my plowing through the powers and feats didn't tell me anything different.
It was just a whole different beast than the obvious problem children in 3e. There were characters who could, if worked hard, gust up past the middle pretty strongly (I've mentioned the ranger twice for a reason) but not many that seemed to fall below it. I didn't seem every single class in play, but I did see at least two classes you've mentioned here (Psion and Paladin) and neither seemed to have significant problems doing their gig. And I have no evidence they heavily baked a cake.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Maybe so, but it does no adventure any good to be saddled with assumptions that no longer apply.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Definitely odd, in that you show it as having CG twice and LE not at all.
Reductive how so? Your post appeared to suggest two approaches. One produce incoherent fiction. Hence the other seems preferable, especially as it fits more generally with what the game suggests as the way to approach it. Why is this offensive?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Indeed.
Now imagine picking that book up a few months in advance of 4e's release. Pretty cool, huh? This edition's gonna be great!
Then, on release, you pick up the core three 4e books (PH, DMG, MM), read them through, and in disappointment wonder what the hell happened between the frying pan and the table.
That was pretty much me in 2008.
Chaotic Good is, after all, the best alignment.Definitely odd, in that you show it as having CG twice and LE not at all.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Easy. I don't like the rule (and its underlying assumption) because it doesn't fit my view of how the game world should work. It doesn't make sense to me. With your point of view, it does make sense. But while I understand your point of view, I do not share it, so it doesn't make sense from my position. @Hussar covered this issue pretty well above, and it's not fixable.
Snarf Zagyg
Notorious Liquefactionist
I do think that Unaligned was a great concept and of much greater general utility than "Gygaxian Muscular Neutral".
I wanted to comment briefly on this one point.
Personally, I really like the addition of "unaligned." It makes sense that there would be people that just ... don't ... care ... about the larger picture (whatever it might be).
That said, I will always have a soft-spot for True Neutral (aka, Gygaxian Muscular Neutral) because the idea of people going out and taking out the baddies and goodies to, you know, preserve the balance? That's some BPE (Big Pulp Energy) right there!
