PDA

View Full Version : Race/Class Restrictions



AtlanteanTroll
2010-09-07, 06:57 PM
I'm currently working on some homebrew (in my head). And I was wondering about race/class restrictions. WOW has them, earlier editions (1st and 2nd right?) had them. Do they work? Are they fun? Most of my players are WOW fans and they don't seem to mind their, but I was wondering regarless.

AtopTheMountain
2010-09-07, 07:00 PM
IMHO, they're not fun. They restrict roleplaying, and they don't make a whole lot of sense. For example: Why can't a dwarf be a wizard? Why can't an elf be a barbarian?

oxybe
2010-09-07, 07:08 PM
personally? i don't like them. i don't see how they "work". the wizard in 3.5 is no less borked if you say "no dwarves allowed". and while i've played them and grew up on them in previous versions but never really understood the full reasoning as to why.

i can understand racial tendencies. halflings as a whole might not have a religious bent, but PCs in general are hardly proper representatives of any particular race.

in my opinion, these restrictions are not needed at all nor do they add much, but if you do decide on it, run it by the players first.

Lord Vampyre
2010-09-07, 07:13 PM
Race/Class restrictions make a certain amount of sense depending on the world. It can add flavor to your setting, if you allow it to.

It is my opinion that people are constantly wanting to go against the general flow. If that means that dwarves simply don't have the capacity to cast magic in a certain setting, then they want to play the exception to the rule. This is fine every now and then, but you shouldn't allow it to destroy the concept of your world.

I will sometimes invoke race/class restrictions, but find it unnecessary most of the time.

HunterOfJello
2010-09-07, 07:14 PM
I think that odd race/class combinations make for more interesting characters.

Sure most Halflings aren't raised as barbarians, but perhaps one is? He could be a ton of fun to play trying to intimidate people with his pint-sized greataxe.

Odd race/class combinations improve the game and make it more interesting.

~

If your players were interested in the idea and wanted to play a group of misfits you could always try the opposite. No traditional race/class combinations. Elves can't be wizards, Half-Orcs can't take levels in fighter classes, etc.

Savannah
2010-09-07, 07:27 PM
Bad idea. If you want players to mainly stick to certain race/class combinations, you could give bonuses for using a given race's favored class(es) instead.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-07, 07:33 PM
Done right, they can persuade the players to make a character more fitting to the world they're playing in. For instance, if in a setting dwarves are heavily magic-resistant, then it may make sense that this prevents them from becoming a wizard. That the players know this can expand the "feel" of the setting.

Done wrong, they're an arbitrary restriction that doesn't help anyone and is best ignored. If a fantasy setting consists of "everything and the kitchen sink", so to speak, then such restrictions are pretty pointless.

Example done right: in Werewolf The Apocalypse, a garou of the Bone Gnawer tribe cannot take dots in Purebreed. Given that Bone Gnawers are pretty much the antithesis of "pure", this makes a lot of sense.

Example done wrong: in 2E D&D, elves can multiclass but only if it's fighter/mage or mage/thief, but only half-elves can triple-multi-class, and only humans can be paladins for no discernible reason.

(examples heavily subject to personal opinion, of course)

Zaydos
2010-09-07, 07:41 PM
Dang I'd always thought that elves could be fighter/magic-user/thieves in 2e. Apparently that's because I learned about multiclassing in AD&D and didn't think they changed it in 2e.

lesser_minion
2010-09-07, 07:41 PM
I'm going to second KG here. Well thought-out restrictions can be a good move. And if you're writing your own system, then you can almost certainly get away with it.

In D&D, however, the world is far too generic for restrictions to help or make sense -- which is why they're an optional variant.

If you have specific fluff in mind, and you can convey it properly, then sure, go ahead. However, like prestige classes, those are entirely idiosyncratic to a campaign.

Draz74
2010-09-07, 07:59 PM
Dang I'd always thought that elves could be fighter/magic-user/thieves in 2e.

That is my memory as well (other than the fact that "magic-users" became "mages" in 2e).

WarKitty
2010-09-07, 08:04 PM
My rule usually is "Certain race/class restrictions are discouraged. While I will not ban them outright, the player must come up with an at least somewhat original backstory explaining the reasons. Also expect that, depending on the situation, NPC's may be less than helpful towards the character for his choice."

I could see it maybe in some of the "innate talent" classes. Even then, I prefer to presume that PC's are exceptional and can do things normal members of their race would not. Mostly it doesn't make sense for me though.

Urpriest
2010-09-07, 08:09 PM
There are a rare few cases when I'd use them. For example, in one of my settings the existence of dragons is a closely guarded secret. If you're not one of the races that has regular contact with dragons then it doesn't make sense for you to play a 3.5 Dragon Shaman or a 4e Dragon Soul Sorceror. Sure, these things can be refluffed, but you might as well play something else.

If it's just enforcing a preference rather than a strict setting detail though, yeah, don't do race restrictions, they just annoy people.

Xefas
2010-09-07, 08:14 PM
I'm currently working on some homebrew (in my head). And I was wondering about race/class restrictions. WOW has them, earlier editions (1st and 2nd right?) had them. Do they work? Are they fun? Most of my players are WOW fans and they don't seem to mind their, but I was wondering regarless.

I just wanted to pop in and point out that WoW only has race/class restrictions for the players, and the Warcraft Setting at large does not. For instance, there are (IIRC) multiple example of Undead Paladins, at least one Blood Elf Druid, many Human Druids, a multitude of Draenei Warlocks, etc (the list goes on).

Zaydos
2010-09-07, 08:25 PM
That is my memory as well (other than the fact that "magic-users" became "mages" in 2e).

I checked the 2e PHB, though, and I was wrong. Might be different in the 2e Complete Book of Elves though, since I thought they had a fighter/mage/thief kit in it... to the book!

Edit: Yes they exist (2 of them).

WarKitty
2010-09-07, 08:41 PM
I just wanted to pop in and point out that WoW only has race/class restrictions for the players, and the Warcraft Setting at large does not. For instance, there are (IIRC) multiple example of Undead Paladins, at least one Blood Elf Druid, many Human Druids, a multitude of Draenei Warlocks, etc (the list goes on).

It's a little different in WoW because there's a large number of PC's. If a certain race/class combo is supposed to be rare and you open it up to players...all of a sudden there's a bunch of that combo running around and your rarity is down the drain. In a D&D game, there are only a handful of PC's in the entire world most of the time, so unless it's physically and magically impossible for a certain combo to exist, the existence of a PC with that combo doesn't affect the setting much.

Xefas
2010-09-07, 08:42 PM
It's a little different in WoW because there's a large number of PC's. If a certain race/class combo is supposed to be rare and you open it up to players...all of a sudden there's a bunch of that combo running around and your rarity is down the drain. In a D&D game, there are only a handful of PC's in the entire world most of the time, so unless it's physically and magically impossible for a certain combo to exist, the existence of a PC with that combo doesn't affect the setting much.

I know. I wasn't saying one way or the other, just pointing something out.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-09-07, 09:53 PM
I think that odd race/class combinations make for more interesting characters.

Sure most Halflings aren't raised as barbarians, but perhaps one is? He could be a ton of fun to play trying to intimidate people with his pint-sized greataxe.

<snip>.

Talenta Halflings dissagree with you :smalltongue:

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/roe_gallery/88224.jpg

Plus you haven't seen it all, unless you see a half-orc fighter use a portable ram to catapult a raging halfling towards a dire lion... ahh good times

Zaq
2010-09-07, 11:44 PM
Scale is a problem, really. Everything is either not something that affects the PCs (relegating it to "who cares anyway" territory), or it affects the PCs (most likely one PC), making it a very front-and-center issue.

For example, if you say "no half-orc paladins," and your players didn't want to be half-orc paladins anyway, then you haven't really changed anything, and there isn't any reason for the rule to be in place. If a player did want to be a half-orc paladin, then he'll probably feel like you're picking on him.

Honestly, I think that they don't add anything to the game. I'd be much more comfortable banning races or classes than banning certain combinations thereof, because it simply feels arbitrary (and it is, really).

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if they're "fun" or not. I can't imagine wizardry being any more fun once it becomes a no-dwarves-allowed club, after all. How could a restriction actually be fun? It's either oppressive or irrelevant.

Thurbane
2010-09-08, 09:39 PM
IMHO, they're not fun. They restrict roleplaying, and they don't make a whole lot of sense. For example: Why can't a dwarf be a wizard? Why can't an elf be a barbarian?
It really just depends on your POV.

Back when I started playing it was the accepted norm for D&D, and it made a kind of internal sense...the same way many other system peculiarities make sense in their respective RPGs.

But these kids thesedays with their enormous sense of entitlement....they cannot bear to hear the word "no" during character generation! :smallbiggrin:

[Note: this is sarcasm/humour, just in case anyone didn't realize]

AslanCross
2010-09-09, 12:07 AM
Bad idea. If you want players to mainly stick to certain race/class combinations, you could give bonuses for using a given race's favored class(es) instead.

I'd go with this. The Favored Class rule is really dumb as it is and nonsensical for many (default elves favoring Wizard despite being seemingly better at being rangers or rogues, for example). Making it a perk instead of a shackle is a better idea.

Zaydos
2010-09-09, 01:05 AM
Dwarves can't be mages? Sure, they're anti-magic. Can't be rangers or druids or bards either, makes sense. Can't be paladins? But they're paragons of these same virtues so why not? (I never quite got that one... playing a dwarf paladin now too)

Elves can't be paladins? Sure makes sense. Certain specialties closed to them, I can understand it. Can't be druids, rangers, or bards? Why not?

I still remember when it was the norm and it still kind of makes sense to me. I always wanted to open more classes to certain races, mostly ones that thematically fit, and didn't like it being used as a balancer (like it was with most of the specialty classes). If done for fluff reasons I can get behind it, if done for mechanical reasons you'd better have a good reason.

If I play a race of anti-magic warriors, I probably shouldn't ask to be a wizard. If I play the race all society comes from why would I be a barbarian? That said I always liked the idea of dwarf wizards, and wanted to give them a try even in 2e.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-09, 01:30 AM
The trouble is the 'all'. No society is ALL warriors, societies just can't function when that is the case. You can have societies where the warrior is praised above all else, it has been quite frequent, but all? Hardly. Also, it leaves out intriguing role play possibilities. Imagine a Dwarf Rogue, a thief in fact, an outcast from his society. In the clan, he was the sneakiest bastard around, and proud of it, if little else. Now, out here, he has to face the fact that he is often simply outclassed. Or a half orc paladin, chosen not by some stodgy order, but by the gods themselves. Even things the restrictions 'make sense', doesn't mean they have to be all like that.

Iferus
2010-09-09, 03:56 AM
Restricting classes may be fun if enough alternatives are present. Dwarves are never mages, so instead their society uses psionics more. Elves have no inner rage to be a barbarian, but learn to simulate it using ToB classes.

This way, you won't be restricting as much, but you can enforce a level of flavor onto the races in your world and in your party.

Halaster
2010-09-09, 04:19 AM
I'm actually quite fond of such restrictions, because they give the game world flavour. If all races can do all things, more or less equally well, then that diminishes their individuality. Then it only comes down to which race has the best bonuses for the kind of character you're planning on playing, and if that happens to be a dwarf in a pointy hat, then that's so, and to hell with dwarfs being uncomfortable with magic. Seems awfully mechanical to me.

Of course, they must be done right. If they leave races with too little choice or exclude them from overly essential choices (can't be fighters? how do they defend their homes?), it will lose verisimilitude. Also, if it runs out of hand, like AD&D, where humans were, I believe, the only race with all choices open, players will feel pushed to play races they don't like, just to get the classes they want.

Since you are homebrewing it, you might want to consider these two options:
- Race-specific classes: each race gets one unique class only they have. Dwarven tunnelfightes, elven dweomer-thieves, what have you. The base classes are open, but the races get one area to specialize in to add to their fluff.
- Single blocked classes: Only block one class per race, and do so for all of them. Design a class which would sensibly be unavailable to humans in the context of your world, because they're a young race, overly mundane, or something. In vanilla D20 I would think sorcerer might be a good choice, no magic in human blood, sorry.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 04:20 AM
Dang I'd always thought that elves could be fighter/magic-user/thieves in 2e.
Quite possibly; I was quoting that from memory. The example still stands, in that many races arbitrarily could only choose certain multiclass combos and not others.

One thing R/C restrictions can (at least theoretically) do is keep exotic things exotic. For instance, if a fantasy setting is clearly stated to be human-dominant or elf-dominant (and many of them are) then it is a bit silly if every adventuring party consists of a drow, a warforged, two kender and a psionic sandwich, and if every NPC considers this normal.

Greenish
2010-09-09, 05:02 AM
I'm actually quite fond of such restrictions, because they give the game world flavour. If all races can do all things, more or less equally well, then that diminishes their individuality. Then it only comes down to which race has the best bonuses for the kind of character you're planning on playing, and if that happens to be a dwarf in a pointy hat, then that's so, and to hell with dwarfs being uncomfortable with magic. Seems awfully mechanical to me.I prefer game worlds where flavour comes from flavour, not mechanics. Just because dwarves could learn magic doesn't mean they do, if their society views magic with distrust, and elfs having the gifts to become sneaks doesn't mean that'd be the norm, for their society could well place the highest value on honour and openness.

In short, encouraging dwarves to become something other than wizards is cool, but flat-out banning dwarf wizards because "the stereotypical dwarf distrusts magic" is silly.

Malbordeus
2010-09-09, 05:19 AM
restricting it outright might not work, but there could be good social economic or cultural reasons why certain races cant get the training.

for instance, wizards are trained by a wizards guild, and the guild has varying issues with Orcs an their kin, and the dwarves have hiked up their prices of gems putting pressure on magic item creation, so dwarves are currently banned from joining (and so have to seek their training elsewhere)

or maybe a halfling stole the Arch-Dioses scepter and he issued a decree that halflings are untrustworthy and should never set foot on holy ground. (ofcourse it would only apply to certain deities and temples, but it would be a good restriction to place)

The head of the fighters guild might be a dwarf, and considers elves to womanly for him to train. (although he considers female humans fine as some are butcher than him, and elves are great panzys)

:P
-chris

Halaster
2010-09-09, 05:35 AM
My problem with non-mechanical solutions is simply this: players like to ignore them. And the more you fluff it that way, the greater the temptation to make an "exotic" character. That in turn invalidates your flavour, because suddenly you have a dwarf wizard in every party, because it's so special. It's like good-aligned drow in Forgotten Realms. Everybody wants one, precisely because they are supposed to be rare.
Of course, PCs are supposed to be special and unique, but it feels like a cheap thrill to achieve that by going straight against the fluff. Enforcing the fluff with rules is not an optimal solution, but at least it avoids such issues.

An alternative, but also with its drawbacks, would be to handle it with a die roll. Say, dwarfs can be wizards, but only a few ever choose that path. There is only a 3 in 20 chance for any given dwarf PC to be able to take wizard levels. If you want, you could allow the player to take that roll every time he gains a level, and stop rolling once he has gained a wizard level, since he's now "on the path of wizardry".

Or make it a racial feat. That way it remains the player's choice, but he has to pay for it. Of course, if the price is too high, the player may not want to do this. But again, the fluff is safe.

As another idea, you could use the AD&D style attribute minimums and adapt them by race. For example, PCs need INT 14 to become wizards. Dwarfs need INT 17 to do so. This could also be achieved (and probably better) by making up prestige classes for unusual race/class combinations. That way you can raise the bar without blocking access entirely. These classes could be sufficiently easy to achieve that they can be taken at around level 3 or 5 or so.

Finally, restriction need not apply to the classes themselves, but perhaps just to multiclassing. Dwarfs can be wizards, but cannot multiclass. A dwarf wizard who takes non-wizard levels can not gain any more wizard levels, because, since wizarding doesn't come naturally to dwarfs, it requires all his focus.

PS: If you're homebrewing, you could of course do away with classes entirely, and make some things skills or advantages, and then stack the costs by race. Elves pay half points for magic, humans pay full, dwarfs pay 1.5 times the cost for the "arcane spellcasting" advantage. Sort of GURPS-like.

Tyrmatt
2010-09-09, 05:46 AM
The WoW class restrictions are usually based on the culture of the people involved more than anything else. Tauren and Night-Elves worship nature, either as Elune or the Earthmother (basically the moon and sun respectively) and so they favour druids. Those who are raised in the cities like Stormwind or Ironforge naturally favour the Holy Light instead and a re priests.

As long as a reasonable backstory is invented, I'd have no problem with unusual combinations. Perhaps a small human settlement sends children born under the full moon to study with the night elf druids. Or a clan of gnomes shuns the mechanical advances of their brethren and lives wild out in the Badlands, using the elements like the Orcs. Or Orcs who live near Blackrock Mountain have a bent for learning fire based wizardry to better emulate the black dragons who live within.

Have a look at the updated World of Warcraft D20 book (not the original Warcraft one. It's horrendously unbalanced). It'll give you some ideas.

hamishspence
2010-09-09, 06:21 AM
Example done wrong: in 2E D&D, elves can multiclass but only if it's fighter/mage or mage/thief, but only half-elves can triple-multi-class, and only humans can be paladins for no discernible reason.

The novels- even those in the 2nd ed era, tended to chuck out the paladin restriction- with the saurial paladin Dragonbait in the Alias books, and an Orog paladin in War In Tethyr.

Curmudgeon
2010-09-09, 06:49 AM
If you want such restrictions, I suggest you restrict (:smallsmile:) them to NPCs. Player characters are supposed to be exceptional.

Halaster
2010-09-09, 07:07 AM
That isn't really necessary, I'd say . After all, as the DM, if you don't want something, just don't do it. No need to define restrictions there. Don't like barbarian elves? Don't have the PCs encounter any. Writing down a "no barbarian elves" rule seems superfluous to me.

Morquard
2010-09-09, 07:12 AM
If done well it can be a good thing in a homebrew world to provide some RP depth, but it has to be somehow go into the lore of the world, and its usually not a 100% "NEVER EVER GOING TO HAPPEN" rule.

I think the Drow have something like that: Only males can become wizards, while only females can be clerics. Thats not because drow women are just too stupid to be wizards, but because any female caught dabbling into the arcane gets killed. So any female smart enough to be a wizard is also smart enough to know that she really shouldn't.
Of course you could play a drow that got abandoned as a baby and raised in a monestary and then ends up being a male cleric. But if you ever run into a "proper" drow they'll try to kill you.

Or (in a homebrew world) the church is absolutely racist and simply won't allow non-humans to become clerics or paladins. Sure the god himself might be far less racist and give his wisdom and power to a dwarf. But if the church find one they'll hunt him down as heretic.

Dwarves may see magic as "too elvish" and since elfs are their ancient enemy they refuse to have anything to do with it, even exiling anyone who exhibits arcane abilities.

Also most of the time the stat-modifiers are a good enough demotivator for certain race/class combos. Someone with a Str and/or Con penalty race will probably not choose to be a fighter or barbarian, while a low-wisdom character makes a bad cleric etc.

Halaster
2010-09-09, 07:22 AM
You should also make sure that the fluff explains exactly why the limitations exist.
Take the drow. "Every female arcane spellcaster is put to death" sounds pretty arbitrary. But when you remember that drow society is shaped by the wishes of Lolth, who is jealous, paranoid and cruel, and who wants to keep the females dependent on her for power, while the oppressed males don't matter as much, it makes sense.

Likewise, when you rule that elves can't be barbarians, because raging elves are thrown out of elf society and commit suicide, you should make sure to stress how much elven society is based on harmony and peace, forcing them to exclude those who can't control their emotions, and how much elven psychology relies on the sense of community, driving expatriate elves to end their lives.

hamishspence
2010-09-09, 08:54 AM
I think the Drow have something like that: Only males can become wizards, while only females can be clerics. Thats not because drow women are just too stupid to be wizards, but because any female caught dabbling into the arcane gets killed. So any female smart enough to be a wizard is also smart enough to know that she really shouldn't.

If you go by the Starlight & Shadows novels- they don't get killed- Menzoberranzan drow have no trouble with the notion of female drow wizards- but unless they're clerics as well, they tend to be looked down in.

Male drow clerics of Lolth are exceptionally rare though- Rai-guy in the Drizzt books was one (multiclass cleric/wizard).

Greenish
2010-09-09, 09:16 AM
My problem with non-mechanical solutions is simply this: players like to ignore them. And the more you fluff it that way, the greater the temptation to make an "exotic" character. That in turn invalidates your flavour, because suddenly you have a dwarf wizard in every party, because it's so special."Every party"? How many parties of PCs do you usually have romping around in a game?

And don't you have rest of the dward society to keep the flavour? NPC reactions to a PC dwarf wizard could easily have way more flavour than merely noting that "hey, the short'n'beardy don't seem to be lugging spellbooks around".


As for female drow wizards (in FR), well, as has been pointed out they tend to be rare because becoming a cleric is much more lucrative, and the path to power in drow society. Males end up as warriors or wizards since those are the most prestigious jobs they can land.

Adventuring drow, however, can be what they wish. E. Cunningham had a female drow wizard as a protagonist in one of her series, for example.

Khatoblepas
2010-09-09, 09:27 AM
Ah, class restrictions. I've always liked the idea, but never actually going through with it.

Instead, I give kits to particular races to have a wildly different way of working than another race. Elven Treeshapers aren't the same type of wizards as Dwarven Runelords. Yuan-Ti Snake Cultists aren't the same type of clerics as Glittergold's Gemstones. When I modify a class, I really modify it - turn undead isn't available to clerics unless they have a god that hates undead. Sure, you have basically the same classes, wizards have arcane spells, clerics have divine spells, barbarians have ways of becoming better combatants, but no race teaches it's classes exactly the same way.

It makes classes more distinct and your racial choice more important. All you need to do is think about why a class would be banned, and how you could modify it.

Elven society based on harmony and not emotional outbursts? Elven Barbarians become The Lucid, where their anger is turned inward and they can enter a state where they become cold and accurate, still unable to focus on social skills, but deadly in combat. Their rage, checked and bubbling inside them, forces them to fight in a different manner to an Orc Barbarian.

Of course, once they leave elven society, they can change their fighting style if they find a barbarian who fights uninhibited. But that's the advantage of using a non-levelled system like BRP/Classic Fantasy instead of D&D. A bit more flexibility in changing your character's whole paradigm.

Lolzords
2010-09-09, 09:57 AM
IMHO, they're not fun. They restrict roleplaying, and they don't make a whole lot of sense. For example: Why can't a dwarf be a wizard? Why can't an elf be a barbarian?

This. In Icewind Dale 2 I made a Team Wizard (actually really effective) and I made the abjurer a dwarf just to spite 1st and 2nd edition.

Enixon
2010-09-09, 10:39 AM
I can kinda understand restrictions on the magic classes because they can be handwaved by say "that's just how magic works" in that world, but for the more "normal" classes like rouge and barbarian they just make no sense.

Not that many made sence anyway.

For example in 2nd Ed. Let's see elves have a deep soulful love of magic and music, to the point where elven musicans are flat out said to be magical in Lord of the Rings, which is one of the major insparations of D&D, yet they can't be bards?
Oh and they have a respect for nature that already borders on worship but nope no druids, I could almost let this slide as "drudism is a human relgion" exept for the fact that the fist paragraph of the Complete Druid's Handbook is dedicated to pointing out that D&D druids arn't really druids in the real world sense of the class, oh and the fact that elves are always pouting about how humans don't respect the trees, yet the dirty nature-hating humans (and half-elves) are the only ones allowed to be druids?:smallannoyed:

On a side note I'm pretty sure everyone could be fighters in 2nd Ed. but were any base races banned from being rouges? I don't have my 2nd ed handbook handy, because that would make even less sence, okay (insert race here) are physicaly incapable of stealing riiight....

Zaydos
2010-09-09, 10:47 AM
2e all the PHB races could be fighters and thieves. I think some monstrous races may not have been allowed to be thieves, specifically ones with Dex penalties and a lack of finesse. I know the DMG did say if redesigning a monster as a PC if it had a penalty to Dex it probably shouldn't be able to be a thief. Although that would be because they lack the natural agility to pick pockets right.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-09-09, 10:54 AM
IMHO, pure race/class restrictions are not fun. However, if you go by the "classes as jobs" line of thinking, incorporating soft restrictions into your game world can do a lot to cement its flavor.

For example:
In my current D&D4 game the Deva invented Artifice (i.e. Artificers) as a result of their accumulated knowledge of Arcana and technology - gained over countless remembered lifetimes. They ultimately used Artifice to construct Warforged as loyal soldiers to defend their population-limited nation. It did not take long for the Deva to transform their defenders into "protectors of the weak" and launch a massive War Against Evil.

In this setting, Artifice is a recent invention and one that only the Deva and certain allies (Human auxilliaries) are trained in. Since it is somewhat of a State Secret, it would be odd for someone not allied with the Deva to show facility in Artifice; a dwarf or drow who showed Artificer talents might be in high demand both from those who wished to learn more about the Warforged and the Deva to find out who trained them.

Additionally, Primal Classes gain their power thanks to the shared inheritance of the Primal Order - nearly all races either sprang from The World Spirit (the Gods do not know the secret of life) or at least have the ability to contact and join the Primal Order. Warforged, having a Spark of Life that is borrowed from the Immortal essence of the Deva, lack this shared heritage and - frankly - seem repulsive to Primal Spirits. So, when one of my players wanted to play a Warforged Warden we worked out his backstory such that a Primal Spirit reanimated a broken Warforged with its own essence. And when he showed up at a Druid's Grove, pretty much everyone was confused and vaguely disgusted to hear a Warforged claim to be part of the Primal Order.
So don't forbid anyone from playing a particular race/class combo; but figure out what the "natural" restrictions are for each class and be sure to RP it up within the world that you make.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 11:31 AM
For example in 2nd Ed. Let's see elves have a deep soulful love of magic and music, to the point where elven musicans are flat out said to be magical in Lord of the Rings, which is one of the major insparations of D&D, yet they can't be bards?
I think that racial restrictions can be done right, not that 2E did this.

For instance, not allowing dwarves to become druids makes a lot of sense in several fantasy settings I could think of. Not allowing elves to become druids is pretty weird in every setting that comes to mind.

A weird one in 2E is that dwarves and halflings, though unable to become a wizard, can nevertheless become a bard... but if they do, they gain an alternative class feature instead of spellcasting.



On a side note I'm pretty sure everyone could be fighters in 2nd Ed. but were any base races banned from being rouges?
No. On the other hand, barring e.g. ogres from becoming a rogue makes a certain amount of sense.

One of the better restrictions I've seen in various settings is barring certain races from becoming clerics of certain specific deities. For instance, while an individual elf may be crazy enough to worship Aley McBeard, that god is never going to invest clerical powers in him.

Zaydos
2010-09-09, 11:34 AM
A weird one in 2E is that dwarves and halflings, though unable to become a wizard, can nevertheless become a bard... but if they do, they gain an alternative class feature instead of spellcasting.

What book allowed this? I know the PHB only let humans and half-elves become bards, and the Complete Book of Dwarves and the Complete Book of Halflings and Gnomes didn't make any mention of it either.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 11:47 AM
What book allowed this? I know the PHB only let humans and half-elves become bards, and the Complete Book of Dwarves and the Complete Book of Halflings and Gnomes didn't make any mention of it either.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it was the Complete Book of Bards.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-09, 11:59 AM
So don't forbid anyone from playing a particular race/class combo; but figure out what the "natural" restrictions are for each class and be sure to RP it up within the world that you make.
I don't mind this. In fact THIS, I would enjoy. It means making the players choices matter. It means mentioning the stares your Half-Orc Sorcerer gets in town, or the surprisingly cold welcome your Dwarf Wizard gets when you go to Khazad Hom. After all, all societies have prejudices.
But out right bans? No matter the back story? No thanks.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 12:25 PM
I don't mind this. In fact THIS, I would enjoy. It means making the players choices matter. It means mentioning the stares your Half-Orc Sorcerer gets in town, or the surprisingly cold welcome your Dwarf Wizard gets when you go to Khazad Hom. After all, all societies have prejudices.
But out right bans? No matter the back story? No thanks.

It might actually make part of a good backstory. Your dwarf wizard is out dungeoncrawling because he couldn't learn wizardry back home, and the human/elf schools don't want to admit him.

kyoryu
2010-09-09, 01:21 PM
I generally approve of the idea of race/class restrictions as a way of preserving the "flavor" of the game world, and yet am entirely sympathetic to players that want to play an unusual race/class combo for character reasons (min-max reasons? Not so much).

One thing I thought of when reading this thread was the Unusual Background advantage in GURPS. Turn it into a feat, and require it if you want to break into "forbidden" classes.

Say dwarves don't do arcane magic. This means that there are no dwarven teachers of wizardry, and the typical dwarf living in a dwarven settlement, with a dwarven lifestyle, will never have the opportunity to learn wizardry, even if they want to. But Morgarm the Dwarven Wizard was sold off as a slave at an early age to a wizard who taught him the arcane arts, and then freed him when he came of age.

Cool - take the Unusual Background feat at 1st level, and *poof* you can be a wizard. It's a disincentive to be odd race/class combos without being a crushing disincentive, and if they have to describe their background it can actually help RP and explain why the dwarf actually knows arcane magic.

One thing I was considering was conferring a reaction penalty to "typical" members of your race - due to your unusual background, you're just a bit off compared to most people, and this can cause a little friction. Nothing too drastic, of course, but rather a relatively minor adjustment. Morgarm doesn't "act" like a dwarf - he doesn't have relatively typical dwarf mannerisms, or necessarily understand the social customs of dwarves, as he wasn't raised around them. Because other dwarves expect this, and he doesn't know what he's doing wrong, it confers a reaction penalty. An example of this in the real world might be personal space - different cultures have different ideas of how close it is appropriate to get to someone in regular conversation. Not following this is an irritant that is much more likely to be overlooked when it's done by someone that doesn't appear to be part of your culture.

Greenish
2010-09-09, 01:32 PM
Say dwarves don't do arcane magic. This means that there are no dwarven teachers of wizardry, and the typical dwarf living in a dwarven settlement, with a dwarven lifestyle, will never have the opportunity to learn wizardry, even if they want to. But Morgarm the Dwarven Wizard was sold off as a slave at an early age to a wizard who taught him the arcane arts, and then freed him when he came of age.

Cool - take the Unusual Background feat at 1st level, and *poof* you can be a wizard. It's a disincentive to be odd race/class combos without being a crushing disincentive, and if they have to describe their background it can actually help RP and explain why the dwarf actually knows arcane magic.You'd give having an unusual background a feat tax? :smallconfused:


And yeah, standing on someone's face should have large penalties for diplomacy, it's bloody annoying. :smallmad:

Dracons
2010-09-09, 01:37 PM
You'd give having an unusual background a feat tax? :smallconfused:

Way to miss his point. It was an alternative to having race/class restrictions. Instead of stating NO you cannot have this combo, you can let a person take a feat to allow that combo.

This is for the DM's with a hard on of not allowing players to have access to whats in the standard PHB in the name of flavor to his perfect world where players have no say.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-09, 01:54 PM
Way to miss his point. It was an alternative to having race/class restrictions. Instead of stating NO you cannot have this combo, you can let a person take a feat to allow that combo.

This is for the DM's with a hard on of not allowing players to have access to whats in the standard PHB in the name of flavor to his perfect world where players have no say.
It still feels like a feat tax for creativity. Why not ditch the feat tax and instead go for role playing world appropriate reactions by NPC? You're a dwarf wizard, most other dwarfs are going to look at you weird for not crafting something tangible, for messing around in that arcane crap.
What you present is an alternative, I still think it's a bad idea.
Besides, many of the non-stereotype builds are somewhat sub-optimal, like the half orc sorceress I rolled up. Why hinder this even more?

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 02:10 PM
It still feels like a feat tax for creativity. Why not ditch the feat tax and instead go for role playing world appropriate reactions by NPC? You're a dwarf wizard, most other dwarfs are going to look at you weird for not crafting something tangible, for messing around in that arcane crap.
What you present is an alternative, I still think it's a bad idea.
Besides, many of the non-stereotype builds are somewhat sub-optimal, like the half orc sorceress I rolled up. Why hinder this even more?

Hence why I like a backstory requirement for this. If you *want* to play a half orc sorceress, you owe the DM at least 2 paragraphs of backstory explaining how this came about.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-09, 02:21 PM
Hence why I like a backstory requirement for this. If you *want* to play a half orc sorceress, you owe the DM at least 2 paragraphs of backstory explaining how this came about.
Which I did. Basically, she was an exposed foundling raised by a halfling travelling circus.

Halaster
2010-09-09, 02:53 PM
Ultimately, it might be best to use a flexible combination of the variants mentioned in this thread.

Default: races have class restrictions, some classes can not be chosen by certain races.

Now, if a player wishes to have an unusual combination of race and class, he presents his idea to the GM.

Idea is badly explained: GM vetoes the idea. ("I wanna play a dwarf wizard to be less squishy!")

Idea is modestly well explained: GM demands spending a feat. ("Well, he was kinda curious about magic and somehow found a wizard to train him.")

Idea is well explained: GM allows it. (Long and cool background story.)

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 03:19 PM
It still feels like a feat tax for creativity.

That depends. Picking a race/class combo that the rulebooks spell out as being uncommon is not exactly creative.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-09, 03:32 PM
That depends. Picking a race/class combo that the rulebooks spell out as being uncommon is not exactly creative.
It is a creative if you can give a reasonable reason and/or backstory why they would be such.

Dracons
2010-09-09, 03:33 PM
It ruins your creativity by picking classes and races that don't commonly go together? Like the other ten thousand players that did exactly the same thing as you?

No-one is punishing you for doing that.

If one wants to be better at dodging bad guys, they pick dodge feat. They don't state that hey, I practiced real good at dodging, so I should get dodge for free!

Same with whirlwind feat, or any of the focus feats be it magic or weapon. No player would automatically get those benifts, simply because they stated it's in their background of practicing real good, and yet not take the feat for it.

You want to have an advantage in a DM's world where he doesn't allow those? Then you take a feat.

Not stating that I'm FOR racial/class restrictions, I'm against it myself, but I can understand why some DM's do it. It's at least a decent compromise for a DM while not banning them outright, allowing them for a cost of a feat. Players get their race/class combo, and DM's get to be a jerk by making their players waste a feat for it.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 03:37 PM
It ruins your creativity by picking classes and races that don't commonly go together? Like the other ten thousand players that did exactly the same thing as you?

No-one is punishing you for doing that.

If one wants to be better at dodging bad guys, they pick dodge feat. They don't state that hey, I practiced real good at dodging, so I should get dodge for free!

Same with whirlwind feat, or any of the focus feats be it magic or weapon. No player would automatically get those benifts, simply because they stated it's in their background of practicing real good, and yet not take the feat for it.

You want to have an advantage in a DM's world where he doesn't allow those? Then you take a feat.

Not stating that I'm FOR racial/class restrictions, I'm against it myself, but I can understand why some DM's do it. It's at least a decent compromise for a DM while not banning them outright, allowing them for a cost of a feat. Players get their race/class combo, and DM's get to be a jerk by making their players waste a feat for it.

Wait what kinds of restrictions are we talking about? Feats like whirlwind or whatever provide a tangible in-game benefit. In almost all the examples I've seen, taking a nonstandard race/class combo is either neutral or provides a penalty.

Dracons
2010-09-09, 03:40 PM
Wait what kinds of restrictions are we talking about? Feats like whirlwind or whatever provide a tangible in-game benefit. In almost all the examples I've seen, taking a nonstandard race/class combo is either neutral or provides a penalty.

So, being allowed to have a banned racial/class combo in a game is not a in-game benefit?

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 03:43 PM
So, being allowed to have a banned racial/class combo in a game is not a in-game benefit?

It's flavor, not crunch. I don't like making players take feats that only provide flavor, because it makes players essentially self-nerf if they want flavor. There *are* cases where it could be a benefit, but most of the listed examples (like the half-orc sorcerer) aren't such a thing. A half-orc sorcerer is already starting with a disadvantage over a human sorcerer.

Dracons
2010-09-09, 03:45 PM
It's flavor, not crunch. I don't like making players take feats that only provide flavor, because it makes players essentially self-nerf if they want flavor. There *are* cases where it could be a benefit, but most of the listed examples (like the half-orc sorcerer) aren't such a thing. A half-orc sorcerer is already starting with a disadvantage over a human sorcerer.

But my background flavor was learning how to dodge everything super well, and learning everything about a greatsword. Now I can use it huge one as a halfling and dodge everything.

It's the flavor of my background. I didn't take any feats for it, but my background states I did.


It's the same thing, as stating that my dwarf was raised by elves, so now I can cast magic.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 03:48 PM
But my background flavor was learning how to dodge everything super well, and learning everything about a greatsword. Now I can use it huge one as a halfling and dodge everything.

It's the flavor of my background. I didn't take any feats for it, but my background states I did.


It's the same thing, as stating that my dwarf was raised by elves, so now I can cast magic.

Not really. The dodge and such may be flavor, but they have legit crunch effects that make you more powerful than a character that doesn't have them. The nonstandard race doesn't (usually) give you any bonus over another member of your class, or another member of your race.

Basically, feats should be things that generally increase the power of your character when you take them.

kyoryu
2010-09-09, 03:52 PM
But my background flavor was learning how to dodge everything super well, and learning everything about a greatsword. Now I can use it huge one as a halfling and dodge everything.

It's the flavor of my background. I didn't take any feats for it, but my background states I did.


It's the same thing, as stating that my dwarf was raised by elves, so now I can cast magic.

Not really. The race/class combo feat doesn't really give you a mechanical advantage, unlike feats that grant improved dodges or access to weapons.

Dracons
2010-09-09, 03:53 PM
And in a world where the DM refuses to allow certain racial/class combos, saying you would use a feat for it may allow them.

To some DM's, it doesn't matter for crap what your background is, because it's simply not original.

In a world with race and class restrictions, it'll usually come to My <X race> was raised by <Y race>, that's why I know now <y race> class and not my <x race> stuff.

Kurald Galain
2010-09-09, 03:54 PM
Not really. The race/class combo feat doesn't really give you a mechanical advantage, unlike feats that grant improved dodges or access to weapons.
Several race/class combos do give you a mechanical advantage.

Even aside from that, if everybody in the world knows that dwarves can't cast arcane spells, then being one of the handful that actually do is a tactical advantage.

BRC
2010-09-09, 03:54 PM
So, being allowed to have a banned racial/class combo in a game is not a in-game benefit?
From what I've seen, most Race/Class restrictions are almost entierly fluff-based. For example, the Arcane Archer requires you to be an Elf or Half Elf. Ignoring the fact that Arcane Archer sucks, there is no mechanical or balance reason to limit the class to those races.

Now, that's all well and good if the secrets of how to be an Arcane Archer are only shared amongst the elves, but that's setting-dependent. There is no One True DnD setting.
Maybe in my setting Elves despise Arcane magic, while Humans embrace it. Does it make sense for only Elves to be Arcane Archers in such a setting?

But, If I can change the racial restriction from "Only Elves" to "Only Humans", why can't I circumvent it. I can't think of any Race/Class restrictions that are in place to block broken combos. In fact, most such restrictions limit the PRC's to some of the Most optimal races for that class.

My point here is this. Race/Class Combos are Fluff Based, so it stands to reason that you could circumvent them by fluffy means (A well thought out backstory). You seem to be assuming that the people who try to create such backstories are going to be trite and unoriginal. The story of "Human raised by Elves" has been done before yes, but it can still be done in very interesting and new ways.

kyoryu
2010-09-09, 03:58 PM
To some DM's, it doesn't matter for crap what your background is, because it's simply not original.

In a world with race and class restrictions, it'll usually come to My <X race> was raised by <Y race>, that's why I know now <y race> class and not my <x race> stuff.

I think the most unique character in any RPG would be a human fighter, who was raised by both of his parents in a loving family.



Now, that's all well and good if the secrets of how to be an Arcane Archer are only shared amongst the elves, but that's setting-dependent. There is no One True DnD setting.
Maybe in my setting Elves despise Arcane magic, while Humans embrace it. Does it make sense for only Elves to be Arcane Archers in such a setting?


Nope. None at all. Race, class, or race/class restrictions, if they exist in a given campaign, should be based on the setting, not be universal to the system. There's no *mechanical* restriction why a dwarf can't be a wizard, but there may be a *campaign setting* reason.

Frankly, I usually don't care too much, as a player, about race/class restrictions because (cue Tyler Durden) a character is not defined by his character sheet. If you want to tell me about your awesome character, don't tell me a race/class combo. Tell me their hopes and fears. Tell me about their first love. Tell me about their parents and family. Tell me about their deepest shame, and their greatest source of pride. Tell me about their personality quirks, their flaws, and their strengths.

We don't remember Frodo because he was a halfling rogue. We remember Frodo for the way he carried the One Ring even though it nearly destroyed him. We don't remember Samwise for being a halfling fighter - we remember him for his unstoppable loyalty to his friend. Creating strong characters like that doesn't require you to play a half-succubus/half-dragon PlanesWalker/Ranger/Wizard.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 03:59 PM
And in a world where the DM refuses to allow certain racial/class combos, saying you would use a feat for it may allow them.

To some DM's, it doesn't matter for crap what your background is, because it's simply not original.

In a world with race and class restrictions, it'll usually come to My <X race> was raised by <Y race>, that's why I know now <y race> class and not my <x race> stuff.

To be fair it's not any less original than my character is <x race> class because that's what <x race> usually is. Besides, as a DM I'd just do something like "<y race> would have returned an <x race> child to the nearest campsite as soon as possible. Try again."

I dislike restrictions both when DM'ing and as a player. The rules for me exist primarily to provide balance and order. I know they're not perfect (and I modify for that), but that's the point. If something doesn't threaten that balance and it can be made to make sense in the world, go for it.

Halaster
2010-09-09, 04:14 PM
I'd leave the whole originality issue out of this. "Original" and "creative", like kyoryu rightly said, are not covered by picking odd race/class combos. That requires a little more depth than that.

That said, there is a major difference between the guy who has a good idea for a character and finds that said idea requires him to take an unavailable combo, and the guy who just wants to be "special" and petulantly lobbies the GM to allow it. Frequently that difference can be made visible by making the player pay a price - like a feat. I tend to dislike complaints about "forcing people to self nerf", because that's just the point: you don't have to, just play what's regularly on offer. But if you are really into your character concept, a lost feat won't stop you. If that's enough, however, to stop you, the concept didn't deserve to be played.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 04:23 PM
I'd leave the whole originality issue out of this. "Original" and "creative", like kyoryu rightly said, are not covered by picking odd race/class combos. That requires a little more depth than that.

That said, there is a major difference between the guy who has a good idea for a character and finds that said idea requires him to take an unavailable combo, and the guy who just wants to be "special" and petulantly lobbies the GM to allow it. Frequently that difference can be made visible by making the player pay a price - like a feat. I tend to dislike complaints about "forcing people to self nerf", because that's just the point: you don't have to, just play what's regularly on offer. But if you are really into your character concept, a lost feat won't stop you. If that's enough, however, to stop you, the concept didn't deserve to be played.

:smalltongue: You're only quoting part of what I said. I don't like that in a lot of games you have to choose one of the standard concepts in order to be powerful. It makes the game less fun if playing an original character means you are automatically less powerful than someone who played the standard character. When I play I want to *both* be able to play my concept and feel like I'm roughly equal to the rest of the party. I don't think players should ever have to choose between being effective and holding to their character concept unless there's a sensible IC reason why that character's concept would actually make the character less effective.

IC, requiring a feat essentially means your character, as a result of their race, has one less combat ability/metamagic ability/whatever than a character of another race would have. If someone can explain why that would be I'm happy to hear it.

kyoryu
2010-09-09, 04:27 PM
:smalltongue: You're only quoting part of what I said. I don't like that in a lot of games you have to choose one of the standard concepts in order to be powerful. It makes the game less fun if playing an original character means you are automatically less powerful than someone who played the standard character. When I play I want to *both* be able to play my concept and feel like I'm roughly equal to the rest of the party. I don't think players should ever have to choose between being effective and holding to their character concept unless there's a sensible IC reason why that character's concept would actually make the character less effective.

IC, requiring a feat essentially means your character, as a result of their race, has one less combat ability/metamagic ability/whatever than a character of another race would have. If someone can explain why that would be I'm happy to hear it.

Because it's not a balance issue, it's a versimillitude issue. And it was an idea - it's not something I've ever used (though it is a by-the-book GURPS rule), and I'm certainly not wedded to it in any way.

Personally, I only typically restrict classes in any way if there's a world-based reason to do so - usually boiling down to special training, being part of an organization, etc... so something like Sorceror or Barbarian I can't ever see restricting.

So, I kind of like the idea of feat tax as gut-check. Having spent the feat tax also makes me more likely to actually treat the character as special - people remember the dwarven wizard, and his reputation spreads a little farther and faster due to the fact that he is unusual. Without the feat tax, I would be very unlikely to do so.

Also, I agree with the dislike of having to choose a "standard" combo to be reasonably powerful. But, that's really another expression of me not having much use for high levels of optimization.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 04:35 PM
Because it's not a balance issue, it's a versimillitude issue. And it was an idea - it's not something I've ever used (though it is a by-the-book GURPS rule), and I'm certainly not wedded to it in any way.

Personally, I only typically restrict classes in any way if there's a world-based reason to do so - usually boiling down to special training, being part of an organization, etc... so something like Sorceror or Barbarian I can't ever see restricting.

So, I kind of like the idea of feat tax as gut-check. Having spent the feat tax also makes me more likely to actually treat the character as special - people remember the dwarven wizard, and his reputation spreads a little farther and faster due to the fact that he is unusual. Without the feat tax, I would be very unlikely to do so.

Personally I prefer to handle versimillitude out of crunch. My issue is the feat tax probably would drive me away from playing the archetype I want, because we typically play lower-level games and I don't feel I could fairly bring a weaker character to the table (down low enough where feats really make a difference). It would just be too selfish of me to insist on that character, no matter how much I wanted it. It would also frustrate me if I had something like a TWF build where you *already* need all your feats to make it work. I've found that too many feat requirements essentially says "you can't play this type till higher level" when there's no reason to do so.

lsfreak
2010-09-09, 04:44 PM
I don't like flat-out restrictions. But I do enjoy setting up cultures with differing views on different styles of magic - in one culture druidic magic is seen as superstitious and practitioners will be shunned, but in the culture where druidic magic is the norm, sorcerers are viewed as inherently corrupt and are (at least officially) executed on-spot. It is not flat-out restrictions, but makes players thinks more about their character background and about what impact their choices will have; the druid will need reasons for being a druid when he's from a non-druidic culture, and the sorcerer will be reluctant to enter ta large city where he might be discovered.

This tends not to cross over into melee as much. Exceptions might be Desert Wind and Shadow Hand maneuvers, for example; different cultures will have different preferences (elves prefer voiding attacks, and thus focus on agility), but no one is bound completely by where they were raised.

Then again, I prefer to get rid of races entirely. Everyone is human, and at character creation you can choose one of several possible bonuses (feat, skill points, ability mod, etc) that represents the character's unique background. Human cultures are complex enough to cover all the bases, you don't need dwarves/elves/halflings/whatever.

AtlanteanTroll
2010-09-09, 04:50 PM
Lots of good stuff here. Reading it has helped shape my final decision. I'm going to let each Race play whatever class they want, but I'm limitting the classes available in my Campaign.

Thank you for the help Playgrounders.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 04:51 PM
Lots of good stuff here. Reading it has helped shape my final decision. I'm going to let each Race play whatever class they want, but I'm limitting the classes available in my Campaign.

Thank you for the help Playgrounders.

Ooooo yeah we had an OP!!!

kyoryu
2010-09-09, 05:05 PM
Personally I prefer to handle versimillitude out of crunch. My issue is the feat tax probably would drive me away from playing the archetype I want, because we typically play lower-level games and I don't feel I could fairly bring a weaker character to the table (down low enough where feats really make a difference). It would just be too selfish of me to insist on that character, no matter how much I wanted it. It would also frustrate me if I had something like a TWF build where you *already* need all your feats to make it work. I've found that too many feat requirements essentially says "you can't play this type till higher level" when there's no reason to do so.

It, of course, would all depend on the group anyway. Probably why I've never actually implemented something like this.

I somehow doubt I'd have a problem with any character you brought to a game I ran.

WarKitty
2010-09-09, 05:11 PM
It, of course, would all depend on the group anyway. Probably why I've never actually implemented something like this.

I somehow doubt I'd have a problem with any character you brought to a game I ran.

It seems to depend on the group indeed. The group I DM rarely has problems with interesting characters - my players write *essays* on backstories. I do however sometimes have problems with effectiveness, where a couple of players are built so as to be completely useless to the rest of the party.